Alteration vs. Conservation Defined

[Brent Huigens]

PWCC will soon publish our Marketplace Tenets, which describes the rules of engagement for transacting on the PWCC Marketplace and the commitments and responsibilities of all parties involved. Among other things, the Tenets will describe what cards we will allow to be sold on our marketplace and will draw a distinction between cards that were altered and cards that were conserved. Cards that are proven altered through physical evidence are not allowed to be sold, while cards that are proven conserved are indeed allowed to be sold.

In an effort to define an enforceable PWCC policy, we want to open up the dialogue with the community to allow for feedback before our official Tenets are published. Acceptable forms of conservation exist in all collectibles markets, ranging from coins to comics to fine art, and we feel it’s time the trading card market better defines a stance on what is acceptable conservation. The following is a draft of our current understanding of majority opinion, and this is subject to edit.

Conservation. PWCC believes conservation, as defined, to be healthy, sustainable, and supportive of the marketplace and the investors and collectors who participate. Assets that have been conserved can be sold on the PWCC Marketplace.

Conservation is defined as an act which returns an asset closer to its as-manufactured condition but does not otherwise enhance or artificially distance the asset beyond the as-manufactured status. An act which removes a foreign substance from an asset and does so in a way which doesn’t otherwise alter the condition of the as-manufactured product is usually considered acceptable and generally renders the asset worthy of professional grading. Dirt, glue, writing, wax and other foreign substances can be removed from an asset and the result is considered acceptable conservation, so long as the professional Third-Party Authenticators agree the asset is void of unnatural aspects induced as a result of the conservation. Lying flat a warped or bent region of a card (i.e. in a screw down holder), so long as it doesn’t disrupt the card’s natural properties, is generally considered acceptable conservation, whereas pressing a card and thereby changing its as-manufactured properties (i.e. thickness of the card stock) is generally not acceptable and may render the card altered. Laying flat a nonplanar corner, crease, or edge, so long as the card stock is not pressed to a state of artificial thickness, is typically acceptable so long as no other unnatural change to the as-manufactured card stock is discernable.

Alteration. PWCC believes alteration, as defined, is damaging to the marketplace. Altered assets cannot be sold on the PWCC Marketplace unless this detail is disclosed during the sale.

Alteration includes any act which meaningfully renders a change to the as-manufactured qualities of the asset, outside of the normal wear and deterioration inherent to circulation. Any purposeful material addition or material removal to or from the as-manufactured asset, outside of normal wear or environmental degradation, is generally considered an alteration. Trimming, recoloring, autograph retracing, rebuilding of corners or other surfaces, swapping of patches, or any other action which distances a card from its as-manufactured attributes is considered an act of alteration. Altered cards which are stated as such in a transparent nature are permitted for sale on the Marketplace.

Alteration is only ever officially determined by the presence of physical evidence. Speculation is not considered evidence. Evidence of alteration can be determined in two different ways; either in technical review by a reputable Third-Party Authenticator, or when digital content asserts beyond a reasonable doubt that an alteration took place (i.e. before and after photos of trimming, recoloring, etc).

Your comments and feedback would be appreciated. The best way to share feedback is to send me a direct email at betsy@pwccmarketplace.com. I will come back onto this thread to gather feedback periodically, but won't be responding to comments actively. Thank you!

[MetsBaseball1973]

What is your policy on knowingly and publicly advertising record breaking sales where the transaction did not complete?

[swarmee]

So maybe I don't understand, but where would each of these fall in your new definitions:

1) Pre-war soaking from a scrapbook with glue paste using only distilled water
2) Soaking stains out of any card using Dick Towle's solution
3) Buffing out modern chrome scratches using Meguiar's wax as detailed by dictoresno on blowout
4) Spooning out creases on cards
5) Erasing pencil marks
6) Soaking for the express reason of removing creases

[calvindog]

Altered assets cannot be sold on the pwcc marketplace unless this detail is disclosed during the sale.





lolololol

[felada]

Seems it would just be easier to disclose what was actually done to a card than create a whole bunch of jargon to justify it in the least transparent way possible.

[felada]

I’m sure this new policy will be enforced with equal rigor as the no bid retraction policy from a few years back

[calvindog]

The reason I'm laughing can be found in these threads which make a total mockery of Brent's "Marketplace Tenets" on issues of alterations and disclosure of alterations. His refusal to acknowledge the 600 pound gorilla on his shoulders is almost Mastronian.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1290614

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1292005

Suffice it to say, this isn't going to end well for him.

[conor912]

Assets and tenets and vaults, oh my!

[Republicaninmass]

Number 10, a strong word called consignment
Strictly for live men, not for freshmen
If you ain't got the clientele, say "hell no!"
'Cause they gon' want they money rain sleet hail snow

[Peter_Spaeth]

You could make this so much simpler. Stop affiliating with card doctors. If you do that, you'll have an occasional inevitable issue but not a colossal problem as Blowout is just beginning to unravel. Until then, this is just noise, in my opinion. Carefully crafted, no doubt, but noise.

PS "asset" sounds so pretentious. How about .... wait for it ... card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The reason I'm laughing can be found in these threads which make a total mockery of Brent's "Marketplace Tenets" on issues of alterations and disclosure of alterations. His refusal to acknowledge the 600 pound gorilla on his shoulders is almost Mastronian.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1290614

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1292005

Suffice it to say, this isn't going to end well for him.

Just laughing remembering Doug Allen's Code of Conduct.

[irv]

PWCC will soon publish our Marketplace Tenets, which describes the rules of engagement for transacting on the PWCC Marketplace and the commitments and responsibilities of all parties involved. Among other things, the Tenets will describe what cards we will allow to be sold on our marketplace and will draw a distinction between cards that were altered and cards that were conserved. Cards that are proven altered through physical evidence are not allowed to be sold, while cards that are proven conserved are indeed allowed to be sold.

In an effort to define an enforceable PWCC policy, we want to open up the dialogue with the community to allow for feedback before our official Tenets are published. Acceptable forms of conservation exist in all collectibles markets, ranging from coins to comics to fine art, and we feel it’s time the trading card market better defines a stance on what is acceptable conservation. The following is a draft of our current understanding of majority opinion, and this is subject to edit.

Conservation. PWCC believes conservation, as defined, to be healthy, sustainable, and supportive of the marketplace and the investors and collectors who participate. Assets that have been conserved can be sold on the PWCC Marketplace.

Conservation is defined as an act which returns an asset closer to its as-manufactured condition but does not otherwise enhance or artificially distance the asset beyond the as-manufactured status. An act which removes a foreign substance from an asset and does so in a way which doesn’t otherwise alter the condition of the as-manufactured product is usually considered acceptable and generally renders the asset worthy of professional grading. Dirt, glue, writing, wax and other foreign substances can be removed from an asset and the result is considered acceptable conservation, so long as the professional Third-Party Authenticators agree the asset is void of unnatural aspects induced as a result of the conservation. Lying flat a warped or bent region of a card (i.e. in a screw down holder), so long as it doesn’t disrupt the card’s natural properties, is generally considered acceptable conservation, whereas pressing a card and thereby changing its as-manufactured properties (i.e. thickness of the card stock) is generally not acceptable and may render the card altered. Laying flat a nonplanar corner, crease, or edge, so long as the card stock is not pressed to a state of artificial thickness, is typically acceptable so long as no other unnatural change to the as-manufactured card stock is discernable.

Alteration. PWCC believes alteration, as defined, is damaging to the marketplace. Altered assets cannot be sold on the PWCC Marketplace unless this detail is disclosed during the sale.

Alteration includes any act which meaningfully renders a change to the as-manufactured qualities of the asset, outside of the normal wear and deterioration inherent to circulation. Any purposeful material addition or material removal to or from the as-manufactured asset, outside of normal wear or environmental degradation, is generally considered an alteration. Trimming, recoloring, autograph retracing, rebuilding of corners or other surfaces, swapping of patches, or any other action which distances a card from its as-manufactured attributes is considered an act of alteration. Altered cards which are stated as such in a transparent nature are permitted for sale on the Marketplace.

Alteration is only ever officially determined by the presence of physical evidence. Speculation is not considered evidence. Evidence of alteration can be determined in two different ways; either in technical review by a reputable Third-Party Authenticator, or when digital content asserts beyond a reasonable doubt that an alteration took place (i.e. before and after photos of trimming, recoloring, etc).

Your comments and feedback would be appreciated. The best way to share feedback is to send me a direct email at betsy@pwccmarketplace.com. I will come back onto this thread to gather feedback periodically, but won't be responding to comments actively. Thank you!

Why don't you just admit that you are trying to change the hobby to a point where all "alterations" and "Modifications" are the norm.

There is so much gray area now, or what you're trying to accomplish, that most anyone will feel comfortable to do almost anything to a card now with no ill feelings in doing so. Imo, your policies to define open the door even further for doctors and the like to further their skills. Before long, everything nefarious will become acceptable.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Any "tenet" that says taking out a crease is OK is a crock, in my opinion. Man, the hubris.

