PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[botn]

PWCC has a generously graded 36 WWG Joe D, http://www.ebay.com/itm/142260836796 but I guess it looks better than it did before, http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2015/spring/1434/1936-v355-world-wide-gum-joe-dimaggio-rookie/.

[ullmandds]

wow! thats some ROI!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

So how did someone remove such a significant amount of age toning to render the untoned spots nearly invisible in this incarnation? A miracle of modern card doctoring.

[Peter_Spaeth]

A Lady Macbeth job to be sure.

[aconte]

Wow!

[botn]

Had not noticed that the WWG Joe D as a PSA 7 sold recently in a Goldin Auction because I do not look at their auctions. Their scan was a bit misleading as it is washed out and the stain is not as obvious as it is in the PWCC scan. https://goldinauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=25573

[aloondilana]

Whoever cleaned it up did the hobby a huge favor. Great card either way.

[ccre]

HOLY MOLY. I'm in the wrong business. Definitely crazy ROI.

[HRBAKER]

Never Get Cheated!

[D. Bergin]

It takes a lot of balls to soak a $6600 card, but I guess it paid off in end.

Still a NM (7) and you can still see the remnants of the tape stains IS a little concerning.

Wonder if that would be a (7) on any modern card with similar evidence of past taping on it.

Looking at the REA auction, it was probably cleaned up just to get the (4). Now another round of cleaning got it to a (7). :eek:

[HRBAKER]

It takes a lot of balls to soak a $6600 card, but I guess it paid off in end.

Still a NM (7) and you can still see the remnants of the tape stains IS a little concerning.

Wonder if that would be a (7) on any modern card with similar evidence of past taping on it.

Looking at the REA auction, it was probably cleaned up just to get the (4). Now another round of cleaning got it to a (7). :eek:

Yep, some crack professional grading all the way around.

[irv]

Is there a company not out there that specifically cleans/fixes cards?

It's hard to say with this pic/card, but I would tend to believe it was professionally done?

[HRBAKER]

It may have been professionally done.
The question is why wasn't it "professionally" caught?

[Jobu]

I don't know much about restoration of cards, but to me this looks like the first card was up against some acidic paper and the two corners were protected. The result is toning, which happens in old prints that have been framed with non-acid free mats and backing. The process to remove this toning is well established and very common. If my assumptions are correct, it might not have taken a whole lot to remove the toning from this one.

[seablaster]

:eek:

[D. Bergin]

Is there a company not out there that specifically cleans/fixes cards?

It's hard to say with this pic/card, but I would tend to believe it was professionally done?


There's restoration companies that clean up posters, but that's more accepted in that field.

They aren't cheap but I'm sure some of them would handle cards if given the business. This one certainly paid off for somebody.

Likely not the guy who bought it from Goldin though. They'll probably be ecstatic if they break even at this point.

[bnorth]

It may have been professionally done.
The question is why wasn't it "professionally" caught?

Because there is no money in that.:eek:

[BeanTown]

Or another question should be who submitted the card and did they get a favor done. #PSAblewit

[irv]

It may have been professionally done.
The question is why wasn't it "professionally" caught?

There's restoration companies that clean up posters, but that's more accepted in that field.

They aren't cheap but I'm sure some of them would handle cards if given the business. This one certainly paid off for somebody.

Likely not the guy who bought it from Goldin though. They'll probably be ecstatic if they break even at this point.

I knew I had read about them. I assume they are still in business seeing as their website is still up and running.
http://www.gonewiththestain.com/

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

It takes a lot of balls to soak a $6600 card, but I guess it paid off in end.

Still a NM (7) and you can still see the remnants of the tape stains IS a little concerning.

Wonder if that would be a (7) on any modern card with similar evidence of past taping on it.

Looking at the REA auction, it was probably cleaned up just to get the (4). Now another round of cleaning got it to a (7). :eek:

THey're not tape stains. The REA listing describes the marks very well, the card is age toned EXCEPT in those odd rectangular patches, so something was resting on or protecting those areas of original color. I want to know how they removed the toning from the rest of the card to get it to match those spots of original color so well.

[DeanH3]

:eek: is correct!

[bnorth]

THey're not tape stains. The REA listing describes the marks very well, the card is age toned EXCEPT in those odd rectangular patches, so something was resting on or protecting those areas of original color. I want to know how they removed the toning from the rest of the card to get it to match those spots of original color so well.

I highly doubt this fellow Net54 member will reveal his card doctoring secrets but he would do the work for you for a small or large fee.:) http://www.gonewiththestain.com/

[spaidly]

Whoa. Incredible.

[Arazi4442]

Sorry, may be a stupid question, but how do we know these are the same 2 cards?

[aloondilana]

I don't care about its past, it's a PSA 7 now and I'll take it!!!

It's like a fat broad that loses 75 pounds and becomes hot.

[bnorth]

I don't care about its past, it's a PSA 7 now and I'll take it!!!

It's like a fat broad that loses 75 pounds and becomes hot.

If that is really your belief I have some awesome missing color cards I would love to sell you.

Just so you know those women that lose 75 pounds only look hot with clothes on.

[aloondilana]

So true!!

[asoriano]

i don't care about its past, it's a psa 7 now and i'll take it!!!

It's like a fat broad that loses 75 pounds and becomes hot.

lolol

[Neal]

I don't care about its past, it's a PSA 7 now and I'll take it!!!

It's like a fat broad that loses 75 pounds and becomes hot.

:D

Great card, and have zero problem with removing tape and stain residue

If I had the cheddar, I'd still want to own it

[aloondilana]

Right !!! It's a darn POP 1 PSA 7. None higher!!!
Why are we even attempting to knock this card?
Any one of us would kill to have this.

[BeanTown]

I don't care about its past, it's a PSA 7 now and I'll take it!!!

It's like a fat broad that loses 75 pounds and becomes hot.

Are we talking about shallow "Joe"

[botn]

Right !!! It's a darn POP 1 PSA 7. None higher!!!
Why are we even attempting to knock this card?
Any one of us would kill to have this.

Gee John I hope that is not how you came to own it. :eek:

[Peter_Spaeth]

If the restoration is acceptable to the community then there should be no concern about disclosing it. But somehow i am guessing PWCC is not going to do that and the consignor would not want that.

[orly57]

I don't care about its past, it's a PSA 7 now and I'll take it!!!

It's like a fat broad that loses 75 pounds and becomes hot.

That is a great analogy, but in the eyes of some (like Peter) it would be like she lost that 75 pounds by having marathon sex with hundreds of different men. Yeah, she looks great, but she is tarnished. I happen to agree with you that I don't really care if the card was soaked so long as it grades. The Mona Lisa and the Sisteen Chapel get restored all the time. I don't think any of us would consider those works of art to be tarnished or less valuable because of it. After all aren't baseball cards just small pieces of art?

[Peter_Spaeth]

There is no deception in art restoration. There is a world of deception in baseball card restoration/alteration, because rarely is any of it disclosed, and the whole point is to make a card look better and grade higher while deceiving the grading companies and potential buyers into thinking it's original.

As I said, if the restoration in this case is no big deal, then the consignor should have no objection to its disclosure. But something tells me the consignor would have been furious if PWCC had posted a picture of the SGC 50 in the auction and explained the work done by Towle or whoever did it.

Can't have it both ways. If it's acceptable and even a good thing as some seem to be saying, you should have no objection to disclosure.

[orly57]

There is no deception in art restoration. There is a world of deception in baseball card restoration/alteration, because rarely is any of it disclosed, and the whole point is to make a card look better and grade higher while deceiving the grading companies and potential buyers into thinking it's original.

As I said, if the restoration in this case is no big deal, then the consignor should have no objection to its disclosure. But something tells me the consignor would have been furious if PWCC had posted a picture of the SGC 50 in the auction and explained the work done by Towle or whoever did it.

Can't have it both ways. If it's acceptable and even a good thing as some seem to be saying, you should have no objection to disclosure.

All fair points

[ullmandds]

i highly doubt this card was "just" soaked!

[Snapolit1]

Interesting debate. When I go to sell my house I'm hoping to brush over a couple of 100 flaws/issues. I won't actively deceive anyone, or make any affirmative claims that are false, but I'm going to do everything I can to make the house present well and detract attention away from its shortcomings. Might slap some paint on the side of the house that turns to hell after a few months for some odd reason. May scrub the garage door that always attracts some green mold crud. Does that make me a bad guy?

Did anyone ever answer how we know this is the same card?

[spaidly]

Vintage car restoration is acceptable (and disclosed) but collectors pay way way more for untouched, original paint, low mileage jewels that are "condition rarities". The value goes way down if a car(d) is sold as original and then you find out it was reconditioned. That, my friends, is fraud. I would have loved to own that DiMaggio if I could afford it but now it is a lie in a holder.
Scott

[Leon]

Interesting debate. When I go to sell my house I'm hoping to brush over a couple of 100 flaws/issues. I won't actively deceive anyone, or make any affirmative claims that are false, but I'm going to do everything I can to make the house present well and detract attention away from its shortcomings. Might slap some paint on the side of the house that turns to hell after a few months for some odd reason. May scrub the garage door that always attracts some green mold crud. Does that make me a bad guy?

Did anyone ever answer how we know this is the same card?

People get their panties in a wad when there is a lack of transparency. That is understandable. I have no issue with the cleaner card. It looks great. And I don't blame PSA one bit. I have been told by one of the best graders I know, who has had personal cards conserved and cleaned, said there was literally NO way he could tell anything was done to his cards. It isn't PSA's fault if there is nothing to see.

.

[ullmandds]

its pretty obvious its the same card...just look at the before and after for christ sake?

[Leon]

its pretty obvious its the same card...just look at the before and after for christ sake?

Who said it wasn't the same card? I agree, it's pretty obvious.

[D. Bergin]

Did anyone ever answer how we know this is the same card?


The same discoloration marks on the front are still visible on both....even the cleaned up card.

Also, same centering and same print/toning dots on back of card.

[ullmandds]

Sorry, may be a stupid question, but how do we know these are the same 2 cards?


among others.

[Stonepony]

among others.

Lol, have a second cup Pete!

[D. Bergin]

i highly doubt this card was "just" soaked!

Maybe a little bleach, a little of this, a lot of that.......


Look at that REA version of the card. If those lighter spots are the original color of the card, then that's not "toning". That's a stain!

I'd guess it was soaked out of a scrapbook. The "toning" is glue residue that seeped into the paper, and the lighter marks are one of three things.

#1. Old tape that covered that area, and then deteriorated

#2. Something similar to stamp mounts

#3. The evidence of whatever tool was used to hold the card in place when it was taking it's chemical bath

[Leon]

among others.

others? (plural) Who?

[ullmandds]

Interesting debate. When I go to sell my house I'm hoping to brush over a couple of 100 flaws/issues. I won't actively deceive anyone, or make any affirmative claims that are false, but I'm going to do everything I can to make the house present well and detract attention away from its shortcomings. Might slap some paint on the side of the house that turns to hell after a few months for some odd reason. May scrub the garage door that always attracts some green mold crud. Does that make me a bad guy?

Did anyone ever answer how we know this is the same card?

this other...just poured my first cup!!!!

[Leon]

You said among other(s) after that? Have 1 more cup, I am.

this other...just poured my first cup!!!!

[Republicaninmass]

Vintage car restoration is acceptable (and disclosed) but collectors pay way way more for untouched, original paint, low mileage jewels that are "condition rarities". The value goes way down if a car(d) is sold as original and then you find out it was reconditioned. That, my friends, is fraud. I would have loved to own that DiMaggio if I could afford it but now it is a lie in a holder.
Scott

What if all it needed was a little wet sand and buff? ;)

[bnorth]

What if all it needed was a little wet sand and buff? ;)

I have always found morals depend greatly on if you are the seller or the buyer. If you are the buyer it is unacceptable but if you are the seller it is OK.

[ullmandds]

I have always found morals depend greatly on if you are the seller or the buyer. If you are the buyer it is unacceptable but if you are the seller it is OK.

so true!

