An Astute Eye Requested for Scan Comparison Please...
JackWESQ
Posts: 2,133 ✭✭✭
Dear Group,
I respectfully request someone with an astute eye to compare the follow cards and inform me if the cards and/or scans look different. Thank you.
Auction for a 1951 Bowman Mickey Mantle PSA 3.
1951 Bowman Mickey Mantle PSA 3
Auction where seller of 1951 Bowman Mickey Mantle PSA 3 originally purchased the card:
Original purchase of 1951 Bowman Mickey Mantle PSA 3
(I have scan in case scan has been taken down).
Auction for a 1953 Topps Willie Mays PSA 6
1953 Topps Willie Mays PSA 6
Auction where seller of 1953 Topps Willie May PSA 6 originally purchased the card:
Original purchase of 1953 Topps Willie Mays PSA 6
(I have scan in case scan has been taken down).
Auction for a 1954 Topps Hank Aaron PSA 6
1954 Topps Hank Aaron PSA 6
Auction where seller of 1954 Topps Hank Aaron PSA 6 originally purchased the card:
Original purchase of 1954 Topps Hank Aaron PSA 6
( I have scan in case scan has been taken down).
Auction for a 1952 Bowman Willie Mays PSA 6
1952 Bowman Willie Mays PSA 6
Auction where seller of 1952 Bowman Willie Mays PSA 6 originally purchase the card:
Original purchase of 1952 Bowman Willie Mays PSA 6
(I have scan in case scan has been taken down).
For some reason, my eyes tell me the cards look different, e.g. the image of the current auctions are more visually attractive. Does anyone else see this or am I just being crazy? (If you think I am, please feel free to state so.) We always say buy the card and not the holder. Well in these cards, the cards in the current auctions look a lot more attractive than in the auctions where they were originally purchased.
Thanks much.
/s/ JackWESQ
I respectfully request someone with an astute eye to compare the follow cards and inform me if the cards and/or scans look different. Thank you.
Auction for a 1951 Bowman Mickey Mantle PSA 3.
1951 Bowman Mickey Mantle PSA 3
Auction where seller of 1951 Bowman Mickey Mantle PSA 3 originally purchased the card:
Original purchase of 1951 Bowman Mickey Mantle PSA 3
(I have scan in case scan has been taken down).
Auction for a 1953 Topps Willie Mays PSA 6
1953 Topps Willie Mays PSA 6
Auction where seller of 1953 Topps Willie May PSA 6 originally purchased the card:
Original purchase of 1953 Topps Willie Mays PSA 6
(I have scan in case scan has been taken down).
Auction for a 1954 Topps Hank Aaron PSA 6
1954 Topps Hank Aaron PSA 6
Auction where seller of 1954 Topps Hank Aaron PSA 6 originally purchased the card:
Original purchase of 1954 Topps Hank Aaron PSA 6
( I have scan in case scan has been taken down).
Auction for a 1952 Bowman Willie Mays PSA 6
1952 Bowman Willie Mays PSA 6
Auction where seller of 1952 Bowman Willie Mays PSA 6 originally purchase the card:
Original purchase of 1952 Bowman Willie Mays PSA 6
(I have scan in case scan has been taken down).
For some reason, my eyes tell me the cards look different, e.g. the image of the current auctions are more visually attractive. Does anyone else see this or am I just being crazy? (If you think I am, please feel free to state so.) We always say buy the card and not the holder. Well in these cards, the cards in the current auctions look a lot more attractive than in the auctions where they were originally purchased.
Thanks much.
/s/ JackWESQ
0
Comments
In each case the before comes before the after
What strikes me is the red on the label is faded in each of the current listings.
Collecting Tony Perez PSA and Rookie Baseball PSA
Lee
He had zero FB, new account, verified ID.
Most thought that the 18 cards he was selling did
not really exist. All sold and he got pos FB from
all the buyers.