[HRBAKER]

What, you don't see the similarity between a '52 Topps and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?

[oldjudge]

Who made this guy king?

[lowpopper]

Number 10, a strong word called consignment
Strictly for live men, not for freshmen
If you ain't got the clientele, say "hell no!"
'Cause they gon' want they money rain sleet hail snow

New Rule: Every new thread needs a Biggie quote :cool:

[RCMcKenzie]

What, you don't see the similarity between a '52 Topps and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?

This is the driving defense. My concern is not about an n162 that had stains cleaned off. It's about an n162 that is hot off the press. Just my .02. I mostly buy cards graded 3 and lower. Rob

[brianp-beme]

Who made this guy king?

With tenets, he would more rightly be identified as The Landlord, and with this proclamation the rent is now due for all asset-minded investors.

Brian (Words are so darn confusing)

[sayheykid54]

The question PWCC is why? Why would you want your business model to involve what many view as alterations?

You are promoting the fact of ENCOURAGING collectors to "conserve" cards. Seems ridiculous to me.

[SAllen2556]

Alteration is only ever officially determined by the presence of physical evidence. Speculation is not considered evidence.

We the king and queen of High Commission evermore from this date forward hereby proclaim that the law of the land shall officially be: "It's Only Cheating If You Get Caught".

Attention oh weary card doctor: sharpen your tools! Your skills from this date henceforth shall be in demand as never before!

It seems to me that what you're advocating is, if you can alter a card and get away with it, it's fine. And, if you alter a card and get away with it, we're going to call that (wink, wink) "conservation". If we catch you, it's still fine, but we're going to (unless the card would net us a very high commission) label your card as altered.

[glynparson]

New Rule: Every new thread needs a Biggie quote :cool:

I have got to be honest I always thought he said line men.

[slidekellyslide]

Who made this guy king?

The Lady Of The Lake when she held aloft Excalibur?

[calvindog]

If PWCC doesn’t acknowledge the altered cards they’re selling why would the card doctors acknowledge it? And what’s the point in expecting the card doctors to announce their work? After all, they slipped the cards past the TPG for a reason.

I think Brent and Betsy need better advisers.

[bobbyw8469]

Who made this guy king?

He who makes the money, makes the rules.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If PWCC doesn’t acknowledge the altered cards they’re selling why would the card doctors acknowledge it? And what’s the point in expecting the card doctors to announce their work? After all, they slipped the cards past the TPG for a reason.

I think Brent and Betsy need better advisers.

The consignment form will be modified to include, if you submitted any of these cards yourself, please state all work you did on the card, so PWCC can determine whether it is altered or conserved nd what to disclose.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Man there is some serious apathy going on around here. PWCC proposes to adopt a significantly different definition of altered cards than the TPGs and the hobby in general have embraced for decades, and there's less response than if someone complained about shipping costs on an ebay card.

[frankbmd]

Shipping costs less than the vault.

Sales tax avoidance is a straw man.

Alteration is monetary.

Restoration is monetary.

The soaker, the fixer, the TPG, the consignor and the vendor are all in the same boat, which is not yet sinking.

Will anything change as a result of a definition rewrite? Unlikely.

Money talks.

I really don’t know but I suspect that high grade tobacco cards are more prevalent today than 25 years ago.:eek::confused:

I have neuropathy, not apathy.;)

[MattyC]

PWCC's "tenet" is just another opinion, in an infinite sea of opinions. I value my time and don't see why I should pay much of it to what some eBay seller says. I don't have to subscribe to what PWCC says anymore than I have to obey PSA's opinion, when they say one card is better than another. Life's way too short to let opinions cause aggravation— especially in one's hobby, which is a source of enjoyment, relaxation, and escape from big problems.

[Kenny Cole]

Man there is some serious apathy going on around here. PWCC proposes to adopt a significantly different definition of altered cards than the TPGs and the hobby in general have embraced for decades, and there's less response than if someone complained about shipping costs on an ebay card.

Peter,

I'm not sure that its apathy, per se, so much as resignation. I agree with you that the proposed "definition" of altered cards is substantially different from what has historically been the norm, obviously for overtly financial reasons, and that it is complete BS given what's going on. It is actually meaningless. But after years of shilling complaints, false bid complaints, failure to disqualify shill/retracting bidders according to the stated "policy," etc., why would people get too exorcised about this? What most collectors care about is the number, not what happened to get it there. I think I disagree with Leon that PWCC is doing anything good for the hobby, but that's an argument for another day. And, I will have to admit that I've bought cards from them before.

In any event, stuff trumps all. Always has, probably always will. They are perceived as having good stuff. Evidently that's what matters. Doesn't matter how or why. Too sad.

[glynparson]

Sorry Brent but conservation is anything done so the item exists for a longer period of time that’s it. Restoration is done to improve the items appearance and can be used to deceive buyers into thinking an item is in better natural condition than it truly is (if not disclosed)That is it end of definitions. All this other stuff is spin to try and justify what in my opinion is altering a card. Even some of the things I hear Leon and others saying are ok is altering. Erasing marks is altering a card in my opinion. Any chemicals that could degrade or change the paper in anyway is alteration in my opinion. Really not a fan of this statement at all and I think You, Brent, have done some positive things so this isn’t just an i hate PWCC opinion. I have used your consignment services and was generally impressed with how you guys handled my cards. The final things that worry me are the issues brought up on blowout that seem to indicate a preference for giving your own cards these stickers that seem to add significant value. That is an issue I’d love to see you adddress openly and honestly. Also the apparent partnering that was supposedly exposed on blowout with someone many consider a prolific card doctor. Those issues are important to many of us who have used your services as a buyer and a seller.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Erasing marks is altering a card in my opinion.

The mark IS an alteration to the card. The opposite of an alteration is preservation. So if erasing the mark removes it, then erasing is preservation whether you agree or not. I'm not saying that it's ok and I believe it should be disclosed when known. I'm just trying to clear up the difference concerning the mark.

[glynparson]

No David that would be restoring. Not preserving nice try though. Because you are taking something that was changed and restoring it to how it was originally. That isn’t preservation. Stopping one from marking it in the first place would be preserving it. You really get off trying to be mr cool and edgy on the net don’t you. And why do you hide your name with characters if you type David and James into google there are over 2 billion hits seriously what the hell are you so worried about someone seeing out of that many hits.

Plus people Erase marks that are from The factory like print marks on the border. Seriously let this conversation for those that know what the hell they are talking about. But as we know you just need the drama must make you feel important or something. Once the alteration occurs it’s altered there’s no going back. Making more alterations is t doing anything but making more alterations.

[AustinMike]

Conservation is defined as an act which returns an asset closer to its as-manufactured condition but does not otherwise enhance or artificially distance the asset beyond the as-manufactured status.

In plain English this translates to: conservation is any action/procedure performed on a card to improve its appearance provided that the card doesn't look better than the day it was made.

In plain English, your definition of conservation is total BS!

In my opinion, your definition is close to what the definition of alteration should be. In your language: alteration is defined as an act which returns an asset closer to its as-manufactured condition. In plain English, alteration is defined as an act which improves the appearance of a card.

[chalupacollects]

This just sounds like a way to legitimize the fraud that has been uncovered over the last several months on some of the other forums. The "tenets" proposed above do not state how PWCC will manage the dissemination of information to the buying public that a card has been restored, conserved or otherwise monkeyed with...

[ullmandds]

I totally agree that this "move" is an attempt to rationalize the deceptive/corrupt/unethical practices that PWCC has engaged in.

[vintagetoppsguy]

No David that would be restoring. Not preserving nice try though. Because you are taking something that was changed and restoring it to how it was originally. That isn’t preservation. Stopping one from marking it in the first place would be preserving it. You really get off trying to be mr cool and edgy on the net don’t you. And why do you hide your name with characters if you type David and James into google there are over 2 billion hits seriously what the hell are you so worried about someone seeing out of that many hits.

Plus people Erase marks that are from The factory like print marks on the border. Seriously let this conversation for those that know what the hell they are talking about. But as we know you just need the drama must make you feel important or something. Once the alteration occurs it’s altered there’s no going back. Making more alterations is t doing anything but making more alterations.

LOL, you took the time to Google my name. I didn't know you cared so much. Thanks, Glyn.

So, if some 8 year old marked on a card in 1953, what do you consider that? I consider it an alteration. But let's hear what you have to say. Impart some wisdom on us, Glyn.

[Republicaninmass]

Anyone really care what some freaking hayseed in Oregon thinks about cards? The hobby has been around, and will be around longer than he has.

How about fraud vs deception defined?

Shilling vs bid retractions?

Tax avoidance vs tax differal?

Handling vs shipping charges?