[D. Bergin]

I have always found morals depend greatly on if you are the seller or the buyer. If you are the buyer it is unacceptable but if you are the seller it is OK.


Well, it's back on the market just a few months after being sold by Goldin. I wonder if the winning bidder of that auction had buyers remorse so soon after getting it in hand (or somebody alerted him of the restoration job), and decided he'd be better off without it.

[orly57]

People get their panties in a wad when there is a lack of transparency. That is understandable. I have no issue with the cleaner card. It looks great. And I don't blame PSA one bit. I have been told by one of the best graders I know, who has had personal cards conserved and cleaned, and he said there was literally NO way he could tell anything was done to his cards. It isn't PSA's fault if there is nothing to see.

.

Leon, I disagree that it isn't psa' fault. First of all, the card is off centered and is at best a 6(st). Second, on a low pop card like this, a cursory search of past sales would have easily revealed the alteration. Heck, our own hawk-eyed member caught it and he isn't a professional grader. When your grading evaluation means the difference between a 5k card and a 35k card, you owe the card community that diligence if you proclaim to be the the best in the business. Like JC said,this was obviously submitted by a preferred client and they over-graded without any research whatsoever.

[Leon]

Disagree all you want to. It is a chat board. :) The reality is that if a grader can't see a fault they aren't going to discount the grade for it. No matter how much you disagree it won't change that fact.

Leon, I disagree that it isn't psa' fault. First of all, the card is off centered and is at best a 6(st). Second, on a low pop card like this, a cursory search of past sales would have easily revealed the alteration. Heck, our own hawk-eyed member caught it and he isn't a professional grader. Like JC said,this was submitted by a preferred client and they over-graded without any research whatsoever.

[orly57]

Disagree all you want to. It is a chat board. :) The reality is that if a grader can't see a fault they aren't going to discount the grade for it. No matter how much you disagree it won't change that fact.

You can't see what you don't look for. That is the problem.

[Sean1125]

,

Brent Huigens <brent@pwccauctions.com>
8:34 AM (19 minutes ago)

to me
I'm aware of the Net54 thread.

Ultimately small small restoration issues like this (scrapbook removal, wax removal, etc) is a gray area in the hobby but ultimately it's up to PSA and their quality control standards to determine what's acceptable and what is not. Card is a very good 7...looks graded right to me.

Brent
-Sent from mobile

[Leon]

You can't see what you don't look for. That is the problem.

And if you look and still can't see it you, you still can't take off for it.
I might even go as far as to say even IF they did see the before picture, it is STILL graded correctly today.

[Peter_Spaeth]

My guess is that this card has had significant chemical intervention, in which case it is not a "small small" matter as Brent suggests. I hope I am wrong.

And I will go further to say that if he is aware that the card was restored/altered to make a significant difference in its appearance and grade, he is withholding a material fact.

[ullmandds]

Here we go again... nothing at all new here... card has been embellished...it is obvious to anyone with decent vision let alone the foremost grading company in the world. The card is over graded it has obvious remnants of what used to be there it is not a seven and should not be a seven. And it seems some people are now on PSA's payroll!!

[Leon]

My guess is that this card has had significant chemical intervention, in which case it is not a "small small" matter as Brent suggests. I hope I am wrong.

I have no idea, but to just throw out "significant chemical intervention" is a bit reckless in my view. Heck, who knows, maybe distilled water did it.

[orly57]

I would suspect that they would have to tag it as "altered" if they saw the transformation no? And a 7 with that centering is a stretch in my opinion. I just don't think that I or any of us get a 7 on that card if we sent it in. And why no qualifier on the stain? In this case, the whole card is stained except for the two light areas.

[orly57]

Here we go again... nothing at all new here... card has been embellished...it is obvious to anyone with decent vision let alone the foremost grading company in the world. The card is over graded it has obvious remnants of what used to be there it is not a seven and should not be a seven. And it seems some people are now on PSA's payroll!!

This

[Leon]

Here we go again... nothing at all new here... card has been embellished...it is obvious to anyone with decent vision let alone the foremost grading company in the world. The card is over graded it has obvious remnants of what used to be there it is not a seven and should not be a seven. And it seems some people are now on PSA's payroll!!

Someone can't give an honest opinion now without being accused of being on a payroll? Are you in the media LOL...?

[orly57]

I don't think he meant you Leon. If he did, I withdraw my approval of that portion of the post.

[Leon]

I don't think he meant you Leon. If he did, I withdraw my approval of the post.

I think it is great to share differing opinions.

[Beastmode]

You can't see what you don't look for. That is the problem.

++

[gnaz01]

I have no idea, but to just throw out "significant chemical intervention" is a bit reckless in my view. Heck, who knows, maybe distilled water did it.

Water is still a chemical :D

[Leon]

Water is still a chemical :D

Ok, got me there. But most collectors as you well know, in polls done on this board, have not had the same disdain for water as they have for anything else. And I agree with that sentiment.

[Peter_Spaeth]

According to someone whose opinion I respect highly, the distilled water thing is wishful thinking.

"Your post about the card is essentially correct. It has undoubtedly been submerged in a caustic chemical such as bleach in order to remove the toning and obscure the lighter, untoned areas on the front and back. The type of chemical that has been added has altered the chemical composition of the card and will likely cause the fibers in the cardboard to degrade over time."

This person also believes improvement was made to the corners, based on his close examination of the respective scans.

[Leon]

Just as reckless as your other post. Who is the person? And I think your person is entirely wrong too.

According to someone whose opinion I respect highly, the distilled water thing is wishful thinking.

"Your post about the card is essentially correct. It has undoubtedly been submerged in a caustic chemical such as bleach in order to remove the toning and obscure the lighter, untoned areas on the front and back. The type of chemical that has been added has altered the chemical composition of the card and will likely cause the fibers in the cardboard to degrade over time."

This person also believes improvement was made to the corners, based on his close examination of the respective scans.

[orly57]

If it will cause long-term deterioration of the card, this goes from a harmless fix, to a full-blown scam.

[Beastmode]

Here we go again... nothing at all new here... card has been embellished...it is obvious to anyone with decent vision let alone the foremost grading company in the world. The card is over graded it has obvious remnants of what used to be there it is not a seven and should not be a seven. And it seems some people are now on PSA's payroll!!

++This. I guess I see this as black and white. It's altered, period. don't care if it's chemicals or water. But this is not my world of buying, so can't proclaim to know how it affects the market.

I don't see how this can be good for the hobby. It has all the appearances of fraud and deception. Heck, even PSA can't figure it out.

If someone was doing this to the cards I buy (early 70's PSA 9's), I would be disgusted.

BTW, PSA pooffed the thread over there. Someone posted a really nice pair of photos showing both cards side by side. Can someone do that here within the thread?

[HRBAKER]

And who said SGC cards wouldn't cross to PSA?

[irv]

++This. I guess I see this as black and white. It's altered, period. don't care if it's chemicals or water. But this is not my world of buying, so can't proclaim to know how it affects the market.

I don't see how this can be good for the hobby. It has all the appearances of fraud and deception. Heck, even PSA can't figure it out.

If someone was doing this to the cards I buy (early 70's PSA 9's), I would be disgusted.

BTW, PSA pooffed the thread over there. Someone posted a really nice pair of photos showing both cards side by side. Can someone do that here within the thread?

:)

[Beastmode]

Thanks

[vintagetoppsguy]

As long as there are no long term effects to the card, I have no problem with it. And, until someone can prove it was more than just a soaking in water (which is acceptable in our hobby), then you're just making assumptions. That said, I do think the grade is a little generous. Looks more like a 6 to me.

Oh, and to blame PWCC for selling it just shows you have an axe to grind wirh Brent.

[D. Bergin]

I don't see anything wrong with soaking cards and other stuff out of scrapbooks and albums with water. I've done it myself many times, though not with anything expensive.

If it doesn't harm the card, and releases it from it's jail. No harm, no foul.

THAT, is not a product of water restoration, distilled or otherwise. The first time, in the REA auction. Yes. No biggie.

To bump it up to a (7)? You could soak an old piece of paper/cardboard with that much toning for days, and it wouldn't come out that clean......and even if it did, the paper would have soaked too much water into it's fibers for too long to recover to it's original state. Like stretching the rubber band in your underwear for too long.

Just my opinion, but I think it's pretty "Cut & Dry" :D

See what I did there? ;)

[spaidly]

I knew I was setting myself up for that! Well played, sir. Well played indeed.

What if all it needed was a little wet sand and buff? ;)

[Peter_Spaeth]

As long as there are no long term effects to the card, I have no problem with it. And, until someone can prove it was more than just a soaking in water (which is acceptable in our hobby), then you're just making assumptions. That said, I do think the grade is a little generous. Looks more like a 6 to me.

Oh, and to blame PWCC for selling it just shows you have an axe to grind wirh Brent.

On a card whose appearance has changed that much, and in the manner it has changed, what is your basis for assigning the burden of proof to those who believe more than water is involved? From my perspective the burden is on those who claim it's only water.

[irv]

Backs.

Personally, I am not really sure what to think of all this?
One could use various scenarios to justify either case, but with that being said, I believe there are unwritten rules (Not that any rules really technically exist anyways, that I'm aware of?) within the hobby that say anything more than a water soaking, is a fake, forgery or altered card.:confused:

I do agree, this card is not a 7, considering those still visible marks on the card, but like a lot of things I have seen from PSA in my relatively short time here, is the fact, when you think you have this grading thing down pretty good, another wrench is thrown into the mix. :rolleyes:

[Beastmode]

On a card whose appearance has changed that much, and in the manner it has changed, what is your basis for assigning the burden of proof to those who believe more than water is involved? From my perspective the burden is on those who claim it's only water.


Correct. IMO, disclosure is the problem here. This card should have an asterisk on it, just like Barry Bonds.

[vintagetoppsguy]

On a card whose appearance has changed that much, and in the manner it has changed, what is your basis for assigning the burden of proof to those who believe more than water is involved? From my perspective the burden is on those who claim it's only water.

Peter,

Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe that the stains in the REA scan are more pronounced than they really are? Maybe it was the scanner settings? I'm not saying that the card hasn't been cleaned. It has. But I am saying that maybe the card wasn't that bad to begin with. Maybe it was the scanner? Let me give you an example. Below is a post card that I purchased from Sterling a few months back. I wanted the post card, I was willing to live with the heavy stains. However, when I got the card in hand, the stains were barely noticeable. The only thing I could think of was that maybe Lee's scanner settings made the stains appear worse than they really are. Later, I'll scan it with my own scanner and show you the difference. You'll swear it was cleaned. But I can tell you it's the honest truth that I didnt do anything to the card at all. So, when you say "the appearance has changed that much..." maybe it really hasn't changed all that much? Again, I'm not suggesting that it hasn't been cleaned. It has. But I am suggesting that maybe the stains weren't as bad as REA's scanner made them out to be. Then again, all that sounds too complicated. I guess its just easier to blame GWTS, PSA, PWCC and everybody else, right?


http://www.sterlingsportsauctions.com/ItemImages/000037/37392a_med.jpeg
http://www.sterlingsportsauctions.com/ItemImages/000037/37392b_med.jpeg

[Peter_Spaeth]

David, as I said before, I hope this involves water only. But I believe that is wishful thinking at this point, especially as this appears to be not a simple matter of a stain being removed, but widespread toning.

I have not said a word about PSA.

[aloondilana]

Some of you guys really need to get a life!
The card is in a PSA 7 Holder now, get over it. It's obvious some of you are the types that are still whining over the election.
Call Joe Orlando and take it up with him.
You've all certainly put my investment with this card at a high risk due to all this.
Thank you!
Yes I am the consignor of the card, I purchased it at Goldin Auction for what I thought was a very decent price.
I am a card flipper, I don't hold on to any card I own.
I consigned this card to hopefully make a few bucks. I did not have any knowledge of all the issues many of you have on this thread.
I watch you guys periodically, all you do is bitch about everything. Especially cards you can't have.
Please give this hobby a break!

[Bestdj777]

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

How did you clean the card?

That's not fair to John, he bought it out of Goldin where it was already PSA graded, not out of REA.

