What I do know is that some new players have entered into the '78 market and jacked things up ... before it was Hatch way above the rest ... then me, TGF, dirtrap (Pristine Card Collection) ... and now Mintmoondog (Dan) is causing all sorts of ruckus and so is GuyerR who has a 10s only set above 40%.
So from what I can see more people are joining the party instead of leaving it ... and soon we'll be out of beer. >>
of course This is another thing that blows we away after barely having dipped a pinky toe back in ...... vintage? LOL .... this (and all of late 70's sets) were considered modern garbage as recent as 2006 when I was still all in. Not junk but modern crap if you know what I mean.
This was the same logic used by the guys buying 1997 Tiger Woods rookies for $10k and things of the like.
You're gambling on the staying power of PSA, not the hobby, the set, the player.... There was a time when an SGC 98 and GAI 10 sold for the same as a PSA 10. If a new, better grading company comes along or collectors simply get tired of grading companies, registries, etc...., the significant premium your low pop PSA 9s and 10s carry will be all but gone. Yes, a perfectly centered and sharp George Brett rookie will always sell for a ton of money. But will collectors still care about perfect no-name commons in 15 years? Who knows, but it is far from a certainty that there will be guys such as yourself and BBG hunting down complete high grade 70s sets down the road and willing to spend the coin you are. There is a reasonable chance that once you guys get out of the hunt there will be nobody to replace you and competition will significantly decrease. Or maybe more collectors will jump in the fray and your theory will prove true. Who knows, but while I think the hobby will continue to strive for another generation or so (until kids grow up and we die) I think it is faulty logic to assume that PSA slabs will always carry a big premium. Say PSA gets bought out and taken over by a company that mismanages it and they go down the same road as GAI; will your pop 1 PSA 10 75 mini common still be worth $1500? Will you have to cross it over to another company to regain that value? Will collectors stop caring about slabs at that point and all the TPG's will go under?
There is a lot that can happen for things to go either way for folks investing in slabs even if the hobby itself is able to maintain.
Lee >>
Good points, In regards to the Tiger cards - no one has argued against the potential of a bubble, and we have all lived through the 90s fiascos. In regards to the PSA gamble: there are four things to consider
A. Buyers strength long-term: this is the biggie to me. On the 1975 mini thread Jim (miniduffett) and I have talked about the idea that long-term card prices have to go down for no other reason than us old-farts dying off and the young guys growing up on Pokémon and Yugioh cards where is the buying going to come from? It is a legitimate question.
B. PSA specific. I am not worried about your points here. We are now sophisticated enough to not rely on PSA and if it changes in the future, we will be able to recalibrate which cards are pristine and what the general population is.
C. Fraud. There are two ways to look at this. 1. There are loads of high-end ungraded cards. I have done my personal calculations and I just don't think we will see any huge population explosion. The most critical factor in my analysis is the extremely low conversion rate of unopened and set cards to 9-10 grades. I have broken many vending/wax/rack from the 1970s and very few of them would warrant submission - and this is unopened! The only factor that concerns me is the potential for large numbers of uncut sheets to exist that can "under the right scalpel" change the populations dramatically. I don't really know what the answer is.
D. Provenance. This is our one saving grace! One investment that has had HUGE returns is authentic autographs (Einstien, Monroe, Lincoln etc.) Now, one has to assume fraud is 10 times more an issue with autographs than with cardboard. But, the known examples of authentic autographs are well known among the collecting community. Someone cant "suddenly" come up with 10 Einstein autographs without going through the provenance dance. This is coming very close to some of the sets I collect. One reason that the recent 1978 set did well, is we knew it was a major set-break, we could easily investigate to determine who it was from etc...similarly, the reason I have been such a consistent buyer of 1975 minis is that the collecting group is entirely transparent. Almost every top card is known and we also know who owns them! Any new major auctions will be immediately scrutinized regarding who it is from and where the cards came from. We are very near the point of complete provenance of the existing Mini population. The Conlon collection has nearly cleared. We know where most of the unopened cases reside etc..there are no more major surprises in this year (point C is my only concern). The mini 9 population should not increase more than 700-1000 per year the next couple years and will then go down significantly within 5 year. That is my analysis. Most of those 700-1000 are common 9s. I base my bids on that projection.
<< <i> A 'free market' is one where everyone is free to behave in any way they see fit; anything else represents a market distortion. You can argue that free markets don't always result in socially optimal outcomes, but that's a different argument entirely. >>
Methinks you misunderstand free market economics and the benefits of open competition. Adam Smith 1776 is a good start >>
Thanks for the tip; economics has always confused me. >>
ditto, phd level economics is 100% modeling and math. McAdams had the most important quote talking about oil trades. It is important to differentiate corn (efficient market), oil trades (semi-efficient market due to OPEC), and high end psa 9-10 collecting (inefficient market). Free market economies require 2 main things. 1. Large number of independent actors, 2. Independent actors acting in their own self interest. Under these conditions one can say the "market clears" The issue debated here is one that can be studied under game economic theory with few actors who can conceivably manipulate the markets (MLB baseball in the late 1980s). When there are from 2 to 5 major actors then free markets don't exist by definition. That is why card collecting should be seen first and second as a hobby, only churners (dealers) or 4SC who has access to Fritsch's hoard (my theory) can be assured of profits. IMO I look at my collection as a lifelong pursuit and hobby. But, I would not be investing in the high end cards if I did not see the probability of solid returns and diminishing supply looking 7-12 years out. Basically, my thinking is that it is better to buy these cards while they are relatively cheap than pursue them in 2025 when I am nearing retirement and they are much scarcer (market based scarcity not numbers based scarcity). I could be wrong and these all go the other way, but that is the fun of it. >>
Hi Henry,
I don't want to start the process of derailing this thread, so this will be my last post (publicly) on this topic. If you want to talk about further, however, I'll be happy to talk via PM.
A couple of points:
1) A free market economy is a term used for economies where investment, production and pricing decisions are not made by a centralized authority. That's really all it means (or, at least that's the context in which we used it when I was getting my master's in econ- I suppose it's possible that it's used to mean something different at other schools). So, to speak to the MLB example, that would still be an example of a free market, since agents are free to remove themselves from the cartel without fear of legal repercussions. The MLB owners chose to collude, and they were (are?) free to stop doing so. Compare this will North Korea or Russia, where individual agents in the economy have/had no freedom to try and set prices, or make investment and production decisions. If MLB itself-- i.e., a centralized authority-- had set wage caps for players, however, that would be an example of a market where free market principles were not in play.