He needs a whole team of spin doctors

[Peter_Spaeth]

Sorry Brent but conservation is anything done so the item exists for a longer period of time that’s it. Restoration is done to improve the items appearance and can be used to deceive buyers into thinking an item is in better natural condition than it truly is (if not disclosed)That is it end of definitions. All this other stuff is spin to try and justify what in my opinion is altering a card. Even some of the things I hear Leon and others saying are ok is altering. Erasing marks is altering a card in my opinion. Any chemicals that could degrade or change the paper in anyway is alteration in my opinion. Really not a fan of this statement at all and I think You, Brent, have done some positive things so this isn’t just an i hate PWCC opinion. I have used your consignment services and was generally impressed with how you guys handled my cards. The final things that worry me are the issues brought up on blowout that seem to indicate a preference for giving your own cards these stickers that seem to add significant value. That is an issue I’d love to see you adddress openly and honestly. Also the apparent partnering that was supposedly exposed on blowout with someone many consider a prolific card doctor. Those issues are important to many of us who have used your services as a buyer and a seller.

Glyn, there is no question -- none -- that that individual has been consigning to PWCC since the very beginning.

Edit to add accepting consignments from questionable sources is, of course, not even remotely unique to PWCC.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I totally agree that this "move" is an attempt to rationalize the deceptive/corrupt/unethical practices that PWCC has engaged in.

Or it may be directed at a target audience that is new to the game and doesn't know any better.

[ullmandds]

Or it may be directed at a target audience that is new to the game and doesn't know any better.

yes...that too!

[Peter_Spaeth]

I doubt very much it's the case here, more likely just laughing all the way to the bank, but if I ran a business and read the overwhelmingly negative opinions being expressed here and elsewhere, it might give me pause.

[T206Collector]

Man there is some serious apathy going on around here. PWCC proposes to adopt a significantly different definition of altered cards than the TPGs and the hobby in general have embraced for decades, and there's less response than if someone complained about shipping costs on an ebay card.

I think what is missing from this thread that is causing the Blowout Forums thread to blow up, so to speak, are some of the examples over there, illustrating, perhaps, what the new PWCC tenets are trying to support. Here are a few of the examples, which you can see in the links Calvindog provided:

[tschock]

I think what is missing from this thread that is causing the Blowout Forums thread to blow up, so to speak, are some of the examples over there, illustrating, perhaps, what the new PWCC tenets are trying to support. Here are a few of the examples, which you can see in the links Calvindog provided:

Even if these aren't the same cards (and I do believe they are), it is obvious from the borders that they have been trimmed. So the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the tenets are an attempt at one hand washing the other. I mean so what if the card was trimmed? All of what is left is original, right? And the creases, dings, rounded corners weren't part of the original card anyway, right? So we are simply conserving what is left, and why should that be a problem if the TPGs don't catch it (or care)? Maybe not giving total legitimacy to 'trimming as preservation', but at least 'trimming as not a big deal'. I mean really, trimming a painting doesn't change the fact that it is original, does it? :cool:

[frankbmd]

Rereading Brent’s definitions it seems that the ultimate conservation can make the card appear as manufactured, theoretical in PSA 10 pack fresh condition.

However the restored card has no such upper limit, suggesting that a restored card theoretically could receive a PSA 11, or even in rare cases a PSA 12.

If only PSA would award such grades, Brent’s definitions might make sense.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

C’mon Man!!!

[vintagetoppsguy]

I think what is missing from this thread that is causing the Blowout Forums thread to blow up, so to speak, are some of the examples over there, illustrating, perhaps, what the new PWCC tenets are trying to support. Here are a few of the examples, which you can see in the links Calvindog provided:

A picture really does tell 1,000 words. I understand everyone's frustrations with PWCC. I really do. And some very good questions have been presented that I think they need to address. But what I truly don't understand is that no one is holding PSA accountable. Are they not to blame too? Why aren't they detecting the work being done on these cards? PWCC is being raked over the coals, but everyone turns a blind eye to PSA's involvement. Why? Why do people continue to submit cards to PSA when they can't do what you're paying them to do? That makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm sorry, everyone can complain all they want to but truly nothing will ever change until the people that you pay to do their job (the TPGs) actually does their job. If PSA did their job, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Things will never change until the TPGs are held accountable. Otherwise this thread is just useless whiney chatter.

One of the first things I educated myself on 35 years ago when I started this hobby was how to tell the difference between a factory cut and a non-factory cut. If I can do it, so can the TPGs.

[Leon]

A few days ago before this thread was posted Brent and I spoke for 30 minutes to an hour on the phone (hey Brent). I told him the hobby has already decided what is altering and what isn't. While some agree or disagree, the hobby spoke many years ago. This is old news. While I think Brent wants to have the conversation to get it in the open I doubt any minds will be changed. These tenets are just one person's opinion. I know Brent thinks altering a card is bad but the definition of altering is the issue. Purists think erasing a light pencil mark is altering. It is but not in a bad way, to me. Using water to get dirt off of a card isn't bad in many collectors eyes, mine included. But some see it as altering in a bad way. Brent agreed that pressing a corner to make it larger is bad. Trimming is bad. Flipping down a corner that flipped up, not so bad. We have been talking about this stuff, on this forum, for well over 10 yrs and closer to 20. Minds aren't going to change soon. I am not so sure that only cleaning a card is alteration. For those that think Brent is knowingly doing bad things in the hobby I couldn't disagree more. Sure he is an advertiser here but if I thought he was doing bad stuff he wouldn't be. To each their own. BTW, holding a TPG accountable for something that can't be seen is absurd.

[calvindog]

How do you know what Brent is thinking? Or what he is doing knowingly? From what he tells you?

[ullmandds]

A much less biased discussion is occurring on the blowout forum.

[Leon]

How do you know what Brent is thinking? Or what he is doing knowingly? From what he tells you?

Maybe because I spoke with him about it? Not really rocket science. How many times have you spoken with him?

[Peter_Spaeth]

A few days ago before this thread was posted Brent and I spoke for 30 minutes to an hour on the phone (hey Brent). I told him the hobby has already decided what is altering and what isn't. While some agree or disagree, the hobby spoke many years ago. This is old news. While I think Brent wants to have the conversation to get it in the open I doubt any minds will be changed. These tenets are just one person's opinion. I know Brent thinks altering a card is bad but the definition of altering is the issue. Purists think erasing a light pencil mark is altering. It is but not in a bad way, to me. Using water to get dirt off of a card isn't bad in many collectors eyes, mine included. But some see it as altering in a bad way. Brent agreed that pressing a corner to make it larger is bad. Trimming is bad. Flipping down a corner that flipped up, not so bad. We have been talking about this stuff, on this forum, for well over 10 yrs and closer to 20. Minds aren't going to change soon. I am not so sure that only cleaning a card is alteration. For those that think Brent is knowingly doing bad things in the hobby I couldn't disagree more. Sure he is an advertiser here but if I thought he was doing bad stuff he wouldn't be. To each their own. BTW, holding a TPG accountable for something that can't be seen is absurd.

Your thoughts on accepting consignments from card doctors? Good thing or bad thing?

[Leon]

Your thoughts on accepting consignments from card doctors? Good thing or bad thing?

Are they in TPG holders? But besides that I don't associate with people who I think are doing bad things in the hobby. So, I guess that answer would be no. But even with a No answer, how hard is it for scammer to give the graded cards to another person to consign for them?

[calvindog]

Maybe because I spoke with him about it? Not really rocket science. How many times have you spoken with him?

The same number of times I’ve spoken to Bill Mastro.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Are they in TPG holders? But besides that I don't associate with people who I think are doing bad things in the hobby.

So if he does associate with them, is that a bad thing?

And please don't play the hiding behind the TPG card, given your knowledge of how many altered cards are in TPG holders.

[Leon]

The same number of times I’ve spoken to Bill Mastro.

I agree that you are ignorant.

[pokerplyr80]

Your thoughts on accepting consignments from card doctors? Good thing or bad thing?

What would banning a card doctor from consigning solve? They would just consign under a different name or have a friend or relative send the cards in.

As for this alteration vs conservation discussion I don't think the distinction is necessary from a seller or auction house. I'd be more interested to hear what PSA or SGC think.

[DJR]

I agree that you are ignorant.

How old are you? T

[vintagetoppsguy]

Your thoughts on accepting consignments from card doctors? Good thing or bad thing?

Your thoughts on a defense attorney defending a client they know are guilty? Good thing or bad thing?

[Leon]

How old are you? T

F you.

[calvindog]

I agree that you are ignorant.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1290614

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1292005

[Republicaninmass]

How do you know what Brent is thinking? Or what he is doing knowingly? From what he tells you?


Just his opinion, and he has his full name in the post!


When new $ enters a hobby, and they get fleeced, usually they never come back.
Kind of silly when a simple search, on Pwccs on site, shows multiples of the same card relisted doctored or not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Your thoughts on a defense attorney defending a client they know are guilty? Good thing or bad thing?

1. I have no idea how that is relevant here.
2. Our society made a judgment centuries ago that all criminal defendants no matter how evil have the right to the effective assistance of counsel before they can be convicted. So I would say that ensuring that a defendant is afforded his or her constitutional rights is a good thing.

[DJR]

F you.

Infraction

[Peter_Spaeth]

What would banning a card doctor from consigning solve? They would just consign under a different name or have a friend or relative send the cards in.