[aloondilana]

Thank you Peter!!

[aloondilana]

Heck, I even had the thing reholdered.
If you look at Goldins photo it is in an older holder with no reverse bar code.

[BeanTown]

1. PSA blew it with the grade. How could they not see different shades of color with whatever device they look at it through. It looks borderline for being off center. Plus, not putting any kind of qualifier on the card just screams out that a favor was done for whoever the consignor was.

2. PWCC, already set a precedent earlier last year when someone posted they had bought and won a PC796 Honus Wagner card which they advertised as being power erased and it was certified by SGC as authentic. The new buyer was unsure of it and PWCC allowed a return on it for full refund.

I imagine the future winner of the PWCC 36 DiMaggio won't even know about this thread. If they do, it wouldn't shock me if they would want to return it for full refund as PWCC has not updated their description about the card for full disclosure. I see Brent has acknowledged this now.

[Yoda]

You can't see what you don't look for. That is the problem.

Orlando, too true, and perhaps typifies the eternal conflict between buyer and seller, particularly for an amazing card like the WWG JD RC. Where I get lost in the process is what differentiates what is thought of as harmless touch-ups and what becomes, gulp, restoration. I kinda always believed that if the cardboard remained undisturbed, no trimming, no corner restoration etc., then it was ok to sell as long as it was disclosed the card had been superficially improved. Of course, grading impacts all of that. Who knows?

[BeanTown]

Orlando, too true, and perhaps typifies the eternal conflict between buyer and seller, particularly for an amazing card like the WWG JD RC. Where I get lost in the process is what differentiates what is thought of as harmless touch-ups and what becomes, gulp, restoration. I kinda always believed that if the cardboard remained undisturbed, no trimming, no corner restoration etc., then it was ok to sell as long as it was disclosed the card had been superficially improved. Of course, grading impacts all of that. Who knows?

Do, you think that PWCC should update their auction of this new information about the card? It seems common practice that other reputable auction houses do this as they learn of things that could affect the sale both good and bad.

[Yoda]

Do, you think that PWCC should update their auction of this new information about the card? It seems common practice that other reputable auction houses do this as they learn of things that could affect the sale both good and bad.

If PWCC had prior knowledge that the card had been improved upon when consigned, then absolutely they should have disclosed such fact in their description. Good call.

[Beastmode]

Do, you think that PWCC should update their auction of this new information about the card? It seems common practice that other reputable auction houses do this as they learn of things that could affect the sale both good and bad.

Really? First, which auction houses are reputable? let's start there.

[aloondilana]

As mentioned earlier. I, as the buyer had no idea about this cards past. I purchased a PSA 7 and that's what the card is.
Cards get crossed all the time are all sellers supposed to disclose the former grade and or grading company that graded it?
eBay would be overloaded with disclosures if that we're the case.
Now I do understand the grade has jumped from a 4-7 but the principle is the same.
The bottom line here is regardless of its past it is now in a PSA 7 holder.
Last I checked PSA is also the premier grading company.
Furthermore, unlike all of you, I have experience purchasing this card, should I go cry to goldin about this?
In fact, even if goldin disclosed this issue, I still would have made my purchase.
What I got is what I purchased. Psa 7.

[Yoda]

In a post Mastro world, every auction house should act in an integral manner (not saying they all do) and inform any and all information about cards consigned if they have all the facts disclosed beforehand I am not going to attempt to piggyback on this thread to start on the pros and cons of the various houses except to say I have my favorite, where I do some pretty serious consigning, and that is FTLG. They are pros. No BS. Let's just get the best we can in an ethical manner and make you some money.

[Beastmode]

Seems to be some messenger killing in this thread. OP made an observation, now there's a great discussion. The only whining I see is the folks that want to sweep this under the rug.

Seller of card already admitted he's a flipper, so I'm sure he knows the risk of buying and selling these types of cards. Comes with that territory, and one of the reasons I don't buy pre-war cards. I don't know enough about them nor what is or isn't acceptable as an alteration.

It's clear to me with the lack of review by PSA, it's buyer beware for these cards.

The current auction is almost break even for seller. He's smart enough to list with the best auction house in the business. And he's benefiting from the a-hole 3rd underbidder with 10 retractions who is string bidding.

[PhillipAbbott79]

,

This is the same response you will get 100 percent of the time.

[dariushou]

This card will likely be won by one of pwcc's disciples and then auctioned off in a few more months at a lower price, but still at a very handsome profit. I see S***N is shilling it up. i think i've written about him in many previous posts...loves to shill those pwcc auctions.

This card has undoubtedly been doctored. I think more than just water, but i think this is besides the point. The stain is crystal clear even on the doctored version. If I sent that card in it would be a 4 or 5 at best. No way do I get that through to PSA and get a 7. Not in a thousand years. This stinks like you know what!

[Snapolit1]

Everyone wants to talk up PWCC shills, but I got to tell you I think their last few auctions came in light on most of what I was looking at. When I look at VCP, I see a lot of things of theirs recently with weak prices. I consigned to them once and wont do it again. All they do is list on eBay and mumble " one of 150,000 things we are selling . . . worthy of consideration . . . " Hell I can do that without their help.


At least the real AHs make an effort to market something nice. Have stuff in auctions now and next month and in neither situation did I pay any commission. Brockleman right now. No seller's commission and they did a nice job writing my stuff up.

[Peter_Spaeth]

This card will likely be won by one of pwcc's disciples and then auctioned off in a few more months at a lower price, but still at a very handsome profit. I see S***N is shilling it up. i think i've written about him in many previous posts...loves to shill those pwcc auctions.

This card has undoubtedly been doctored. I think more than just water, but i think this is besides the point. The stain is crystal clear even on the doctored version. If I sent that card in it would be a 4 or 5 at best. No way do I get that through to PSA and get a 7. Not in a thousand years. This stinks like you know what!

He has 24 bids on the item. Also 10 retractions.

[Snapolit1]

He has 24 bids on the item. Also 10 retractions.

Utter nonsense. 10 retractions. Oopps. I did it again.

[DeanH3]

There is no deception in art restoration. There is a world of deception in baseball card restoration/alteration, because rarely is any of it disclosed, and the whole point is to make a card look better and grade higher while deceiving the grading companies and potential buyers into thinking it's original.

As I said, if the restoration in this case is no big deal, then the consignor should have no objection to its disclosure. But something tells me the consignor would have been furious if PWCC had posted a picture of the SGC 50 in the auction and explained the work done by Towle or whoever did it.

Can't have it both ways. If it's acceptable and even a good thing as some seem to be saying, you should have no objection to disclosure.

Well said Peter. Can't agree more.

[BeanTown]

This card will likely be won by one of pwcc's disciples and then auctioned off in a few more months at a lower price, but still at a very handsome profit. I see S***N is shilling it up. i think i've written about him in many previous posts...loves to shill those pwcc auctions.

This card has undoubtedly been doctored. I think more than just water, but i think this is besides the point. The stain is crystal clear even on the doctored version. If I sent that card in it would be a 4 or 5 at best. No way do I get that through to PSA and get a 7. Not in a thousand years. This stinks like you know what!

So, we have the consignor John Gomez a card flipper, and suspect bidding going with S***N with PWCC on ebay. PWCC is an advertiser of this board and says they will fight shill bidding. Plus PWCC has been made aware of the huge upgrade of grade on the flip after being cleaned by most likely a chemical as Peter said. However we have not seen PWCC make an updated description with new news that may affect the sale. Plus the consignor says no harm no foil and let the past be the past as he will ultimately benefit from the proceeds of this current sale.

I'll be watching to see how PWCC handles this now which I hope they do the right thing for full transparency. not to mention do they cancel bids and block bidders which look to be shilling or doing something to affect the auction like doing a bunch of retractions. I know I've been nailed in PWCC in the past with three bidders all magically retracting their bids and next thing you know I won!!!! I was upset but I followed through with the auction payment but alerted them to what happened and to their credit they gave me the choice of not paying or paying.

[Leon]

So, we have the consignor John Gomez a card flipper, and suspect bidding going with S***N with PWCC on ebay. PWCC is an advertiser of this board and says they will fight shill bidding. Plus PWCC has been made aware of the huge upgrade of grade on the flip after being cleaned by most likely a chemical as Peter said. However we have not seen PWCC make an updated description with new news that may affect the sale. Plus the consignor says no harm no foil and let the past be the past as he will ultimately benefit from the proceeds of this current sale.

I'll be watching to see how PWCC handles this now which I hope they do the right thing for full transparency. not to mention do they cancel bids and block bidders which look to be shilling or doing something to affect the auction like doing a bunch of retractions. I know I've been nailed in PWCC in the past with three bidders all magically retracting their bids and next thing you know I won!!!! I was upset but I followed through with the auction payment but alerted them to what happened and to their credit they gave me the choice of not paying or paying.

No one should shill bid....

[aloondilana]

Guys please give it a break!
Bad enough this thread may perhaps sabotage my very expensive investment,
Please lose the shill bidding insinuations.
S***n is also bidding on several high priced cards. I know for a fact he outbid me on the 38 playball DiMaggio PSA 8 and the Psa 8 53 topps mantle.
As someone said earlier on one of these posts that they have been watching his bidding patterns as well. It's not my business what he bids on or not, maybe he has tons of money who knows.
I can't control who bids on my cards, I have a couple other higher end cards on this auction and I can assure you s***n has not bid on any of them.

Please.... I am completely innocent here. I am going to take a good financial hit due to this thread.
Please don't make it worse.

Btw... My name is John Perez not Gomez

[swarmee]

I would have Brent's team spell check their listings better. On this high value piece, the following words are all spelled wrong:
"imensly"
"it's" used incorrectly
"diversifcation"
"beyong"

It's not a blog post, guys.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Some detailed pics that were provided to me comparing the 50 to the 7 (7 scans are from the Goldin auction).

[Peter_Spaeth]

That ID has been called out many times before. No reason to believe John has anything to do with it.

[BeanTown]

Guys please give it a break

S***n is also bidding on several high priced cards. I know for a fact he outbid me on the 38 playball DiMaggio PSA 8 and the Psa 8 53 topps mantle.
As someone said earlier on one of these posts that they have been watching his bidding patterns as well.

Btw... My name is John Perez not Gomez

My bad and sorry John for getting your last name wrong. I've been studying up for my fantasy baseball draft and have been looking at hundreds of names today. Agree it's out of your control on who bids on your stuff and wish you lots of success as my hunch is your card will do really well.

[swarmee]

So would this be possible?
1) Buyer wins card.
2) Buyer requests PSA review card, sending photos of the previous version(s) of the card.
3) PSA now determines it's Altered with a value of $8K or whatever.
4) PSA has to pay out the balance of the card sale price.
5) Buyer ends up with card in a PSA Auth-Altered flip and the difference in his pocket.

[bnorth]

So would this be possible?
1) Buyer wins card.
2) Buyer requests PSA review card, sending photos of the previous version(s) of the card.
3) PSA now determines it's Altered with a value of $8K or whatever.
4) PSA has to pay out the balance of the card sale price.
5) Buyer ends up with card in a PSA Auth-Altered flip and the difference in his pocket.

You forgot:
6) Cracks it out of altered slab, resubmits it and gets a 7 again, then resells it for huge profit.

[Bestdj777]

That's not fair to John, he bought it out of Goldin where it was already PSA graded, not out of REA.

Hey Peter and John,

I deleted it immediately--it must have been roughly the same time you copied me--as I didn't want to get into anything with anyone. I'm glad I did now that I see he bought the card as is.

[PhillipAbbott79]

If you file a claim the insurance company takes the card.

[seanofjapan]

My 2 cents:

I can kind of see the point that the card is overgraded at a 7 since the toning and centering suggest it is lower (maybe a 5 or 6? Not sure).

But I don't think you can fault PSA for not catching the cleaning. When they get a card to grade the only thing they should be looking at is the card itself because that is an easily identifiable objective standard to go by. Assuming the card itself displayed no signs of cleaning, then as far as I am concerned they weren't negligent in failing to catch it.