We see this in the NFL draft, for example, where a centralized authority distributes labor and sets the wage level. I think this is completely unAmerican, which is why I support the abolition of all sports drafts. But this is different than what we saw in MLB in the 1980's.
2)What you're talking about when you talk about colluding buyers is not a violation of free market principles- it's a violation of the perfect competition principle. These are two distinct concepts. In a market that enjoys perfect competition, no single buyer has monopsony power, and no seller has any monopoly power, and marginal revenue= marginal cost for all services and commodities. According to classical micro theory such an economy would naturally produce the socially optimal quantity of all goods and services; however, perfect competition is nothing more than an ideal, since virtually all sellers have some monopoly power. The local 7-11 has monopoly power (albeit very little, in most cases), owing to the fact that it's the only convenience store operating in that specific location. Most brand names have monopoly power as well- i.e., they are able to charge more for their goods than the whatever the marginal cost of production is. In short, free markets almost always have distortions. This doesn't mean they aren't 'free'- it just means competition is imperfect.
3) There's nothing inefficient about the market for lightly traded PSA 10's- or, I should say, I don't see any inefficiencies at work ( I could be missing something). An efficient market is where the market price represents the best, unbiased estimate of the commodity in question by the market participants. Getting back to sports, for years the market for MLB players was besieged by inefficiencies because teams systematically underestimated the value of walks, overestimated the value of RBIs, and so on. Thus, the estimated true value for players was biased. If it turns out that everyone who is involved in the market for low pop PSA 10s is completely underestimating the effect that some economic force (future scarcity, or whatever) should have on the net present value of these cards then you would say that this market is inefficient, but I don't see where that's happening. In any case, the number of atomized agents who are participating in the market is not, by definition, a factor that affects the level of efficiency. There may only be three participants in the market for a given card- that doesn't mean the market is inefficient. Similarly, there may only be three participants in the market for the services of, say, CC Sabathia, but that doesn't mean that the price at which is labor is ultimately sold is inefficient.
Again, this is how these concepts were taught to me. It's possible that I misunderstood them, or that my professors were incorrect. In any case, if we're going to continue the discussion my thinking is that it's best done via PM, so that the thread isn't derailed.
I do agree that almost all economics that are conducted at the PhD level rely heavily on modeling and mathematics. I don't think that's a good thing, but it's certainly (by my reckoning) an accurate assessment of the state of economic thought.
Boopoots I felt like I was reading an economics text book. That was an amazing explanation. I am blown away that you can still break it down that way after years removed from school.
CDsNuts ... another chap I have not been privileged to say hey to in years. WHAT UP
Hey Dan, good to see you. How much do you think these guys would have liked to bust that untouched 78 rack we case we cracked several years back that yielded a couple hundred PSA 10s? We paid what for it, like $3k? Good times, I'll drink to that.
B. PSA specific. I am not worried about your points here. We are now sophisticated enough to not rely on PSA and if it changes in the future, we will be able to recalibrate which cards are pristine and what the general population is.
I guess my point on this is a chicken or the egg type of thing: are pristine cards commanding premiums because of TPG or are TPG's in demand because people are demanding pristine cards? I mean, truly MINT cards have always commanded premiums, but not at the levels we've seen since the PSA registry and not for cards that were considered otherwise common. It's not crazy to think that a pristine '75 common is worth $1500 because of PSA, and without PSA it goes back to having little value. So while you may not be worried about the market's ability to discern which cards are pristine, would collectors still want those cards without the existence of PSA?
<< <i>CDsNuts ... another chap I have not been privileged to say hey to in years. WHAT UP
Hey Dan, good to see you. How much do you think these guys would have liked to bust that untouched 78 rack we case we cracked several years back that yielded a couple hundred PSA 10s? We paid what for it, like $3k? Good times, I'll drink to that.
>>
Hold on to your hat. Rumors are that a couple gents right around here HAVE em. LOL, I don't care how hard it is to get now or how high the prices are when it comes along .... if I had it in my hands there would be empty wrappers blowing down my street.
<< <i>Boopoots I felt like I was reading an economics text book. That was an amazing explanation. I am blown away that you can still break it down that way after years removed from school.
Very impressive and very accurate. >>
Agreed, impressive indeed. Again, not entirely accurate. There is an important difference between a "free" market and an "efficient" market. The PSA 10 market cant be efficient by definition because the number of actors and the supply are too low for economic math to take hold. None of the free-market models can hold with such a low number. This is the basis of fair-warning to both buyer and seller as has been nicely debated on this thread. I also agree to end this discussion because it is off-track
PSA's business model is built on their approval rating.
That is not a bad thing either but it is reality. >>
As an aside, when we talk about a firm having monopoly power PSA may very well be the poster boy. If you believe (as I do) that monopoly power tends to erode over time then this should probably give heavy investors in PSA cards a bit of pause.
Edit to add: A pure monopoly is obviously different than a firm having monopoly power, and I'm no way arguing that PSA is a pure monopoly.
<< <i>If their approval rating can take a card from a $0.05 card to a $1,400 card I believe that suggests monopoly power. >>
I concur.
A bit OT, but I would love to have a thread dedicated to the 'economics of sportscards', since I think it's a market where so many of the accepted axioms and assumptions of microeconomics fail to have any significant traction (which is what makes the market so fascinating-- at least to me-- and fun to participate in).
Edit to add: Here's a good link on monopoly power for any lurkers out there who are curious.
<< <i>Conspicuous consumption. It defies basic micro economic theory.
You can't model ego. >>
I didn't see it- I'll be sure to check it out. My first thought, though, is that conspicuous consumption isn't necessarily a violation of basic micro theory, since market participants are still paying a price at which cost=marginal utility (though there could be other distortions at work that I haven't thought of).
Edit to add: I couldn't agree more that the effect of conspicuous consumption on price modeling is nearly impossible to accurately estimate, which is why we see such radical price swings in tough to find, high dollar cards.
You certainly found it's apotheosis when you came across that avatar! Every time I see that I want to change back to the Ted Haggard avatar. Maybe after a couple of beers..
Ego can drive prices further then basic economics can explain.
There are many purchases where you can model utility. Purchasing high end collectibles I do not believe you can.
If you take the T206 Honus Wagner for example. The most prized example went for $25,000 in 1985 to over $2.8 million in 2007. There is not a logical explanation. Inflation adjusted $25,000 in 1985 grew to 2007 is $48,174.26.
The known supply has stayed low for quite some time and very few new discoveries have happened in recent years.