As for this alteration vs conservation discussion I don't think the distinction is necessary from a seller or auction house. I'd be more interested to hear what PSA or SGC think.

So if someone offers me money to do something unlawful or unethical should I take it on the theory that refusing won't do any good because they'll eventually find someone else who will? I really don't follow the argument.

[Leon]

Infraction

Duly noted.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What is your policy on knowingly and publicly advertising record breaking sales where the transaction did not complete?

Michael -- can you elaborate on whether you think this has happened as clearly no response is going to be forthcoming?

[vintagetoppsguy]

I have no idea how that is relevant here.

Then allow me to explain. A defense attorney's job is to represent their client no matter if they know their client is guilty or not. That's their job! Brent's job is to act as a broker to sell cards on consignment on behalf of others. So why do people rake Brent over the coals for doing his job?

You might argue that Brent should disclose any known work done on a card (and I would certainly agree). But if a defense attorney knows his client is guilty, does he disclose that in court?

I think it was a very relevant question.

Or should we all do as I say, not do as I do?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Then allow me to explain. A defense attorney's job is to represent their client no matter if they know their client is guilty or not. That's their job! Brent's job is to act as a broker to sell cards on consignment on behalf of others. So why do people rake Brent over the coals for doing his job?

You might argue that Brent should disclose any known work done on a card (and I would certainly agree). But if a defense attorney knows his client is guilty, does he disclose that in court?

I think it was a very relevant question.

Or should we all do as I say, not do as I do?

David if you go any further out on that limb either it's going to break or you're going to fall. That is a tortured analogy. A criminal defense lawyer has a vital constitutional role. Brent does not.

[frankbmd]

David if you go any further out on that limb either it's going to break or you're going to fall. That is a tortured analogy. A criminal defense lawyer has a vital constitutional role. Brent does not.

Perhaps Brent will redefine the constitution.:eek:

[CuriousGeorge]

Assuming all of this about Brent is true, isn’t he knowingly conspiring with the card doctors/submitters of altered cards whereas a criminal defense attorney is in no way involved with the crime? Isn’t there a clear distinction here?

[vintagetoppsguy]

David if you go any further out on that limb either it's going to break or you're going to fall. That is a tortured analogy. A criminal defense lawyer has a vital constitutional role. Brent does not.

So a defense attorney doesn't have a right to refuse a case (if they know their client is guilty)? :rolleyes:

Which leads me back to my original question. Why is it ok for a defense attorney to represent someone they know is guilty because that's "their job," but it's not ok for Brent to do his job? And don't give me an answer from some legal point of view. What is morally right, Peter? Isn't the truth that in either case, it's really just about the money?

[calvindog]

So a defense attorney doesn't have a right to refuse a case (if they know their client is guilty)? :rolleyes:

Actually yeah, criminal cases assigned by judges to defense counsel can't be turned down or else you could lose your license. You may want to brush up on the Sixth Amendment. And I'm not sure there is a defense attorney in the history of this country who ignores their oath and only represents people he or she believes is innocent. Perhaps on Mars it's different, David?

[Peter_Spaeth]

So a defense attorney doesn't have a right to refuse a case (if they know their client is guilty)? :rolleyes:

Which leads me back to my original question. Why is it ok for a defense attorney to represent someone they know is guilty because that's "their job," but it's not ok for Brent to do his job? And don't give me an answer from some legal point of view. What is morally right, Peter? Isn't the truth that in either case, it's really just about the money?

I see nothing morally wrong with representing a guilty person who is entitled under our system of government to representation. If lawyers shunned guilty or notorious clients, that system would fall apart.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Actually yeah, criminal cases assigned by judges to defense counsel can't be turned down or else you could lose your license. You may want to brush up on the Sixth Amendment. And I'm not sure there is a defense attorney in the history of this country who ignores their oath and only represents people he or she believes is innocent. Perhaps on Mars it's different, David?

Let's clarify. Your statement is only true to cases where the judge has assigned legal counsel to the defendant. I'm talking about a case where the defendant attempts to hire a private attorney. In that case, the attorney can turn down the case for any reason at all. I didn't read the 6th Amendment, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

So if a client came to you to represent them and wanted to pay your fees out of their own pocket and you knew they were guilty, would you take the case?

[calvindog]

Let's clarify. Your statement is only true to cases where the judge has assigned legal counsel to the defendant. I'm talking about a case where the defendant attempts to hire a private attorney. In that case, the attorney can turn down the case for any reason at all. I didn't read the 6th Amendment, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

So if a client came to you to represent them and wanted to pay your fees out of their own pocket and you knew they were guilty, would you take the case?

David, this thread is about PWCC and their definitions of conservation and alteration. Call me in the office if you'd like to have this very quick discussion.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I see nothing morally wrong with representing a guilty person who is entitled under our system of government to representation.

Thanks, Peter. That's all I wanted to hear. In that event, you're just doing what you were paid to do. I don't have a problem with that. But I do find it a little hypocritical when Brent is doing what people have paid him to do, yet people are criticizing it.

In either case (lawyer or Brent), that's their job. They're getting paid to perform a service that they have offered.

I don't like getting a speeding ticket, but that's the cops job.
I don't like getting my car towed when it's illegally parked, but that's the tow truck driver's job.
I could go on, but people either get it or they don't.

[CuriousGeorge]

Unless he was physically there how could he 100% know? Because the media or prosecutor says the client is guilty? On the other hand a mere look at the cards in question show something nefarious going on and what is Brent doing to stop it?

[ullmandds]

Thanks, Peter. That's all I wanted to hear. In that event, you're just doing what you were paid to do. I don't have a problem with that. But I do find it a little hypocritical when Brent is doing what people have paid him to do, yet people are criticizing it.

In either case (lawyer or Brent), that's their job. They're getting paid to perform a service that they have offered.

I don't like getting a speeding ticket, but that's the cops job.
I don't like getting my car towed when it's illegally parked, but that's the tow truck driver's job.
I could go on, but people either get it or they don't.

brent certainly appears to be doing a lot more than that!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Unless he was physically there how could he 100% know? Because the media or prosecutor says the client is guilty? On the other hand a mere look at the cards in question show something nefarious going on and what is Brent doing to stop it?

Maybe I should have clarified. My example assumed an admission of guilt by the defendant to the attorney - attorney/client confidentiality.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Thanks, Peter. That's all I wanted to hear. In that event, you're just doing what you were paid to do. I don't have a problem with that. But I do find it a little hypocritical when Brent is doing what people have paid him to do, yet people are criticizing it.

In either case (lawyer or Brent), that's their job. They're getting paid to perform a service that they have offered.

I don't like getting a speeding ticket, but that's the cops job.
I don't like getting my car towed when it's illegally parked, but that's the tow truck driver's job.
I could go on, but people either get it or they don't.

Your analogy is utterly tortured. Imagine if seller X (let's make it hypothetical) is accused of conspiring with card doctor Y to commit fraud. Suppose, for the sake of the hypothetical, there was strong evidence X knew Y had altered the consigned cards. Again, hypothetical. Can you imagine X defending on the ground that he was only doing his job? LOL. Now walk back off that limb.

[vintagetoppsguy]

brent certainly appears to be doing a lot more than that!

All of my comments are based on the assumption that Brent is in no way involved in any doctoring. If he is, then shame on him and my opinion quickly changes.

I still have yet to see anybody address PSA's involvement in the card doctoring.

[dariushou]

Thanks, Peter. That's all I wanted to hear. In that event, you're just doing what you were paid to do. I don't have a problem with that. But I do find it a little hypocritical when Brent is doing what people have paid him to do, yet people are criticizing it.

In either case (lawyer or Brent), that's their job. They're getting paid to perform a service that they have offered.

I don't like getting a speeding ticket, but that's the cops job.
I don't like getting my car towed when it's illegally parked, but that's the tow truck driver's job.
I could go on, but people either get it or they don't.

seriously?

Are you really trying to equate Brent/ PWCC selling a known doctored card to unknowing collectors to an attorney representing someone he thinks is guilty of a crime. I'm pretty sure in this example, PWCC could be prosecuted for Fraud.

The difference here is one is criminal behavior and the other is to protect citizens from a tyrant. I can't believe i'm even responding to this post, but it was to off the wall not to. You sound like PWCC's publicist.

In America, you are innocent until proven guilty...and it is embedded into our constitution.

A Guide to the Sixth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment, or Amendment VI of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that guarantees a citizen a speedy trial, a fair jury, an attorney if the accused person wants one, and the chance to confront the witnesses who is accusing the defendant of a crime, meaning he or she can see who is making accusations. The Sixth Amendment was introduced as a part of the Bill of Rights into the United States Constitution on September 5, 1789 and was voted for by 9 out of 12 states on December 15, 1791.

[vintagetoppsguy]

seriously?

Are you really trying to equate Brent/ PWCC selling a known doctored card to unknowing collectors to an attorney representing someone he thinks is guilty of a crime. I'm pretty sure in this example, PWCC could be prosecuted for Fraud.