This is his second big round, I think, of sales.
The guy is pretty handy with the scanner tools. But,
the original auctions of the subject scans, were NOT
very well done at all. If one set is totally "original,"
it might not be fair to compare "differences" solely
because usa did a good job.
If the question is really only, "Are these pics very
well enhanced,?" then the answer is heck yes.
storm
<< <i>He's using photoshop to make the cards look sharper and more vivid. You can tell by the red on the PSA slip and how it looks bright pink in his scans.
Lee >>
I concur.
Loook at the edge of the Mantle. He not only messed with the colors, but used some black against the black scan(poorly I might add) to make the edge not look as fuzzy. Notice the nothces where he used black "paint".
My Auctions
will question the enhancements when they receive
the cards.
Brightening stuff up a little is acceptable, but your are
not supposed to get tooooooooooo radical with the
colors and contrasts. Risky business, if you want to
be in business for a long time.
A buyer could almost make a SNAD claim based on some
of the "improvements."
storm
<< <i>He's using photoshop to make the cards look sharper and more vivid. You can tell by the red on the PSA slip and how it looks bright pink in his scans.
Lee >>
I absolutely agree 100%.
Not a chance i give that seller a dime of my money on principle alone. I cant stand any seller who plays with the scan on photoshop.
-- Yogi Berra
I bring this up because I have been looking for a nice 1953 Topps Willie Mays for sometime now and I saw his PSA 6 which I have to admit looks great. I then noticed his address as stated in his auctions as "15975 Hibiscus St. Fontana, CA 92335." My parents live about 10 minutes from that address and visit them regularly. I asked him if I could pay for and pick up the card locally. He responded with a "no."
I then went to the San Bernardino County Recorder's Office website (http://170.164.50.51/fbn/index.html) and typed in United Sports Auctions and came up with these results:
Certificate Number 20060007218
Filing Date 04/28/2006
Filing Type/Status FBN FILING/ACTIVE
Expiration Date 04/27/2011
Type of Business AN INDIVIDUAL
Original FBN#
Abandoned Date
Abandoned FBN#
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business Address
15975 HIBISCUS STREET
FONTANA, CA 92335
Business Name(s)
UNITED SPORTS AUCTIONS
Owner Name(s)
Owner Name Withdrawal Date FBN #
SHELINE JAMES D
So he filed his business statement on April 28, 2006. This is a bit earlier than the closing date of (presumably) his first transaction on ebay on April 25, 2006. Here is the link:
First USA Auction
I say presumably because he might have completed a prior transaction to which he did not receive feedback. But that is pure speculation. I then did a public records search on the 15975 Hibiscus address and saw that the owners of the property is a husband a wife (nothing strange about that), but do not have have the last name Sheline. (I thought it might have been a son running a business out of his parent's home). But then again, children with last names different from the parents is no big deal either.
In any case, I guess the whole point of my post is that I am not going to bid on that 1953 Topps Willie Mays and I hope the winner bidders of USA Auctions are satified with the cards because it appears that the scans of the cards appear to be (though I cannot conclusively state) altered. Thanks for the help guys. As always, there is no shortage of knowledge here.
/s/ JackWESQ
Loook at the edge of the Mantle. He not only messed with the colors, but used some black against the black scan(poorly I might add) to make the edge not look as fuzzy. Notice the nothces where he used black "paint".
The inside black border also seems to have been cleaned. But even more obvious -- check out those top right corners!!!
<< <i>Dear Group,
I bring this up because I have been looking for a nice 1953 Topps Willie Mays for sometime now and I saw his PSA 6 which I have to admit looks great. I then noticed his address as stated in his auctions as "15975 Hibiscus St. Fontana, CA 92335." My parents live about 10 minutes from that address and visit them regularly. I asked him if I could pay for and pick up the card locally. He responded with a "no."