With the known data in 1985 you could have never forecasted this outcome. What changed? Bragging rights and no one could have ever predicted the value placed on that would have grown by so much. In economic downturns many of these items are immune from major price declines because the bragging rights have not lost value. That is the part that utility analysis can party explain but not fully. How much of the price is driven by personal passion and not bragging rights? We don't know because that changes by each collector. At the core very few if any collect low pop cards just for internal personal satisfaction. The prices that exist would not exist if this was the only driver. For something in life to be valuable you need others to deem it to be valuable too.
Don't assume this is empty braggadocio- I've seen it. He actually can.
'Sir, I realize it's been difficult for you to sleep at night without your EX/MT 1977 Topps Tom Seaver, but I swear to you that you'll get it safe and sound.' -CDs Nuts, 1/20/14
I come from the school of ...... me want sport card, me get sport card.
My everyday life is consumed with enough everyday reality and who really wants to inject that into what was fun and good about being a kid. That is what this hobby is all about to me.
Thanks Paul, heading off to work...Sufferjet broke a nearly complete psa 9 1977 set (sold himself) a month ago. No 10s - for 14K and change. This 78 break did not seem out of line with the 77 break. This is in line with my observation that prices are moving north based on supply/demand rather than any "bubble", "speculation" or "ego"...uh, on the other hand, I was throwing bids all over the place on both setbreaks...but I hardly dominated the action - I lost more than I won on the key cards for both auctions.
This is more eye popping than the the 10's. To average 21 bucks over the span of 519 PSA 9 cards is unthinkable quite frankly. Even with the expected higher dollar specimens factored in.
The other reason micro economic theory doesn't perfectly apply to trading cards is that the demand for trading cards is elastic and yet there are cases where a Pop 2 sells for close to or more then the first.
The second PSA 10 1986 Browns Boxing Evander Holyfield sold for $510 and was within $10 of the prior selling price. I think it was the same but I am not sure. That being said the supply rose by 100% and the price was essentially even. That is rare with elastic demand driven items.
Elastic demand is the percentage change in quantity demanded is greater then the percentage change in price. Gas for example has inelastic demand. If the price rises by 10% then the quantity demanded might only fall by 3% because there are no close substitutes. Trading cards are so much different and have elastic demand. There are tons of close substitutes. If someone really wants an example of an actively traded card they must just go down in grade to purchase one.
<< <i> While I was entering in the date in my spreadsheet (bursting capillaries in my eyes going back and forth from Excel to ebay) I noticed there were many 9s that were just out of control ... and some 10s that went for literally 10 times what they sold for last ... namely card #726:
That is all the information you need...almost 3 years between sales. Last sale was August 2010 This has a huge impact on demand. I've seen this across the board.
<< <i>As a general rule we try to stay out of the message boards because we feel they should be dominated by buyers/collections who are allowed to communicate freely, without intervention from sellers, dealers, auction houses, etc.
In rare cases we do feel a need to respond, most often when claims are made that simply warrant a response. To not respond may somehow suggest we condone slanderous comments, which of course we do not.
In particular, we are writing in response to baseless claims that we somehow are manipulating our scans. Such accusations are ridiculous and I ask that folks please remain substantive in their accusations of any company (not just PWCC). We are not altering our scans, in fact we go to great length to ensure the images we provide are as close to life-like as humanly possible. Obviously, if we were altering images we'd have plenty of upset buyers... right? Aside from the obvious moral objection associated with this level of misrepresentation, the shear workload associated with having to manipulate scans would be stagging. So even if you don't trust us personally, perhaps you can trust the practical impossibility of such an accusation.
The other topic I'd like to comment on is more general and it regards the overarching negativity that seems to stir around honesty and the hobby. As a fellow collector, I absolutely identify with the frustrations we've all felt from the past with various signs of impropriety. No doubt, history has shown a good number instances related to bid manipulations and other forms of fraud in the hobby... I get it. That said, we at PWCC have worked tirelessly to distance ourselves from these issues and feel we offer the single cleanest, most transparent auction venue in the hobby. We don't own the eBay software so we don't know the bid amounts, bidder IDs are available to the world with bid statistics, and our auctions are actively monitored by eBay trust and safety for improper bid retractions and various other activities from non-reputable members, etc. We ask that folks reach out to us directly if any signs of impropriety are detected and while these concerns are almost always explained, we always respond and address every concern in earnest.
The hobby is very strong these days and record prices are being realized on a regular basis (across the entire hobby; not just in our auctions). I ask that folks please exercise reason before posting slanderous comments about any company. For PWCC in particular, I ask that you please reach out to us directly (and post to this message board if required) but please give us a chance to address concerns directly. Our contact information is below.
Thanks to everyone who's an active member on this board; this is a very important part of the hobby.
You sir are a flat out liar! I also admire your professional tact... instead of simply messaging me (whereas you ask us to please contact you directly) to resolve my factual observation (albeit, I still gave you praise)... you in turn do two things: 1) come here, lie to us, and 2) research enough to determine my eBay identity and then block me from purchasing from you. My apologies if all my past business with you has only resulted in 100% fast payment and positive feedback left for each and every transaction!
You want substantive??? here you go...
The last card I purchased from you before being blocked
Flip magnified
Card top border magnified
You profit from your venture as a consignor... to accuse us, the common buyers... of being stupid enough to believe you, at your word, that you don't have the time to doctor scans as it would be practically impossible... even though your profit motives would spit in the face of such logic... well, shame on you!
Maybe you are being truthful, in which case, I mercifully apologize and beg you to please share with the collecting community exactly what scanner and/or digital camera model you are using that adds perfectly formed rectangular sections of enhanced color to your images where they might otherwise be fuzzy, faded, distorted, etc. I mean, heck, I want to buy me that sweet, sweet technology!!!
PS - Thank you for blocking me, you character/integrity displayed here (or lack there of), is more than enough of a wake up call for me to realize maybe you are not one I care to do business with any longer anyway!
Eric (epatmythes), I appreciate you looking out for us as collectors, but I don't see any evidence of scan manipulation in the examples you posted. The perfectly formed squares of color you mention do not look like doctoring, but could be from PWCC's image/scanner program compressing the images. Also, the card you post is a PSA 10, which should have some fairly sharp corners/edges to begin with, so it's hard to judge if the scan has been manipulated in those areas (unless you have a comparison scan that you performed which shows differences).
Not saying you don't have a case, just that you haven't presented much evidence.
In other news, and pertaining to PWCC's auctions, I thought it was interesting that the buyer for the 1964 Wilson Franks auctioned off by PWCC has relisted the card on eBay with a reserve. Normally not a big deal, however the buyer hasn't apparently paid for the card yet, as shown by his feedback (or lack thereof by PWCC recently).
like i said, in my original post on page one... I've had no problems with the product I received from them in the past... very happy with the items.