The difference here is one is criminal behavior and the other is to protect citizens from a tyrant. I can't believe i'm even responding to this post, but it was to off the wall not to. You sound like PWCC's publicist.

In America, you are innocent until proven guilty...and it is embedded into our constitution.

A Guide to the Sixth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment, or Amendment VI of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that guarantees a citizen a speedy trial, a fair jury, an attorney if the accused person wants one, and the chance to confront the witnesses who is accusing the defendant of a crime, meaning he or she can see who is making accusations. The Sixth Amendment was introduced as a part of the Bill of Rights into the United States Constitution on September 5, 1789 and was voted for by 9 out of 12 states on December 15, 1791.

You really need to re-read what you wrote, especially the part I bolded.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You really need to re-read what you wrote, especially the part I bolded.

The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is on the government in a criminal proceeding, even if the source of that rule is not constitutional. I think Darius' overall point stands.

[vintagetoppsguy]

The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is on the government in a criminal proceeding, even if the source of that rule is not constitutional. I think Darius' overall point stands.

So what is it exactly that you're claiming Brent is guilty of? I don't see it unless I really overlooked it. Help me see it through your lenses.

[Peter_Spaeth]

For purposes of this thread, hubris in attempting to change well-accepted hobby definitions of altered cards.

[calvindog]

For purposes of this thread, hubris in attempting to change well-accepted hobby definitions of altered cards.

I didn't find that in the United States Code, Peter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I didn't find that in the United States Code, Peter.

The Book of Proverbs. Pride goeth before a fall.

[calvindog]

The Book of Proverbs. Pride goeth before a fall.

Yes but if Samson cut his hair only halfway would he still have had the strength to kill 1000 Philistines with the jawbone of an ass? :rolleyes:

Edited to add the emoji

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yes but if Samson cut his hair only halfway would he still have had the strength to kill 1000 Philistines with the jawbone of an ass? :rolleyes:

Edited to add the emoji

Depends on the jawbone.

[calvindog]

Depends on the jawbone.

What if it's the jawbone's job to smite the Philistines? Does that make Brent guilty?

I'll wait.

[vintagetoppsguy]

For purposes of this thread, hubris in attempting to change well-accepted hobby definitions of altered cards.

No, Peter. I'm asking what are you accusing him of? Are you accusing him of any illegal activity? For that matter, if anybody else is too, then let's quit dancing around and post the accusations.

As far as your response, so what? If he's selling the cards and you know his definitions/standards what's the problem? If he wants to say, "this is a Near Mint card with rounded corners and heavy creases that appears to be trimmed," what does it matter as long as you know what you're buying?

And this really isn't about well-accepted hobby definitions. That's total crap and you know it! Just look at the very first reply in this thread. It had nothing to do with well-accepted hobby definitions, but instead asked about "advertising record breaking sales." It's a witch hunt period!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Then allow me to explain. A defense attorney's job is to represent their client no matter if they know their client is guilty or not. That's their job! Brent's job is to act as a broker to sell cards on consignment on behalf of others. So why do people rake Brent over the coals for doing his job?

You might argue that Brent should disclose any known work done on a card (and I would certainly agree). But if a defense attorney knows his client is guilty, does he disclose that in court?

I think it was a very relevant question.

Or should we all do as I say, not do as I do?

Holy crap. I don't normally go in for name calling, but I will call this POST idiotic. You see no difference between your constitutional rights and shady business practices? I haven't continued reading as this stopped me in my tracks, so I imagine a bunch of other people have called you out on this, but HOLY CRAP.

[Peter_Spaeth]

David have you read the various threads on Blowout?

[vintagetoppsguy]

David have you read the various threads on Blowout?

Peter, I am extremely proud to say that I have never visited that site.

But answer my question please. What are you accusing him of?

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's a very contentious site David, you might fit in well. :eek:

But for context as to why these issues are coming into focus now, you should read it.

[ullmandds]

Peter, I am extremely proud to say that I have never visited that site.

But answer my question please. What are you accusing him of?

That's not really anything to be proud of...take 30 minutes and read the threads that jeff linked...then come back here.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

David, Let's put it this way.

I am an auctioneer.

I will never accept a consignment from any source that has a reputation for altering cards. I will never sell an altered card without noting the alteration (sometimes a card still has value even in it's altered state) I have even noted soaking, which many people have no issue with. I will never do anything to artificially inflate the value of any of my own cards that I may happen to be auctioning (ask my Parsippany auction-goers how many bargains they got out of my personal inventory while I tried to get that sale off the ground) I will never alter a card myself or have someone alter a card on my behalf.

The constitution does not guarantee the card doctor a right to sell his cards.

I am not violating anyone's rights by having these tenets.

I am also not accusing anyone else of violating them, but if I have suspicions it would certainly give me pause before transacting business with that party. If it doesn't give you pause that's fine, but to equate your RIGHT to an attorney with a card doctor somehow having a RIGHT to sell his wares is misguided at best.

[conor912]

At the end of the day, we all have different moral compasses....some are just more wonky than others. Glad to know that some people think that just because something is my "job" means I can justify it, no matter how unethical it is. Jeez.

Here's a card for those tired of looking at words.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What if it's the jawbone's job to smite the Philistines? Does that make Brent guilty?

I'll wait.

Well, Brent presumably has a jawbone, so there you go.

[calvindog]

Well, Brent presumably has a jawbone, so there you go.

Yes but I am proudly bolding this part of my response. Therefore the jawbone has a job it must do.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Well, you force me to a musical interlude, Peter Paul and Mary written by Rev. Gary Davis.

You read about Samson, you read about his birth
He was the strongest man that ever lived on Earth.
One day old Samson was walking alone
He looked down on the ground and he saw an old jaw-bone.
He lifted up that jaw-bone and he swung it over his head,
and when he got to moving ten thousand was dead.

If I had my way,
If I had my way in this wicked world,
If I had my way I would tear this building down.

[brianp-beme]

At the end of the day, we all have different moral compasses....some are just more wonky than others. Glad to know that some people think that just because something is my "job" means I can justify it, no matter how unethical it is. Jeez.

Here's a card for those tired of looking at words.

Looks like Joltin' Joe needs a little trip to the Card Doctor. Or according to my new phraseology, perhaps to the 'Card Therapist' to return it to its more pristine original condition.

Brian

[frankbmd]

To be clear, some folks may consider me a card, but I am not a card doctor, merely a doctor with cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

To be clear, some folks may consider me a card, but I am not a card doctor, merely a doctor with cards.

The Eddie Murray rookie you sold me, to the contrary, was trimmed, recolored, pressed, bleached, and rebacked. Nice conservation work!:eek:

[brianp-beme]

To be clear, some folks may consider me a card, but I am not a card doctor, merely a doctor with cards.

Scalpel!

Brian

[bounce]

"Evidence of alteration can be determined in two different ways; either in technical review by a reputable Third-Party Authenticator, or when digital content asserts beyond a reasonable doubt that an alteration took place (i.e. before and after photos of trimming, recoloring, etc)."

Couple things here.

First, where does "restoration" fit within these tenets? Is it conservation, alteration, or something else all together?

A recent example, which was discussed/debated here pretty thoroughly. Made it into a TPG case (more on that below).
http://i.imgur.com/nYW9OtF.jpg (https://imgur.com/nYW9OtF)

Second, regarding alteration, so long as it's "disclosed" and "transparent", then it can be sold. Again using the Wagner as the example, I believe that card fits squarely in the "altered" tenet - recoloring, addition of paper, etc.

There was and is HUGE disagreement on the "minimum" level of disclosure that should be required, or what exactly constitutes "transparent". I know the Wagner was not a PWCC auction, but from a hobby standpoint I was certainly arguing that the description there was nowhere near a reasonable standard of "minimum" or "transparent". However, there were plenty of others that felt it was sufficient. Does that mean you also need a tenet to define what exactly is "transparent"?

Third, "technical review by a reputable Third-Party Authenticator...", and "beyond a reasonable doubt..." are basically the easy way out of saying that if it got into the TPG case it's fine, even if the TPG missed something.

There are plenty of recent threads around Lebron blacks, Harper Heritage autos, Trouts, etc. that clearly demonstrate work was done to the cards. Those cards have been altered, plain and simple, and it doesn't matter that the TPG put a number grade on them - they missed it. Using "technical review by a reputable Third-Party Authenticator..." is essentially just saying "NOT IT" when it comes to any enforcement against altered cards.

In conjunction with that, putting together a tenet that includes courtroom language shortly thereafter effectively invalidates the foundation of the tenet, if you ask me.

I do think I infer from the tenets a desire to "deal with facts", which I agree with. However, I believe these tenets is just leaving the door open to say "prove it beyond a reasonable doubt...", and just punts that decision to each market participant to make their own judgment. That's fine, but that's honestly where we kind of already are and have been. So why do I need tenets to tell me that?