If you change the standard of grading to include background research on the specific card, (such as going through old auction listings) you start introducing more subjective elements to the process that are going to be impossible for them to meet in most cases. OK, its kind of easy with this Dimaggio card since it is low population and the outlines of the toning make it pretty easy to match, but most cases involving cleaning aren't going to fit that profile. What if it is a higher pop card of high value (52 Mantle or something) and the match between the card in question and some random previous card with a flaw that seems to have disappeared is less obvious. Its really unclear how you would define a satisfactory level of in-depth background research for the grading company to undertake before reaching a grade - do they have to look through all previous 52 Mantle auctions to satisfy it? Its just creates uncertainty for the grader and the people buying graded cards if the criteria for grading is left a bit vague like that.

[JustinD]

I am a tad shocked that anyone thinks this is an anomaly.

In 2008 Dick stated he had done on the conservative side 15 to 18k cards that all (tried) passed grading. It's now been 9 more years of steady work to at least double that up. ( I am not saying this was Dick, there are plenty of people that can do something like this and get it graded. He is just a good example because he is the most open about his business.)

http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.com/nerattowle/

This is a well known aspect of the hobby to big money buyers or they are grossly misinformed. Anyone with a decent collection likely has a few items that passed through that shop at some time. That has to be at least (on the very low side) 40k cards that were worth the trip to add to a profit. In my mind, likely 85% of higher grade 52 Micks have already made that trip.

John has done nothing wrong on his side other than buying a card from a flipper.

I am also not saying anything untoward happened to this card as it is unproven to this point. I am speaking as a whole to those that think grading is some infallible knight of honor...it simply is not.

[swarmee]

Interesting quote in that article: "What they do with the card after that, I have no idea. But then again, if a card is already graded from a “4” to a “7,” that really tells the story."

[PhillipAbbott79]

My 2 cents:

I can kind of see the point that the card is overgraded at a 7 since the toning and centering suggest it is lower (maybe a 5 or 6? Not sure).

But I don't think you can fault PSA for not catching the cleaning. When they get a card to grade the only thing they should be looking at is the card itself because that is an easily identifiable objective standard to go by. Assuming the card itself displayed no signs of cleaning, then as far as I am concerned they weren't negligent in failing to catch it.

If you change the standard of grading to include background research on the specific card, (such as going through old auction listings) you start introducing more subjective elements to the process that are going to be impossible for them to meet in most cases. OK, its kind of easy with this Dimaggio card since it is low population and the outlines of the toning make it pretty easy to match, but most cases involving cleaning aren't going to fit that profile. What if it is a higher pop card of high value (52 Mantle or something) and the match between the card in question and some random previous card with a flaw that seems to have disappeared is less obvious. Its really unclear how you would define a satisfactory level of in-depth background research for the grading company to undertake before reaching a grade - do they have to look through all previous 52 Mantle auctions to satisfy it? Its just creates uncertainty for the grader and the people buying graded cards if the criteria for grading is left a bit vague like that.

If you ask me, they should be scanning every card and using some sort of fingerprinting like technology do comparisons. Suggesting a manual search is ridiculous, but implementing technology to do the analysis is not. It will help them understand when they have a new to market card or a resubmission which would have some solid impacts to the way things are now.

[packs]

That seems like a lot of work for one off things like this. I know that altering happens all the time but I'd also venture to guess an overwhelming majority of altered cards are found to be altered.

[JustinD]

That seems like a lot of work for one off things like this. I know that altering happens all the time but I'd also venture to guess an overwhelming majority of altered cards are found to be altered.

I will agree on trimming, but not stain removal.

I fall on the same belief as Leon has referenced. Do I assume the worst on everything or if I cannot tell, nor anyone else, do I care? Honestly, not really.

Yes It is nice to turn a blind eye, but I instead just hold the belief that many if not more than 51% of high grade vintage cards have had a tad of assistance. As an art collector that has used a restorer to remove dry-matted prints, if it improves it I am happier with the end product. Personally, and I may be in the minority, I don't see stain, glue or tape removal in the same light as trimming or paper rebuilding.

I have never used a card restorer, but if I have a couple that have seen one (and I would not doubt that I have at some time logically), then oh well. This is the result of years of focus on condition. It's a foreseeable byproduct of the grading obsession.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

"Removing" vs. "Adding"

removing = good

adding = bad

[h2oya311]

"Removing" vs. "Adding"

removing = good

adding = bad

Unless you're removing some of the edges of the card...

[Peter_Spaeth]

There are two issues here. One, is the restoration considered acceptable. Two, should the restoration be disclosed.

Generally, I think that if the restoration involves chemicals that change the card's fibers, or that possibility cannot reasonably be ruled out, it is unacceptable. I think the add/remove distinction is too simplistic, it depends what is being removed and how.

More importantly, I think that if the restoration dramatically improves the card's grade (such as here), it should be disclosed whether or not it's generally considered acceptable. I would want to know if the card I was buying had been restored appreciably. And notwithstanding a third party grade, it seems to me wrong to conceal it.

[vintagetoppsguy]

There are two issues here. One, is the restoration considered acceptable. Two, should the restoration be disclosed.

Before those two issues, there is another issue to be considered. Is it really 'restoration' to begin with?

If I take a card that has wax residue on the front and remove it with nylon, is that restoration? After all, it's removing something that wasn't there when the card was printed and restoring it back to it's previous state.

[packs]

Personally I don't see that as the issue. There is no question about restoration's place in the hobby. A card that has been restored or altered from its original state is designated as either "Altered" or plainly "Authentic". There is no room for a grade when it comes to an altered card. I don't consider soaking to be an alteration or restoration but if you remove a stain from a card I think you've altered it, particularly when you haven't really removed it, you've just made it harder to see. The same would go for smoothing out a crease or erasing pencil marks.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Before those two issues, there is another issue to be considered. Is it really 'restoration' to begin with?

If I take a card that has wax residue on the front and remove it with nylon, is that restoration? After all, it's removing something that wasn't there when the card was printed and restoring it back to it's previous state.

Do you not see the irony in your post, you used the word "restoring" to describe something you say is not restoration. LOL. But no I would not consider that objectionable.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Do you not see the irony in your post, you used the word "restoring" to describe something you say is not restoration. LOL. But no I would not consider that objectionable.

Peter, that word was used intentionally. I was trying to be humorous. I was trying to show you that just because you remove something that shouldn't have been there in the first place doesn't make it restoration. Wax removal generally isn't considered restoration in our hobby. Neither is soaking.

[BeanTown]

There are two issues here. One, is the restoration considered acceptable. Two, should the restoration be disclosed

More importantly, I think that if the restoration dramatically improves the card's grade (such as here), it should be disclosed whether or not it's generally considered acceptable. I would want to know if the card I was buying had been restored appreciably. And notwithstanding a third party grade, it seems to me wrong to conceal it.

So Peter, do you think PWCC should disclose this and update their listing since they know it's been worked on and the grade has been massively improved from a 4 to a 7. I would think the winning bidder would have a great case to return the card if they found out later about the history of the card. Not doing a full disclosure of the known history of the card isn't the best approach IMO.

I think if a full disclosure was done, it could still have a chance to fetch some high bucks.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So Peter, do you think PWCC should disclose this and update their listing since they know it's been worked on and the grade has been massively improved from a 4 to a 7. I would think the winning bidder would have a great case to return the card if they found out later about the history of the card. Not doing a full disclosure of the known history of the card isn't the best approach IMO.

I think if a full disclosure was done, it could still have a chance to fetch some high bucks.

Yes, in my opinion PWCC should disclose the card's history. It's a known material fact and it's deceptive not to disclose it, even though PSA has graded it -- in my opinion. To me, that does not cleanse (pun intended) the history which is independently relevant. I understand fully why PWCC would not WANT to disclose it -- fear of depressing price, angering the consignor, and making PSA potentially look bad -- but sellers who don't disclose usually have sound business reasons that don't persuade me.

To be clear, I don't think a card's grading history always needs to be disclosed. If someone did nothing to a card and bumped it from an 8 to a 9, I would not deem that to be material. But if substantial work is done on a card (even if considered acceptable) resulting in a 3 grade bump, to me that's a no brainer for materiality.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

I think it would super tough if near impossible to try and police the history of whether a card had been worked on for every card in an SGC or PSA holder at PWCC. If you're buying a slabbed card you're buying into the expertise of PSA/SGC to be the experts to authenticate and find alteration. If the card has a number and not designated altered then if I'm PWCC I'd feel good to go to market and sell. If PSA/SGC made a mistake then it's on them to rectify.

[aloondilana]

To All:
This issue has been acted upon.
Last night PWCC overnighted this WWG DiMaggio to PSA for inspection.
I just got word from PWCC that this card has been deemed a valid PSA 7 from PSA.
These concerns and this thread have been taken very seriously, as this auction was facing cancellation.
Regardless of what ever this cards past is, it has been determined that it is a qualified PSA 7.
Thank you,
John Perez

[ullmandds]

To All:
This issue has been acted upon.
Last night PWCC overnighted this WWG DiMaggio to PSA for inspection.
I just got word from PWCC that this card has been deemed a valid PSA 7 from PSA.
These concerns and this thread have been taken very seriously, as this auction was facing cancellation.
Regardless of what ever this cards past is, it has been determined that it is a qualified PSA 7.
Thank you,
John Perez

thank god...I feel so much better now! Has this "factoid" been added to the auction description?

[aloondilana]

Not sure.
I'm sure Brent or a representative from PWCC will address this board shortly.

[Peter_Spaeth]

To All:
This issue has been acted upon.
Last night PWCC overnighted this WWG DiMaggio to PSA for inspection.
I just got word from PWCC that this card has been deemed a valid PSA 7 from PSA.
These concerns and this thread have been taken very seriously, as this auction was facing cancellation.
Regardless of what ever this cards past is, it has been determined that it is a qualified PSA 7.
Thank you,
John Perez

I am not surprised that PSA stood behind its grade. I would have been quite surprised if it had not. As a buyer, I would still want to know that the card started out as a 4 and was cleaned. PSA's opinion does not, for me, preclude the relevance of other information about history.

By some people's reasoning, I could trim a card, get it past PSA (it happens), and not be obligated to disclose I trimmed it because all I am selling is PSA's opinion. I don't buy it.

[bnorth]

Not sure.
I'm sure Brent or a representative from PWCC will address this board shortly.

Thanks for the heads up, I will get my hip waders out.

[swarmee]

Very good to send the card in for review. Glad it came back accurate for you.

[ullmandds]

I am not surprised that PSA stood behind its grade. I would have been quite surprised if it had not. As a buyer, I would still want to know that the card started out as a 4 and was cleaned.

totally

[ullmandds]

id surmise if the gretzky wagner were sent in for similar review...the outcome would be the same too?

[BeanTown]

Normally PSA from what others have told me just kill a cross over card that comes from their rival competitor in SGC. Even if a card deserves a higher grade from an SGC holder, PSA normally never gives it as it makes PSA look like they grade cards more liberal. Ive heard you are way better off to crack it out and submit it raw to PSA if doing a cross over. Can anyone think of PSA giving an SGC card a 3 grade bump???? I still find it strange that they regraded the card and seeing a stain they didn't give it a qualifier.

[swarmee]

I think you're making the wrong assumption, BeanTown. The premise of this thread had been that the SGC 50/4 was cracked out, then soaked (with or without additives) and then resubmitted raw to PSA.

[Snapolit1]

PWCC just sent me an email touting the DiMaggio card.

The single finest PSA assessed copy in the hobby. A truly special investment piece which represents arguably the most important true rookie card issues during the 1930s. A world class investment piece, worthy of the finest collection.

Wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to amend the official description.

[HRBAKER]

Third party grading sure provides a lot of cover. The cleaning to me is a material fact and should be disclosed - of course I am looking at this from the vantage point of a buyer. This thread and others like it are very enlightening.

[Beastmode]

Third party grading sure provides a lot of cover. The cleaning to me is a material fact and should be disclosed - of course I am looking at this from the vantage point of a buyer. This thread and others like it are very enlightening.

