pwcc (part two)

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Oy, vey. Gentlemen, part one was painful enough to read.

Should the focus be whether or not default scanner settings are the way to go - or - whether or not an accurate scan is appropriate?

Eric

Eric, I agree, it has been painful. To answer your question, most people here, including vintagetoppsguy, believe that the CCD scanners are good enough under their default settings to get an accurate scan. So it doesn't have to be an "or" question.

Basically, it is just a bunch of people arguing about nothing. Or just writing snarky comments.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Basically, it is just a bunch of people arguing about nothing.

+1

...and on two concurrent threads no less.

[HRBAKER]

It's not that they're arguing about nothing, it's that nothing will come from it.

[calvindog]

Mandating new auction-wide scanner rules is laughable. As is special, scary stationary for hobby watchdog groups run by the fraudsters themselves.

Lawsuits, grand jury subpoenas and indictments are the only things which will stop the fraud -- or at least slow it down.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Mandating new auction-wide scanner rules is laughable. As is special, scary stationary for hobby watchdog groups run by the fraudsters themselves.

Lawsuits, grand jury subpoenas and indictments are the only things which will stop the fraud -- or at least slow it down.

No one is talking about mandating auction-wide scanner rules. No one here even has the authority to do that. But pressuring auction houses to disclose their scanning policies, not change their settings, and put it in their terms is doable.

Pressuring companies to disclose policies is not a new tactic. Companies are often pressured to disclose labor practices, political donations, carbon-footprint information, among other things.

Will increased disclosure stop fraud? No, but it could slow it down - just like lawsuits, grand jury subpoenas and indictments. And pressuring for disclosure and prosecution don't have to be mutually exclusive - they can be done in conjunction.

Just remember: you can prosecute - and lose. It is no slam dunk, either.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Just remember: you can prosecute - and lose. It is no slam dunk, either.

Ask anyone who's ever been indicted how much they enjoyed the experience, win or lose.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Ask anyone who's ever been indicted how much they enjoyed the experience, win or lose.

Good luck getting them to prosecute, though. They would most likely view PWCC as small-time. The worst you have against them right now is a scan of a $500 hockey card. That's a far cry from a trimmed PSA 8 t206 Wagner.

Thousands of examples of ebay fraud have been posted on this message board, and how many of them have been prosecuted by the feds? Very few, if any. Can't see how PWCC would be any different.

My guess is that if the feds were going to prosecute anyone about scan enhancing, it would be one of the larger auction houses selling big-ticket items, not a small-time ebay outfit.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

But pressuring auction houses to disclose their scanning policies, not change their settings, and put it in their terms is doable.

Why do you keep going back to the same argument about AHs not changing their scanner settings? If an auction house can provide a scan that is an exact representation of a card with a $20 scanner they have to tweak a bit (change the scanner settings), why do you care? What does it matter as long as it's an exact represenation?

I don’t care if they have their 3 year old color me a picture of the card with Crayons, as long it is a close representation of the card. Lance said it best earlier in this thread, “Hold the seller accountable for the accuracy of the image posted, not the means they employed to produce it."

[CMIZ5290]

I ask again, has anyone notified Ebay? If so, what is there stance? As I said before, probably a complete waste of time....

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Why do you keep going back to the same argument about AHs not changing their scanner settings? If an auction house can provide a scan that is an exact representation of a card with a $20 scanner they have to tweak a bit (change the scanner settings), why do you care? What does it matter as long as it's an exact represenation?

I don’t care if they have their 3 year old color me a picture of the card with Crayons, as long it is a close representation of the card. Lance said it best earlier in this thread, “Hold the seller accountable for the accuracy of the image posted, not the means they employed to produce it."

It is a moot point because the auction houses already own and use CCD scanners.

[CaramelMan]

This thread sux....too much bickering and you lose the importance of the subject