View Full Version : E95 Plank--PWCC auction
Brian
07-05-2017, 07:34 PM
I waited for this auction to end, but I certainly hope that the winner of this lot does not mind an altered card for $700 (despite their claim that it is undergraded)--just look at his uniform--or gets his/her money back:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E95-Philadelphia-Caramel-Eddie-Plank-PSA-3-VG-PWCC/142426152929?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
This is very disappointing, as I pointed this issue out to the seller no fewer than 4 times, and they said they would "look into it."
This is as much a TPG issue as it is an auction issue and is sad, IMO. The auction should have been cancelled or at least edited. I don't like to see anyone taken advantage of, ever.
Bri@n.D.y.n.l.a.c.h.t
ullmandds
07-05-2017, 07:43 PM
Wowsers!!!:eek:
Scocs
07-05-2017, 08:01 PM
Talk about putting the "A" in Plank!
vintagebaseballcardguy
07-05-2017, 08:07 PM
I will confess to not seeing it at first, but once I did, well...I am speechless. This scares me honestly in that I am making the effort to learn prewar and begin collecting it. Education about what I am considering buying goes into that. Part of that education is not a blind reliance on TPGs. In the past, like a lot of collectors, there have been probably a few times that I didn't do my homework because a card was in a TPG slab, and I let them do my work for me. I could have been burned as a result, and I would have deserved it. Delving into prewar has forced me to really try and "know" the cards. This is a Grade A example of why.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I assume this is what it is suppose to look like, even though it's another PSA graded one?
RedsFan1941
07-05-2017, 08:15 PM
heavens to Betsy!
Brian
07-05-2017, 08:28 PM
Yes, Irv. Nice card!
While it is true that a buyer should know what a card looks like before he/she plunks down $700, not everyone is born knowing what this card should look like, except maybe Leon (hi, Leon).
But this does not, IMO, excuse someone like the seller who has literally handled thousands of pre-war cards. Just sayin'.
Bri@n.D.y.n.l.a.c.h.t
Peter_Spaeth
07-05-2017, 08:32 PM
Outstanding Plank with wonderful eye appeal for the grade. Boasts EXMT centering with well formed corners for the grade. The color and focus are deserving of a much higher grade. Deserving of attention.
orly57
07-05-2017, 08:32 PM
I see the staining and the letter A, but I don't understand exactly why you are saying it is altered. Do you mean it should have an (st or mk) qualifier? I am curious for my own edification. Here is a side-by-side of the card you are referring to (left) with Irv's card.
Yes, Irv. Nice card!
While it is true that a buyer should know what a card looks like before he/she plunks down $700, not everyone is born knowing what this card should look like, except maybe Leon (hi, Leon).
But this does not, IMO, excuse someone like the seller who has literally handled thousands of pre-war cards. Just sayin'.
Bri@n.D.y.n.l.a.c.h.t
Brian, I got the picture from PSA's own site. I wish the card were mine! :D
https://www.psacard.com/cardfacts/baseball-cards/1909-philadelphia-caramel-e95/eddie-plank/15673
Brian
07-05-2017, 08:42 PM
Orlando, either it is an extremely rare variation that I have never seen before (now that WOULD be cool), or the 'A' was put there on a card that looks like Irv's version. I have the card myself.
Peter_Spaeth
07-05-2017, 08:45 PM
It doesn't look much like the real logo.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-E95-PHILADELPHIA-CARAMEL-CY-MORGAN-PSA-3-VG-SMR-150-/272744519018?hash=item3f80d7156a:g:JKsAAOSw6YtZWDV s
Orlando, either it is an extremely rare variation that I have never seen before (now that WOULD be cool), or the 'A' was put there on a card that looks like Irv's version. I have the card myself.
If you scroll down in the link I posted, you can view past sales. Although not 100% conclusive, I suppose, no other card has that "A" on his chest.
https://www.psacard.com/cardfacts/baseball-cards/1909-philadelphia-caramel-e95/eddie-plank/15673
Peter_Spaeth
07-05-2017, 08:54 PM
Talk about putting the "A" in Plank!
