Was this picture doctored?

XanaduNow

The picture on the left was the one from the auction. The picture on the right is my personal scan of the card.



What do you think? Slight touch up or just a poor scan?

Arthur

bobbybakeriv

I'm certainly no expert, but the pictures look like different cards to me. Perhaps the shading was just entirely different? Whether that was intentional or not, I really don't know.

5STAT

the one on the left looks like a reprint...

or didn't some european beer company make sets of those again in 1993??

XanaduNow

They're both of the same card. It's authentic. I just got it in the mail the other day.

Looks like the white in the auction photo was blown out to hide any discoloration or imperfections. Compare the sky in the two pictures. I just can't tell if it was done on purpose or just scanner discrepancies.

Arthur

stevek

<<< What do you think? Slight touch up or just a poor scan? >>>


I know nothing about that card but if YOU did, you should have known that the scan was a fair amount lighter than the actual card and that there would be a distinct possibility that types of discoloring on the card might not appear on the scan. But in all fairness, that discoloration should have been noted in the seller's description.

And yes, it may have been intentional. I always look at the seller's other auctions. If his other lots were scanned the same way...he's probably just not skilled at using the machine. If all the other scans look fine, with this being the exception, then I would say it could have been intentional.

grote15

Corners look a lot nicer in the auction photo, too.

Griffins

lower left corner looks a whole lot nicer in the auction scan.
The white point on the scans are totally different. It may be unintentional, but it is deceptive.

To get techno geeky-
if you are scanning a PSA graded card, and you bring it into photoshop, bring up curves. Double click on the right eyedropper (the white point) and enter 240 next to the R, G, and B. Then click the white eyedropper on the PSA flip, and you've brightened everything up to a clean, honest amount without over whitening. The problem often arises when sellers (and especially a few auction houses) leave the values at the default of 255, which really blasts the white point.

Griffins

if it's the same image how come in the auction scan "Walter" is partially there, but in yours it's completely there?

fdnyladder7

That brightness happens frequently with flash cameras. Also, shot through a toploader and that reflected off bottom edge of card. It's a nice item at any rate.

5STAT

holy...

There's no way those are the same card!! The one on the lft looks to have a little notch on the right edge of the card...straight infront of his nose..the corners are sharper..and yes..Walter is solid on the card you scanned...

Touched up..or bait and switch?? it's one or the other..

BSUballer

i dont think its a bait and switch but it def looks like a touch up...they def lightened it up to make everything on the card look better...nice card either way!

aaron

5STAT

look at the borders...the left is centered 60-40 left to right..the card on the right is close to 50-50

Elemenopeo

Definitely doctored or switched, but I'd vote for switched. In addition to what's already been noted, the bottom of some of the letters in the word "cigarettes" that are missing in the original photo (the t's in particular) are apparent in your scan. Also, I can see at least a few print dots that are on the original that don't appear on yours, and they certainly should appear on yours since the original is lighter and more washed out. If it was doctored, I don't think the the seller would be adding print dots.

You got hosed, man. Take that guy to the woodshed.

phreakydancin

It's not the same card.

Boopotts

<< <i>It's not the same card. >>



That's what I thought too-- I just felt stupid saying it before somebody else did.

The corners on the one on the CS are much more raggedy. Is this the card that got mailed to you wrapped in a piece of paper? If so then I'd get back in touch with the buyer, send him 'before and after' scans, and raise a little Cain.

zef204

At first, I thoght, not the same card because on the one on the left, there is a print line that is visible from the back of the head, to the top of the ear. Gone on Arthur's scan on the right. Also because of the notch on the right side as someone else said that is seen on the left, but not the right. Also the name at the bottom.

But, the top 2 corners look very similar, granted they look touched up on the left scan. Also, as for the name washing out, I am guessing that during the touch up of the bottom border they tried to get rid of the black line seen in Arthur's scan that likely is just print on the reverse that shows on the front in the scan. In an attempt to get rid of the line, the might have futzed(technical term ) with the name area. Also, if you look at Arthurs true scan, there seems to be a print line from top left border, thru the card and up aboove the "HU". The touched up one looks like while trying to rid that line, they had to white out the border up ther and then had to phot shop it back in. You can see that it is not the same below this area. I also think tha the reason the notches dont show on the right and left borders are because Arthurs scan is against a white background and the original is against a black.