I then went to the San Bernardino County Recorder's Office website (http://170.164.50.51/fbn/index.html) and typed in United Sports Auctions and came up with these results:
Certificate Number 20060007218
Filing Date 04/28/2006
Filing Type/Status FBN FILING/ACTIVE
Expiration Date 04/27/2011
Type of Business AN INDIVIDUAL
Original FBN#
Abandoned Date
Abandoned FBN#
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business Address
15975 HIBISCUS STREET
FONTANA, CA 92335
Business Name(s)
UNITED SPORTS AUCTIONS
Owner Name(s)
Owner Name Withdrawal Date FBN #
SHELINE JAMES D
So he filed his business statement on April 28, 2006. This is a bit earlier than the closing date of (presumably) his first transaction on ebay on April 25, 2006. Here is the link:
First USA Auction
I say presumably because he might have completed a prior transaction to which he did not receive feedback. But that is pure speculation. I then did a public records search on the 15975 Hibiscus address and saw that the owners of the property is a husband a wife (nothing strange about that), but do not have have the last name Sheline. (I thought it might have been a son running a business out of his parent's home). But then again, children with last names different from the parents is no big deal either.
In any case, I guess the whole point of my post is that I am not going to bid on that 1953 Topps Willie Mays and I hope the winner bidders of USA Auctions are satified with the cards because it appears that the scans of the cards appear to be (though I cannot conclusively state) altered. Thanks for the help guys. As always, there is no shortage of knowledge here.
/s/ JackWESQ >>
Please don't ever bid on my auctions. And, please, don't ever dig in the patch of woods behind the old factory down by the pond. There's nothing there. I swear.
(though I cannot conclusively state) altered. "
/////////////////////////////////
There is a somewhat "fine line" between "enhanced" and
"altered."
As a "mini-expert" on making items "look their best," I
would say that usa went over the line on this batch. The
problem with getting carried away like that is that SOON
the buyers are going to have those cards in their hands.
If usa kills all of the scans right after the auctions close,
all doubt will be removed regarding his intentions in the
matter. Maybe the buyers will grab the scans b4 they
finish bidding --- that might lead to drama on delivery.
storm
1. an economic relationship between [the plaintiff and some third person] containing the probability of future economic benefit to the [plaintiff],
2. knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship,
3. intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship,
4. actual disruption of the relationship, [and]
5. damages to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.
Certainly food for thought. Have a great work week!
/s/ JackWESQ
a link to this thread and/or informing them of USA's purported practice
implicate the tort of "Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic
Advantage"? "
//////////////////////////////////////////
It would be interference per se under the eBay TOS........ if you got caught.
At law, I think there might be some estoppel issues that would not play well
for the instant prospective plaintiff.
A novel idea might be to argue that there were "Samaritan intentions" in
the alleged tortious interference. If radical consumer advocates were allowed
to write the statutes, we could have circumstances where a mere browser
on eBay acquired "a duty" to save unsophisticated or helpless people. (If
the various states can force me to "render aid" in sundry circumstances,
maybe they can/should force/allow me to interevene in matters of "fraud.")
Is there another remedy for the "reporter?" Not really. eBay will not do anything,
if the listings are reported. The issue is complex and, while not "subjective" to us,
it would be seen as "subjective" by eBay T&S. Thus, Defendant tells the court
there was an "emergency" and there was no other remedy to prevent the
"harm." (I think there is "harm" here, and consumers ARE going to lose money
if they buy these cards and quickly try to resell them.)
If you know that a fraud is being perpetrated, absent a duty to intervene, I
guess the interference argument of usa would at least make it to trial. It
is doubtful that he could prevail on the issue of damages, if the Defendant
could "explain" to the court "what was really going on here." Still looks like
it survives summary judgment because of the "subjectivity argument," but
no money award to the P at trial. ("Experts" would testify about "shades and
colors and brightness and contrast.")
I am guessing, obviously.
