pwcc (part two)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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?