I guess I just chose to revisit tonight as I was surprised to attempt bidding on one of their items... only to find I was blocked. Only then did I come back to this thread and see their reply.
I also find it interesting that many of their newly listed auctions (originally listed since this thread)... still show nice crystal clear scans, but no longer show the tell-tale signs of image manipulation.
Here is the flip from the auction I attempted to bid on tonight... massive difference
Maybe I'm wrong, I don't think so... but it wouldn't be the first time... but, messing with image compression to get a better than normal result is still manipulation (or at the least, artificually enhancement)
Hi Eric- It's probably just me that is having a hard time following along here, so forgive my questions if the answers are already obvious. But I don't really understand what you're saying that PWCC is doing to their scans? I viewed your Mike Trout photos above and I have no idea what it is supposedly wrong with the photos.
Maybe I'm wrong, I don't think so... but it wouldn't be the first time... but, messing with image compression to get a better than normal result is still manipulation (or at the least, artificially enhancement)
I think you are dead wrong. When I scan cards to list I have my scanner software automatically reduce every scan to 70% of full scale- does that mean I'm manipulating my scans to hide flaws? I also automatically have the brightness and contrast increased by 5% because I feel my scans come out "dull" and this enhancement gives a better representation of what the card looks like in-hand. Are any flaws being concealed? No.
Every scanner is going to spit out a different image of the same card- some will be brighter, some will be more pixelated, etc.... The goal should be to for a pic to give the best representation of what the card looks like in-hand while not intentionally trying to hide any flaws. Examples would be to shave off or add to a border to make the card look better centered, brightening a scan to cover up fading or dirt on the card, etc... By your definition probably 75% or more ebay card sellers "doctor" their scans.
Hey Eric, I honestly don't see the problem with the PWCC scans. IMO I believe there is a substantial difference between enhancement and manipulation. To me, using restaurant jargon, it is equivalent to the difference between "plating" the food or selling salmon eggs when you advertise caviar. I am sure the sellers appreciate the extra effort that PWCC makes. I know you are/were steamed but I would suggest you self edit your initial post because you probably don't want to escalate this and I am sure there will come a day when you really want to hit up one of their auctions. I really do not see them as one of the bad guys. There are plenty of those around. Henry
1) I'm not, and never did, say they were manipulating images to hide flaws. I initially only mentioned that they appeared to manipulate the scans to make them look better... and by doing so, maybe that had "some" contribution to their higher sale prices.
2) If it is jpeg compression... well, I've tried every trick I know and I cannot duplicate their results using my scanner settings or attempting to manipulate with Photoshop. If it is just compression, fine, I'm wrong... wouldn't be the first time!
3) Again, I've never had a problem with anything I've purchased from them... and yes, I was peeved last night to find that they blocked me.
4) Lastly,for those of you who claim not to see the differences I'm referring to in the scans I've provided. To see emptiness and/or modification in a digital image... you can try the LCD display angle test or the picture of a picture test... or a combination of both to help magnify what I'm seeing. I've attempted to do that... (I've done zero modification to the coloring of these images, I simply enlarged the original images and took a picture of them with my monitor angled back a little)
The flip from the last card I won from them...
The flip from the card I attempted to bid on last night from them...
Now, in all fairness, in running this test, I am more apt to believe that it is possibly more manipulation via settings than it is intentional image manipulation... but clearly, in the earlier example, white's (in large chunks) are undistorted, clean as can be, massivley improved renderings of the canvas.
It's not a slight difference... it's a huge difference in the presentation of the item!
Now for the sake of argument, let's say that it is "compression"... clearly, it "corrects" imperfections in the image when similar colors are closely grouped together over some determined amount of area. I used the flip in these examples, as they contain the most vast area of white space... but the same effect would be found in solid color card borders, solid and/or near solid color card image backgrounds, etc. In fact, I find the same artificial whitening in the borders of the Trout card I did purchase... it's just hard to try to show here in images (I attempted above, but I guess some can't see the same thing I'm seeing).
First, let me say that I have no skin in this game. I do a lot of photo editing and without a doubt the 1st image has been "cleaned". No scanner is going to give you an image like that. One would have to assume that if they went to the trouble of cleaning the flip, they would also go through the trouble of cleaning the card also.
Even if you are right- and who the hell knows if you are- "presenting the item in the best possible light" and "manipulating the appearance of the item" are two very, very different things. I haven't seen anything that would indicate that the seller is manipulating the appearance of the item.
Also, if you were that upset about this supposed deception...... why in the world would you be upset that he blocked you?
'Sir, I realize it's been difficult for you to sleep at night without your EX/MT 1977 Topps Tom Seaver, but I swear to you that you'll get it safe and sound.' -CDs Nuts, 1/20/14
<< <i>Even if you are right- and who the hell knows if you are- "presenting the item in the best possible light" and "manipulating the appearance of the item" are two very, very different things. I haven't seen anything that would indicate that the seller is manipulating the appearance of the item.
Also, if you were that upset about this supposed deception...... why in the world would you be upset that he blocked you? >>
That's easy to answer...
I've never, then or now, claimed to be upset about this supposed deception!
Go back to page 1, post #6... This thread was about their amazing closing prices... I merely hypothesized that maybe they were getting higher prices than other because the manipulation done to their images made the items they were selling "appear" better than other comparable examples on eBay. I never, never, never intended to imply that they were doctoring images to hide flaws and/or imperfections (if people have read into it that way, I apologize, that was not my intent)... yet, I got blocked anyway.
IMO the "better" scans have little to do with the final price -- of course auctions with very poor scans generally produce relatively poor results.
Anyone who does not see the chronic shill bidding associated with PWCC auctions is either a) not looking or b) does not care
I'm not saying that PWCC bids on its own items or promotes shilling by its consigners -- but it clearly is a common occurrence and it appears that PWCC has made no effort to curb / stop it.
<< <i>Even if you are right- and who the hell knows if you are- "presenting the item in the best possible light" and "manipulating the appearance of the item" are two very, very different things. I haven't seen anything that would indicate that the seller is manipulating the appearance of the item.
Also, if you were that upset about this supposed deception...... why in the world would you be upset that he blocked you? >>
That's easy to answer...
I've never, then or now, claimed to be upset about this supposed deception!
