pwcc (part two)

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by glchen

Again, I'm a known consignor to PWCC, so it is what it is. However, in the above scan, could it possibly be due to the dust removal option in the scanner? I've seen examples where the dot was removed from the half letter grades in PSA flips in scans. (e.g., "7.5" would appear as "7 5").

If I am the seller of the card and I saw that a setting I had turned on removed a significant flaw like the one above, I scan the card again, until it shows up properly.

[cyseymour]

As members of this board, we have two options. We can absolve auction houses of all responsibility for their scans by saying that any disappeared blemish is a result of the dust removal option, and passing off any changes in the hue/contrast, etc. as simply an attempt by the auction house to make the scan appear more realistic.

Or, we can demand accountability and ensure that the settings aren't changed, dust removal options aren't being used, and that we are receiving true scans from modern scanners which, these days, possess the ability to give an accurate scan at their default settings.

The choice is yours, folks.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

As members of this board, we have two options. We can absolve auction houses of all responsibility for their scans by saying that any disappeared blemish is a result of the dust removal option, and passing off any changes in the hue/contrast, etc. as simply an attempt by the auction house to make the scan appear more realistic.

Or, we can demand accountability and ensure that the settings aren't changed, dust removal options aren't being used, and that we are receiving true scans from modern scanners which, these days, possess the ability to give an accurate scan at their default settings.

The choice is yours, folks.

Let me get this straight - are you saying that we should all agree that no one is allowed go change scanner settings? Please clarify, because I am not sure what your position is.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Or, we can demand accountability and ensure that the settings aren't changed, dust removal options aren't being used, and that we are receiving true scans from modern scanners which, these days, possess the ability to give an accurate scan at their default settings.

How about just shortening your statement to: "we can demand accountability and ensure that...we are receiving...an accurate scan."

Insisting that a seller use a "modern scanner" and "default settings" does not ensure an accurate scan. Hold the seller accountable for the accuracy of the image posted, not the means they employed to produce it.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

How about just shortening your statement to: "we can demand accountability and ensure that...we are receiving...an accurate scan."

Insisting that a seller use a "modern scanner" and "default settings" does not ensure an accurate scan. Hold the seller accountable for the accuracy of the image posted, not the means they employed to produce it.

I understand your point, but I am referring to auction houses that do hundreds of thousands of dollars of business each year. They can afford a high-quality CCD scanner. I have not seen examples where those scanners do not take accurate scans.

Yes, ultimately, what matters is that we receive an accurate scan. But my concern is that what can be deemed "accurate" is so subjective, that it allows auction houses to use attempts at "accuracy" as an excuse for adjusting their scans in fraudulent ways that are wholly inaccurate and enhance the image of the card.

Maybe some can argue that even the newest CCD scanners are not 100% accurate. But I would rather live in a world where all the auction houses are posting CCD scans on default setting than a world where all the auction houses are adjusting their scans for the sake of "accuracy", because I suspise that their idea of "accuracy" basically means brightening the hues and strengthening the contrast in order to enhance the card's image for prospective bidders (juicing the scan) instead of a genuine attempt at accuracy.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Yes, ultimately, what matters is that we receive an accurate scan.

Perfectly stated

But I would rather live in a world where all the auction houses are posting CCD scans on default setting than a world where all the auction houses are adjusting their scans for the sake of "accuracy", because I suspise that...

'Suspise' = to suspect and despise. I love this new word.

[Runscott]

Well-said, Lance.

We could also have scanner police who install 'settings locks' on all scanners, and who can conduct unannounced visits to check for compliance;however, if someone is a cheat, there are other ways to do so besides scans.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Well-said, Lance.

We could also have scanner police who install 'settings locks' on all scanners, and who can conduct unannounced visits to check for compliance;however, if someone is a cheat, there are other ways to do so besides scans.

Or they could just put it in their terms so that they are legally obligated use the default settings, as I suggested 200 posts ago on the other thread.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Or they could just put it in their terms so that they are legally obligated use the default settings, as I suggested 200 posts ago on the other thread.

I know. I heard you. And when you say it again, I will hear you again.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I know. I heard you. And when you say it again, I will hear you again.

