More on the subject of seller/auction house scans

[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.