|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
1914 CJ Mathewson Receives a Bath Courtesy of Legendary
http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...x?itemid=24903
http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...---SGC-40-VG-3 Or just a scan which completely misrepresents what the card actually looks like.
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/sets Last edited by calvindog; 08-13-2013 at 08:18 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Old dog, same tricks?
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
strange cuz the holder ID # is the same. Was the card removed from the holder? Or scanned differently?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I thought the 1914 CJ fell apart if soaked, due to the thin card stock. Does anyone here have some insight about this?
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
The card is in the same holder. Probably only the scan difference.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Nice try Jeff, but real magicians never reveal their secrets unless subpoenaed.
Lovely Day... |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Doug -- I'm sending this to your sentencing judge to show him that you're still defrauding people, even while facing federal fraud charges.
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/sets |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Looks like a brighter scanner setting, mine is set a bit darker to help with SGC slabs.
Legendary compared to Goldin legendary goldin
__________________
T206 gallery Last edited by atx840; 08-14-2013 at 07:01 AM. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
The first scan is from Legendary March 2012. The second scan is from Probstein auction that ended last winter. I own this card and can tell you that in real life, the card looks like the Probstein scan. I was willing to bid on it in the probstein auction but not in the Legendary because in the Legendary I just wasn't sure what the card really looked like. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
I have no animosity towards anyone at all in this thread. I have a feeling that Legendary might do their scans normally at a higher resolution. So much so it makes the cards look different. I won the E221 Bishops card from them about a year or two ago, from the Drier collection. It looked bright and sharp with very few creases on it, from the scan on the screen. When I got it in hand it was quite different. It was darker and more creases showed. I still liked it and kept it....but before I got it I even told Mark Mac.rae, on the phone, I thought it looked almost Ex in condition. I felt kind of dumb when I got it and it was in fair (but still nice) condition. I think they need to change their settings on their scanners. I told Doug about it but still wanted the card. I am not saying they are doing anything bad, intentionally, but they do need to scan on different, more realistic settings. I like everyone over at Legendary, personally, and I hope everything gets worked out soon. best regards
__________________
Leon Luckey |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/sets |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/sets |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
It only takes a small amount of manipulation to make the REA scan look like the Legendary scan. Any child could do it.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ Last edited by Runscott; 11-30-2014 at 12:21 PM. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A little perspective and courtesy please | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 05-01-2006 10:28 PM |
1914 CJ Mathewson | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 04-15-2006 04:17 PM |
The $1,300 bath - can someone explain this? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 11 | 11-07-2005 12:23 PM |
1914 Cracker Jack Mathewson | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 11-13-2003 08:43 AM |
1914 Cracker Jack Mathewson | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 01-23-2002 11:31 AM |