Finally - the PWCC tenets are all well and good, but until the TPGs get together and establish consistent and/or similar/identical assessments of what constitutes alteration, restoration and conservation - including how those things are noted on the flips - it's all just another in a long line of opinions that the TPGs and auction houses hide behind when they make decisions that aren't necessarily in the best interest of the hobby or "transparency".

Rant over...get back to your legal mumbo jumbo. :D

[frankbmd]

The Eddie Murray rookie you sold me, to the contrary, was trimmed, recolored, pressed, bleached, and rebacked. Nice conservation work!:eek:

Au contraire. I didn’t purchase the card in a PWCC auction. :D

[Peter_Spaeth]

Au contraire. I didn’t purchase the card in a PWCC auction. :D

You wouldn't know good doctoring if you saw it.:eek:

[Rooftop]

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1292005

Much better details in this thread

[vintagetoppsguy]

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking,
People hearing without listening,
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dare
Disturb the sound of silence

There are 3 parties involved here - the doctor/consigner (I'll assume they're one in the same), PSA and PWCC. PWCC is the only party that's being called out here. I keep asking the same question, but I only hear crickets. Is it ethical to do business with a company that KNOWINGLY grades doctored cards?

[mq711]

I would think that a high end seller such as PWCC would be a strong advocate against the very practice they are spearheading. Their clients/investors have made purchases based on various factors including high end/low pop cards. When a well centered vintage psa5.5 can be "conserved" into a 8.5, the previous investors of psa8.5s are cheated out of value by the same company they made their purchase from; just doesn't seem fair or a good practice of keeping your customers happy.

[oldjudge]

Other than possibly the PSA 8 Wagner, what doctored cards has PSA KNOWINGLY graded with a number grade? You use plural so I assume you have multiple examples.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Other than possibly the PSA 8 Wagner, what doctored cards has PSA KNOWINGLY graded with a number grade? You use plural so I assume you have multiple examples.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? :eek:

But all kidding, and my suspicious nature aside, I think the problem is not corruption but that the doctors are ahead of the graders particularly the junior ones.

[AustinMike]

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking,
People hearing without listening,
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dare
Disturb the sound of silence

Great song by S & G, but I really like the way Disturbed does it.

There are 3 parties involved here - the doctor/consigner (I'll assume they're one in the same), PSA and PWCC. PWCC is the only party that's being called out here. I keep asking the same question, but I only hear crickets. Is it ethical to do business with a company that KNOWINGLY grades doctored cards?

I always thought PSA graded "doctored" cards because they had some incompetent graders. What evidence do you have that it is the policy of PSA to "KNOWINGLY" assign a number grade to "doctored" cards? (It's okay to grade "doctored" cards as long as you "grade" them as altered.)

PWCC is being singled out because they put forth the idiotic definition of "conservation."

[vintagetoppsguy]

I think the problem is not corruption but that the doctors are ahead of the graders particularly the junior ones.

I would like to think that the junior graders are not grading the '52 Mantles and other high end cards...but with PSA you never know.

[oldjudge]

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? :eek:

But all kidding, and my suspicious nature aside, I think the problem is not corruption but that the doctors are ahead of the graders particularly the junior ones.

Agreed. I believe this is true in all authentication areas, probably most obviously in autograph authentication. I think PSA tries hard to identify doctored cards (as does SGC and Beckett) with less than perfect results.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Other than possibly the PSA 8 Wagner, what doctored cards has PSA KNOWINGLY graded with a number grade? You use plural so I assume you have multiple examples.


What evidence do you have that it is the policy of PSA to "KNOWINGLY" assign a number grade to "doctored" cards?

Where's y'alls evidence that PWCC has knowledge of a doctored card prior to the auction?

[oldjudge]

I’ve never said anything about PWCC. That is a separate conversation.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I think PSA tries hard to identify doctored cards (as does SGC and Beckett) with less than perfect results.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, one of the very first things I educated myself on when I got into card collecting was how to distinguish between a factory cut and a non-factory cut. It's really not that hard. Look at the 3 cards in post #42. They all appear to be trimmed. How does PSA not catch a high end card that has been trimmed? Wouldn't a higher end card get more scrutiny? I don't fault them for letting "cleaned cards" slip by where there is not evidence left behind. You can't acknowledge what you can't see/smell. But how does a 'professional grader" not know how to determine a trimmed card?

Either way, you're still ignoring the issue. KNOWINGLY or not, why would you do business with a company that can't do what you're paying them to do?

[conor912]

why would you do business with a company that can't do what you're paying them to do?

I think part of the rub is that PSA's customers are not the card buyers, they're the card sellers - and PSA does exactly what the sellers pay for....grade and slab the card. Buyers have been led to believe that TPGs have they're best interests in mind, when that runs counter to the business model.

[calvindog]

Either way, you're still ignoring the issue. KNOWINGLY or not, why would you do business with a company that can't do what you're paying them to do?

Exhibits A-C as to why I'm doing business with PSA:

https://live.staticflickr.com/3159/2909247865_87fd1a9f8d_z.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/3118/2909248245_c80066146f_z.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/3020/2910087380_2ef80cdf16_z.jpg

I paid about 11K total for these three cards. Grading fees were less than $100. What are they worth now?

[Rooftop]

Where's y'alls evidence that PWCC has knowledge of a doctored card prior to the auction?

Why would PWCC continue to accept consignor's cards that are known trimmers?

[oldjudge]

Connor: The people who buy PSA graded cards probably also submit cards to PSA. Their business model should be to grade as accurately as possible. PSA is successful because of their registry which is collectors.Their business model cannot be auction house or dealer centric; it must be collector centric.

[AustinMike]

Where's y'alls evidence that PWCC has knowledge of a doctored card prior to the auction?

Hmm, nice deflection! So, you have no evidence to back up your claim.

I've never claimed PWCC has knowledge of a doctored card prior to the auction. As I said earlier, I think their definition of "conservation" is atrocious. And I'll add, I think that by putting forth the definition of "conservation" that they did, they're not doing PWCC or the collecting community any favors.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Where's y'alls evidence that PWCC has knowledge of a doctored card prior to the auction?

The WWG 7 DiMaggio. The card Brent bought himself out of REA as a 4, as he acknowledged.

[conor912]

Connor: The people who buy PSA graded cards probably also submit cards to PSA. Their business model should be to grade as accurately as possible. PSA is successful because of their registry which is collectors.Their business model cannot be auction house or dealer centric; it must be collector centric.

I hear what you're saying, but I guess I would argue that the only reason to ever grade anything is because it will be sold, eventually. Maybe there are a few outliers who grade strictly for one asinine reason or another like set uniformity or whatever, but the lion's share of people who submit do so for re-sale purposes, whether it be in their lifetime or not.

[oldjudge]

I hear what you're saying, but I guess I would argue that the only reason to ever grade anything is because it will be sold, eventually. Maybe there are a few outliers who grade strictly for one asinine reason or another like set uniformity or whatever, but the lion's share of people who submit do so for re-sale purposes, whether it be in their lifetime or not.

Look at the top registry sets. Many have been together for decades. All cards will eventually be resold, but that wasn’t the reason they were graded.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Exhibits A-C as to why I'm doing business with PSA:

https://live.staticflickr.com/3159/2909247865_87fd1a9f8d_z.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/3118/2909248245_c80066146f_z.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/3020/2910087380_2ef80cdf16_z.jpg

I paid about 11K total for these three cards. Grading fees were less than $100. What are they worth now?

Post #42 - Exhibits A-C why I don't do business with PSA.

You guys are too funny. None of this will impact PWCCs business in the least little bit. If y'all really cared about all these doctored cards (and you really don't, you just want to complain), you would go after the TPGs that are grading this garbage. But, instead, your efforts are focused on the wrong party involved. Nothing changes until you place blame where it properly belongs.

PWCC- Profiting While Collectors Complain.

[swarmee]

PSA has tremendous liability in this issue for their failure to detect these alterations, because of their Grade Guarantee. They don't really need to say anything about Brent's tenets because they run counter to PSA's longstanding grading practice. Many of the things Brent calls "conservation" is clearly defined in PSA's grading rules as Alteration; the rub is that they're not nearly as good at detecting them as they claim they are. Brent is putting this out there because he bears little to no risk; PSA is on the hook for doctored cards.

In the submission with the Mantle PSA 4.5, which was presumably submitted by Brent based on the number of cards that were immediately resold by PWCC, 29 of the cards were returned ungraded. Was it for Altered, MinSize, min grade? We don't know. Just that the certs aren't there for some reason. That's out of 79 cards submitted. So it's quite possible that PSA caught 29 of 79 with some type of alteration. That's a huge number. Should they have caught more in the same order? Maybe. Should they tell the submitter: you're dead to us! ? I don't know the answer to that. Were these directly submitted by PWCC or are some owned by PWCC? We don't know that either.

Someone on Blowout pointed out when you submit cards, you certify that the cards you're submitting are unaltered in the first place. Can they use this to invalidate claims against their Grade Guarantee against submitters that intentionally submit trimmed and altered cards? Guess we'll find out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I have certainly heard in the past that PSA banned people from submitting, but as has been pointed out that's a pretty simple workaround.