So is the proper grade MK or AUTH?
Peter_Spaeth
07-05-2017, 08:59 PM
If you scroll down in the link I posted, you can view past sales. Although not 100% conclusive, I suppose, no other card has that "A" on his chest.
https://www.psacard.com/cardfacts/baseball-cards/1909-philadelphia-caramel-e95/eddie-plank/15673
If it were a variation it would be known.
Brian
07-05-2017, 09:00 PM
If it had been graded with "MK", I think that would be accurate, I guess. But one could make the argument for "Auth", too. Please don't get me started on grading issues.....
Brian
Pat R
07-06-2017, 05:03 AM
Personally I think it might be a "variation", it doesn't look like someone
drew that on there to me. I haven't found an A's logo that looks like
it yet but here are some different ones in the T206 set,
279257
279258
279259
279260
Econteachert205
07-06-2017, 05:20 AM
I think it is a faint stamp mark.
ullmandds
07-06-2017, 06:13 AM
im starting to agree that this "a" was likely not drawn in...maybe a stamp...or who knows maybe some form of variation?
also...I'm not so versed with this particular card to have noticed the "A" shouldn't be there at first glance...I had to look at comparables.
Brian
07-06-2017, 07:19 AM
It does look like a stamp, and that is why the card should have a qualifier.
Just hope the "winner" of that card reads this thread and gets his/her money back.
Peter_Spaeth
07-06-2017, 07:40 AM
There appears to be something (ink or whatever) in the same color above and to the left of the letter A. I don't think the factory printed it that way.
scooter729
07-06-2017, 07:48 AM
The card does look nicer than a 3, assuming there are no faint creases or anything we can't see in the scans.
Maybe it was submitted as a "no qualifier" card, so instead of getting a PSA 5 (MK), it got a PSA 3?
I probably would've graded it a 4, but wouldn't be the ugliest 5 I've ever seen by any stretch.
Peter_Spaeth
07-06-2017, 08:03 AM
The card does look nicer than a 3, assuming there are no faint creases or anything we can't see in the scans.
Maybe it was submitted as a "no qualifier" card, so instead of getting a PSA 5 (MK), it got a PSA 3?
I probably would've graded it a 4, but wouldn't be the ugliest 5 I've ever seen by any stretch.
I suppose it's plausible, but I tend to think PSA would not give that card a 5 based on the corners.
vintagetoppsguy
07-06-2017, 08:22 AM
Maybe it was submitted as a "no qualifier" card, so instead of getting a PSA 5 (MK), it got a PSA 3?
I didn't think you could request "no qualifiers" on cards with marks?
Scocs
07-06-2017, 08:33 AM
Stamp +1
scooter729
07-06-2017, 08:45 AM
I didn't think you could request "no qualifiers" on cards with marks?
Ah, not sure, so you certainly could be right....
Iwantmorecards77
07-06-2017, 09:35 AM
I thought - at least at some point in the past - that there was an option to have the card graded without a qualifier. Here's another example below, with a pencil mark on the right border:
https://www.collectorfocus.com/images/show/Coach/1908-1936-pre-war-hall-of-famers-hof/16954/1911-t3-turkey-red-cabinet-hugh-jennings
darwinbulldog
07-06-2017, 10:00 AM
Looks like a PSA 3 (MK) or PSA 4 (MK). Possibly it's a straight 3 because of a "no qualifier" request, but I think with that much corner wear and with the stamp being as subtle as it is it's more likely they just missed it. Wouldn't bother me much either way, as I like period stamps on my cards; but I guess if no one else does I could get the card cheaper than $700.
vintagetoppsguy
07-06-2017, 10:26 AM
Possibly it's a straight 3 because of a "no qualifier" request...
Nope
Snapolit1
07-06-2017, 10:35 AM
Isn't it amazing how much mystery and fog surrounds what these grading companies do, to the point that really knowledgeable people on this board who have been collecting for years don't understand exactly how these guys grade. Incredible. Great business model they've built.
Peter_Spaeth
07-06-2017, 10:42 AM
Isn't it amazing how much mystery and fog surrounds what these grading companies do, to the point that really knowledgeable people on this board who have been collecting for years don't understand exactly how these guys grade. Incredible. Great business model they've built.
