More on the subject of seller/auction house scans

[JamesGallo]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

To answer your second question, I'd think any high dollar card purchase should be highly scrutinized, but unfortunately, not everybody has access to Photoshop. No matter how good a scan appears, and how carefully we look them over, it's very easy to overlook a wrinkle. This is where disclosure is so important. An auction house needs to thoroughly describe any imperfections or damage they see. Considering the buyer's commission on these auctions, I don't think that's asking too much.

Really what is the purpose of getting a card graded if I need to grade it and describe every detail when selling it. I really am just being devil's advocate but I think my point is valid.

Most of what has been said it true if it's 10 different scanners the card may present 10 different ways so as long as someone isn't intentionally altering the scan to hide defects I don't see a problem. If there is a certain defect you don't like then ask the seller a detailed question and any good seller or auction house will review a card and give more details when asked. I just think it's a bit ridiculous to grade every graded card.

James G

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

Really what is the purpose of getting a card graded if I need to grade it and describe every detail when selling it. I really am just being devil's advocate but I think my point is valid.

Good point, James. A VG-EX card is allowed to have creases. An EX card is not. Any time I bid on a seemingly EX or better card that does not appear to have creases, but it's in a VG-EX or lower holder, I assume it has very tiny creases somewhere on the card.

On the other hand, if I think I might see a very tiny crease on an EX card, but I'm unsure, I will assume it's my imagination, or I will contact the seller before bidding, since it should not have any creases. I have won a few cards that were graded EX and had creases that didn't show - I sent them back and got a prompt refund.

[Theo_450]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

Really what is the purpose of getting a card graded if I need to grade it and describe every detail when selling it. I really am just being devil's advocate but I think my point is valid.

Most of what has been said it true if it's 10 different scanners the card may present 10 different ways so as long as someone isn't intentionally altering the scan to hide defects I don't see a problem. If there is a certain defect you don't like then ask the seller a detailed question and any good seller or auction house will review a card and give more details when asked. I just think it's a bit ridiculous to grade every graded card.

James G

I agree. They look like a couple of nice 4s to me.

[nolemmings]

Thanks for the responses. Let me clarify and summarize my position.

1. I am keeping both cards.
2. I believe all wrinkles or creases should be disclosed in auction listings, unless they are very obvious. David Bryan (davidbvintage) has always been great about this, and I'm sure there are others.
3. I get it that a a card graded 4/50 can have slight wrinkles/creases, but see #2 above.
4. I wonder if sellers/auctioneers "underscan" their cards to hide flaws.
5. I wonder (now) if software makes it fairly easy for sellers to disguise wrinkles/creases.
6. I would much rather have a seller who deliberately enhances his scans to "puff" his sale, assuming no defects are obscured, then one who knows (or should if he bothered to look) that there are defects but provides a scan that doesn't show them. F@%*k caveat emptor or "you should have asked" defenses when seller is lazy or worse.
6. I believe it a good idea to have a standard for scan settings, and/or that sellers place in their auction rules/faq's etc. the scanner and scan settings they use, with a disclaimer if they choose. I don't see this happening anytime soon.

[Exhibitman]

A few random points:

Those Baker cards are beautiful for the grades.

Don't forget monitor differences. The settings a seller uses on his monitor can affect how the image looks to him and he might correct a color or contrast level as a result not to cheat but to make the item look more true to life as his monitor shows it.

When a card is scanned in a slab there is going to be some distortion. A CIS scanner [which most all-in-one machines have] doesn't have the depth perception that a CCD scanner does and it won't even scan a slabbed card accurately. I had to keep the old HP scanner I had even though my new Canon printer has a scanner because it cannot scan a slabbed card in focus. Even with a CCD scanner, you are still shooting through a layer of plastic that may or may not be crystal clear.

I find the best test of image accuracy on an auction listing is the color on the flip. We all know what a PSA or SGC flip should look like; if that is too bright, the wrong color, or otherwise distorted, I assume the rest of the image is distorted too.

I don't think an auctioneer who offers a series of large scans, front and back, must offer a description of every card flaw as well, especially if I am buying a midgrade or lower cards. I appreciate it when the AH does so.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I find the best test of image accuracy on an auction listing is the color on the flip. We all know what a PSA or SGC flip should look like; if that is too bright, the wrong color, or otherwise distorted, I assume the rest of the image is distorted too.

Good point - easy enough to compare a real flip you are holding in your hand, to an online scan.

[nolemmings]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman View Post
I find the best test of image accuracy on an auction listing is the color on the flip. We all know what a PSA or SGC flip should look like; if that is too bright, the wrong color, or otherwise distorted, I assume the rest of the image is distorted too.

Good point - easy enough to compare a real flip you are holding in your hand, to an online scan.

I agree and don't mean to sound flippant, but I always thought that was obvious. That's why I couldn't get into the other thread so much--seems to me that if PWCC enhances all of its scans it's a form of puffing that's readily observed, IMO, by looking at the flips and slabs, which opponents claim are damn near glowing. I can get through that with little heartburn, unless the scans are enhanced to hide defects.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I agree and don't mean to sound flippant, but I always thought that was obvious. That's why I couldn't get into the other thread so much--seems to me that if PWCC enhances all of its scans it's a form of puffing that's readily observed, IMO, by looking at the flips and slabs, which opponents claim are damn near glowing. I can get through that with little heartburn, unless the scans are enhanced to hide defects.

Yep. The scanner law anality of that thread was mind-boggling.

I received a 5-card T205 lot in May, from a major auction house, that had the glowing scans you describe. It was obvious that they had been altered drastically, but I could tell enough from the grade, registration, color of the flip, etc., to have a pretty good idea of what they looked like - anyway, good enough to bid confidently. I altered THEIR scans to make the flip look correct, and sent those scans to a friend who was interested in one of the cards. When he saw the actual card at the National, he said that it looked better than the scans. True story - ask the boss.