Getting sick of the more obvious frauds

[Cardboard Junkie]

Jeesh!! Case in Point!! Although this is not prewar, it clearly demonstrates what this thread is all about.

The top is a card I sold recently for $26.00.....cheap, but as you can see by the accurate scan I posted, it had slightly brown dingy borders and the corners were soft (top left in particular).

The bottom is the same card listed by the buyer at near twice the price BIN $45.00 with a wildly manipulated scan. Bright borders and hardly noticeable soft corners.

Now I don't care about anyone making a profit, and I am used to buying high and selling low.

My beef is the manipulated scan that is fraudulently depicting the card as nicer than it really is. What say you? Dave.

[HRBAKER]

I say - tell me who that seller is.

[Cardboard Junkie]

wabbitwax_2

[Peter_Spaeth]

What do you think of pwcc scans?

[Cardboard Junkie]

I have only won one card from pwcc, but it was actually nicer than the posted scan. Dave

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think his scans are overly bright and generally improve the appearance of cards.

[Shoele$$]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

I have only won one card from pwcc, but it was actually nicer than the posted scan. Dave

Same here, purchased an E90 Ed Walsh from PWCC and the card arrived in better condition in person than I expected. Advertised as Fair, looks to be an SGC 30 to my untrained eye

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

Jeesh!! Case in Point!! Although this is not prewar, it clearly demonstrates what this thread is all about.

The top is a card I sold recently for $26.00.....cheap, but as you can see by the accurate scan I posted, it had slightly brown dingy borders and the corners were soft (top left in particular).

The bottom is the same card listed by the buyer at near twice the price BIN $45.00 with a wildly manipulated scan. Bright borders and hardly noticeable soft corners.

Now I don't care about anyone making a profit, and I am used to buying high and selling low.

My beef is the manipulated scan that is fraudulently depicting the card as nicer than it really is. What say you? Dave.

Great example Dave. You can clearly see by brightening the scan, the card looks cleaner and the corners don't look as dinged up.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Cardboard Junkie]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Great example Dave. You can clearly see by brightening the scan, the card looks cleaner and the corners don't look as dinged up.

Sincerely, Clayton

Buyer/seller also won a 52T Kell in a BVG holder and has it relisted...same thing..wildly manipulated scan!

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

Buyer/seller also won a 52T Kell in a BVG holder and has it relisted...same thing..wildly manipulated scan!

I guess some sellers heard people saying "buy the card and not the holder" and a light bulb lit up

Sincerely, Clayton

[doug.goodman]

The Schoendienst in question :

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-9...item1c3176ca0f


http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-9...item1c31b96fec

You're welcome,
Doug

[tschock]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

The Schoendienst in question :

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-9...item1c3176ca0f


http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-9...item1c31b96fec

You're welcome,
Doug

Now compare it to this one and it doesn't appear to be just the seller's (default) scanner settings.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1965-Philade...item1c31567153

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

Jeesh!! Case in Point!! Although this is not prewar, it clearly demonstrates what this thread is all about.

The top is a card I sold recently for $26.00.....cheap, but as you can see by the accurate scan I posted, it had slightly brown dingy borders and the corners were soft (top left in particular).

The bottom is the same card listed by the buyer at near twice the price BIN $45.00 with a wildly manipulated scan. Bright borders and hardly noticeable soft corners.

Now I don't care about anyone making a profit, and I am used to buying high and selling low.

My beef is the manipulated scan that is fraudulently depicting the card as nicer than it really is. What say you? Dave.

To be honest, I think your accurate scan actually presents the card much better.

I don't know about "wildly manipulated" on the second. Just looks like a poor washed out scan to me, with the brightness maybe jacked up a notch.

They do look like two completely different cards at first glance, but I'd buy yours before I bought that second one.

[Cardboard Junkie]

Perhaps "wildly" is too strong a word, but "manipulated" for sure. Dave.

[Paul S]

What's the recourse? Buy the holder and not the card?

[doug.goodman]

The only "recourse" is common sense, buyer beware, caveat emptor, use caution ahead, etc.

Shill bidding, fakes, "exaggerations'" in descriptions and images, complete lies. None of this stuff is new to the hobby. Prior to the internet, when us old guys used to buy things via snail mail, based on descriptions that used terms like vg/ex or ex/mt, instead of 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 (all of which look undergraded, of course), we got what we got, and we complained as much as we decided to, and our best recourse was sometimes to not buy things again from certain sellers. Often we continued to buy from that seller, but we knew that his ex/mt was really ex-.