Judging by CLCT's stock performance and PSA's market dominance I would say it is a pretty good business model.
brianp-beme
07-06-2017, 11:47 AM
Personally I think it might be a "variation", it doesn't look like someone
drew that on there to me.
To me it looks like the 'A' was applied by a stamp.
Brian
Brian
07-06-2017, 01:01 PM
that explanation from the grading company is clear to me--clear as mud....
swarmee
07-06-2017, 03:38 PM
It's possible that it was judged a 5(MK) that was requested "No Qualifiers"; PSA reserves the right to leave qualifiers if they are egregious. However, we have had cases where pencil written numbers were still on the back of Mickey Mantle cards with no MK designation, and recently I graded a 1968 Topps card with obvious marker on the front and it got no MK designation, just a straight PSA 5.
It should have.
The other thought I had on this would have been a wet sheet transfer, but based on the gallery on oldcardboard.com, no other card in the set has a similar A. It does have the look of a stamp (because of the red color to the top left that resembles the corner of a stamp block). However, the placement of the stamp to me is just so good, that either the kid who owned it wanted to show he was on the Athletics, or it is a super-rare variation that will be worth thousands now that it's been found.
ls7plus
07-06-2017, 03:58 PM
Personally, I think it would be quite interesting to examine it under a 16X loupe to see if the "A" is consistent with the card's other printed characteristics (the glass is half-full?).
Just sayin'.
Best wishes,
Larry
I always thought this would have graded higher but whomever submitted it (before I got it) chose not to have the MK hence the 2.5. The little check mark on the back, near the bottom right side, is hard to miss?:confused:
http://luckeycards.com/pr319ruth2a.jpg
ls7plus
07-06-2017, 05:12 PM
Very nice card from my perspective, Leon. Congrats on it!
Highest regards,
Larry
Brian
07-06-2017, 07:46 PM
Nice card, Leon.
The big difference, Leon, is that I WOULD buy your card with a mark (and a LOWER grade than the aforementioned Plank card in the original post), if it were for sale, but I would not buy the altered Plank that received a higher grade. Just sayin'...
vintagetoppsguy
07-06-2017, 08:27 PM
There is still some confusion about requesting no qualifiers. Please read post #29. It is a screen shot from PSAs website, "there are certain qualifiers that PSA will not remove such as MK."
It's right there in black and white. You cannot request no qualifiers when the card has a mark. If you see a card that has a mark but has no MK qualifier, PSA simply overlooked the mark.
Nice card, Leon. PSA missed the check mark. As for the card itself, it has several minor creases to warrant the grade of 2.5. The proper grade would have been PSA 2.5 MK
swarmee
07-06-2017, 08:44 PM
The proper grade would have been PSA 2.5 MK
There are no half grades with qualifiers. Either one or the other. Here is the marked card that PSA just gave a straight 5.
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1968/Topps---Base/661/Casey-Cox-(Yellow-Team-Name).jpg?id=7115557d-f4cf-4e88-be37-0377d97a4319&size=original (https://www.comc.com/Cards/Baseball/1968/Topps_-_Base/661/Casey_Cox_(Yellow_Team_Name)/1829071/GRADED/SGC/20)
1968 Topps - [Base] #66.1 - Casey Cox (Yellow Team Name) [SGC*20]
Courtesy of COMC.com (https://www.comc.com)
As you can see, it has red scribble marker on the jersey and "blood tears" in both eyes. I was floored when it popped as an unqualified card. I think their website is wrong, and they do downgrade cards to remove MK qualifiers.
vintagetoppsguy
07-06-2017, 08:53 PM
There are no half grades with qualifiers.
Tell that to PSA...
http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/FqEAAOSwWxNY1KVE/s-l1600.jpg
vintagetoppsguy
07-06-2017, 08:59 PM
...they do downgrade cards to remove MK qualifiers.
Kind of like there's no half grades with qualifiers, huh?
