pwcc (part two)

[vintagetoppsguy]

Last night I had someone contact me with some information about PWCC doctoring their auction scans. He said that he would provide me proof, but also asked for anonymity. I promised him such.

Take a look at the 1951 Parkhurst Hockey Milt Schmidt cards below. They are the same card, same serial number. Notice how the red print dot (to the right of his head) is missing from the first scan, but is visible in the second scan. Here’s is the card history:

PWCC first sold this card in August 2012 for $653. Here is a link:

http://www.pwccauctions.com/item.php?item_no=249611

In this auction, the red print dot is missing. The scan has been touched up to remove it.

**************************************************
PWCC sold the same card once again just recently, this time selling for $542.73. Here is the link:

http://www.pwccauctions.com/item.php?item_no=496377

Perhaps the first buyer received the card and didn’t like it feeling it was misrepresented and returned it for a refund (I can only speculate), but for whatever reason PWCC ended up with the card once again. The second buyer now has it listed in his eBay store and the red dot is clearly visible...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1951-PARKHUR...#ht_111wt_1121

There is, to me at least, a difference in tweaking a scan so that it is a closer representation of the actual card versus editing a scan to cover up a known defect.

Thoughts anyone?

[calvindog]

Are we actually still debating whether PWCC doctors its scans? Unless you're a consignor of PWCC or named Brent does anyone else honestly think they don't?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Are we actually still debating whether PWCC doctors its scans? Unless you're a consignor of PWCC or named Brent does anyone else honestly think they don't?

Again, there is a difference (at least to me) in doctoring scans to make a card more aesthetically pleasing (adding color) versus doctoring scans to hide flaws within the card. Yes, both are wrong, but I think the latter of the two is way more deceptive. Until now, I’ve only seen where he added color to make his scans appear more brighter. This shows he doctors scans to hide flaws within the card.

[autograf]

Agree completely on removing a print dot. Contrast/Hue/etc is one thing and might be explained away in a few circumstances. If the above is true, very indicting...........

[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").

[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.

[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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by glchen

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").

I've seen exactly what you're talking about in reference to the PSA flips, but I don't think that is the case here. If he had the dust filter turned on, why would it only remove that big red print dot and not other things - e.g. any of the punctuation (dots or commas) at the bottom of the card that is even smaller and even more resembling of dust?

[Peter_Spaeth]

How do you remove the dot and get the same purple background as the rest of the card?

[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]

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

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]

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.

[npa589]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How do you remove the dot and get the same purple background as the rest of the card?

Theoretically speaking, if one were so inclined, and it was intentional rather than "unintentional" due to some obscure scanner setting, then one could open it in paint as a very large scan, select the color immediately around it with any "paint drop" tool from MSPaint, or nearly any image editor, and then use a small paintbrush tool to paint over the red dot.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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.

I get no enjoyment out of repeating myself over and over again, but Scott, if you continue to be sarcastic, the trouble is, not everyone has read all those other posts. Not everyone retains information as well as you, either.

I am not a mind-reader. I have no idea what you know or don't know. If you write something sarcastic instead of constructively stating your opinion, I may not know whether you've read my initial statement about it or not.

And by the way, if you don't like my ideas about how to hold the auction houses accountable, then fine. But what exactly do you plan to do about it? I haven't heard any of your ideas, just sarcastic remarks and statements that I am wrong and that you disagree.

You have said yourself that there is fraud - demanding greater disclosure is often how people deal with fraud from any company, not just auction houses. If you don't like that idea, then what exactly is your solution?

[HRBAKER]

The best way to hold them accountable if you believe there are issues is to not do business with them. Short of that we can continue to thrash about on a message board.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

The best way to hold them accountable if you believe there are issues is to not do business with them. Short of that we can continue to thrash about on a message board.

The trouble is that the boycott approach doesn't seem to work. Because if the AH's have cards that collectors want, they bid anyways, because if the item is rare it might be their only opportunity to get that item for a long time, if ever.

[steve B]

Nate's got it right, it might even be easier.

Those two scans aren't looking good.

But before we get out the pitchforks I'd like to be certain of one thing.
That the dot is actually on the card, and not "stuff" on the scanner glass or slab.

I regularly have to clean my scanner. I usually find "stuff" on there after I do a scan and see something I didn't think was on the card. I have a 3 year old, one card developed a nice yellow smiley face - Fortunately it was only drawn on the scanner glass. The gooey cheerio on the other hand became a feature of a cheap 80's common, which was added to the scanner by her. At least she's showing some interest.

So it's not impossible for stuff to get on the scanner. (I'm seeing the red dot as a result of scanning during lunch, perhaps a hot dog with ketchup?)
Or the scan has been played with. Removing something like that is beyond what I'd consider ok.