I think it's a touch up job. And they rebuilt the corners, white blasted it, and and took care of the bleeding back print.

XanaduNow

Thank you. Do you guys mind if I send this link to the sellser?

If anyone says "no" I won't. I respect the anonymity of everyone here. I just feel as though I got hosed. I'm not as concerned with my transaction as I am with others bidding like I did expecting an honest transaction. I've been on both sides of the scan ... ones that look too good and ones that are far from representative. I just don't want anyone else here to get screwed.

Arthur

XanaduNow

There's something to be said about an objective opinion. There's something even stronger to be said about an objective opinion from people you trust. Thank you.

Is this worth a neg? I don't think I've ever left a neg before but I'm not opposed to negging someone and getting one in return. Right is right.

Thanks,

Arthur

5STAT

here you go....I tweaked the brightness..got rid of a little contrast..and added a little gamma...NOTICE this took a little doing...not just a bad scan!!

here's the results....add this to photo shop...touch touch...and wham....

Nice touch

XanaduNow

I refuse to publicly post names but if you PM me I will tell you the seller.

Arthur

XanaduNow

<< <i>here you go....I tweaked the brightness..got rid of a little contrast..and added a little gamma...NOTICE this took a little doing...not just a bad scan!!

here's the results....add this to photo shop...touch touch...and wham....

Nice touch >>



Bruce, your linky no worky

Arthur

XanaduNow

I guess my point is this ...

The pictures on the top of this thread are (supposedly) of the same card. Accidents happen and I'll be the first to admit that I've made them. My question is ...

Do you feel that there's malice involved? Did someone take an active approach in doctoring a scan to make the product appear better than it is?

Side note: I nearly bought a high dollar item tonight from the same seller until I remembered the pic fix. If it is indeed intentional than we're talking about at least 2 grades below advertsied.

Thanks everybody for the input.

Arthur

earlycalguy

someone put effort into making that card look better. tough to call that one an accident

Cubfan

I dont think its the same card either. Ive had that happen before and the seller sometimes says that it was a stock picture and not a picture of the exact card. If he doesnt say that in the listing, I get my refund.

Elemenopeo

Arthur -- Do you have an update on this?

MorrellMan

I think it's the same card. The bottom extender of the "E" in your scan that appears obliterated in the auction scan is very faint even in your scan. The over-whitening would make it disappear. Look at the little line in the right border adjacent to his mouth. It's there in both cards.
JMHO....

edited to add: I'm referring to the "E" in Walter that Anthony pointed out.

XanaduNow

I think it's the same card. As many of you have pointed out the line through the name on the bottom is consistent. The other issue is whether or not the seller maliciously altered the picture to deceive the buyer?

I'm not exactly sure what course of action I have. It's almost impossible for me to tell if the scan in the auction was deliberately augmented or if it is just an honest, poor scanner. I wouldn't feel comfortable accusing him of anything without proof and there just simply is no way for me to prove it.

Any action taken on my part would be out of general principle since I got the card very cheap. I'm certainly not going to leave a neg but I am checking in on their auctions from time to time to see if all their scans appear to be flared out or if only some of them are. Depending on the price of future auctions I may even conduct some more comparisons assuming I can get the cards cheap enough.

I was pretty upset at first because I felt as though I had been deliberately deceived. The fact of the matter is that I paid probably under what the card is actually worth. So it would appear that my anger stemmed from my simply not getting a better deal, which just isn't right and I should know better.

The seller has good feedback and I've even read other posters on this forum say good things about their previous transactions with them. I think I may purchase another card from them (on the cheap) and then politely bring it up after I receive it to just inquire as to if their scan is poor or what. If it's their scanner, maybe they'll purchase a new one. If not, they know at least one person is hip to their game.

Not sure what else I can do.

Arthur

PS. On the bright side, I've resigned myself to the fact that my current eBay account will be my buying account so I am no longer afraid of relatiatory negs. It's quite a sense of freedom.