pwcc (part two)

[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).

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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).

That is an interesting piece of trivia, but maybe at that time CCD wasn't affordable. Nowadays, thanks to advances in CCD technology, clearly it is. So it is still modern technology. But even if it weren't, the larger point is that it is superior to the CIS for graded cards and ought to be used by the auction houses for their scans.

Frankly, I would bet that almost all auction houses already do use it at this point.

[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

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by 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?

Eric

Eric, I agree, it has been painful. To answer your question, most people here, including vintagetoppsguy, believe that the CCD scanners are good enough under their default settings to get an accurate scan. So it doesn't have to be an "or" question.

Basically, it is just a bunch of people arguing about nothing. Or just writing snarky comments.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Basically, it is just a bunch of people arguing about nothing.

+1

...and on two concurrent threads no less.

[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?

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

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.

Obviously, the prosecution would use the same scanner!