Lots of misinformation in this thread. I blame it all in PWCC :rolleyes:
darwinbulldog
07-07-2017, 03:42 AM
The second they decided you could get a 1 with a qualifier but not a 10 with a qualifier they undercut their entire explanation for the qualifiers' purpose.
swarmee
07-07-2017, 05:05 AM
A 1.5 Fair is not actually a half grade in their opinion.
https://www.psacard.com/resources/gradingstandards/#cards
Click on the box about half-point grades. It states "For example, there will not be cards graded PSA NM-MT Plus 8.5 OC or PSA EX-MT Plus 6.5 PD since the half-point is reserved for high-end cards within each grade."
So a 2.5(MK) is not possible, and actually won't fit on their Pop Report charts the way they're laid out, since there are separate fields for + (half-grades) and Q (qualifiers). However, since 1.5 FAIR gets its own column, it is not actually a half-grade and therefore, I guess, PSA allows qualifiers on them.
cammb
07-07-2017, 05:48 AM
Why are we justifying the grade of PSA 3? I don't care how nice it looks. It has been tampered with and deserves an Authentic and nothing else
...
Nice card, Leon. PSA missed the check mark. As for the card itself, it has several minor creases to warrant the grade of 2.5. The proper grade would have been PSA 2.5 MK
There are no creases or wrinkles that I can see under magnification. Try another answer please. Personally I think whomever submitted it got it done without the MK and a lower grade because of it. I know what their site says...
vintagetoppsguy
07-07-2017, 06:39 AM
There are no creases or wrinkles that I can see under magnification. Try another answer please. Personally I think whomever submitted it got it done without the MK and a lower grade because of it. I know what their site says...
Look at the back. Right above "GEORGE" is a crease. Everything below "GOUDEY GUM CO. BOSTON" has many spider wrinkles.
A PSA 2.5 is accurate given the creases. I'm not knocking the card. I would love to own it. But it is graded accurately.
Peter_Spaeth
07-07-2017, 06:47 AM
Let's stick with SGC, it makes so much more sense -- 50 55 60 70 80 82 84 etc.
Admittedly there are some wrinkles (none go through both sides so to me they are wrinkles but they are there)..... still not sure about the check mark and why it still received a 2.5? Is a 2.5 card with a check mark still a 2.5?
Look at the back. Right above "GEORGE" is a crease. Everything below "GOUDEY GUM CO. BOSTON" has many spider wrinkles.
A PSA 2.5 is accurate given the creases. I'm not knocking the card. I would love to own it. But it is graded accurately.
vintagetoppsguy
07-07-2017, 06:54 AM
Let's stick with SGC, it makes so much more sense -- 50 55 60 70 80 82 84 etc.
Failed attempt at sarcasm. SGC still lists the numeric 10 point grade on the flip (e.g. 55 = 4.5, 60 = 5, 70 = 5.5, etc) so what's the difference?
Don't you have another PWCC bash thread to start?
Peter_Spaeth
07-07-2017, 07:01 AM
When I have one to start, David, you will see it. Now back to your gratuitous hostility...
PS A system with varying 10, 8 and 4 point gaps between full grades is odd to me, even if it's laid out on the flip.
darwinbulldog
07-07-2017, 07:06 AM
Why are we justifying the grade of PSA 3? I don't care how nice it looks. It has been tampered with and deserves an Authentic and nothing else
Surely any card with a MK qualifier has been tampered with, no? What's the difference between writing a letter on it and stamping a letter on it?
vintagetoppsguy
07-07-2017, 07:07 AM
When I have one to start, David, you will see it. Now back to your gratuitous hostility...
No hostility, Peter. I just didn't understand your ridiculous comment about SGC. Nobody is saying that SGC is better than PSA, so why even bring them up in the first place?
Peter_Spaeth
07-07-2017, 07:13 AM
No hostility, Peter. I just didn't understand your ridiculous comment about SGC. Nobody is saying that SGC is better than PSA, so why even bring them up in the first place?
Just my train of thought I guess. As I was reading about what seems to be confusion and complexity with PSA grading it occurred to me that SGC also had some quirks.