The technology is available to determine if a card has been chemically altered. Whomever provides that service is going to make the "natural" cards go 5x overnight.

If I had a natural PSA 7 that was unaltered, i would not be happy about this scenario.

If I owned, and I don't, lots of high dollar pre-war cards that were unaltered, i would start asking for an "N" in the flip.

[orly57]

So if psa is shown proof that a card was doctored, they will still not label it "altered?" Then what the hell gets an altered? Only trimmed cards?

[vintagetoppsguy]

So if psa is shown proof that a card was doctored, they will still not label it "altered?" Then what the hell gets an altered? Only trimmed cards?

Sounds like PSA doesn't consider a cleaned card as altered as long as thre are no signs of cleaning - nothing you can see, smell or feel. I tend to agree.

[orly57]

Um...this is from the psa web site for when a card is "ungradeable." N-5 and N-7 seem pretty clear here.

[ullmandds]

looks like the seller will clear a little over a grand...congrats!

[Peter_Spaeth]

looks like the seller will clear a little over a grand...congrats!

But the first seller probably cleared 50 or more.

[VintageBen]

sold for $6600 in spring of 2015 as a 4.

sold for $46800 as a 7.

Just sold for $52351 as a 7. PWCC made over $4k on the sale.

[Peter_Spaeth]

sold for $6600 in spring of 2015 as a 4.

sold for $46800 as a 7.

Just sold for $52351 as a 7. PWCC made over $4k on the sale.

I believe it sold in between REA and Goldin for a lot more than that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Um...this is from the psa web site for when a card is "ungradeable." N-5 and N-7 seem pretty clear here.

Maybe the before and after scans were not "evidence"?

[orly57]

This is true. Looks like they would require mitochondrial DNA of known card doctors to be lifted from the card and analyzed by Dr. Henry Lee.

[jfkheat]

So if psa is shown proof that a card was doctored, they will still not label it "altered?" Then what the hell gets an altered? Only trimmed cards?

I wonder if PSA was made aware of the doctoring when the card was sent in for review?
James

[VintageBen]

I believe it sold in between REA and Goldin for a lot more than that.



Wow!!!! Instead of flipping homes, you can flip baseball cards.

[1952boyntoncollector]

There are two issues here. One, is the restoration considered acceptable. Two, should the restoration be disclosed.

Generally, I think that if the restoration involves chemicals that change the card's fibers, or that possibility cannot reasonably be ruled out, it is unacceptable. I think the add/remove distinction is too simplistic, it depends what is being removed and how.

More importantly, I think that if the restoration dramatically improves the card's grade (such as here), it should be disclosed whether or not it's generally considered acceptable. I would want to know if the card I was buying had been restored appreciably. And notwithstanding a third party grade, it seems to me wrong to conceal it.


I agree, plus there are some restorations like smoothing out wrinkles that a year or so later the wrinkle comes back on the card and even though you have a PSA '5' or whatever, one with a wrinkle would lower the value of that '5' so some of the high '4's for example. As a buyer i would want to know about that issue.

[KendallCat]

Guys please give it a break!
Bad enough this thread may perhaps sabotage my very expensive investment,
Please lose the shill bidding insinuations.
S***n is also bidding on several high priced cards. I know for a fact he outbid me on the 38 playball DiMaggio PSA 8 and the Psa 8 53 topps mantle.
As someone said earlier on one of these posts that they have been watching his bidding patterns as well. It's not my business what he bids on or not, maybe he has tons of money who knows.
I can't control who bids on my cards, I have a couple other higher end cards on this auction and I can assure you s***n has not bid on any of them.

Please.... I am completely innocent here. I am going to take a good financial hit due to this thread.
Please don't make it worse.

Btw... My name is John Perez not Gomez

Man this thread has it all. People come on here making claims of card doctoring just because the card goes from SGC 4 with stains to a PSA 7 without them.

Now it is about some bidder on eBay (s***n)and he only has 10 retractions - not like the one guy back in the summer (a***t)who had 50+ retractions on several key rookie cards over a 3-4 month time period. Just because he bid this card up with 20+bids from $30k-43k within a few hours. Why would anyone be concerned?

I would be suspicious if the seller had come on here defending the practice of this bidder almost as if he knows him. You guys are just taking all of the fun out of hobby. :D

[botn]

Sounds like PSA doesn't consider a cleaned card as altered as long as thre are no signs of cleaning - nothing you can see, smell or feel. I tend to agree.

Sounds more like PSA doesn't want to admit to a mistake and write a check.

[nrm1977]

I would for surely want to know if a card I was buying at this price point was restored. Though, we're all different and I respect that. Now, if a low-end card I needed for a set was soaked in water to remove dirt, I wouldn't mind that at all. Though, I've seen cards soaked for dirt removal. I don't see how the tape markings were removed without chemicals. Which is not allowed by 3rd party grading companies. I thought the grading companies smelled the cards to detect chemicals? I recall in the book Mint Condition that being said. Again, I would think, if someone used a chemical you would be able to easily smell it but who knows?

I do feel the card should be disclosed as being restored. Dirt removal would be fine by me but, not tape markings/residue. For example, when you're buying a original classic collectible car, they typical stat if the car has been restored. Restored classic cars sell for less. I know it's a different hobby but, I'm just giving an example.

It's a nice looking card but, I just don't see how it got a 7 with the centering and faded "markings", which are clear as day. PSA would never admit they were wrong about a card of this price point. By them admitting they might have been wrong, would result in them not being credible. In their line of business credibility is number one. No way in a colds day in hell they'd admit it.

To the gentlemen that was flipping the card, even though I don't "flip" cards, I'm glad you made your money back. Though, I was taken back when you said this thread was costing you money on your "investment". A high dollar card like this was restored, I'm sure a buyer would want to know. :)

Lastly, this is why having cards graded by a 3rd party company is so subjective. Way too much faith is put into these companies. Maybe someday this section of the hobby will be regulated somehow. For me, I'll just stick to my 401k, real estate, for investing purposes and continue to collect cards for the enjoyment which it was intended for, a fun hobby! :)

Nick

[vintagetoppsguy]

Um...this is from the psa web site for when a card is "ungradeable." N-5 and N-7 seem pretty clear here.

N-5 Altered Stock - This term is used when the paper stock is altered in one or more of the following ways: Stretching and trimming, recoloring and restoring, trimming and recoloring, restoring and trimming, crease or wrinkle is pressed out, or gloss is enhanced.

How do you know the paper stock was altered? You've seen the card in hand?

N-7 Evidence of Cleaning - When a whitener is used to whiten borders or a solution is used to remove wax, candy, gum or tobacco stains.

The key word there is evidence. The card has to show evidence. I would assume that means something you can feel or smell. And the before and after pictures are not evidence because I'm sure the graders didn't have the luxury of seeing the before pic like we did.

[Peter_Spaeth]

N-5 Altered Stock - This term is used when the paper stock is altered in one or more of the following ways: Stretching and trimming, recoloring and restoring, trimming and recoloring, restoring and trimming, crease or wrinkle is pressed out, or gloss is enhanced.

How do you know the paper stock was altered? You've seen the card in hand?

N-7 Evidence of Cleaning - When a whitener is used to whiten borders or a solution is used to remove wax, candy, gum or tobacco stains.

The key word there is evidence. The card has to show evidence. I would assume that means something you can feel or smell. And the before and after pictures are not evidence because I'm sure the graders didn't have the luxury of seeing the before pic like we did.

PWCC easily could have provided such pics if it was genuinely interested in ensuring the appropriateness of the grade when it sent it back in. For all we know, it did.

[dplath]

Though not high end, the centering is perfectly acceptable for a 7. From PSA's website:

[ NM-7 ] Near Mint 7 shows a slight surface wear visible upon close inspection. There may be slight fraying on some corners. Picture focus may be slightly out-of-register. A minor printing blemish is acceptable. Slight wax staining is acceptable on the back of the card only. Most of the original gloss is retained. Centering must be approximately 70/30 to 75/25 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back.

[vintagetoppsguy]

PWCC easily could have provided such pics if it was genuinely interested in ensuring the appropriateness of the grade when it sent it back in. For all we know, it did.

The card, not pics, the card has to show evidence. And it has to show evidence of a whitener or a solution. Water is neither.

Come on, Peter. You've read my previous posts about PSA. I absolutely despise them. But they aren't wrong here. PSA's grading standards are right there in black and white and people are twisting it around.

[Leon]

Seems the card has been pulled...? woops, didn't realize it sold....still looks like a 7 to me :)

http://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?item=351969254533&_ssn=pwcc_auctions&_sop=16

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Seems the card has been pulled...?

http://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?item=351969254533&_ssn=pwcc_auctions&_sop=16

.

It closed last night.

[Leon]

It closed last night.

another posting at the same time (of my edit above,) thanks though... :)

[Peter_Spaeth]

The card, not pics, the card has to show evidence. And it has to show evidence of a whitener or a solution. Water is neither.

Come on, Peter. You've read my previous posts about PSA. I absolutely despise them. But they aren't wrong here. PSA's grading standards are right there in black and white and people are twisting it around.

I do not for a minute believe that card was cleaned using only water.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Seems the card has been pulled...? woops, didn't realize it sold....still looks like a 7 to me :)

http://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?item=351969254533&_ssn=pwcc_auctions&_sop=16

.

And the Wagner looks like an 8.

[PhillipAbbott79]

I think this is the only point worth mentioning here:

Take out the fact that it may have been chemically cleaned, and whether or not PSA should have caught it or not, and what the actual definition of altered is, or what the technical definition of a chemical is, there appears to be enough evidence to show that card is the same one (although you never know) and that something was done to the card(probably).

PWCC was alerted to the issue, and they chose not to present more information about the item which is extremely relevant and has a high impact on the selling price. They have passed on the responsibility to PSA as the only personal responsible for the grade given, and the transparency on the item for sale.

I would not go so far as to say it is dishonest. I would more accurately describe it as less then honorable and less than noble. More like doing the bare minimum. They at a minimum had an obligation to mention the light spots before, and after having a attention called to them. It is part of the description of the card, that can be subtle enough to not be noticed right away, therefore warranting mention.

The problem is, that this is not the first time this has occurred. With that said, I personally like a lot of the items that they sell, but when I see things like this I want to grab my laptop and smash it into pieces. It angers me to see things I would buy from a seller who I feel has a less than impeccably perfect intention, and someone else's interest at heart rather than my own, whether I planned on bidding on the item in question or not. I had no intention on bidding on this item, but I can not shake the anger it makes me feel when I reflect about items I did want, that commanded higher prices due to lack of updating the description to be an accurate reflection of the card when mentioned.

[JustinD]

Ok, I am just waiting for the following now after this thread...

Board member decides to lash himself to the cross after buying a 50k card when well after the fact someone finds a previous photo that shows the card looking different.

He puts out an auction that states the following:

"I present to you a PSA 7 that has no visible proof of alteration and has been reviewed twice by PSA and found to have no proof of alteration. However, I have seen a prior iteration of this card that looks different and leads me to think it was cleaned. I do not know how it was cleaned, it could have been untoward. But...I feel I should reveal it was altered in some way whether the grading companies say it or not. Please take this theoretical alteration into account when bidding.

Also, please look at this prior photo of my card showing the change prior to my owning the card that I cannot explain fully, but has been cleared twice by PSA, but I am uncomfortable with."

and more shockingly does not get divorced after he explains this to his wife about how he lost 25K, lol.

PS: I am totally not trying to pick a fight, this just is a situation I am waiting for someone to live up to after this.

I don't see options of recourse here other than this. What case does someone have with PSA or even going back to the prior auction house. If you have no proof of alteration (this card had to be submitted raw if the change took place. The argument that it smells of chemicals or the paper stock was changed by chemicals seems null. This was examined raw.) other than photos, and no proof of how the alteration was done unnaturally to disprove the examiners opinion, you have no case.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The seller chose not to reveal a known material fact about the card's history. I can only assume part of the reason for not disclosing was concern that disclosure would affect the price. The rest is just spin and noise.

[Touch'EmAll]

Return: 30 days money back. Buyer pays return shipping.