I had assumed you were being sarcastic in post #14. If you weren't, I apologize.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by the-illini

If I am the seller of the card and I saw that a setting I had turned on removed a significant flaw like the one above, I scan the card again, until it shows up properly.

Well, I don't know if that's entirely fair. PWCC has thousands of cards that they scan. I remember (and now it seems so long ago) when people used to say that PWCC was one of the better auction houses in the business because they always provided large scans of both of front and back of cards. When they sell complete sets or near sets, they provide scans of an extraordinary number of cards, I would say more than any other auction house in the business including those who issue auction catalogs. You can't expect them to view every single auction closely to see the scan matches perfectly. What they do is they scan the items for the consignors, and then they allow the consignors to preview the items before they go live on ebay. If the consignors find any issues, then they report it to PWCC where they can make the necessary corrections. True story, this was one of my past consignments to PWCC: Link When I saw the scan, I told Brent from PWCC that I thought the scan looked bad, and much worse compared to the Legendary auction scan where I bought the item from: Link. I told him the Legendary scan was much closer to what the actual item looked like. However, Brent basically told me that scan was the best they could do for a large item like that. I mean if there were any items to be touched up or photoshopped, you would have thought that he would have at least done something there, but he didn't do anything to make it appear better. Again, I'm not saying that PWCC is completely innocent as I don't know everything that goes on at PWCC. However, I don't know if I see a smoking gun yet.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by glchen

Well, I don't know if that's entirely fair. PWCC has thousands of cards that they scan.

I'm personally tired of hearing this statement made, that because an Ebay consignment seller sells/posts and has to scan soooo many items that they can't realistically QA/QC each and every scan. That is the biggest bunch of BS. If they can't complete what should be one of the basic tasks of their business then they need to rethink and re-evaluate how they operate their business. Of course, they won't be pressured to change until something begins to effect their bottom line.

I do have a new suggestion though that I believe could greatly improve the relationship between the scans posted and the actual condition of the cards themselves in regards to scanner settings. If every scan would simply include a "proof color strip" that shows the basic RGB colors (red, green, blue, white and black) on a strip of paper next to the card itself on the scanner bed. A quick glance at the proof strip would allow the viewer to quickly determine if the scanner settings have been modified, if black or any other colors look washed out on the proof strip, the viewer knows the scan is washed out or some other settings have been modified to try to improve the scans appearance.

Now granted this does not eliminate flat deception from Photoshop editing, but I think it would go a long way in improving most scans where scanner settings are involved.

[HRBAKER]

Yes, the 'ol we're too big/busy to do things right excuse.

[glchen]

Mark, Jeff, I don't know what lines of business you guys are in, but people are human and make mistakes. This is true in any occupation. The question is whether this is outright fraud, negligence or just a human mistake. For example, I sell cards on ebay on the side. I scan the front and back of each card using my CanoScan 8600F at 300 dpi, with default settings. Then I create the ebay listings using Turbolister. When I create the listings, I look at the card, and note in the ebay description any imperfections in the card that need to be pointed out, like creases, wrinkles, marks, etc. Then I move on to the next listing. I don't check to make sure every imperfection that I saw in the card was caught in the scan. I have three kids and a real job. I don't have time for this. There was one time when shipping a sold card, where I noticed that there was a crease in the card that could only be seen at an angle. I think it was a PSA 3, so by chance I thought, wow, was this card overgraded, and I checked the scan in the ebay listing, and noticed that this crease did not show up in the scan. I took a photo of the card at that angle where the crease could be seen, and then I mailed the buyer this photo, and told him about the situation, and that I would completely understand if he wanted to cancel the transaction. If he still wanted to keep the card, I would take 40% off the sold price. He decided to keep the card and take the discount. However, it was purely by chance that I caught this. A bunch of other cards could have been shipped by me that had the same problem, but were not caught. On the flip side, there was one time that I purchased a card from Howard (buythatcard). There was a mark in the card that was clearly in the scan, but not in the description. When I saw the mark, I couldn't believe that I missed it, so I messaged Howard, and he allowed the full return no questions asked. That's the point with ebay, however much we dislike it. Ebay through the Top Rated Seller rules, tries to push for allowing 14 day returns on all items. So if you get the item and don't like it, just return it. If you don't think that what you received didn't match the seller's description or scan, ding his DSR's (Detailed Seller Ratings). You can say well, if I ding this guy, it won't make a difference, but for me as a seller, I can only receive 2 ratings of 1-2 in a DSR category per YEAR, or I will lose my Top Rated Seller rating. So if three buyers say that my scan or description did not match what they received, then I lose my rating that 20% fee discount that goes with it. And obviously, the last part of this is that if the ebay seller refuses the return, you can log a SNAD case with them for ebay to decide. In the case of the missing print dot, I'm pretty sure ebay would rule in the buyer's favor. Again, if PWCC is doing mass alterations of their scans, that's completely wrong. In no way am I advocating that. Nor am I saying it's okay to make their scans look brighter or wipe away flaws. If they are doing that deliberately, it's obviously wrong. However, I don't think people can expect perfection here.

[HRBAKER]

Gary,

I make plenty of mistakes and so do the people I work for and the people who work for me. However there is a difference between an error of omission/mistake and saying that the enterprise is so large that the proper degree of oversight is unmanageable IMO.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Gary,

I make plenty of mistakes and so do the people I work for and the people who work for me. However there is a difference between an error of omission/mistake and saying that the enterprise is so large that the proper degree of oversight is unmanageable IMO.

+1
Precisely!!

[nolemmings]

Gary,

Critical in your post and in your conduct is that you note imperfections in the auction listing. I am satisfied if the listing notes creases and wrinkles even if they're hard to see or cannot be seen in the scan. This often happens with T213-2s, although that set is one of the few that is so rife with creases, most of them hard to see, that you probably should assume they are there.

I have been told that I should expect to find small creases in cards graded 4 because the TPGs allow for them in their stated graded policies. Well most as in nearly all of the 4s I own do not have such creases, and the Altoona Baker I showed on the other thread was worthy of a 4 without the crease, IMO ( I would grade it a 3 or 3.5 now). If I should expect to find them, why is it the seller shouldn't expect to look for them once he sees the grade assigned, and then identify them in the listing?

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

I make plenty of mistakes and so do the people I work for and the people who work for me. However there is a difference between an error of omission/mistake and saying that the enterprise is so large that the proper degree of oversight is unmanageable IMO.

I'd say I agree with this. This is not acceptable in other industries, why here. If your making errors, maybe the volume is too big and something needs to change.

I would like AHs making it known how they scan their items. It would just be something to tie to the card and possibly provide some more info on the card. I really don't care how they do it, just make it as representative as possible.

The scans below are the same card, left has the default and the right has 2 modifications. The one on the right is far closer to the real card as it doesn't "glow" like the other scan.

[cubsfan-budman]

It may also be worth noting that far more often than not, in order to get good visual fidelity, you need to adjust the settings on electronic components from their default states. This goes for TVs, computer monitors, cameras, scanners, etc.

People that use those items for their business or for a serious hobby almost never leave their devices in their default states.

So PWCC saying that they do change their settings doesnt indicate that they are adjusting the image to make it look better than what it looks like in reality.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by glchen

Mark, Jeff, I don't know what lines of business you guys are in, but people are human and make mistakes. This is true in any occupation.

Our prisons are full of people who made mistakes.

[Bocabirdman]

This reply, my first in either thread on this topic, is not intended to dispute the existence of a scan problem. However, focusing solely on the scanner and its quality and settings is akin to talking only about the mayo used to make a BLT. Multiple scanners with identical settings WILL generate scans nearly identical. Unfortunately, on the home front, monitor quality, settings, and size will offer varying scan results. Factor in the lighting in the room, the individual's eyesight and color recognition and you will find that any scan deemed perfect by one will possibly be deemed flawed by another. The ONLY answer is a "No Questions Asked, Satisfaction Guaranteed, Full Money Refund Policy". I shall now retreat to the shadows of my ill-lit computer den and squint, awaiting the next post.

[calvindog]

Gary, you must have gotten some great prices on your consignments with PWCC. You're twisting yourself into a pretzel defending some pretty obvious fraud.