It's certainly easier to hide, in general, in a world where so many sales are consignments to auction houses and major ebay sellers.

Way back in the day, everyone knew who the card doctors were, they were the guys buying centered EX and EX MT cards at shows, who at the next show would have the same cards in 8s and 9s.

Now they're buying online under anonymous IDs, and selling through third parties.

[conor912]

Look at the top registry sets. Many have been together for decades. All cards will eventually be resold, but that wasn’t the reason they were graded.

See my comment about other asinine reasons :)

[oldjudge]

Pretty simple solution to all this, if you don’t like the way PWCC does business don’t deal with them. I was unhappy with a card I bought on EBay several months back. I returned it to PWCC, got a refund, and will not deal with them again. Everyone needs to decide for themselves who they choose to deal with.

[BLongley]

Where's y'alls evidence that PWCC has knowledge of a doctored card prior to the auction?

David, as mentioned earlier you may want to take a look at Blowout Forums. The person in charge of Business Development for PWCC is Jesse Craig... who certainly may be innocent, but he worked for one of the biggest trimmers in the hobby who is a convicted felon and just happened to use PWCC to sell many of his doctored cards... perhaps PWCC didn’t know they were doctored but we are talking A LOT of cards sold by him with an old connection of his working at PWCC... see details below... and there are pages and pages of examples if you care to research.

Personally I’m done with PWCC and have spent tens of thousands with them over the years...

Preface: There is a lot in this thread. I'd suggest finding some time to get a bowl of popcorn, read though it all, and then comment if you wish. I ask that you please do not just skim though through this thread and then write an uninformed reply, as this will just add confusion to an already complex thread. Not 100% of the content in this thread is germane to the allegations in the title, however I feel that most will appreciate the historical context, either as a refresher or to learn about this company for the first time.

Without further ado, here is Will Jaimet:

William Thom Jaimet
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100014391516111
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/will-jaimet-4b851915
Heroes of Sport/Jaimet's Personal Twitter: https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/media


Note who he is following on Facebook:
1. Kevin Burge


2. Vinny Ho


3. Keith Koenig





Will Jaimet has been involved in the sports cards and memorabilia industry from a very young age, as his father, Scott Jaimet AKA Thom Jaimet, used to run Oregon Trail Auctions in the 90s-00s before it was bought out by Mastro West. From all that I have read online, he seems to have been a well respected member of the hobby before his passing in late 2009. Will's presence in the hobby began sometime in the early to mid-2000s when he started selling mostly graded cards though his company Rose City Sports on eBay using the accounts ROSE-CITY-SPORTS and ROSE-CITY-SPORTS-2. Both those user IDs have long since been changed, but some of his listings can be found in the Worthpoint link below. He mostly sold low pop. high-grade cards (PSA 10, BGS 9.5-10) and even had an article written about his company for selling the first SGC 98 Jordan RC.

ROSE-CITY-SPORTS: https://www.worthpoint.com/inventory...s%22&category=

Jordan SGC 98 article: https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...n-rookie-sold/

In 2009 he had his first child, which he said raised his level of responsibility, so he decided to follow in the footsteps of his father and create an auction house by the name of Heroes of Sport. Their first and only auction took place November 18th-December 1st of that year.

Source: http://www.net54baseball.com/archive...?t-115242.html

In the following years, 2010 through 2012 to be exact, he continued to sell on Ebay and via the Heroes of Sport website, but he never held another Heroes of Sport auction. His reasoning is below:


Source: http://www.sportscardmagazine.net/20...r-will-jaimet/

Instead, as indicated in the except above, he began to prepare (poorly as it would turn out) to launch a repack product by the same name of his auction house, Heroes of Sport. His brand was legitimized by advertising, such as taking out a full page ad on the back cover of Beckett and traveling around the card media circuit for interviews, in addition to the legitimization from the brand he had created running the Heroes of Sport catalog auction.

He believed that he had the knowledge to buy cards enough below market value to deliver a valuable product to his customers:



However the legitimacy of both Jaimet and HoS was short-lived, as in late 2012, Boomo announced via FCB that he would be premiering HoS's first product on boomosbreaks. The lengthy FCB thread is below:

https://www.freedomcardboard.com/for...t-boomosbreaks

To make many long stories short, there was a bunch of petty drama both on FCB and BO that is implicit in choosing to use Boomo as a means of promoting your product. However, there were some clear conclusions to be drawn as the product started to appear through more legitimate and universally-respected hobby distribution channels. First, the ROI was abysmal. While the great hits were great, everything else was fairly worthless. This is discussed in a lengthy BO thread linked below titled "$500 boxes producing $50 in cards? How about $700 box producing a $20 card?":

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showth...ghlight=jaimet

Second, there was a large controversy with the items in later boxes of the product being purchased during the products run. In other words, the product was not completely packed out (or even purchased) before its launch. This, compounded by the fact that Jaimet did not (and still doesn't) make checklists for his product nor even create a basic sell sheet, was seen as highly concerning in the eyes of most. Tonedef got this one correct:

[BLongley]

In 2015, it is unknown what exactly Jaimet and HoS were up to. He/They were trimming cards by this point (more on that later), but it is unknown what other business ventures they were engaged in.

Then, in very late 2015, Heroes made its return:


Heroes of Sports "The Truth" was sold in late 2015 though early 2016, and the only way I can interpret the evidence that I am about to present is that it was a massive scam. Feel free to disagree, but nothing below adds up to a legitimate product being issued.

The product was 100 cases and was exclusively sold through BrosBreaks. Per Jaimet, it sold out the day before a concluding "draft" that seems comparable to the convoluted HoS points auctions from 2013 that I will not explain in this thread. Here is a tweet from Jaimet linking to the BreakersBro page:


Source: https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...64226331734017

Here is the BreakersBro page. Note the name "Jesse" and the linked Facebook group:


https://breakers.tv/brosbreaks

Here is the private Facebook group. As stated, this breaking group existed solely to break HoS "The Truth" and nothing else:

Source: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1641164426138784/

This is who is running the group (note that his name is Jesse):

https://www.facebook.com/jesse.craig.507

His LinkedIn:


Source: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thecraiggrouppdx

He is/was the co-owner of HoS:


So this is a little bit suspect. The former, publicly unknown, co-owner named Jesse Craig (who interestingly enough now holds a high-level job at PWCC) created a breaking company to exclusively break 100% of a HoS product that has no checklist and will be broken entirely random-draft style. Does that seem a little bit suspect? If HoS wanted to break its own product why not just do that? Because they were running an elaborate fraud?

Jaimet posted some of the high-end hits from HoS "The Truth" on its Twitter page. Here's an example:



The problem is that about 90% of these cards posted do not appear to have been legitimately pulled/drafted to customers. Remember the title of this thread about Jaimet being a large PWCC consigner? That will be proven later, but for now, let's just analyze the hits from this product that were posted on Twitter. Of the last 25 hits from "The Truth" posted on Twitter, 22/25 were sold through PWCC directly after they were posted, 1 sold through Probstein, and 2 did not immediately come up for auction again. There are many more, but 25 seems to be a large enough sample to get the picture. The links are below:

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...97668879564800
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...dan-1797628882
PROBSTEIN

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...97361130844160
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1206869

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...97068112609281
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1212696

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...96871047380992
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1212476

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...96557401571328
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1206728

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...96200441126912
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...ait-1799547343

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...95966281527296
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1207337

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...77735063900161
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1206805

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...38887022223360
DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN RESOLD

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...38730310467584
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1216707

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...36128722087941
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1217491

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...35845141000192
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1217069

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...35649485074432
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1204141

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...31161672069120
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1208019

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...30817772728320
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1212520

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...30567855091713
DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN RESOLD

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...30457775575040
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1211813

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...30309704122368
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1212564

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...30146574995456
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1206645

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...29611918684160
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1211544

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...26788371988480
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1212647

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...26608935469058
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1205491

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...26225550917636
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1212815

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...25955039244288
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1213132

https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/st...25593486049281
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1212532

Why would 90% of the best hits be sold through PWCC immediately after they were pulled? The only logical conclusion is that BrosBreaks was created only to execute a fraud between HoS and Craig. If the product "sold out" there is no way for them to have legitimately retained 90% of the best hits. And I don't believe that one legitimate buyer purchased some 90 cases of the product.




After this debacle, Jaimet's trimming side hustle was in full force through 2016, but everything came to a halt at the end November 2018 when Jaimet was arrested for the following:



There is A LOT to this criminal case, and I'm just going to provide a summary here. If you are interested in reading through it yourself, use the link and instructions provided below to do so:

https://webportal.courts.oregon.gov/...e/Dashboard/29

Instructions: Enter "Jaimet, Will" in field and retype characters. Click on case 16CR75219. Do not use back button. Many fields are cut off on the website, so copy/paste may be necessary to read everything.