Stated in listing. Curious to see if the card pops back up for sale in near future.

[vintagetoppsguy]

The seller chose not to reveal a known material fact about the card's history. I can only assume part of the reason for not disclosing was concern that disclosure would affect the price. The rest is just spin and noise.

I know you can edit the listing, but can you edit the description? Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well could be), but I didn't think you could edit a description. i thought you could only add to the description. Even then, the changes don't appear in the description, they appear somewhere at the bottom of the page. If that's the case, look at the listing again. It's very "busy" with a lot of text. Do you think a bidder would have noticed it? I'm not arguing one way or the other, I am asking a legitimate question.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I know you can edit the listing, but can you edit the description? Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well could be), but I didn't think you could edit a description. i thought you could only add to the description. Even then, the changes don't appear in the description, they appear somewhere at the bottom of the page. If that's the case, look at the listing again. It's very "busy" with a lot of text. Do you think a bidder would have noticed it? I'm not arguing one way or the other, I am asking a legitimate question.

The seller knew the history at the start of the auction, so it's a moot point, but yes I think on a 50K card people likely would have read the description.

[botn]

I know you can edit the listing, but can you edit the description? Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well could be), but I didn't think you could edit a description. i thought you could only add to the description. Even then, the changes don't appear in the description, they appear somewhere at the bottom of the page. If that's the case, look at the listing again. It's very "busy" with a lot of text. Do you think a bidder would have noticed it? I'm not arguing one way or the other, I am asking a legitimate question.

You are correct and therefore because the seller cannot amend the listing like a self hosting auction house could, the proper thing to do would have been to end the listing and tell the consignor the item could be returned to him or sold in next month's auction. Fact is there was no incentive for the seller to do that.

And like the seller, PSA had no incentive to buy back the card or change the grade, assuming the card was actually provided to them for review. With or without a picture of the card in its previous condition, the card does not meet the criteria of a NM example. So even if there is no evidence it was cleaned, it is still over graded based on its presentation.

[Republicaninmass]

Return: 30 days money back. Buyer pays return shipping.

Stated in listing. Curious to see if the card pops back up for sale in near future.

probably with probstein

[BengoughingForAwhile]

Return: 30 days money back. Buyer pays return shipping.

Stated in listing. Curious to see if the card pops back up for sale in near future.

After another good "cleansing" it could end up in a PSA 8 holder next time!

[vintagetoppsguy]

The seller knew the history at the start of the auction, so it's a moot point, but yes I think on a 50K card people likely would have read the description.

The consignor stated in Post #85 that "I did not have any knowledge of all the issues many of you have on this thread." If he didn't know about it, how could PWCC have known about it? Is someone lying?

[Peter_Spaeth]

The consignor stated in Post #85 that "I did not have any knowledge of all the issues many of you have on this thread." If he didn't know about it, how could PWCC have known about it? Is someone lying?

I am sure John is telling the truth. The point I was making is not John's prior knowledge, it's PWCC's.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I am sure John is telling the truth. The point I was making is not John's prior knowledge, it's PWCC's.

What makes you think PWCC had prior knowledge of the card's history?

[BeanTown]

I think this is the only point worth mentioning here:

Take out the fact that it may have been chemically cleaned.

PWCC was alerted to the issue, and

The problem is, that this is not the first time this has occurred. With that said, I personally like a lot of the items that they sell, but when I see things like this I want to grab my laptop and smash it into pieces. It angers me to see things I would buy from a seller who I feel has a less than impeccably perfect intention, and someone else's interest at heart rather than my own, whether I planned on bidding on the item in question or not. I had no intention on bidding on this item, but I can not shake the anger it makes me feel when I reflect about items I did want, that commanded higher prices due to lack of updating the description to be an accurate reflection of the card when mentioned.

"Mentioned only for completeness" on the 50.00 card, yet on the 50k card they chose now to remain silent even though PWCC knew. Now what would be really interesting is the new owner just learns of this and stumbles across this net54 thread. Then he returns the card for a full refund because PWCC did not disclose everything. Then the card becomes tainted for years to come. I used to think the same thing on the Gretzky Wagner card, but the people who buy a known altered card like that, must enjoy the publicity about it.

So, who was the mastermind who sent the card off to get worked on, then resubmitted to PSA for a huge bump? My hunch is it was someone who had pull with PSA to get them to have blinders on when grading and I'm sure he forgot to tell PSA the card used to be properly graded in a SGC holder. I feel bad for the owners of legit high grade Joe DiMaggio 1936 WW cards as they just got knocked off the podium. It's like the Olympics where it's a game between the drug users and the committee to detect drug use. Steroids in the 80s and Peds in the 2000s.

[orly57]

Mentioned for completeness. Just perfect. Thanks for the laugh JC. We don't want guys walking around with mislabled $50 cards, but a restored former sgc 50 cloaked in a psa 7 is perfectly acceptable.
I have always been an advocate of card soaking and restoration. I honestly don't mind it so long as the card grades. I think, as I have stated before, that as long as you aren't trimming or altering the card, there is nothing wrong with sprucing up the card to it's original appearance. But I do draw the line when it results in people losing 50k due to the fraud. I think Peter has a point when he says that if it isn't a big deal, they should disclose it.
PSA has probably been shown the photos. There is ZERO doubt that the card has been doctored and therefore should not receive a grade. They owe it to the card community to get it right, even if they have to write a check. And as fond as I am of Brent, I think that he was bound to his clients to mention it "for completeness."

[PhillipAbbott79]

There is a certain amount of liability. They can't just write a check without getting the card in return. Common sense. Another buyer would then have the same claim against them.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Mentioned for completeness. Just perfect. Thanks for the laugh JC. We don't want guys walking around with mislabled $50 cards, but a restored former sgc 50 cloaked in a psa 7 is perfectly acceptable.
I have always been an advocate of card soaking and restoration. I honestly don't mind it so long as the card grades. I think, as I have stated before, that as long as you aren't trimming or altering the card, there is nothing wrong with sprucing up the card to it's original appearance. But I do draw the line when it results in people losing 50k due to the fraud. I think Peter has a point when he says that if it isn't a big deal, they should disclose it.
PSA has probably been shown the photos. There is ZERO doubt that the card has been doctored and therefore should not receive a grade. They owe it to the card community to get it right, even if they have to write a check. And as fond as I am of Brent, I think that he was bound to his clients to mention it "for completeness."

Excuse me, but I don't follow. You say you don't mind soaking and restoration as long as the card grades. Then you say this particular card should not grade. Which is it? Let me guess. As long as it's YOUR card and it grades, that's OK, but if it's somebody else's card and it grades and they make a lot of money from it, it's not OK. Did I get it right?

And, Peter, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question as to how Brent had prior knowledge of the card's history???

[Peter_Spaeth]

David, all I am going to say on the subject for now is that I have learned a great deal of information about this card and its history from reliable and corroborating sources. And I am comfortable saying what I said, or I would not have said it.

[vintagetoppsguy]

David, all I am going to say on the subject for now is that I have learned a great deal of information about this card and its history from reliable and corroborating sources. And I am comfortable saying what I said, or I would not have said it.

Gotcha! Whoever cleaned the card (or had it cleaned) and submitted it to PSA probably called Brent up one day and said, "Your never going to believe this..." Makes sense to me.

[Beastmode]

I'm enjoying this thread and have a few observations.

We can assume with 100% certainty that ALL of the other AH's have sold altered cards, knowing the cards were alterted, and maybe even taken part in the altering. If you ask PWCC to disclose an alterted card, then you need to have a global standard for ALL AH's to disclose that information.

Why is PWCC constantly held to this higher standard of disclosure? Because they are the most transperant? They are the only AH where we can see the bidders and history. How about the other AH's show us the bidders before we throw the book at PWCC.

PWCC does not have to be the most honordable and ethical AH; they only have to be better than their competitors. And their competitors aren't anywhere near PWCC's moral compass.

[PhillipAbbott79]

David, all I am going to say on the subject for now is that I have learned a great deal of information about this card and its history from reliable and corroborating sources. And I am comfortable saying what I said, or I would not have said it.


Re-read this and pretend you are someone else.

It sounds like: "I have great sources of information no one else has and never will and I will not tell you what you want to know because I do not feel like it, and you should just trust me when I say, I know the truth."

You should have thrown in a "nanny nanny boo boo" at the end to augment the legitimacy of what you were saying in that post.

[steve B]

I believe it's more likely one of the following

Peter being told something in confidence and not being the sort of person to break that confidence.

Sometimes we all learn "stuff" and it's possible disclosing "stuff" could result in a lawsuit. Which would be expensive even if there was solid evidence the info was true. Without that- and getting some "stuff" in writing is not easy, it could become very expensive and/or time consuming. Not being stupid he decides to avoid an unprovable direct accusation.

Steve B

Re-read this and pretend you are someone else.

It sounds like: "I have great sources of information no one else has and never will and I will not tell you what you want to know because I do not feel like it, and you should just trust me when I say, I know the truth."

You should have thrown in a "nanny nanny boo boo" at the end to augment the legitimacy of what you were saying in that post.

[mechanicalman]

Does anyone else keep checking the February Pick-Ups thread in hopes of seeing someone post a '36 Goudey WWG DiMaggio PSA 7? That would be epic.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Steve it's #1. I get that people don't like it, that it comes across as obnoxious. At the same time, I did not want to let stand the suggestion David made (understandably) that it may not have been practical for PWCC to disclose this having learned it for the first time mid-auction.

[steve B]

I've very mixed feelings on this whole thing.

I think the original toning was from being next to acidic paper for some amount of time. Over more time that would damage the card, (Still might because it's not all gone) The process for removing that involves either a bleaching agent or a deacidifier.

Lots of good general info here
http://www.collectorsguide.com/fa/fa010.shtml

Any of that should be disclosed, and should be part of the items history which should be included in any transfer.

But it won't, because of the stigma attached to even appropriate conservation that all gets lumped under the heading of "alteration". That stigma affects value in out hobby, perhaps far more than in others.

So let me ask a different sort of question. The answer matters less than the thinking behind it, although I have a preferred answer.

If I had the card. And posted it here raw asking the question "I have this card that's got fairly mild damage from acid exposure that will only worsen over time eventually destroying it. It's a fairly important and valuable card, and I think it should be deacidified so that it will last another few generations. But I'm concerned about how that will affect the value. What should I do?"

---------------------------------






My preference is for doing the conservation. If it's done professionally there should be no damage, and aside from earlier pictures, no physical indication that it's been done. Without conservation, we as a hobby are essentially condemning some of the best items to a premature destruction.

TPG will probably NEVER be realistically able to work with conservation vs eventual damaging originality as long as they operate the way they have. And as long as genuine conservation is looked down on by the hobby in general.

Nearly every other hobby accepts disclosed conservation/restoration as long as it's done appropriately. Some hobbies ignore some conservation that's not disclosed. Coins- nearly every really bright looking uncirculated silver coin has been cleaned. Other Silver objects- basically have to be polished occasionally to remove tarnish. If it's not brown/black it's been cleaned. Maybe it's time for us to do the same.

And I don't buy the "It's a PSA 7 so it's A PSA 7 and nobody should question that" line. Grades should always be questioned if they seem off.

Steve Birmingham

[steve B]

Steve it's #1. I get that people don't like it, that it comes across as obnoxious. At the same time, I did not want to let stand the suggestion David made (understandably) that it may not have been practical for PWCC to disclose this having learned it for the first time mid-auction.

I for one have no problem with it at all.

Steve B

[packs]

The hobby doesn't have an issue with restoration though. Cards that have been restored (i.e. re-backed, re-colored, re-built, etc.) are given the grade of Authentic.

[Huysmans]

Just OT and to lighten the mood a bit....