Go back to page 1, post #6... This thread was about their amazing closing prices... I merely hypothesized that maybe they were getting higher prices than other because the manipulation done to their images made the items they were selling "appear" better than other comparable examples on eBay. I never, never, never intended to imply that they were doctoring images to hide flaws and/or imperfections (if people have read into it that way, I apologize, that was not my intent)... yet, I got blocked anyway. >>
Well, maybe if you call him and talk it out with him he'll unblock you. I wouldn't be surprised if he did.
'Sir, I realize it's been difficult for you to sleep at night without your EX/MT 1977 Topps Tom Seaver, but I swear to you that you'll get it safe and sound.' -CDs Nuts, 1/20/14
Comments
<< <i>Yes Lee, life is full of uncertainty.
What I do know is that some new players have entered into the '78 market and jacked things up ... before it was Hatch way above the rest ... then me, TGF, dirtrap (Pristine Card Collection) ... and now Mintmoondog (Dan) is causing all sorts of ruckus
So from what I can see more people are joining the party instead of leaving it ... and soon we'll be out of beer. >>
we will never be out of beer. Sir.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
I meant "vintage" beer
of course
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
This was the same logic used by the guys buying 1997 Tiger Woods rookies for $10k and things of the like.
You're gambling on the staying power of PSA, not the hobby, the set, the player.... There was a time when an SGC 98 and GAI 10 sold for the same as a PSA 10. If a new, better grading company comes along or collectors simply get tired of grading companies, registries, etc...., the significant premium your low pop PSA 9s and 10s carry will be all but gone. Yes, a perfectly centered and sharp George Brett rookie will always sell for a ton of money. But will collectors still care about perfect no-name commons in 15 years? Who knows, but it is far from a certainty that there will be guys such as yourself and BBG hunting down complete high grade 70s sets down the road and willing to spend the coin you are. There is a reasonable chance that once you guys get out of the hunt there will be nobody to replace you and competition will significantly decrease. Or maybe more collectors will jump in the fray and your theory will prove true. Who knows, but while I think the hobby will continue to strive for another generation or so (until kids grow up and we die) I think it is faulty logic to assume that PSA slabs will always carry a big premium. Say PSA gets bought out and taken over by a company that mismanages it and they go down the same road as GAI; will your pop 1 PSA 10 75 mini common still be worth $1500? Will you have to cross it over to another company to regain that value? Will collectors stop caring about slabs at that point and all the TPG's will go under?
There is a lot that can happen for things to go either way for folks investing in slabs even if the hobby itself is able to maintain.
Lee >>
Good points,
In regards to the Tiger cards - no one has argued against the potential of a bubble, and we have all lived through the 90s fiascos.
In regards to the PSA gamble: there are four things to consider
A. Buyers strength long-term: this is the biggie to me. On the 1975 mini thread Jim (miniduffett) and I have talked about the idea that long-term card prices have to go down for no other reason than us old-farts dying off and the young guys growing up on Pokémon and Yugioh cards
B. PSA specific. I am not worried about your points here. We are now sophisticated enough to not rely on PSA and if it changes in the future, we will be able to recalibrate which cards are pristine and what the general population is.
C. Fraud. There are two ways to look at this. 1. There are loads of high-end ungraded cards. I have done my personal calculations and I just don't think we will see any huge population explosion. The most critical factor in my analysis is the extremely low conversion rate of unopened and set cards to 9-10 grades. I have broken many vending/wax/rack from the 1970s and very few of them would warrant submission - and this is unopened! The only factor that concerns me is the potential for large numbers of uncut sheets to exist that can "under the right scalpel" change the populations dramatically. I don't really know what the answer is.
D. Provenance. This is our one saving grace! One investment that has had HUGE returns is authentic autographs (Einstien, Monroe, Lincoln etc.) Now, one has to assume fraud is 10 times more an issue with autographs than with cardboard. But, the known examples of authentic autographs are well known among the collecting community. Someone cant "suddenly" come up with 10 Einstein autographs without going through the provenance dance. This is coming very close to some of the sets I collect. One reason that the recent 1978 set did well, is we knew it was a major set-break, we could easily investigate to determine who it was from etc...similarly, the reason I have been such a consistent buyer of 1975 minis is that the collecting group is entirely transparent. Almost every top card is known and we also know who owns them! Any new major auctions will be immediately scrutinized regarding who it is from and where the cards came from. We are very near the point of complete provenance of the existing Mini population. The Conlon collection has nearly cleared. We know where most of the unopened cases reside etc..there are no more major surprises in this year (point C is my only concern). The mini 9 population should not increase more than 700-1000 per year the next couple years and will then go down significantly within 5 year. That is my analysis. Most of those 700-1000 are common 9s. I base my bids on that projection.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> A 'free market' is one where everyone is free to behave in any way they see fit; anything else represents a market distortion. You can argue that free markets don't always result in socially optimal outcomes, but that's a different argument entirely. >>
Methinks you misunderstand free market economics and the benefits of open competition. Adam Smith 1776 is a good start >>
Thanks for the tip; economics has always confused me. >>
IMO I look at my collection as a lifelong pursuit and hobby. But, I would not be investing in the high end cards if I did not see the probability of solid returns and diminishing supply looking 7-12 years out. Basically, my thinking is that it is better to buy these cards while they are relatively cheap than pursue them in 2025 when I am nearing retirement and they are much scarcer (market based scarcity not numbers based scarcity). I could be wrong and these all go the other way, but that is the fun of it. >>
Hi Henry,
I don't want to start the process of derailing this thread, so this will be my last post (publicly) on this topic. If you want to talk about further, however, I'll be happy to talk via PM.
A couple of points:
1) A free market economy is a term used for economies where investment, production and pricing decisions are not made by a centralized authority. That's really all it means (or, at least that's the context in which we used it when I was getting my master's in econ- I suppose it's possible that it's used to mean something different at other schools). So, to speak to the MLB example, that would still be an example of a free market, since agents are free to remove themselves from the cartel without fear of legal repercussions. The MLB owners chose to collude, and they were (are?) free to stop doing so. Compare this will North Korea or Russia, where individual agents in the economy have/had no freedom to try and set prices, or make investment and production decisions. If MLB itself-- i.e., a centralized authority-- had set wage caps for players, however, that would be an example of a market where free market principles were not in play.
We see this in the NFL draft, for example, where a centralized authority distributes labor and sets the wage level. I think this is completely unAmerican, which is why I support the abolition of all sports drafts. But this is different than what we saw in MLB in the 1980's.