The other possibility, is the P claims he is a "novice at using the offending
software" and had no intention of defrauding anybody. "I just brigtened
them up a little too much, because I did not know how to make the
software work correctly." We do not know if we can prove a pattern here
because the first batch of cards from the auctions a few months back
were not shown to us b4 the auctions. They were VERY nice looking cards,
but we do not know if they were "unreasonably enhanced." All 18 buyers
issued positive FB.
It is starting to dawn on me that the folks who had "suspicions" about the
first auctions may have had a certain kind of good instinct for a bad
seller. I did not agree with their position at the time, and I thought that
I was vindicated by the delivery of the cards to the buyers. Now, it
may be that those cards were "oversold" as well. (We have no way to know.)
eBay is the DEVIL. I love eBay.
storm
Excellent post. I am not going to let this die. You are correct in that the cards have not been altered. The cards are the cards. However, it appears the IMAGES of the cards do not 100% accurately represent the actual card being sold. Truth be said, if you compare a poor scan to an excellent scan, there are going to be differences. However, I keep at looking at the 1951 Bowman Mickey Mantle PSA 3 and it's corners and my jaw continues to hit the ground. I will have more to say once the auctions ends later tonight. It will certainly to interesting to see what the final selling prices are compared to what he paid for the card. More so, it will be even more interesting to see the feedback (if any) left by the purchasers of these cards. While I agree there is a distinction between "enhanced" and "altered," e.g. a trimmed card has been altered, I believe the line becomes much thinner in the context of an ebay auction for a card where centering, corners, edges and surface (brightness of color) substantially affect the value/desirability/etc. of a card. For all practical purposes, an altered scan may as well be an altered card because you are bidding on the card based in part on the scan (assuming one is provided). But like I said, more to come after the auctions ends.
/s/ JackWESQ
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
(Fees are pretty high)
However, since he responded to the email query,
we know that he is not telling the truth. The
phrase, "that's absurd," is particularly telling.
storm
1. 1951 Bowman Mickey Mantle PSA 3
Purchased for $2026.99 on May 26, 2006
Sold for $2,225.00 on August 21, 2006 for profit of $198.01 less fees.
2. 1953 Topps Willie Mays PSA 6
Purchased for $1325.00 on May 25, 2006
Sold for $1,829.00 on August 21, 2006 for profit of $504.00 less fees.
3. 1954 Topps Hank Aaron PSA 6
Purchased for $1077.78 on June 8, 2006
Sold for $1025.00 on August 21, 2006 for loss of $52.78 in addition to fees.
4. 1952 Bowman Willie Mays PSA 6
Purchased for $821.78 on June 6, 2006 (Incorrect link...Correct Item No. is 8820730626)
Sold for $1091.00 on August 21, 2006 for profit of $269.22 less fees.
So USA denies altering the scans of the images per bigfische's post below. (Thank you for that bigfische). Again, my jaw continues to drop each time I look at the comparison between the 1951 Mantle 1953 Mays. I'm not going to send emails to winning bidders and I hope they saved the scan images of the cards they purchased, but I'll be checking to see if and when positive feedback is left. I know it's not unusual to take down scans after an auction is complete (heck, I do the same) but I'll be checking to see how long the scans are up.
More interesting is that the winner of the 1953 Mays has zero feedback and has been a member since August 20, 2006. Further, the winner of the 1951 Mantle has four feedback with four uncharacteristic purchases not indicative of dropping $2000.00 on a baseball card. Granted the winner of 1954 Aaron has 314 feedback...but then again, USA lost money on that auction. Even more amazing is that the winner of the 1954 Aaron has spent $140,000.00 since July 12, 2006. Amazing.
I'm not exactly sure what to make of USA's auctions other than they leave a sour taste in my mouth.