Any chance the person with the info was the first buyer? That would clear it right up. Or if someone knows the current owner or consigner.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I get no enjoyment out of repeating myself over and over again, but Scott, if you continue to be sarcastic, the trouble is, not everyone has read all those other posts. Not everyone retains information as well as you, either.

I am not a mind-reader. I have no idea what you know or don't know. If you write something sarcastic instead of constructively stating your opinion, I may not know whether you've read my initial statement about it or not.

And by the way, if you don't like my ideas about how to hold the auction houses accountable, then fine. But what exactly do you plan to do about it? I haven't heard any of your ideas, just sarcastic remarks and statements that I am wrong and that you disagree.

You have said yourself that there is fraud - demanding greater disclosure is often how people deal with fraud from any company, not just auction houses. If you don't like that idea, then what exactly is your solution?

Jamie, now you are just being a jerk. If you think that all of my remarks have been sarcastic, then you haven't been reading my posts. The fact that at this point in the discussion you still "have no idea what [I] know or don't know" indicates that I have been wasting my time responding to you. We'll talk again, I'm sure, but not on this subject.

[thecatspajamas]

Scott is the master of sarcasm, wielding what is usually the sledgehammer of comedic approaches like a fine razor so that the victim doesn't even realize he's cut. Love it

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Jamie, now you are just being a jerk. If you think that all of my remarks have been sarcastic, then you haven't been reading my posts. The fact that at this point in the discussion you still "have no idea what [I] know or don't know" indicates that I have been wasting my time responding to you. We'll talk again, I'm sure, but not on this subject.

Scott, you are endlessly misrepresenting my views. That's why I need to continuously repeat myself. Never did I say that "all your remarks have been sarcastic".

And I also noticed you evaded my question on how to find a solution to the fraud.

To just say "you are wrong" and write sarcastic remarks without providing constructive criticism and constructive solutions is cowardly behavior.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Scott is the master of sarcasm, wielding what is usually the sledgehammer of comedic approaches like a fine razor so that the victim doesn't even realize he's cut. Love it

Except that I did realize it.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

The trouble is that the boycott approach doesn't seem to work. Because if the AH's have cards that collectors want, they bid anyways, because if the item is rare it might be their only opportunity to get that item for a long time, if ever.

The "Eyes Wide Shut" approach.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

The trouble is that the boycott approach doesn't seem to work. Because if the AH's have cards that collectors want, they bid anyways, because if the item is rare it might be their only opportunity to get that item for a long time, if ever.

The fraudsters are counting on people's collective indifference, and they are right.

[HRBAKER]

Nobody is forcing anyone to bid anywhere. If you think there is something amiss and you continue to bid then I am not sure what you ever expect to change. I guess some folks "need" cards worse than others and we all have different levels of tolerance.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Nobody is forcing anyone to bid anywhere. If you think there is something amiss and you continue to bid then I am not sure what you ever expect to change. I guess some folks "need" cards worse than others and we all have different levels of tolerance.

Right, but if an opening bid is 1/4 of a card's value, then someone is going to put a bid in, no matter what. The boycott approach has been tried and hasn't worked, so I think we are trying to come up with a Plan B.

[CMIZ5290]

Guys, we all agree that there is a problem, but holy crap! This is overkill, what in the hell constructive is going to come of this? You can bet your ass Ebay is not going to do a damn thing....

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Right, but if an opening bid is 1/4 of a card's value, then someone is going to put a bid in, no matter what. The boycott approach has been tried and hasn't worked, so I think we are trying to come up with a Plan B.

Keep doin' what you do and you'll keep gettin' what you get.
I hope your Plan B works out.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Keep doin' what you do and you'll keep gettin' what you get.
I hope your Plan B works out.

Thanks.

[thecatspajamas]

Jamie, what you fail to grasp is that forcing all sellers to use a specific device with specific settings to capture a card image does nothing to address the real problem: Crooks Will Be Crooks.

Even if you could somehow implement the requirement you've repeated over and over, what's to stop them from altering the image after the scan? Or from stating certain scanning parameters but not actually following them? You're imagining the scanner and its settings as the only means a dishonest seller has to alter their card images, and assuming that if you can control that one aspect, you can bring them back in line, when the reality is that manipulating the scan settings is about the least subtle way one could alter card images.

You can make all the rules you want, but if a seller has determined that deception is an acceptable selling tool, mandating scanners/scan settings won't rectify that.

[Texxxx]

Originally Posted by steve B

Nate's got it right, it might even be easier.

Those two scans aren't looking good.

But before we get out the pitchforks I'd like to be certain of one thing.
That the dot is actually on the card, and not "stuff" on the scanner glass or slab.

I regularly have to clean my scanner. I usually find "stuff" on there after I do a scan and see something I didn't think was on the card. I have a 3 year old, one card developed a nice yellow smiley face - Fortunately it was only drawn on the scanner glass. The gooey cheerio on the other hand became a feature of a cheap 80's common, which was added to the scanner by her. At least she's showing some interest.

So it's not impossible for stuff to get on the scanner. (I'm seeing the red dot as a result of scanning during lunch, perhaps a hot dog with ketchup?)
Or the scan has been played with. Removing something like that is beyond what I'd consider ok.

Any chance the person with the info was the first buyer? That would clear it right up. Or if someone knows the current owner or consigner.

It's on the card. Here is where it sold in 2011.
http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...lotIdNo=240002

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Jamie, what you fail to grasp is that forcing all sellers to use a specific device with specific settings to capture a card image does nothing to address the real problem: Crooks Will Be Crooks.

"Crooks will be crooks" - That, my friend, is a philosophy of complacency, and it solves nothing. No one ever changed the world by being complacent.

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Even if you could somehow implement the requirement you've repeated over and over, what's to stop them from altering the image after the scan?

They could do that, but then it would be indefensible in a court of law because the scan could be retaken using the same technology they outlined in their terms. Since the results would differ, it would be proof that they committed the fraud.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Nobody is forcing anyone to bid anywhere. If you think there is something amiss and you continue to bid then I am not sure what you ever expect to change. I guess some folks "need" cards worse than others and we all have different levels of tolerance.

+1

[CMIZ5290]

Has anyone even contacted Ebay about these accusations?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

They could do that, but then it would be indefensible in a court of law because the scan could be retaken using the same technology they outlined in their terms. Since the results would differ, it would be proof that they committed the fraud.

What would be even better in court would be to compare the scan to the actual card and show how it was misrepresented. This has the added benefit of not hampering every seller with what you incorrectly assume is a universal imaging solution.

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Right, but if an opening bid is 1/4 of a card's value, then someone is going to put a bid in, no matter what. The boycott approach has been tried and hasn't worked, so I think we are trying to come up with a Plan B.

I like how you tell Jeff his solution of not doing business with crooked sellers is not workable, but requiring all sellers to use the same scanner on the same settings is.

Originally Posted by cyseymour

"Crooks will be crooks" - That, my friend, is a philosophy of complacency, and it solves nothing. No one ever changed the world by being complacent.

Who said anything about being complacent? I actually really like Jeff's idea of not doing business with known crooks. I am also in the habit of holding newfound crooks accountable when what they deliver doesn't match up to what was shown/described. I don't need to know what their scanner/settings are for that.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

What would be even better in court would be to compare the scan to the actual card and show how it was misrepresented.

It wouldn't be better because it wouldn't prove whether the problem was the performance of the scanner itself or fraud committed by the auctioneer.

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I like how you tell Jeff his solution of not doing business with crooked sellers is not workable, but requiring all sellers to use the same scanner on the same settings is.

I never said that they all ought to use the same scanner, just that they ought to own a scanner with modern technology and keep the settings on default.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I never said that they all ought to use the same scanner, just that they ought to own a scanner with modern technology and keep the settings on default.

Did you know that what you are referring to as modern technology (CCD) technology actually predates CIS technology? CIS technology is fairly recent. CCD technology first came out in 1969 (I believe).

[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?

As it pertains to the OP (in this thread) questioning a disappearing dot on the Mint 9 hockey card, I strongly feel as though some sort of shenanigans were in order there. It seems to be clear fraud to me. I may be mistaken.

Best Regards,

Eric

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Did you know that what you are referring to as modern technology (CCD) technology actually predates CIS technology? CIS technology is fairly recent. CCD technology first came out in 1969 (I believe).

That is an interesting piece of trivia, but maybe at that time CCD wasn't affordable. Nowadays, thanks to advances in CCD technology, clearly it is. So it is still modern technology. But even if it weren't, the larger point is that it is superior to the CIS for graded cards and ought to be used by the auction houses for their scans.

Frankly, I would bet that almost all auction houses already do use it at this point.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I never said that they all ought to use the same scanner, just that they ought to own a scanner with modern technology and keep the settings on default.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. You keep talking about "modern" scanners and assuming they all come with the same "default" settings, when that is not the case. If you're not going to require everyone to use the same model of scanner, your premise is flawed from the start. In your court scenario, the first thing they would ask is, "Was the same scanner used to produce both the auction house scan and the scan you made at home?" It's ridiculous.

Seriously, how many different scanners have you used?

[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.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

In your court scenario, the first thing they would ask is, "Was the same scanner used to produce both the auction house scan and the scan you made at home?" It's ridiculous.

Obviously, the prosecution would use the same scanner!

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Texxxx

It's on the card. Here is where it sold in 2011.
http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...lotIdNo=240002

Thanks, that does make it clear the scan was altered.

Steve B

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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

+1

...and on two concurrent threads no less.