Please Explain the Pete Rose Rookie to Me

[E93]

I am not the grader, but I do see some differences between these two cards. The SGC 96 has a small printing fisheye in the upper right part of the blue. It also has a tiny white dot in the red to the right of Pedro Gonzalez's face. The SGC 96 also seems centered a bit lower than the SGC 98. Obviously these are incredibly minor "flaws", but for those interested in the difference between a 10 and 9, I am guessing those are the types of differences.

[barrysloate]

A few years ago I got a close look at a T206 Pastorius that was graded PSA 10. While the front was an absolute gem, with perfectly sharp corners and a beautiful "finish" that a pristine T206 will have, the back was noticeably off-center. None of us who saw it that night (it was at one of our Net54 dinners) understood how a card with so obvious a visual flaw received a grade of 10. It's still a mystery to me how some of these grades are assigned.

[teetwoohsix]

Very interesting story Barry,,,sometimes I wonder if it's who you know.........

Clayton

[barrysloate]

Clayton- no question there is some lobbying going on for higher grades. How could there not be?

[Fred]

Barry, I'm chaning your name to Joe for a a moment...

"Say it aint so, Joe".

I shouldn't think about the grades and difference in value that others put on that label. It makes my head hurt. I just couldn't imagine wasting my money on a label. If it cannot immediately cross over between reputable grading companies then why bother "wanting the best", because it aint.

[CW]

Originally Posted by E93

I don't mean to derail this thread or throw it off on a tangent, but I've always
thought BMW had too much contrast and color saturation in their scans. The
comparison quoted above ^^^ shows how a BMW scan can be misleading to a
potential buyer. Look at how much more the color pops on the BMW SGC 96.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Large price gap between the SGC 96 Rose's on ebay. One is 20,000 OBO, the other one has a BIN of 7495.

[MW1]

Originally Posted by CW

I don't mean to derail this thread or throw it off on a tangent, but I've always
thought BMW had too much contrast and color saturation in their scans. The
comparison quoted above ^^^ shows how a BMW scan can be misleading to a
potential buyer. Look at how much more the color pops on the BMW SGC 96.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic....

CW,

The contrast on the SGC 96 Rose on my website is about the same as the one sold by REA as well as the SGC 98 on eBay. I'm not seeing what you are. Please explain to me how I'm being misleading. Thank you.

[T206DK]

why can't dealers just scan the card and be done. why do they have to adjust the contrast and color saturation. That side by side comparison is pretty obvious to me. If it's not misleading to adjust a scan of a card then what do you call it ? Picture modification.....this reminds me of Heritage auctions use of the terms "bid modification" to describe their employees placing bids on items in their own auctions. I am beginning to think that a lot of dealers think guys on this board are stupid or just desperate to buy cards at any cost.
I've started reporting auctions based on what I think are modified scans, and actually had one guy take the auctions down and re-scan his cards normally after I showed him that modifying the contrast or sharpness a tiny bit can mask wrinkles and small creases and flaws in cards. This "picture modification" seems to occur alot on Old judge cards.

[lharri3600]

dave,
you nailed it again!!

Originally Posted by T206DK

why can't dealers just scan the card and be done. why do they have to adjust the contrast and color saturation. That side by side comparison is pretty obvious to me. If it's not misleading to adjust a scan of a card then what do you call it ? Picture modification.....this reminds me of Heritage auctions use of the terms "bid modification" to describe their employees placing bids on items in their own auctions. I am beginning to think that a lot of dealers think guys on this board are stupid or just desperate to buy cards at any cost.
I've started reporting auctions based on what I think are modified scans, and actually had one guy take the auctions down and re-scan his cards normally after I showed him that modifying the contrast or sharpness a tiny bit can mask wrinkles and small creases and flaws in cards. This "picture modification" seems to occur alot on Old judge cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The side by side Roses look the same to me. I don't think it's a fair accusation. People buying BMW's cards know what cards look like; if the scan is a bit bright they can tell that by the color of the flip.

[tothrk]

Al Weis looks like he just saw all four golden girls naked.

[CW]

Originally Posted by MW1

CW,

The contrast on the SGC 96 Rose on my website is about the same as the one sold by REA as well as the SGC 98 on eBay. I'm not seeing what you are. Please explain to me how I'm being misleading. Thank you.

I'm sorry -- I did not mean to imply that you are intentionally making an
attempt to mislead with your scans.

I do believe that your scans have the potential to mislead a buyer due to
their high contrast, which can misrepresent what the card will look like in
hand. Many times, this can be the fault of a scanner, or a scanner's
settings, which may not be the fault of the user. To me, the differences
between the two scans are blatantly obvious, as your scan exhibits much
bolder yellow & red colors, and much brighter white borders.

This is all my opinion, of course, and I see some here share it, while others
do not. I can leave it at that.

[MW1]

Originally Posted by CW

I'm sorry -- I did not mean to imply that you are intentionally making an
attempt to mislead with your scans.

I do believe that your scans have the potential to mislead a buyer due to
their high contrast, which can misrepresent what the card will look like in
hand. Many times, this can be the fault of a scanner, or a scanner's
settings, which may not be the fault of the user. To me, the differences
between the two scans are blatantly obvious, as your scan exhibits much
bolder yellow & red colors, and much brighter white borders.

This is all my opinion, of course, and I see some here share it, while others
do not. I can leave it at that.

Chuck,

Thank you for your feedback.

I have viewed the two images on a number of different computers in different locations and can see no appreciable difference except for in the blue part of the card (mine appears to be lighter). Might it be the monitor that you are using?