/s/ JackWESQ
original auction
USA auction
He made $500 on the Mays, all by adding in the bottom left, top left and top right corners.
original auction
USA auction
He made a little on the Mantle and I think he doctored bot top corners as well as the right edge.
original auction
USA auction
A better image and scan is one thing, colors and clarity can get better. But corners don't magically appear. I think this guy is photoshopping the he!! out of his pictures and on the Mays, he made nearly 50% by doing so.
My Auctions
The big-spender could give him some grief when
he sees that he has been had.
I wish there was a "safe" way to "warn" folks, but
there really is not. eBay made more on these deals
than they make off of a whole bunch of stores each
day, so they have an interest in doing NOTHING to
stop this kind of carp. But, I can tell everybody this:
This kind of carp hurts eBay and it hurts the card biz.
If the big spender were tipped, he would probably balk
at closing the deal, and he might report it to eBay.
The guy really needs to be stopped as quickly as possible,
b4 it gets out of hand. This is not a hit-and-run deal. The
guy plans to try to stick around for a while.
takes down the scans of the cards that have sold,
and replaces them with different cards.
The pretty Mantle is in some of the picture holes
of past listings that have different titles.
He had a neg for selling a reprint in June; denied
any knowledge. (ala, "That is absurd.")
Something is not right here.
////////////////////////////////////////////
The report would be too complex for the nitwits at
T&S. It is unlikely that they would even understand
what the reporter was talking about. They would
likely "wait to see what the buyer says" after they
get the cards. Even if the buyer complains, after
receipt, the SNAD scheme will probably not help.
If someone talks to the buyers NOW, that someone
is in violation of the eBay TOS - auction interference -
and would probably be NARUed. (Contacting the "rich
guy" is probably the "safest" route, but it is not fully
"safe.")
If the buyers use CCs to pay through PayPal, they are
probably OK. Otherwise, probably out of luck.
The more I look at the thing, the more convinced I am
that this is a law enforcement issue. The corners do
seem to have "come back to life" on some of the cards.
If so, that is actionable outside of eBay, and it is not
auction interference.
The bad guy really does need to be stopped. It does
not look like this is some teenager playing with his
scanner. He could well be doing the same kind of
thing under multiple eBay IDs.
"dishonest seller. won't allow me to pick up card in person, or inspect it.BEWARE"
Feedback Link for USA
Hmmm...
/s/ JackWESQ
James
joycie0_1 completed items...
and has spent approximately $290,000.00 in the past couple of months. Amazing. I'm still waiting to see what happens on the 1953 Mays.
/s/ JackWESQ
<< <i>there is a very easy explanation.....he scanned his cards with a black piece of paper in the background, a technique used to make the scanned image look crisper...i do this myself becasue to me it is very obvious that a black background makes the cards look nicer! >>
He must have done more than just this to get the corners to look more square??
Profile for USA
I thought that was the end of it. Then I receive this email from a random and presumably purchaser of one of
USA's item for sale.
"FYI, If you receive an item from USA Auctions sign for it in the presence of the Postal Worker and open it in their presence. I just signed for an Empty box. Thought you would like to know. "
Wow. Now that takes some serious stones. (No pun or ill will intended to stone193). So if I see this correctly,
USA Auctions purchases mid grade cards of notable HOFers. Then attempts to sell them on ebay after purportedly
doctoring/altering the images to make the cards appear in better condition. And then upon completion of the auction,
sends the purchaser an empty box. What is this? A perpetrating a fraud on top of a fraud?
I have some friends who work in the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office. Perhaps I should give them
a call. Or perhaps the U.S. Attorney's Office if interstate (and mail fraud) transactions are involved. Amazing.
/s/ JackWESQ
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It is called "destorying the evidence."
Now, it is USA's word against whoever's that "the card was delievered."
No card, no evidence of the initial fraud. He knew he had been busted
and could not take a chance on delivering the "real" card.
I predict he may be home free, on this one. But, USPS may now be in
it, if he insured the box(es). Starting to sound more like a young kid;
most old crooks avoid messing with the postal inspectors.