Brent Huigens
07-07-2017, 03:53 PM
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We agree that this should have been graded a 3 MK, and regret we missed this in the listing. We reached out to the buyer and offered to accept a return. I will update this thread when we hear from the buyer on his/her decision.
Thank you,
Betsy Huigens
PWCC Auctions
Jay Wolt
07-07-2017, 04:27 PM
This is very disappointing, as I pointed this issue out to the seller no fewer than 4 times, and they said they would "look into it."
Betsy The OP contacted you before the auction ended. Why didn't you look into it then?
Peter_Spaeth
07-07-2017, 04:30 PM
Betsy The OP contacted you before the auction ended. Why didn't you look into it then?
"No fewer than 4 times" is what the OP said.
Brian
07-07-2017, 04:57 PM
Betsy, thank you for reaching out to the buyer.
FYI, this was the communication I had received long before the auction ended:
"Thank you very much for reaching out about this. We are looking into this further and will get back to you about the corrections. Thank you again!
Best Regards,
Melody Simnitt
PWCC Auctions, LLC"
PS No one ever got back to me "about the corrections."
Brent Huigens
07-07-2017, 06:17 PM
In discussions with my team it sounds like this was missed, and for that, we take full responsibility. We will use this as a reminder of the importance to following up with concerns about mistakes in listings. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and for highlighting an area that needs improvement. Again, I will follow up when I learn what the buyer decides to do.
Thank you,
Betsy Huigens
PWCC Auctions
itjclarke
07-08-2017, 03:11 AM
"No fewer than 4 times" is what the OP said.
I also emailed the seller about this card maybe 2-3 days prior to the auction's end.
Brian
07-11-2017, 07:06 AM
Betsy, any updates? Just curious what happened.
Thanks.
Brian
Brent Huigens
07-15-2017, 09:21 PM
We have not received a response from the buyer, but plan to follow up with him/her on Monday. I will update this thread when we manage to connect with him/her. Thanks!
Betsy Huigens
PWCC Auctions
pokerplyr80
07-16-2017, 12:37 AM
Admittedly there are some wrinkles (none go through both sides so to me they are wrinkles but they are there)..... still not sure about the check mark and why it still received a 2.5? Is a 2.5 card with a check mark still a 2.5?
My guess is they missed the mark as well. The grade never would have been 2.5 mk as qualified cards do not get the half grade bump. I also highly doubt a card that was supposed to have a qualifier but was lowered to a non qualified grade would get the half grade. Half grades are quite rare with PSA and are reserved for cards that have exceptional eye appeal.for the grade level.
Brent Huigens
07-18-2017, 11:11 AM
Our team has made three attempts to connect with the buyer, and to date, have not received a response. If he/she reaches out to us, we will honor our offer of a refund.
Betsy Huigens
PWCC Auctions
swarmee
07-18-2017, 05:15 PM
What happened with the George Brett "blackless" PSA 10 that you listed even though it was just a mechanical flip error? I guess it was pulled after many people reported it to your team. Did it get returned to the owner, or did they agree to send it to PSA as a mechanical error reholder?
frankbmd
07-18-2017, 06:10 PM
Let's stick with SGC, it makes so much more sense -- 50 55 60 70 80 82 84 etc.
Failed attempt at sarcasm. SGC still lists the numeric 10 point grade on the flip (e.g. 55 = 4.5, 60 = 5, 70 = 5.5, etc) so what's the difference?
Don't you have another PWCC bash thread to start?
When I have one to start, David, you will see it. Now back to your gratuitous hostility...
PS A system with varying 10, 8 and 4 point gaps between full grades is odd to me, even if it's laid out on the flip.
No hostility, Peter. I just didn't understand your ridiculous comment about SGC. Nobody is saying that SGC is better than PSA, so why even bring them up in the first place?
Just my train of thought I guess. As I was reading about what seems to be confusion and complexity with PSA grading it occurred to me that SGC also had some quirks.
Pardon my interruption, Betsy. I know you are busy, but when Peter and David quibble, an intervention is often needed. David, I think Peter's point was HIS hope that SGC would adopt a straight forward grading scale such as BCCG.:eek: