More on the subject of seller/auction house scans

[nolemmings]

With questions about seller and auction house scans still lingering in another thread, I thought it topical to ask more generally what scan settings you believe should be used by these folks and what reliance you place on scans when bidding. Below are two Home Run Baker cards that I have won this year, each of which has a small wrinkle or two. The scans I am using here were used by the Ebay seller Probstein and Auction house Goodwin– I will show my scans later. I do not mean to call out these businesses but the cards are easily traced anyway.

The first has a wrinkle from one border slightly into the background on the front, and both have two light wrinkles on the back. No wrinkles were disclosed in the descriptions. Can you spot them? Because I missed them.





Again, I will show my scans in awhile, which were taken at 300 dpi. All of my scans are taken at that setting, and I do not adjust a single characteristic--brightness, sharpness, etc. In fact, my scan of the Altoona Baker will likely show the back slightly darker/duller than real life simply because I scanned it with the lid up (same as on all my cards) during daylight as opposed to during evening with an overhead ceiling light.

[the 'stache]

Todd, in the first scan of Baker, I think I am seeing the wrinkle. From the right border extending horizontally to slightly above his left knee. I'm looking in Photoshop at 200%, first inverted, and then desaturated.

[JamesGallo]

Scanning cards is a bit tricky but i dont mess with any settings and do scan at 300dpi. Obviously the cards had something you could not see which in this case would be a wrinkle or a tiny spot of paper loss.
I just got an sgc 30 card that looks like a 50 but it has tiny spots of paper loss to the white boarder. I am not sure you would get this to show up without really messing with the image and am am certainly not unhappy with the card in any way and i expected sonething like that based on the grade.
I think if you are buying mid grade cards that look nicer then you should expect an issue that isnt easy to see. I am not sure why else these cards could have graded out that way if not for a tough to see defect. If you are that worried about wrinkles ask before you buy.

James G

[Donscards]

Todd---From your 2 scans, I did see the minor crease on Probstein's scan--I couldnt see any creases on Goodwins's scan---too bad on your part in winning these cards where you thought there were no creases---I always though graded 4's were not supposed to have creases----and you are right where I feel the scans should not be enhanced---I also use the 300dpi when scanning for ebay.---Matter of fact, the cards I scan always look better in real life than the ebay scan. Don

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Donscards

I always though graded 4's were not supposed to have creases

I think a lot of people are under that impression, but it's just not true.

From PSA's website:
VG-EX 4: Very Good-Excellent
A PSA VG-EX 4 card's corners may be slightly rounded. Surface wear is noticeable but modest. The card may have light scuffing or light scratches. Some original gloss will be retained. Borders may be slightly off-white. A light crease may be visible. Centering must be 85/15 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back.

From SGC's website
VG/EX 4
85/15 or better centering, corners are slightly rounded with modest surface wear. Light hairline crease may show on one or both sides. A light tear or surface break may exist.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I don't see any wrinkles, but I do see what appears to be a tiny speck of paper loss on the back of the Successful Farming Baker - bottom right corner, the "A" in IOWA. Then again, it could just be that filthy scanner bed. I've never seen that much dust. If it's paper loss, that submitter got a gift of a 4.

Edited to add two things:

1) Are the scans of the Successful Farming Baker from the same source? The front looks different than the back. The back scan has a lot fo dust, where the front scan doesn't. Also, the black SGC gasket is a much darker black compared to the front scan.

2) I agree with the poster above that said, "I think if you are buying mid grade cards that look nicer then you should expect an issue that isnt easy to see. I am not sure why else these cards could have graded out that way if not for a tough to see defect."

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

2) I agree with the poster above that said, "I think if you are buying mid grade cards that look nicer then you should expect an issue that isnt easy to see. I am not sure why else these cards could have graded out that way if not for a tough to see defect."

+1

I see the paper loss and maybe a wrinkle, but if I were looking at them as a buyer I would see two VG+ / VG-EX cards with good eye appeal.

[nolemmings]

Thanks for the responses guys. The scans you see came directly from the auction websites, and I do not believe they were re-sized much if at all coming through to net54. Here are the auction links:

http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetai...entoryid=24412
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1916-M101-4-...p2047675.l2557

Bill you raise an interesting point. Could you see what you perceive to be the wrinkle without taking the various photoshop steps you took? When buying higher dollar (or any)cards should one expect to subject the card to such types of scrutiny?

Do you others who see the wrinkle on the Altoona Tribune concur it is where Bill says, and if so, did you find it on your own or did you focus in on the spot Bill identified?

I agree wholeheartedly that if cards look nicer than you should expect for the grade, there is probably a slight defect. The Successful Farming card is so scarce that I really didn’t care too much, although I hoped they may have marked it down for the speck of paper loss on the “A” in “Iowa”, because I knew that is not paper loss at all but instead an inking problem–I will show other examples. I suppose I could have called Mr. Goodwin, but frankly I wanted to keep the Baker off his radar because his listing failed to mention that this was the ultra-scarce promo card and I didn’t know if he would modify the listing or pull the card (shameful of me).

I saw that the Altoona Tribune Baker has light damage along the right edge–many of them do, as if there was a dull blade or something that leads to slight chipping or bending in that area. Moreover, 90% of Altoona Tribune cards have faint pressure lines, sometimes extremely faint, which invariably knocks them down to vg or vg-ex status (only 2 in the entire set are graded higher than vg-ex). This is what I attributed to the card getting the grade it received. I just did not expect the wrinkle. BTW, I’m not sure whether Bill got it right because the actual wrinkle is IMO more aligned with Baker’s thigh, and he may have seen what is at most a light scratch below that point and closer to the knee area.

I will post my scans in a little while, just in case someone else wants to chime in.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

With questions about seller and auction house scans still lingering in another thread, I thought it topical to ask more generally what scan settings you believe should be used by these folks and what reliance you place on scans when bidding.

I have owned many scanners - the settings that had to be tweaked were different for each scanner, and also different for different types of items. I would say that if you can't get a good representative scan of an item, state in your auction that you apologize for not being able to do so, and that the image shown is what the scanner default settings allowed you to provide. Creating extra-bright or enhanced color images in order to be deceptive, is certainly a bad idea and such sellers should be held accountable.

I realize that many (perhaps most of you) disagree with me, but this is something I'm sticking with - if anyone ever receives an item from me that does not look as good as the scan, I will certainly reconsider the techniques I use to provide accurate images.

Also, simply cleaning the plastic slabs (wiping off fingerprints, smudges and ... hairs) goes a long way toward a good image. It's amazing how many big auction houses don't take the time to do this.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I have owned many scanners - the settings that had to be tweaked were different for each scanner, and also different for different types of items. I would say that if you can't get a good representative scan of an item, state in your auction that you apologize for not being able to do so, and that the image shown is what the scanner default settings allowed you to provide. Creating extra-bright or enhanced color images in order to be deceptive, is certainly a bad idea and such sellers should be held accountable.

I realize that many (perhaps most of you) disagree with me, but this is something I'm sticking with - if anyone ever receives an item from me that does not look as good as the scan, I will certainly reconsider the techniques I use to provide accurate images.

Also, simply cleaning the plastic slabs (wiping off fingerprints, smudges and ... hairs) goes a long way toward a good image. It's amazing how many big auction houses don't take the time to do this.

Very well said. Thank you!

[nolemmings]

See here’s the problem I have with your position Scott. I understand re-examining the issues whenever a new scanner is used or when different types of items are scanned, but what about when the same scanner is used for all flat items/cards and the scans are met with few or no complaints from buyers or bidders?

Here I do not believe that Goodwin or Probstein--intentionally or unintentionally-created extra bright or enhanced scans of these cards, yet clearly the actual card in hand does not look as good as the scan. The scans provided were large and clear, yet they failed to display the flaws. Should these sellers be in any way scorned?(you say be held accountable, but I’m confident they would have both honored returns-- is that sufficient accountability?). Did they have an obligation to carefully examine these cards and change their settings to show the defects or at least point them out in the descriptions? What is a “good representative scan” as you call it, and did the sellers of my two Bakers fail to provide those here in your opinion?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Did they have an obligation to carefully examine these cards and change their settings to show the defects or at least point them out in the descriptions? What is a “good representative scan” as you call it, and did the sellers of my two Bakers fail to provide those here in your opinion?

The last thing I would ever do is take up for Probstein, but I think the answer to your first question is no, they don't have the obligation to carefully examine each card. There just simply isn't enough time for dealers to do that (especially large volume dealers). If the card is graded, you have to hope the TPG did their job. I think it all goes back to what James said in post #3. If you buy a card that is graded a 3, 4 or 5 and it looks more like a 5, 6 or 7, you have to assume it has some kind of flaw (that the scanner may or may not have picked up) and that is the reason for the low technical grade. That said, if they see a hidden flaw as they're scanning it, yes they should make mention of it, but I don't think they should have to scrutinize graded cards for hidden flaws as that's what the TPG is paid to do.

There are times when you just can't make a known wrinkle appear in a scan, no matter the scanner or who is scanning it...and sometimes can only see that wrinkle when you only hold it at a certain angle in the light. I just don't think dealers should have to do that with graded cards. What if they did scrutinize each card and still accidentally overlooked a wrinkle? Is it really their fault? In the cases with the Bakers, they are graded accurately (IMO).

I've sold cards (even here on the B/S/T) where the scanner did not pick up certain flaws (such as wrinkles). In such cases, I've tried adjusting the settings and re-scanning the cards (sometimes even multiple times) to make the flaws more visible, but sometimes it just can't be done with a scanner...and I'm certainly not going to waste 15 minutes or more to scan one card. In that case, I try to make mention of those flaws, but could I have missed a few at times? Certainly.

The answer to your second question is a “good representative scan” shows the card's true colors (whether you have to adjust the scanner settings to do this or not, but not enhanced to make it brighter or to mislead the buyer). If the two Bakers were scanned with no adjustments to the settings, then they provided good quality scans (IMO).

Are your scans better than their scans? Certainly. But you may have a better scan than they do. But just because you have better scans doesn't mean that it's anything they did wrong.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I have owned many scanners - the settings that had to be tweaked were different for each scanner, and also different for different types of items. I would say that if you can't get a good representative scan of an item, state in your auction that you apologize for not being able to do so, and that the image shown is what the scanner default settings allowed you to provide. Creating extra-bright or enhanced color images in order to be deceptive, is certainly a bad idea and such sellers should be held accountable.

I realize that many (perhaps most of you) disagree with me, but this is something I'm sticking with - if anyone ever receives an item from me that does not look as good as the scan, I will certainly reconsider the techniques I use to provide accurate images.

Also, simply cleaning the plastic slabs (wiping off fingerprints, smudges and ... hairs) goes a long way toward a good image. It's amazing how many big auction houses don't take the time to do this.

+1

I would like to add that most sellers who adjust their scanner settings (myself included) do not do so to be deceptive. I will slightly adjust my settings to properly advertise my card the way I believe it should be represented. We can all agree that a scan of a card is MILES different from viewing the card in person. Uping the dpi and making the scan marginally sharper will prevent the image from looking blurry. I have never had a complaint.

[cyseymour]

In the context of the PWCC thread, where by the naked eye you could tell that the scan was obviously enhanced (and the seller admitted to altering the settings), I disagreed with David and Scott. But in this instance, it is a different story, and I agree with them on at least one point - unless Todd reveals which scanner he was using, and we also learned the scanners used by Probstein and/or Goodwin, the comparison is somewhat useless.

[ZachS]

I sent another poster some scans of a card he was interested in purchasing. I could see some wrinkles on the card and I couldn't get them to show up in the scan even though I was trying. I eventually used my camera to focus in on the creases and send him the scans and photo.

I would like to think that most people aren't deliberately trying to be deceptive with scans. Sometimes it's just difficult to get everything to show up.

I will say that if an auction house is selling a card and there are known/visible creases, then that information should be noted in the listing (especially if they don't show up on the scans).

[KCRfan1]

Aside from accurate images ( sellers know what their scans look like ), it would be nice to have any flaws posted in the item description and location of the flaw. I realize that I am asking way too much for that to ever happen. In most cases we can return ( less shipping fees ), however a lot of time and potential misunderstandings could be saved if sellers were forthcoming with buyers.

[Mikehealer]

I'm not sure this matters, but I'm pretty sure Goodwin doesn't scan his cards, he uses a photographer.

[Vol]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Also, simply cleaning the plastic slabs (wiping off fingerprints, smudges and ... hairs) goes a long way toward a good image. It's amazing how many big auction houses don't take the time to do this.

Scott, what do you find is the best way to get fingerprints/smudges off the slabs? I am having a tough time getting some cleaned. Thanks.

[the 'stache]

Isaac, I've found that a lens cleaning cloth works wonders. They're non-abrasive, and there's no chemicals to cloud the plastic. For really stubborn prints, just a dampen the cloth. I use them, too, to wipe fingerprints on my scanner surface.

I'm intrigued by the 3M Lens Cleaning Cloth, and am going to order some.

http://www.amazon.com/3M-9021-Lens-C.../dp/B00009PSZ2

I'll let you all know what I think. These + the Novus 2 Fine Scratch Remover solution I have should make the slabs look about as clean as possible (and the next best thing to paying for reslabbing).

[Vol]

Bill, thanks man for the tips.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by VOLnVEGAS

Scott, what do you find is the best way to get fingerprints/smudges off the slabs? I am having a tough time getting some cleaned. Thanks.

Sorry I missed this post. All I do is breathe on them to get some condensation, then I quickly wipe with a cloth that was intended to clean my glasses. It works great unless the plastic is scratched.

On another note, noticing that one of the PSA card scans had a darker background - this does not necessarily mean that contrast was tweaked. I always scan slabbed cards with a dark black cloth placed over the back of the card - to me this is imperative when scanning PSA cards, not so much with SGC. Cloth works better than black paper.