In this specific case, maybe this specific seller has a crappy scanner and buyers need to be aware of that fact. Or maybe he doesn't.

But, saying something like the above on a net54 post tends to bring out a bunch of responses that make it sound like there are right and wrong answers, or that the people who lie and cheat and scam will stop doing so if we call them on it.

Grow up people.

There will never be complete honesty in any collectible "hobby", for the same reason that there will never be peace in the middle east. Because people are not generally as nice as they claim to be, or as they think others should be.

So sayeth Doug

[ALR-bishop]

Jeez Doug, you must be ancient. How old are you anyway

[Runscott]

well-said, Doug. Sadly, I was an idiot and didn't collect vintage cards back then, but I did buy comic books via mail. I can remember scouring the ads in the back to order their mailing lists - those were almost as cool sometimes as the actual comic books. The big problem we ran into back then was that if you found a real 'deal' on something, it had always been sold already. I'm guessing you ancient mail-in card purchasers experienced the same. Of course I was too cheap to pay for the long distance calls to check availability

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Jeez Doug, you must be ancient. How old are you anyway

I turned 50 a few days ago, and to "celebrate" my wife invited a bunch of friends over to have a funeral for "the death of Doug's youth".

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

The only "recourse" is common sense, buyer beware, caveat emptor, use caution ahead, etc.
…But, saying something like the above on a net54 post tends to bring out a bunch of responses that make it sound like there are right and wrong answers, or that the people who lie and cheat and scam will stop doing so if we call them on it.
Grow up people.
…There will never be complete honesty in any collectible "hobby", for the same reason that there will never be peace in the middle east. Because people are not generally as nice as they claim to be, or as they think others should be.
So sayeth Doug

Doug, It was a legit question. Written to cut to the crux of what this thread is about. (Too bad there is not an emoticon to express that). And although I don’t believe your response was fully directed at me, there has been an influx of new collectors on the board, some older and some younger. A few may not have even been born before the advent of the scanner. What they have heard since is buy the card, not the holder. And maybe they have not had the chance to see and feel a raw Cobb or a Clemente rookie.

Congratulations on your 50th birthday. I’ll be a decade older than you in a few months. Bought my first three Cobbs from Goldfadden in person @ $5 a pop, and other pre- and -post war vintage via snail mail: for instance, Gar Miller. Even in the late sixties as a teen, $30 + or so, was, unfortunately, beyond my allowance for a ‘52T Mantle. What a dope I I was then. But at least I knew what it looked and felt like.

Respect for collectors, newbies and oldbies.

Thus Sprach Paul S

emoticon here

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Paul S

Doug, It was a legit question. ... Congratulations on your 50th birthday. I’ll be a decade older than you in a few months. [/I]

Thank you Paul, and happy birthday in advance to you.

I completely understand that it was a legit question, and meant no disrespect to any collectors, oldies and newbies alike, what I meant is that scan "exaggerations" are in the year 2013 the equivalent of what description "exaggerations" were in 1976.

Back then some people had descriptions that were closer to reality than others, and today some people post scans that are closer to reality than others.

The only way to find out is often to make a purchase (or two, or three), and that's one of the costs of collecting.

It's all part of the chase, and the chase is most of the fun,
Doug

[CW]

Just looking at the common issue of scans that don't accurately represent what a card looks like in hand....

one way we have to gauge what a card may actually look like, at least when it comes to graded cards, is by looking at the flip. We all know what a PSA or SGC flip looks like in hand. If you see scan where the SGC green is to dark, or the PSA red is too orange, etc., you can get an idea how badly the scan might be off, and adjust accordingly with your mind's eye, so to speak.

I think another part of the problem comes with the default settings these scanners provide. With my Canon CanoScan 5600F, the defaults setting has an "auto tone" feature which makes the colors deeper and the whites much brighter.

If I turn the auto tone setting off, the cards scan appears much drabber than it looks in real life, almost washed out. I had to find a middle ground, a tone setting that shows what the card accurately looks like in hand. It took some trial and error. I'm not sure some sellers are knowledgeable enough to tweak the settings properly. The contrast and brightness settings on each person's monitor can also have an effect.