How many here know Joe D's lifetime batting average? .... without checking of course! 😁

[steve B]

That's just it though. An uncirculated coin professionally cleaned is still graded as uncirculated. Old posters are routinely backed with linen, and not deacidifying and backing usually brings a lower price. Stamps with hinge remnants are if used totally fine if those are soaked off. Proper cleaning and preservation are not generally penalized in most hobbies. Possibly because some of the stuff can survive far more than old paper can. Possibly because they either outgrew or never developed the whole "my item is better than yours because some expert says so." attitude. Yeah, condition matters, but in time for some items that statement may become "I had the best surviving copy, and because of some competition I left it "original" and now it's pretty much ruined."

Steve B

[Peter_Spaeth]

Just OT and to lighten the mood a bit....

How many here know Joe D's lifetime batting average? .... without checking of course! ��

.325 or something like that.

[Huysmans]

.325 or something like that.

Winner!!

Thanks Peter.

[swarmee]

If I had the card. And posted it here raw asking the question "I have this card that's got fairly mild damage from acid exposure that will only worsen over time eventually destroying it. It's a fairly important and valuable card, and I think it should be deacidified so that it will last another few generations. But I'm concerned about how that will affect the value. What should I do?"
I would say if you're that worried about it, you should sell it before doing any work on it. And I would say you're paranoid. Because life expectancy of baseball cards is longer than humans.

[ullmandds]

While I think grading kinda sucks...especially PSA...it seems that the times they are a changing. Perhaps the demand for some cards is just so great...combined with an apathy or lack of awareness of altered cards that are in slabs. Cards are now a commodity and the slab is all that matters!

Alterations have become acceptable in this beloved hobby just like lots of others!

Long live the fuc$ing slab!

[orly57]

Excuse me, but I don't follow. You say you don't mind soaking and restoration as long as the card grades. Then you say this particular card should not grade. Which is it? Let me guess. As long as it's YOUR card and it grades, that's OK, but if it's somebody else's card and it grades and they make a lot of money from it, it's not OK. Did I get it right?

And, Peter, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question as to how Brent had prior knowledge of the card's history???

David, you seem very angry in your defense of card doctoring, or psa, or Pwcc, or whatever indefensible thing it is you are defending. I was clear that I don't mind buying a card I knew was soaked so long as it has a grade. I personally don't know how to soak cards, nor do I have the balls to try it. I said it doesnt bother me. But I draw the line when buyers aren't made aware by sellers WHO KNOW that the card was doctored. And yes, the amount matters! The fact that some guy now owns a 50k card that, thanks to this blog, will live in infamy, pisses me off. It is criminal. And if Brent didn't know before he listed the item, he most certainly knew BEFORE IT SOLD. Perhaps on the next blog post you can defend Pete Rose or the DH Rule.

[PhillipAbbott79]

I believe it's more likely one of the following

Peter being told something in confidence and not being the sort of person to break that confidence.

Sometimes we all learn "stuff" and it's possible disclosing "stuff" could result in a lawsuit. Which would be expensive even if there was solid evidence the info was true. Without that- and getting some "stuff" in writing is not easy, it could become very expensive and/or time consuming. Not being stupid he decides to avoid an unprovable direct accusation.

Steve B

Then why say anything at all? Just say nothing rather a really ambiguous statement that can never be corroborated? To satisfy the need of proving you are "in the know"? All you do is provoke more conversation that down a path that you promised against. You might as well just say it at that point. You already let the cat out of the bag if it is true and if not you just throw your reputation on the line.

[vintagetoppsguy]

David, you seem very angry in your defense of card doctoring, or psa, or Pwcc, or whatever indefensible thing it is you are defending. I was clear that I don't mind buying a card I knew was soaked so long as it has a grade. I personally don't know how to soak cards, nor do I have the balls to try it. I said it doesnt bother me. But I draw the line when buyers aren't made aware by sellers WHO KNOW that the card was doctored. And yes, the amount matters! The fact that some guy now owns a 50k card that, thanks to this blog, will live in infamy, pisses me off. It is criminal. And if Brent didn't know before he listed the item, he most certainly knew BEFORE IT SOLD. Perhaps on the next blog post you can defend Pete Rose or the DH Rule.

No anger on my part at all. I'm not the one on a witch hunt here. By your own admission, you're the one that's pissed. The situation doesn't piss me off. It pisses you off, so don't say that I seem angry.

And if you truly believe it's criminal, report Brent to eBay, law enforcement or whoever you need to in order to stop this criminal activity.

You need to go back and re-read post #85. John nailed it on the head with his post.

[BeanTown]

I thought I read with an earlier post in this thread that Brent with PWCC was going to chime in on this?

[orly57]

I thought I read with an earlier post in this thread that Brent with PWCC was going to chime in on this?

He is standing by post #85 apparently.

[BengoughingForAwhile]

I thought I read with an earlier post in this thread that Brent with PWCC was going to chime in on this?

I think he kinda did in Post #57.

[Beastmode]

I think he kinda did in Post #57.

No he didn't. someone pasted a private message into the thread. Not sure if Brent knew it was going to be shared. i sure hope Sean asked Brent's permission to post that message.

[PhillipAbbott79]

No he didn't. someone pasted a private message into the thread. Not sure if Brent knew it was going to be shared. i sure hope Sean asked Brent's permission to post that message.

I am pretty sure he doesn't need his permission. It looks like there was no privacy statement about intended recipients or sharing with others and it was a quote, not an actual copy.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Just a thought, but there are some in the camp of 'buy the card, not the holder'

However there is also a camp of 'buy the holder, not the card'

Thus, if its a legit PSA 7, wouldnt you agree that if somone was buying the holder, they care getting what they paid for?

People do sell the holder not the card which I have posted many times. Again, I made an earlier post about if there was a wrinkle that was pressed out and could come back again, I would think its dishonest for that not to be in the description. Thus, not saying i agree with what transpired with the card in this thread.

I am just saying that i believe there are people out there that just buy the holder. I know Peter will then say 'if it doesnt matter, why did the seller not disclose it' Well, i think to make everything uniform and you are in the business of selling holders, you wont go though the history of grading of a card with every card which would save a lot of time and headaches. If you miss some important history on one card for example, then you have to worry about a return, but if its just buyer beware on all cards and up to due dilligence of the buyer that makes it much easier for the seller.

Buyers who do their due dilligence wont pay as much for certain cards etc. Most sellers sell the holder and not the card. Thats why most ebay listings say 'no returns on graded cards'.

Now if this was a RAW card that was fixed up, then I submit any repair history MUST be disclosed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Who even cares what the card looks like? If PSA says it's a 7, then what difference does it make really? Hell, the seller could just show an image of the flip. Trimmed, recolored, pressed, bleached, soaked, who cares, irrelevant, all trumped by the flip.

[bnorth]

Who even cares what the card looks like? If PSA says it's a 7, then what difference does it make really? Hell, the seller could just show an image of the flip. Trimmed, recolored, pressed, bleached, soaked, who cares, irrelevant, all trumped by the flip.

Peter it is nice to see you are coming around to the reality of card collecting.:D

[Rookiemonster]

Nothing to "FLIP" about ......... just ten of thousands of dollars lol .

[Neal]

.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Who even cares what the card looks like? If PSA says it's a 7, then what difference does it make really? Hell, the seller could just show an image of the flip. Trimmed, recolored, pressed, bleached, soaked, who cares, irrelevant, all trumped by the flip.

Peter, you really don't follow your own advice though. Recently you posted a WTB for a '65 Mays in PSA 7.5 or 8. If it's not about the flip, then why only PSA and why only a 7.5 or 8? I have a gorgeous BVG 7 that I'll sell you that probably blows away any PSA 7 or 8. Are you willing to look at it, or are you resolved to only PSA 7.5 or 8?

[PhillipAbbott79]

Peter, you really don't follow your own advice though. Recently you posted a WTB for a '65 Mays in PSA 7.5 or 8. If it's not about the flip, then why only PSA and why only a 7.5 or 8? I have a gorgeous BVG 7 that I'll sell you that probably blows away any PSA 7 or 8. Are you willing to look at it, or are you resolved to only PSA 7.5 or 8?

My whole collection is in PSA with a minor amount under other another companies plastic. Grading certain cards can be very costly, so often times it is just easier to get it in your holder of choice from the start.

[vintagetoppsguy]

My whole collection is in PSA with a minor amount under other another companies plastic. Grading certain cards can be very costly, so often times it is just easier to get it in your holder of choice from the start.

I really don't collect many graded cards, but I see your point. However, that still makes it all about the flip. So, my point is still valid. It's kind of hard to criticize somebody else for buying the flip when the one criticizing it does the same.

Jake made a very good point. The buyer probably really didn't care what the card looked like as long as the flip said PSA 7.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Peter, you really don't follow your own advice though. Recently you posted a WTB for a '65 Mays in PSA 7.5 or 8. If it's not about the flip, then why only PSA and why only a 7.5 or 8? I have a gorgeous BVG 7 that I'll sell you that probably blows away any PSA 7 or 8. Are you willing to look at it, or are you resolved to only PSA 7.5 or 8?

David, I own cards in all of the major holders. I prefer PSA generally because for the most part their grading standards are similar to mine and on a $200 60s card I am not that worried about alteration particularly if the card doesn't set up any red flags. So I don't see that post as at all inconsistent with my ultimate buy the card philosophy.

[vintagetoppsguy]

David, I own cards in all of the major holders. I prefer PSA generally because for the most part their grading standards are similar to mine and on a $200 60s card I am not that worried about alteration particularly if the card doesn't set up any red flags. So I don't see that post as at all inconsistent with my ultimate buy the card philosophy.

When you post a WTB (and you've posted multiple the same way) requesting a specific TPG and/or a specific grade, you are buying the flip and not the card. Otherwise what difference would the TPG or grade even matter? Why not just post "WTB high grade '65 Mays"?

This started because of your sarcastic comment, "Who even cares what the card looks like? If PSA says it's a 7, then what difference does it make really?" Yet, you do the same thing with your WTBs. Maybe you don't see the hypocrisy in that. I'm pretty sure others do though.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Who even cares what the card looks like? If PSA says it's a 7, then what difference does it make really? Hell, the seller could just show an image of the flip. Trimmed, recolored, pressed, bleached, soaked, who cares, irrelevant, all trumped by the flip.

correct. for some who think the price of a card would be reflecting the lowest priced 7 but its a 7, they wont care at all what the card looks like as long as its a 7 and they are paying the cheapest possible price to get a 7 in their mind

[vintagetoppsguy]

The bottom line is this. PSA said it was a 7...twice now. I think most of us agree (and I've already said it too) it doesn't look like a 7. To most of us, it looks over graded. The PSA apologists can't blame this one on a "mechanical error". So what do you want to happen at this point? PSA is not going to change the grade. What good is b!tching about it doing? Let me ask again, what do you want to happen at this point???

[ullmandds]

The bottom line is this. PSA said it was a 7...twice now. I think most of us agree (and I've already said it too) it doesn't look like a 7. To most of us, it looks over graded. The PSA apologists can't blame this one on a "mechanical error". So what do you want to happen at this point? PSA is not going to change the grade. What good is b!tching about it doing? Let me ask again, what do you want to happen at this point???

do we really know psa re-reviewed this card? seemed like a statement made to appease especially in light of no response from the AH?

[PhillipAbbott79]

I really don't collect many graded cards, but I see your point. However, that still makes it all about the flip. So, my point is still valid. It's kind of hard to criticize somebody else for buying the flip when the one criticizing it does the same.

Jake made a very good point. The buyer probably really didn't care what the card looked like as long as the flip said PSA 7.

No. It actually doesn't. You are twisting my words without thinking about them to make what you said more valid.

It can easily be about the cards, but for the presentation. There are plenty of people on here that like SGC because of the way their card looks in the holder, regardless of what the "flip" says the grade is. Additionally, the grading standards are different. Requesting a grading company and a grade when looking to buy something is just as important as conveying an accurate description in a want to sell ad.

"High grade" is subjective. PSA 7.5 is way less subjective. It happens to be the easiest way to put a range on what you are looking for with respect to quality. Would you prefer that everyone type out: I want a card with no less than 40/60 centering left to right, 80/20 top to bottom, clean registration, medium white boarders, no paper loss, somewhat centered on the back, good registration, strong corners?