2)What you're talking about when you talk about colluding buyers is not a violation of free market principles- it's a violation of the perfect competition principle. These are two distinct concepts. In a market that enjoys perfect competition, no single buyer has monopsony power, and no seller has any monopoly power, and marginal revenue= marginal cost for all services and commodities. According to classical micro theory such an economy would naturally produce the socially optimal quantity of all goods and services; however, perfect competition is nothing more than an ideal, since virtually all sellers have some monopoly power. The local 7-11 has monopoly power (albeit very little, in most cases), owing to the fact that it's the only convenience store operating in that specific location. Most brand names have monopoly power as well- i.e., they are able to charge more for their goods than the whatever the marginal cost of production is. In short, free markets almost always have distortions. This doesn't mean they aren't 'free'- it just means competition is imperfect.
3) There's nothing inefficient about the market for lightly traded PSA 10's- or, I should say, I don't see any inefficiencies at work ( I could be missing something). An efficient market is where the market price represents the best, unbiased estimate of the commodity in question by the market participants. Getting back to sports, for years the market for MLB players was besieged by inefficiencies because teams systematically underestimated the value of walks, overestimated the value of RBIs, and so on. Thus, the estimated true value for players was biased. If it turns out that everyone who is involved in the market for low pop PSA 10s is completely underestimating the effect that some economic force (future scarcity, or whatever) should have on the net present value of these cards then you would say that this market is inefficient, but I don't see where that's happening. In any case, the number of atomized agents who are participating in the market is not, by definition, a factor that affects the level of efficiency. There may only be three participants in the market for a given card- that doesn't mean the market is inefficient. Similarly, there may only be three participants in the market for the services of, say, CC Sabathia, but that doesn't mean that the price at which is labor is ultimately sold is inefficient.
Again, this is how these concepts were taught to me. It's possible that I misunderstood them, or that my professors were incorrect. In any case, if we're going to continue the discussion my thinking is that it's best done via PM, so that the thread isn't derailed.
I do agree that almost all economics that are conducted at the PhD level rely heavily on modeling and mathematics. I don't think that's a good thing, but it's certainly (by my reckoning) an accurate assessment of the state of economic thought.
Very impressive and very accurate.
Hey Dan, good to see you. How much do you think these guys would have liked to bust that untouched 78 rack we case we cracked several years back that yielded a couple hundred PSA 10s? We paid what for it, like $3k? Good times, I'll drink to that.
B. PSA specific. I am not worried about your points here. We are now sophisticated enough to not rely on PSA and if it changes in the future, we will be able to recalibrate which cards are pristine and what the general population is.
I guess my point on this is a chicken or the egg type of thing: are pristine cards commanding premiums because of TPG or are TPG's in demand because people are demanding pristine cards? I mean, truly MINT cards have always commanded premiums, but not at the levels we've seen since the PSA registry and not for cards that were considered otherwise common. It's not crazy to think that a pristine '75 common is worth $1500 because of PSA, and without PSA it goes back to having little value. So while you may not be worried about the market's ability to discern which cards are pristine, would collectors still want those cards without the existence of PSA?
<< <i>CDsNuts ... another chap I have not been privileged to say hey to in years. WHAT UP
Hey Dan, good to see you. How much do you think these guys would have liked to bust that untouched 78 rack we case we cracked several years back that yielded a couple hundred PSA 10s? We paid what for it, like $3k? Good times, I'll drink to that.
>>
Hold on to your hat. Rumors are that a couple gents right around here HAVE em. LOL, I don't care how hard it is to get now or how high the prices are when it comes along .... if I had it in my hands there would be empty wrappers blowing down my street.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>Boopoots I felt like I was reading an economics text book. That was an amazing explanation. I am blown away that you can still break it down that way after years removed from school.
Very impressive and very accurate. >>
Agreed, impressive indeed. Again, not entirely accurate. There is an important difference between a "free" market and an "efficient" market. The PSA 10 market cant be efficient by definition because the number of actors and the supply are too low for economic math to take hold. None of the free-market models can hold with such a low number. This is the basis of fair-warning to both buyer and seller as has been nicely debated on this thread. I also agree to end this discussion because it is off-track
PSA's business model is built on their approval rating.
That is not a bad thing either but it is reality.
<< <i>No.
PSA's business model is built on their approval rating.
That is not a bad thing either but it is reality. >>
As an aside, when we talk about a firm having monopoly power PSA may very well be the poster boy. If you believe (as I do) that monopoly power tends to erode over time then this should probably give heavy investors in PSA cards a bit of pause.
Edit to add: A pure monopoly is obviously different than a firm having monopoly power, and I'm no way arguing that PSA is a pure monopoly.
If their approval rating can take a card from a $0.05 card to a $1,400 card I believe that suggests monopoly power.
<< <i>If their approval rating can take a card from a $0.05 card to a $1,400 card I believe that suggests monopoly power. >>
I concur.
A bit OT, but I would love to have a thread dedicated to the 'economics of sportscards', since I think it's a market where so many of the accepted axioms and assumptions of microeconomics fail to have any significant traction (which is what makes the market so fascinating-- at least to me-- and fun to participate in).
Edit to add: Here's a
good link on monopoly power for any lurkers out there who are curious.
You can't model ego.
<< <i>Conspicuous consumption. It defies basic micro economic theory.
You can't model ego. >>
I didn't see it- I'll be sure to check it out. My first thought, though, is that conspicuous consumption isn't necessarily a violation of basic micro theory, since market participants are still paying a price at which cost=marginal utility (though there could be other distortions at work that I haven't thought of).
Edit to add: I couldn't agree more that the effect of conspicuous consumption on price modeling is nearly impossible to accurately estimate, which is why we see such radical price swings in tough to find, high dollar cards.
I can, and will.
<< <i>You can't model ego.
I can, and will. >>
You certainly found it's apotheosis when you came across that avatar! Every time I see that I want to change back to the Ted Haggard avatar. Maybe after a couple of beers..
There are many purchases where you can model utility. Purchasing high end collectibles I do not believe you can.
If you take the T206 Honus Wagner for example. The most prized example went for $25,000 in 1985 to over $2.8 million in 2007. There is not a logical explanation. Inflation adjusted $25,000 in 1985 grew to 2007 is $48,174.26.
The known supply has stayed low for quite some time and very few new discoveries have happened in recent years.
With the known data in 1985 you could have never forecasted this outcome. What changed? Bragging rights and no one could have ever predicted the value placed on that would have grown by so much. In economic downturns many of these items are immune from major price declines because the bragging rights have not lost value. That is the part that utility analysis can party explain but not fully. How much of the price is driven by personal passion and not bragging rights? We don't know because that changes by each collector. At the core very few if any collect low pop cards just for internal personal satisfaction. The prices that exist would not exist if this was the only driver. For something in life to be valuable you need others to deem it to be valuable too.
<< <i>You can't model ego.
