The 2010 Nik Memorial Grading Contest *Round 3*

[shiverbones]

a good example would be the paintings I do on the same brand & type of paper. My last scanner showed them all as flat, my new scanner actually picks up the paper grain, and cast shadows and highlights on each subtle change causing a much different effect on the surface of the whole.

[VintageComics]

sure they do, I have owned 3 scanners in the last 8 years, and they all reflect light differently.

 

Right.

 

I've noticed that Epson and some HP scanners make browns and tans look really bad, so much so that the book looks like it has leprosy and yet in hand it's hardly noticeable.

 

Other scanners magnify creases or lessen them.

 

It's pretty much understood that every scanner will show a book differently, isn't it?

 

 

the light bends, bounces off a book, get's split into a digital code, passed through a wire, that code is read and the recreated on a screen.

 

There's going to be some errors in there.

[trmoore54]

Dam

I was originally at 9.4...actually sent 9.4 and then pulled it back a minute later before it was read...talked myself into a 9.2 grade...not sure I could've nudged to 9.6 but shoulda stuck with the initial take at 9.4...

 

No negatives or no scores yet...

[Boozad]

Scanners may pick up different attributes to pieces, different qualities of white to paper etc. No argument there. But that spine tick is white, no matter what spin you put on it. It breaks colour.

 

That could be missed by the naked eye in the wrong lighting circumstances. The scanner show it for what it is.

[DR.X]

was originally at 9.4....talked myself into a 9.2 grade

 

I did the exact same thing. That spine crease on the bottom and what looked like a little scuffing on the black F.C. kept me from 9.4. I need to start having a few beers before grading. Whatever I'm doing now ain't workin.

 

DR.X

[VintageComics]

Scanners may pick up different attributes to pieces, different qualities of white to paper etc. No argument there. But that spine tick is white, no matter what spin you put on it. It breaks colour.

 

That could be missed by the naked eye in the wrong lighting circumstances. The scanner show it for what it is.

 

Well, since you and F_T don't believe me do you believe this person?

 

A scan can both magnify and hide defects.

 

How about this guy:

 

NOTE: GRADING FROM A SCAN IS NOT RELIABLE, it's just interesting.

 

If those other two guys didn't convince you this one should seal it:

 

Black is notorious for looking worse in a scan that it does in hand. There may be a few more black covers to try your hand at in the upcoming rounds.

 

 

 

 

[Boozad]

Watson sucks balls.

[Mutie Fan]

Nailed it!

 

 

Me too. Now if only I hadn't done so poorly on round 2...

[DrWatson]

Watson sucks balls.

Only in your dreams, magpie.

[Boozad]

Watson sucks balls.

Only in your dreams, magpie.

 

<3

 

 

[VintageComics]

Watson sucks balls.

 

Is that why you won't be my friend?

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

Scanners may pick up different attributes to pieces, different qualities of white to paper etc. No argument there. But that spine tick is white, no matter what spin you put on it. It breaks colour.

 

That could be missed by the naked eye in the wrong lighting circumstances. The scanner show it for what it is.

 

Well, since you and F_T don't believe me do you believe this person?

 

A scan can both magnify and hide defects.

 

How about this guy:

 

NOTE: GRADING FROM A SCAN IS NOT RELIABLE, it's just interesting.

 

If those other two guys didn't convince you this one should seal it:

 

Black is notorious for looking worse in a scan that it does in hand. There may be a few more black covers to try your hand at in the upcoming rounds.

 

 

 

 

A scanner can hide defects.

 

My point was...it can't create defects like this.

 

Make it look worse? Maybe.

 

Make it look better? Maybe.

 

Make it up? No.

[VintageComics]

A scanner can hide defects.

 

My point was...it can't create defects like this.

 

Make it look worse? Maybe.

 

Make it look better? Maybe.

 

Make it up? No.

 

Nick, I used to use a scanner at the local Fed Ex/Kinkos because I didn't have my own.

 

Those were the days. greggy would verbally molest me without ceasing.

 

Anyhow, that particular scanner would make a dust shadow or foxing or tanning appear on the scan that was not visible with the naked eye.

 

It literally created the defect in the scan. I used to have to make excuses for the defects and blame it on the scanner when I listed the books for sale. I hated doing it because it felt like I was making excuses for the defects when in fact they actually were not there.

 

Why is it so hard to believe that in the processor's infinite wisdom, the computer is amplifying those stresses on the black covers rather than reducing them or portraying them as they really are?

 

Do you believe that CGC gave a 9.4 to that 1st book with 5 or 6 color breaking stresses and a 9.6 with all those chips out on the spine (as well as that tiny corner crease on the bottom right corner fc) or is it more possible that the scanner is simply making the book look different in a scan than it does in real life?

 

For goodness sakes, even Watson and I agree (sorry Watson, didn't mean to do that) and you know how often that occurs. Ice Age anyone?

 

[Larryw7]

I said 9.2 and thought that was being generous...