What constitutes a strong corner, how can you explain the difference between a 6 corner and a 7 corner to someone in a buy thread? I bet if you look at a 6 and a 7 you know what it looks like though, right? You can say all of that with just a simple "PSA 7.5"

[vintagetoppsguy]

No. It actually doesn't. You are twisting my words without thinking about them to make what you said more valid.

How am I twisting your words when my comment was directed at Peter? :confused:

It can easily be about the cards, but for the presentation. There are plenty of people on here that like SGC because of the way their card looks in the holder, regardless of what the "flip" says the grade is.

Duh! :rolleyes: But my point is, when you're looking for a certain card in a certain TPG case with a certain grade, then you're buying the flip and not the cards.

[vintagetoppsguy]

do we really know psa re-reviewed this card? seemed like a statement made to appease especially in light of no response from the AH?

Nope. Then again, do we really know Brent knew the card's history before the auction. That's what I find kind of funny about this whole thread - all the speculation.

[PhillipAbbott79]

How am I twisting your words when my comment was directed at Peter? :confused:


Duh! :rolleyes: But my point is, when you're looking for a certain card in a certain TPG case with a certain grade, then you're buying the flip and not the cards. And I will say again, no, no it doesn't mean that and for above, you quoted me in post 215 when you made the comment.

[vintagetoppsguy]

And I will say again, no, no it doesn't mean that and for above, you quoted me in post 215 when you made the comment.

You win. I'm not going to argue on something so petty.

[ls7plus]

I don't care about its past, it's a PSA 7 now and I'll take it!!!

It's like a fat broad that loses 75 pounds and becomes hot.

Highest graded example (last time I checked) by PSA of a truly iconic player and card. IMHO, this is the direction the hobby will definitely be headed in (and only 27 or so total graded by PSA). Rare and significant in the best condition available! This assumes that the card was merely water-soaked, as I agree that other more intensive card-altering procedures require transparency.

May your collecting bring you immense joy,

Larry

[ls7plus]

Right !!! It's a darn POP 1 PSA 7. None higher!!!
Why are we even attempting to knock this card?
Any one of us would kill to have this.

+1 there. Now if only my (ungraded) ExMt R312 DiMag rookie would only follow suit (and PSA hasn't graded too many more of those)!

Highest regards,

Larry

[ls7plus]

People get their panties in a wad when there is a lack of transparency. That is understandable. I have no issue with the cleaner card. It looks great. And I don't blame PSA one bit. I have been told by one of the best graders I know, who has had personal cards conserved and cleaned, said there was literally NO way he could tell anything was done to his cards. It isn't PSA's fault if there is nothing to see.

.

+1. Hard to debate that point, plus, IMO, restoration is coming (but I do believe it should be transparent if we're talking about building up corners and restoring paper loss).

Best wishes,

Larry

[ls7plus]

I believe it's more likely one of the following

Peter being told something in confidence and not being the sort of person to break that confidence.

Sometimes we all learn "stuff" and it's possible disclosing "stuff" could result in a lawsuit. Which would be expensive even if there was solid evidence the info was true. Without that- and getting some "stuff" in writing is not easy, it could become very expensive and/or time consuming. Not being stupid he decides to avoid an unprovable direct accusation.

Steve B

+1, hit the nail right on the head. If Peter makes such a representation, having interacted with him, I would not hesitate to believe it. My other posts re this card have assumed that it was simply water-soaked, which I have no problem with. Other "reconditioning," such as building up corners, repairing paper loss, removing creases, and trimming and the like are obviously another matter entirely. They require transparency, and should obviously be disclosed.

Best to all,

Larry

[ls7plus]

Just OT and to lighten the mood a bit....

How many here know Joe D's lifetime batting average? .... without checking of course! 😁

.325--without checking!

Nice mood lightener,

Larry

[KendallCat]

Peter, you really don't follow your own advice though. Recently you posted a WTB for a '65 Mays in PSA 7.5 or 8. If it's not about the flip, then why only PSA and why only a 7.5 or 8? I have a gorgeous BVG 7 that I'll sell you that probably blows away any PSA 7 or 8. Are you willing to look at it, or are you resolved to only PSA 7.5 or 8?

Personally I have seen nice cards in BVG that I won't touch. I don't trust them on vintage and a lot of big collectors and dealers don't either. That is why you don't see them sell very often nor for high prices. Plus, if you collect PSA cards only that would negate wanting any SGC or BVG holders. It is also deflecting away from the real issue with this card in question which is the reason for 23 pages of discussion.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Plus, if you collect PSA cards only that would negate wanting any SGC or BVG holders.

Bingo! This is the point I was trying to make. Maybe I didn't explain myself well. Peter, made a comment (in bold below) trying to be sarcastic that it's in a PSA holder and that's all that matters. Well, maybe the buyer only collects PSA and really doesn't care about the card as long as the grade isn't too far off. But I just find it a little hypocritical to blame the buyer if that was his only justification for buying the card when he (Peter) requests to buy only PSA cards himself (not considering BVG, SGC, etc). But like i said, it's not worth arguing about.

Who even cares what the card looks like? If PSA says it's a 7, then what difference does it make really?

[rats60]

How am I twisting your words when my comment was directed at Peter? :confused:



Duh! :rolleyes: But my point is, when you're looking for a certain card in a certain TPG case with a certain grade, then you're buying the flip and not the cards.

You are not necessarily buying the holder if you are looking at the card and not just buying the first card that comes along. I may want a card in a certain grade, but I am still going to look at the card. If I don't like the looks of it or if I think it is overgraded, I won't buy it.

You really don't care what the card looks like? That seems silly to me. I care what my cards look like. If I was in the market for this card and I saw a centered 6/6.5, I would buy it over this card.

[ullmandds]

You are not necessarily buying the holder if you are looking at the card and not just buying the first card that comes along. I may want a card in a certain grade, but I am still going to look at the card. If I don't like the looks of it or if I think it is overgraded, I won't buy it.

You really don't care what the card looks like? That seems silly to me. I care what my cards look like. If I was in the market for this card and I saw a centered 6/6.5, I would buy it over this card.

I would think there is a very small % of buyers buying cards regardless of how they look...only for the grade...especially cards like this one. Registry set collectors...may be a different story.

The "market" seems to be correcting itself regarding buying the card not the holder...some lower graded cards...especially if nicely centered are selling for more than their higher graded counterpart...even in PSA holders.

Does PSA suck...YES! Do some people buy the holder not the card...yes...but I think most are atleast looking at the cards and making decisions that they can live with.

[PhillipAbbott79]

You are not necessarily buying the holder if you are looking at the card and not just buying the first card that comes along. I may want a card in a certain grade, but I am still going to look at the card. If I don't like the looks of it or if I think it is overgraded, I won't buy it.

You really don't care what the card looks like? That seems silly to me. I care what my cards look like. If I was in the market for this card and I saw a centered 6/6.5, I would buy it over this card.

I am pretty sure he does not know what he is talking about and is just typing words.

Honestly, half of what was said is moronic. No offense.

[botn]

But like i said, it's not worth arguing about.


Are ya sure about that?

[vintagetoppsguy]

I am pretty sure he does not know what he is talking about and is just typing words.

Honestly, half of what was said is moronic. No offense.

What's moronic is not complying with board rules. Put your name in your post. And if Phillip Abbott is your real name, put it in there anyway . No offense.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Nope. Then again, do we really know Brent knew the card's history before the auction. That's what I find kind of funny about this whole thread - all the speculation.

I am not speculating at all. You may choose not to believe me because I have chosen not to be specific about my sources of information, and as mentioned before I get the reaction some folks have to that, while others understand where I am coming from, but don't confuse that with speculation.

[vintagetoppsguy]

...but don't confuse that with speculation.

Fair enough. Replace "speculstion" with "information that can't be corroborated"

[CMIZ5290]

Fair enough. Replace "speculstion" with "information that can't be corroborated"

So what is everyone's opinion on this situation? Without having to go back thru 100's of posts....Thanks

[vintagetoppsguy]

So what is everyone's opinion on this situation? Without having to go back thru 100's of posts....Thanks

Depends on who you ask. Personally, I think post #85 sums it up well for me.

[bnorth]

Depends on who you ask. Personally, I think post #85 sums it up well for me.

Yep post 85 is a gem. A flipper buys a altered card from a known shiller and is pissed that people think there is something wrong with that. The gall of some people is simply amazing.

[ullmandds]

yes post #85 sums it up! someone get Kevin the cliff notes!

[aloondilana]

Are you guys seriously still crying about this card?
The auction is over. It got about $7500 less than I expected, maybe this thread had something to do with it.
Yes I flip cards, is there anything wrong with that? I read some posts that are attempting to knock me because of this.

I do what I do, and you guys can worship your beat up t206 Walter Johnson's.

Guys, really there is a lot more to life than whining about what grade a card should be or whether washing a card should not allow to get a numerical grade.

[JustinD]

Who even cares what the card looks like? If PSA says it's a 7, then what difference does it make really? Hell, the seller could just show an image of the flip. Trimmed, recolored, pressed, bleached, soaked, who cares, irrelevant, all trumped by the flip.

I don't rely on grading or buy flips over cards and I see your point in this discussion completely.

I think it only matters in this circumstance due to PWCC's return policy:
"We at PWCC are not professional graders so we trust in the reputation and opinion of 3rd party professional graders. Professional grading is subjective and different 3rd party graders will often disagree over the grading on a single card. Such a disagreement is NOT a justifiable reason for a return with PWCC."

it also matters because if the card shows no signs of chemical cleaning and we are only going on assumption of wrongdoing it does not meet a burden of proof in my mind to start a coup. If you have insider knowledge of what took place could you reveal without sources the method you were told cleaned this card or if you were just told it was cleaned in an untoward way?

If proof exists that is concrete and physical that other than natural items were used, than I think it would weigh my opinion heavily.

I have an opinion of how this was done in my mind also, but I do not have proof of it and it would be impossible to prove unless the person who did it admitted fully. I am also in a quandary as to if I feel it is wrong as it is a common practice in other hobbies and does not involve direct contact with any chemical.

[JustinD]

John,

For debate and opinion several have been defending the card in this thread as there is a great value to proof over innuendo.

I do tend to side in some ways to cleaning that does not damage or change the card structurally.

I also felt for you being saddled unknowingly with an albatross in this card as I believe you did not know the issues involved at purchase and was genuinely pleased you were able to move on. I am sorry you became the poster boy for this and I understand you are feeling personally attacked.

...but your replies are making it difficult.

[aloondilana]

Thanks Justin.
You are correct, this thread has frustrated me. I'm not attacking everyone, just about 4 people.

[Stonepony]

I don't rely on grading or buy flips over cards and I see your point in this discussion completely.

I think it only matters in this circumstance due to PWCC's return policy:
"We at PWCC are not professional graders so we trust in the reputation and opinion of 3rd party professional graders. Professional grading is subjective and different 3rd party graders will often disagree over the grading on a single card. Such a disagreement is NOT a justifiable reason for a return with PWCC."

it also matters because if the card shows no signs of chemical cleaning and we are only going on assumption of wrongdoing it does not meet a burden of proof in my mind to start a coup. If you have insider knowledge of what took place could you reveal without sources the method you were told cleaned this card or if you were just told it was cleaned in an untoward way?

If proof exists that is concrete and physical that other than natural items were used, than I think it would weigh my opinion heavily.

I have an opinion of how this was done in my mind also, but I do not have proof of it and it would be impossible to prove unless the person who did it admitted fully. I am also in a quandary as to if I feel it is wrong as it is a common practice in other hobbies and does not involve direct contact with any chemical.

"We at PWCC are not professional graders..." yet they have no problem lending their opinion to a card- hence their HE ( high end) designation.

[JustinD]

Thanks Justin.
You are correct, this thread has frustrated me. I'm not attacking everyone, just about 4 people.

Thank you for editing the previous comment.

[JustinD]

"We at PWCC are not professional graders..." yet they have no problem lending their opinion to a card- hence their HE ( high end) designation.

I am not defending it Dave, just quoting the language used. I agree with your statement and am not a fan of the silly HE designation.