I can, and will. >>
Don't assume this is empty braggadocio- I've seen it. He actually can.
-CDs Nuts, 1/20/14
*1956 Topps baseball- 97.4% complete, 7.24 GPA
*Clemente basic set: 85.0% complete, 7.89 GPA
My everyday life is consumed with enough everyday reality and who really wants to inject that into what was fun and good about being a kid. That is what this hobby is all about to me.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
WOW
<< <i>If the average PSA 10 sold for $50.98, then the non average PSA 10's skewed that data tremendously to take the average price per card to $80.95.
WOW >>
I don't think 21600/727=80. Looks like a small math glitch. But you're right in that $21K seems like a healthy total.
This number makes more since.
<< <i>
PSA 9 (count, total, average)
519
$11,203.45
$21.59
>>
This is more eye popping than the the 10's. To average 21 bucks over the span of 519 PSA 9 cards is unthinkable quite frankly. Even with the expected higher dollar specimens factored in.
AMAZING
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
The second PSA 10 1986 Browns Boxing Evander Holyfield sold for $510 and was within $10 of the prior selling price. I think it was the same but I am not sure. That being said the supply rose by 100% and the price was essentially even. That is rare with elastic demand driven items.
Elastic demand is the percentage change in quantity demanded is greater then the percentage change in price. Gas for example has inelastic demand. If the price rises by 10% then the quantity demanded might only fall by 3% because there are no close substitutes. Trading cards are so much different and have elastic demand. There are tons of close substitutes. If someone really wants an example of an actively traded card they must just go down in grade to purchase one.
<< <i>
While I was entering in the date in my spreadsheet (bursting capillaries in my eyes going back and forth from Excel to ebay) I noticed there were many 9s that were just out of control ... and some 10s that went for literally 10 times what they sold for last ... namely card #726:
4/10/13 eBay Auction | Image prewarcardcollector y***r 19 $224.50
8/17/10 eBay Image sandlotauctions o***6 1 $20.00
7/25/10 eBay Image higbees.com i***p 4 $48.00
9/24/09 eBay Image daleytho e***b 4 $42.00
4/21/08 eBay Image consignmints senileman 5 $25.28
1/15/08 eBay Image adtcards booksonthegulf 6 $27.78
5/8/07 eBay $49.95
Thankfully I got mine for $42 back in '09. >>
There is pop of 11. Flat out amazing. Did Wilbur Wood buy this one himself?
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
<< <i>If the average PSA 10 sold for $50.98, then the non average PSA 10's skewed that data tremendously to take the average price per card to $80.95.
WOW >>
I don't think 21600/727=80. Looks like a small math glitch. But you're right in that $21K seems like a healthy total. >>
Guy, I been having trouble trying to figure this out below. Any chance You could help?
If 1/2x +1/2(1/2x + 1/2(1/2x +1/2(1/2x + ... = y,
then x = ?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If the average PSA 10 sold for $50.98, then the non average PSA 10's skewed that data tremendously to take the average price per card to $80.95.
WOW >>
I don't think 21600/727=80. Looks like a small math glitch. But you're right in that $21K seems like a healthy total. >>
Guy, I been having trouble trying to figure this out below. Any chance You could help?
If 1/2x +1/2(1/2x + 1/2(1/2x +1/2(1/2x + ... = y,
then x = ? >>
Just pulled out the pencil and legal pad, Paul, and hashed it out. Looks like x=
<< <i>
4/10/13 eBay Auction | Image prewarcardcollector y***r 19 $224.50
8/17/10 eBay Image sandlotauctions o***6 1 $20.00 >>
That is all the information you need...almost 3 years between sales. Last sale was August 2010 This has a huge impact on demand. I've seen this across the board.
Using prices that are three years old right now is really a bad strategy. They in many cases are irrelevant.
Nick
<< <i>As a general rule we try to stay out of the message boards because we feel they should be dominated by buyers/collections who are allowed to communicate freely, without intervention from sellers, dealers, auction houses, etc.
In rare cases we do feel a need to respond, most often when claims are made that simply warrant a response. To not respond may somehow suggest we condone slanderous comments, which of course we do not.
In particular, we are writing in response to baseless claims that we somehow are manipulating our scans. Such accusations are ridiculous and I ask that folks please remain substantive in their accusations of any company (not just PWCC). We are not altering our scans, in fact we go to great length to ensure the images we provide are as close to life-like as humanly possible. Obviously, if we were altering images we'd have plenty of upset buyers... right? Aside from the obvious moral objection associated with this level of misrepresentation, the shear workload associated with having to manipulate scans would be stagging. So even if you don't trust us personally, perhaps you can trust the practical impossibility of such an accusation.
The other topic I'd like to comment on is more general and it regards the overarching negativity that seems to stir around honesty and the hobby. As a fellow collector, I absolutely identify with the frustrations we've all felt from the past with various signs of impropriety. No doubt, history has shown a good number instances related to bid manipulations and other forms of fraud in the hobby... I get it. That said, we at PWCC have worked tirelessly to distance ourselves from these issues and feel we offer the single cleanest, most transparent auction venue in the hobby. We don't own the eBay software so we don't know the bid amounts, bidder IDs are available to the world with bid statistics, and our auctions are actively monitored by eBay trust and safety for improper bid retractions and various other activities from non-reputable members, etc. We ask that folks reach out to us directly if any signs of impropriety are detected and while these concerns are almost always explained, we always respond and address every concern in earnest.
The hobby is very strong these days and record prices are being realized on a regular basis (across the entire hobby; not just in our auctions). I ask that folks please exercise reason before posting slanderous comments about any company. For PWCC in particular, I ask that you please reach out to us directly (and post to this message board if required) but please give us a chance to address concerns directly. Our contact information is below.
Thanks to everyone who's an active member on this board; this is a very important part of the hobby.
Brent Huigens
PWCC Auctions
brent@pwccauctions.com
510-725-7853 >>
You sir are a flat out liar! I also admire your professional tact... instead of simply messaging me (whereas you ask us to please contact you directly) to resolve my factual observation (albeit, I still gave you praise)... you in turn do two things: 1) come here, lie to us, and 2) research enough to determine my eBay identity and then block me from purchasing from you. My apologies if all my past business with you has only resulted in 100% fast payment and positive feedback left for each and every transaction!
You want substantive??? here you go...
The last card I purchased from you before being blocked
Flip magnified
Card top border magnified
You profit from your venture as a consignor... to accuse us, the common buyers... of being stupid enough to believe you, at your word, that you don't have the time to doctor scans as it would be practically impossible... even though your profit motives would spit in the face of such logic... well, shame on you!
Maybe you are being truthful, in which case, I mercifully apologize and beg you to please share with the collecting community exactly what scanner and/or digital camera model you are using that adds perfectly formed rectangular sections of enhanced color to your images where they might otherwise be fuzzy, faded, distorted, etc. I mean, heck, I want to buy me that sweet, sweet technology!!!
PS - Thank you for blocking me, you character/integrity displayed here (or lack there of), is more than enough of a wake up call for me to realize maybe you are not one I care to do business with any longer anyway!
Well wishes of success... cheers!
I've never blown money on stuff from PWCC because anyone that goes to the trouble of altering a flip, well, what are they doing to the card?
Not saying you don't have a case, just that you haven't presented much evidence.
Original auction
Up again for sale
I guess I just chose to revisit tonight as I was surprised to attempt bidding on one of their items... only to find I was blocked. Only then did I come back to this thread and see their reply.
I also find it interesting that many of their newly listed auctions (originally listed since this thread)... still show nice crystal clear scans, but no longer show the tell-tale signs of image manipulation.
Here is the flip from the auction I attempted to bid on tonight... massive difference
Maybe I'm wrong, I don't think so... but it wouldn't be the first time... but, messing with image compression to get a better than normal result is still manipulation (or at the least, artificually enhancement)
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
I think you are dead wrong. When I scan cards to list I have my scanner software automatically reduce every scan to 70% of full scale- does that mean I'm manipulating my scans to hide flaws? I also automatically have the brightness and contrast increased by 5% because I feel my scans come out "dull" and this enhancement gives a better representation of what the card looks like in-hand. Are any flaws being concealed? No.
Every scanner is going to spit out a different image of the same card- some will be brighter, some will be more pixelated, etc.... The goal should be to for a pic to give the best representation of what the card looks like in-hand while not intentionally trying to hide any flaws. Examples would be to shave off or add to a border to make the card look better centered, brightening a scan to cover up fading or dirt on the card, etc... By your definition probably 75% or more ebay card sellers "doctor" their scans.
I honestly don't see the problem with the PWCC scans. IMO I believe there is a substantial difference between enhancement and manipulation. To me, using restaurant jargon, it is equivalent to the difference between "plating" the food or selling salmon eggs when you advertise caviar. I am sure the sellers appreciate the extra effort that PWCC makes.
I know you are/were steamed but I would suggest you self edit your initial post because you probably don't want to escalate this and I am sure there will come a day when you really want to hit up one of their auctions. I really do not see them as one of the bad guys. There are plenty of those around.
Henry
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
2) If it is jpeg compression... well, I've tried every trick I know and I cannot duplicate their results using my scanner settings or attempting to manipulate with Photoshop. If it is just compression, fine, I'm wrong... wouldn't be the first time!
3) Again, I've never had a problem with anything I've purchased from them... and yes, I was peeved last night to find that they blocked me.
4) Lastly,for those of you who claim not to see the differences I'm referring to in the scans I've provided. To see emptiness and/or modification in a digital image... you can try the LCD display angle test or the picture of a picture test... or a combination of both to help magnify what I'm seeing. I've attempted to do that... (I've done zero modification to the coloring of these images, I simply enlarged the original images and took a picture of them with my monitor angled back a little)
The flip from the last card I won from them...
The flip from the card I attempted to bid on last night from them...
Now, in all fairness, in running this test, I am more apt to believe that it is possibly more manipulation via settings than it is intentional image manipulation... but clearly, in the earlier example, white's (in large chunks) are undistorted, clean as can be, massivley improved renderings of the canvas.
It's not a slight difference... it's a huge difference in the presentation of the item!
Now for the sake of argument, let's say that it is "compression"... clearly, it "corrects" imperfections in the image when similar colors are closely grouped together over some determined amount of area. I used the flip in these examples, as they contain the most vast area of white space... but the same effect would be found in solid color card borders, solid and/or near solid color card image backgrounds, etc. In fact, I find the same artificial whitening in the borders of the Trout card I did purchase... it's just hard to try to show here in images (I attempted above, but I guess some can't see the same thing I'm seeing).
Also, if you were that upset about this supposed deception...... why in the world would you be upset that he blocked you?
-CDs Nuts, 1/20/14
*1956 Topps baseball- 97.4% complete, 7.24 GPA
*Clemente basic set: 85.0% complete, 7.89 GPA
<< <i>Even if you are right- and who the hell knows if you are- "presenting the item in the best possible light" and "manipulating the appearance of the item" are two very, very different things. I haven't seen anything that would indicate that the seller is manipulating the appearance of the item.
Also, if you were that upset about this supposed deception...... why in the world would you be upset that he blocked you? >>
That's easy to answer...
I've never, then or now, claimed to be upset about this supposed deception!
Go back to page 1, post #6... This thread was about their amazing closing prices... I merely hypothesized that maybe they were getting higher prices than other because the manipulation done to their images made the items they were selling "appear" better than other comparable examples on eBay. I never, never, never intended to imply that they were doctoring images to hide flaws and/or imperfections (if people have read into it that way, I apologize, that was not my intent)... yet, I got blocked anyway.
Anyone who does not see the chronic shill bidding associated with PWCC auctions is either a) not looking or b) does not care
I'm not saying that PWCC bids on its own items or promotes shilling by its consigners -- but it clearly is a common occurrence and it appears that PWCC has made no effort to curb / stop it.
Always plenty of PSA-graded cards in my ebay store -- https://ebay.com/str/thelumbercompanysportscards
<< <i>
<< <i>Even if you are right- and who the hell knows if you are- "presenting the item in the best possible light" and "manipulating the appearance of the item" are two very, very different things. I haven't seen anything that would indicate that the seller is manipulating the appearance of the item.
Also, if you were that upset about this supposed deception...... why in the world would you be upset that he blocked you? >>
That's easy to answer...
I've never, then or now, claimed to be upset about this supposed deception!
Go back to page 1, post #6... This thread was about their amazing closing prices... I merely hypothesized that maybe they were getting higher prices than other because the manipulation done to their images made the items they were selling "appear" better than other comparable examples on eBay. I never, never, never intended to imply that they were doctoring images to hide flaws and/or imperfections (if people have read into it that way, I apologize, that was not my intent)... yet, I got blocked anyway. >>
Well, maybe if you call him and talk it out with him he'll unblock you. I wouldn't be surprised if he did.
-CDs Nuts, 1/20/14
*1956 Topps baseball- 97.4% complete, 7.24 GPA
*Clemente basic set: 85.0% complete, 7.89 GPA