Edited To Add: It is a shame that the card-pirate busters do not have
a safe way to warn the victims b4 the bad stuff goes down.
Now, the item has been removed. Maybe she/he
can get a refund from credit card co.
storm
1953 Topps Willie Mays PSA 6
and for the Aaron
1954 Topps Hank Aaron PSA 6
and again, you'll see that the cards appear to be altered - scan wise. Moreover, if you look at the seller's recent feedback, you'll see that there were three "Rating Mutually Withdrawn" auctions. I can only wonder if the buyer was disappointed with the card/item as compared with what was pictured. If I sound bothered by this, it is because I am. And I have to wonder, why is the red border around the PSA label faded in each of scans. Geez. I guess I should be happy that it took the seller only 6 months to try to resell the cards.
I emailed the seller to ask if I can inspect the cards in person. I'd imagine he'll recognize me and simply ignore my request. In any case, I hope his auctions get pulled and/or the bidders become more to the wise; Or at least read this thread.
/s/ JackWESQ
Try copying his doctored picture. You can't, he disabled the technical what-cha-ma-call it.
I don't like to resurrect old threads, but I feel this one is necessary. If you like, you can read the entire thread, but essentially the seller (then) United Sports Auctions and (now) Block Sports Cards would take high end cards, Aaron rookie, Mantle Rookie, Mays cards and apparently do something them scan wise and produce an exceptionally clean looking card. Well in any case, whatever he was doing was apparently not working, so a 1953 Topps Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays found themselves to a Robert Edwards Auction here. The Mays and Mantle sold for $3,231.25. Check out the scans from Robert Edwards below. Wow, the cards look clean.
Now, the same Willie Mays is up for auction here. He's done something to the scans so that you can't link them to this post. My guess is that the buyer of the Robert Edward auction received the cards and saw that they were not accurately represented and reneged on the transaction and now the Mays is back on ebay. Just check out the scans below. The "bad" scan is courtesy of Zef. (Thanks much.) Very telling.
/s/ JackWESQ
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
that we were "mistaken" about our allegations that
the scans of these cards had been played with?
........................................
At EBAY and PayPal, We Are Not Happy Until You Are Not Happy !
However, one scanner can make a card look a lot different than another scanner, given that they usually have different default settings.
We have an expensive color scanning machine at work that, when I've tried to scan a card, makes an odd scan that almost looks like someone touched up the card with water colors.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Here is the thread I started about the 1953 Topps Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays discussing "professional" scans and amateur scans. Down a bit, Al says ...
<< <i>Hi All:
I don't post here much anymore, but I do read regularly, and thus I stumbled onto this thread. Hope everyone is doing well.
My company is the ad agency for robert edward Auctions. Being intimately involved with the layout and design of their catalog, I can vouch for the fact that there are absolutely no shenanigans of any sort happening with respect to scans or photographs featured in the catalog. The company doesn't doctor, sweeten or color correct its scans in any way - it's just a matter of high-quality equipment, diligence in preparing scans and photos, and (hopefully) a talented graphic design team.
Hope this helps clear things up.
-Al
>>
I just want to know what happened to the RE auction, e.g. did the buyer reneg the purchase after receiving the card?
/s/ JackWESQ
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Truthfully.
Enhancing = Altering
Distinctions without Differences.
............
I am not sure how the new seller fits into the saga's "history," if at all.
..................................................................
At EBAY and PayPal, We Are Not Happy Until You Are Not Happy !
/s/ JackWESQ
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I doubt they will volunteer that info.
................................................
At EBAY and PayPal, We Are Not Happy Until You Are Not Happy !
<< <i>Truthfully.
Enhancing = Altering
Distinctions without Differences. >>
Well, what I meant was, if you doctore the heck out of the scanner settings and produce your "scanned image", you could say "I did not use photo shop or any photo editing software to edit this image.
Still, it's using logic breakdown to mislead.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25