photos or scans?

[Rick Bradford]

As buyers, if you had your preference would you prefer to see scans over photos? Or does it depend on the book itself?

I actually prefer scans but I'm trying to figure out ways to maximize my listing time...

Thanks for any input!

[50Cent #II (1st print)]

Scans, unless the item won't fit on the scanner or the scanner doesn't pick up the colors correctly.

[cimmerian32]

Scans...  gives a clearer, closer pic of what you're really buying...

[Comix Junky]

Scans  - hands down.

[Visitor Q]

Scans

Jason

[Rick Bradford]

Thanks, guys.

[over40artist]

I generally agree with scans because they show fine details like stress marks and minor creases, but photos at the right angle are a nice way to show imperfections in the comic cover that are sometimes hidden with scans (bends, dents, spine rolls, warps, waves, etc.). Ideally, both scans and photos would be provided in an auction, but I've never seen anyone who does that. As a seller, I would stick with scans, but as a buyer, sometimes a photo works better. Photos have the potential to always work better, but not many comic book collectors are also capable of the close-up photography that would be required for that.

[Sir Real]

I'm with Over40 on this.  Both photos and scans each have their merits.  I'd opt for both to compliment a complete description.

[Rick Bradford]

That's a good point. In terms of spine wear and things like that I'm more likely to use both for a book (something with more of a spine) but it's definitely something to keep in mind, especially for higher-dollar items. Thanks, guys!