PGX vs CGC grading example -- My Love Annual #1

[Davenport]

 

How can that be the same book? Maybe one of you guys that understands scanner settings better than I can can explain it, but look at the colors on those two books. The heart and the handbag are orange on the one copy and deep reflective red on the other. The man's shirt, the water in the ocean even the green lettering are all totally different. I don't get it.

Here's an old image of scan tweaking. The one on the left is from a large auction house, the right from a resto-expert's ebay listing.

 

I put them together as a reminder-to-self not to trust scans. It's not only the same book/serial number, but with the bottom glare-pattern it looks to be the exact same scan.

 

 

[shaper-migration]

On the My Love Annual, just FWIW, I own the book and made the scans myself so I can assure you it's the same book.

 

I used the same scanner for both scans, a Microtek i800 ScanMaker. However I scanned the PGX slab like 2.5 months ago (before sending to CGC), and I think I was using different software, I switched from the stuff the manufacturer provides (forget the name, it's at work) to the third-party software they also provide (again, forget the name).

 

Also my scanner sits in my office which gets a ton of natural light, and slabs are thick enough that the edge of the scanner lid is propped up enough to where light can get in from side, so if I can during day vs. eve/night the scans also come out brighter/darker.

 

Finally, aside from switching scan software, I've also started using the "color-levelling" button to even out colors for recent scans but wasn't doing that previously.

 

Anyway, the only other thing I can point you to is my personal collection of books where you can see I'm pretty passionate about this stuff and have no reason to mislead folks:

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/lemurware

 

I still don't mind if folks don't believe me, but wanted to make sure I laid out the detail for those who are curious.

 

FWIW the ScanMaker software (both of the programs it comes with) sucks. The CanonScan LIDE90 is great but can't do slabs as it focuses on the plastic rather than the book.

 

What a pain.

[Davenport]

I still don't mind if folks don't believe me, but wanted to make sure I laid out the detail for those who are curious.

 

I hope my post wasn't taken wrong. I wasn't doubting your scans at all, just trying to answer that "how can they be the same book?" question.

 

[shaper-migration]

! No worries. I feel the same way sometimes when I receive books I buy off of eBay.

 

It's amazing as much stuff sells on eBay as it does, given the lousy image size and scan quality of the images.

 

IMO one of the best damn things Heritage has going for them is the super high-quality detailed scans they provide of their books.

[divad]

If it is a page color difference. It is a very small difference of opinion. Tan or Cream... There isn't much difference really.

 

This kind of statement just kills me. There is a HUGE difference between tan and cream. CGC only uses the Tan designation when the pages are really brown. A Tan to Off-White page designation by CGC means the edges are really brown, possibly bordering on brittle.

[divad]

Here's an old image of scan tweaking. The one on the left is from a large auction house, the right from a resto-expert's ebay listing.

 

I put them together as a reminder-to-self not to trust scans. It's not only the same book/serial number, but with the bottom glare-pattern it looks to be the exact same scan.

 

 

Yep, lots of that goes on here for sure . . . I've pointed it out on numerous occasions

[TFL-migration]

I said it was a small difference of opinion. I didn't say anything about why The CGC hammers certain page colors... It all depends on who is looking at the book. I could say a book has Off White Pages. Someone else could call them White... I can say Tan someone else can say Cream... It depends on what a person see's or feels isn't it? What I consider to be brittle pages may not be brittle pages to someone else, and vice versa... I don't consider a book that has possibly one page that has a brittle feel to it to be a brittle pages book. Some others would say it is a brittle pages book.... It's all in the the eye of the beholder.....

[mackenzie999]

There are many, many reasons why scans vary. Even scans from the same scanner, using the same software and settings, can vary as the bulb ages.

 

[Ze-man]

There is a huge difference between Tan and Cream pages imho, but I agree that not everyone sees and labels a books PQ the same way.

 

 

[CheezyWhiz]

Here's an old image of scan tweaking. The one on the left is from a large auction house, the right from a resto-expert's ebay listing.

 

I put them together as a reminder-to-self not to trust scans. It's not only the same book/serial number, but with the bottom glare-pattern it looks to be the exact same scan.

 

 

Being someone who works professionally in Photoshop on a daily basis, I can tell you that the image on the left appears no more accurate than the one on the right. The left side image looks too warm (yellow) as is evidenced by the creamy color in the CGC label (especially in the 9.2 box). I wouldn't fault anyone for trying to color correct the original scan since it probably looks worse than the actual book.

 

If I had scanned that comic and gotten the results in the dingy image, I would have adjusted the white and color levels until the 9.2 appeared white again (since we can all agree that that area is supposed to be white). It's just standard practice when adjusting photos and not something I would consider to be malicious doctoring.

 

I took a quick pass at adjusting the original scan (my image is in the middle). Based on the results, it's pretty obvious the right photo has been overly doctored.. and is, in my option, inaccurate and misleading.

 

[DiceX]

 

 

[divad]

[rodan57]

If I had scanned that comic and gotten the results in the dingy image, I would have adjusted the white and color levels until the 9.2 appeared white again (since we can all agree that that area is supposed to be white). It's just standard practice when adjusting photos and not something I would consider to be malicious doctoring.

 

I took a quick pass at adjusting the original scan (my image is in the middle). Based on the results, it's pretty obvious the right photo has been overly doctored.. and is, in my option, inaccurate and misleading.

 

 

I also use the white field with the number to judge roughly the whiteness of a book by its scan. (Of course, it would be easy enough to doctor the white field apart from the rest of the book.)