pwcc (part two)

[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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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

It was jestful sarcasm. Still, there isn't any need to apologize - it's good to know that you realize that you have been repeating yourself, and I completely understand the approach: if you repeat yourself enough times, the people who you are talking with will eventually realize how obvious it is that you have been correct all along, and they will change their minds.

But I think you should have more confidence in your own ability to state your point clearly. I personally think you did a wonderful job of explaining your thoughts. It allowed me to very easily decide that I disagree with you. It doesn't mean that either one of us is right, only that we disagree.