The short run down is the following: On 11/28/16, he was arraigned on the charges above. On 11/29/16 he posted $3k bail. On 12/01/16 his release was revoked, his $3k was forfeited, and his bail was upped to $500k. He was given a no contact order with his wife and kids on this date. At a 12/23/2016 court appearance he was summarily convicted of obstruction for cursing at the judge in court. Snapshot of that below. At a 01/18/2017 court appearance he was again summarily convicted of obstruction for cursing at the judge in court. On 03/03/2017, he plead guilty to the felony weapons charge and the other charges were dismissed. He was given time served plus 3 years probation. Per the website, he twice violated the terms of his probation. He is still on unsupervised felony probation as of today.

12/23/2016:


01/18/2017:


Again, look over everything yourself if you want the grittier details. There's some stuff that just isn't getting posted here.



A few months later, Jaimet was back to buying cards to trim, but his days of HoS products were evidently not yet over.



In early 2019, with all of Jaimet's LLCs expired for the umpteenth time and the HoS website lost to another entity, Jaimet fired up the HoS Twitter account again to start pumping his new HoS products. He distributed them to at least four breakers (Blowout Cards, Cardsmiths Breaks, Grand Slam Collectibles, and Layton Sports Cards). Yet again, there is no checklist and no sell sheet. I was amused to see that Grand Slam was selling the product based off of what was pulled from HoS products 4-5 years go. Simply comical.




It's hard to assess if a card is trimmed from a group break video, but here's a card that was pulled from 2019 HoS that is unquestionably trimmed:

Pre: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...lub-1887207185
Post: https://twitter.com/cardsmithsbreak/...02598518960128
Break video: https://youtu.be/xp5xHzgsjZM?t=414


I'm going to assert that this card from 2019 HoS is trimmed seeing as it went from a GMA 8.5 to a PSA 10. If anyone knows who has it, we can be 100% certain.

Pre: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...kie-1781925822
Break (Watch closely to see serial number is 1346/2011): https://youtu.be/5JhrnWW4yzY?t=194





This card is suspect at best. I see no corner damage on the card pulled from HoS.

Pre: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...ions-405237333
Break: https://youtu.be/OyEH3j9-CMU



Lastly, Will Jaimet's Ebay account qut9 (proof below on how we can be certain that it is his account) purchased dozens of raw/BGS 9 Topps flagship color in early 2018. Many have visible flaws. Yet there are dozens of these cards that have never shown up for sale before in his 2019 product. I am certain most if not all are trimmed. Here's a few examples of what I'm talking about:







Here are the flagship color cards he bought. Ctrl+f for q***u on these feedback pages. If you are so inclined, feel free to copy the listing title over to Worthpoint to check the condition of these cards out. Most clearly are not Gem Mint:

https://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...rchInterval=30
https://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...rchInterval=30
https://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...rchInterval=30
https://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...rchInterval=30
https://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...0&mPg=4&page=2
https://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...rchInterval=30
https://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...rchInterval=30
https://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...rchInterval=30
https://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...0&mPg=7&page=3
https://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...rchInterval=30
https://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...rchInterval=30
https://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...&mPg=25&page=2
https://web.archive.org/web/20190417...mPg=52&page=52
https://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...rchInterval=30
https://web.archive.org/web/20190417...mPg=44&page=14








LINKING WILL JAIMET TO QUT9:


At this point, if you didn't come here from one of the sports threads showing trimmed cards sold via PWCC from Ebay user qut9, go check those out:

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1288385

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1288384

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1288386

If you did, here are 5 points of proof that qut9 is Will Jaimet. #6 would be that his account went dead while he was dealing with his criminal case, but I won't prove that below.

1. qut9 is Located near Vancouver, Washington, but not in the state of Washington.

The name on qut9's account is Vancouver Card Company, which is 100% fictitious. No such LLC exists in Washington or Oregon, nor does Google return anything. Here is a BO post about that user ID:


Source: https://www.blowoutforums.com/showth...highlight=qut9

Note the 97... zip. That has to be an Oregon address, not one in Washington. Jaimet is in the Tigard/Lake Oswego area, which has a 97... zip code.


2. A Card qut9 purchased appears in a 2019 HoS product.


Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20190416...rchInterval=30

Break: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7FP...&list=WL&t=790




3. An unnamed, reliable source puts trimmed Jeter qut9 purchased in Will Jaimet's possession.

Dan called the following card out as trimmed here:
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...86&postcount=2

Here is the buyer feedback for the raw sale of that card (note exact title match):


Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20190406...824572&page=55

A reliable source puts this card in Will Jaimet's possession.


4. In 2013, qut9 purchased card inserted in HoS.


Link: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...dard-464583030


Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20190420...&mPg=14&page=7


5. In 2013, qut9 purchased card inserted in HoS.


Link: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...nte-1617130819


Link: https://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISA...&mPg=14&page=6
Worthpoint: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...mber-423415532


This card might be trimmed, but I am unconvinced as I really don't like the raw seller's pictures due to their tendency to magnify damage. You decide.




POINTS TO TAKE AWAY FROM THIS THREAD:

1. Do NOT purchase any Heroes of Sports products.

2. Buyer beware when purchasing cards from fly-by-night repack/card companies.

3. If a modern graded (PSA, BGS, or SGC) card's first sale was through PWCC, I'd say there is approximately a 50% chance it is trimmed. Use the PWCC Auction history to verify a card has never sold though PWCC in addition to Worthpoint to look for evidence of trimming. Additional threads in the works will further substantiate this statistic.

4. It greatly concerns me that Jesse Craig is employed by PWCC considering his involvement with HoS and relationship with Jaimet.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Brian, thanks for taking the time to author the posts. It looks like you put a lot of effort into it. I won't have a chance to look at it tonight, but I will read it in the morning. If you took the time to write it, I'll take the time to read it.

[BLongley]

And apparently the links don’t work when they get copied over, so if anyone does want to look, here is the link to the page which should work...

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1288383&highlight=Jesse+Craig

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Happier than ever that I collect 2s and 3s or worse that show obvious signs of wear.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Republicaninmass]

To be clear, some folks may consider me a card, but I am not a card doctor, merely a doctor with cards.


You still should be dealt with accordingly

[Kenny Cole]

Pretty simple solution to all this, if you don’t like the way PWCC does business don’t deal with them. I was unhappy with a card I bought on EBay several months back. I returned it to PWCC, got a refund, and will not deal with them again. Everyone needs to decide for themselves who they choose to deal with.

This.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Why do you need to define Alteration vs. Conservation unless you are planning on knowingly selling altered (er conserved) cards and need to justify it to the hobby. This means you know you're wrong but are trying to pull one over on everyone.

[ullmandds]

PSA has tremendous liability in this issue for their failure to detect these alterations, because of their Grade Guarantee. They don't really need to say anything about Brent's tenets because they run counter to PSA's longstanding grading practice. Many of the things Brent calls "conservation" is clearly defined in PSA's grading rules as Alteration; the rub is that they're not nearly as good at detecting them as they claim they are. Brent is putting this out there because he bears little to no risk; PSA is on the hook for doctored cards.

In the submission with the Mantle PSA 4.5, which was presumably submitted by Brent based on the number of cards that were immediately resold by PWCC, 29 of the cards were returned ungraded. Was it for Altered, MinSize, min grade? We don't know. Just that the certs aren't there for some reason. That's out of 79 cards submitted. So it's quite possible that PSA caught 29 of 79 with some type of alteration. That's a huge number. Should they have caught more in the same order? Maybe. Should they tell the submitter: you're dead to us! ? I don't know the answer to that. Were these directly submitted by PWCC or are some owned by PWCC? We don't know that either.

Someone on Blowout pointed out when you submit cards, you certify that the cards you're submitting are unaltered in the first place. Can they use this to invalidate claims against their Grade Guarantee against submitters that intentionally submit trimmed and altered cards? Guess we'll find out.

Well...if our cards are no longer "cards" now they are "ASSets"...there has to be some form of regulation/control/accountability from all parties involved in the supply chain.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Pretty simple solution to all this, if you don’t like the way PWCC does business don’t deal with them. I was unhappy with a card I bought on EBay several months back. I returned it to PWCC, got a refund, and will not deal with them again. Everyone needs to decide for themselves who they choose to deal with.

It depends how you define "all this." If you define it as the problem of altered cards being slabbed, that problem is pervasive and the solution if there is one is going to involve law enforcement coming down on card doctors who for decades now have just mocked the hobby and become rich in the process, and the TPGs especially PSA improving their detection methods.

[oldjudge]

Extraneous words on my part. If you delete "to all this" from my post my thought remains as intended.

[AGuinness]

After taking time to think about what PWCC's Marketplace Tenets might mean, I'm not sure it moves the needle that much. The broad reason is because these tenets are for dealing with PWCC, and while Brent and people there can refer to it as the "Market" (with a capital 'M'), they're talking about the PWCC marketplace and not the larger market. And as has been mentioned, the larger market has its established opinions on alterations.
What remains to be seen is if PWCC will include anything about disclosures in their tenets, which will go a long way in knowing how this will all play out. Altering, conserving, rebuilding, rejuvenating... whatever anybody wants to call it; this stuff happens and as long as this is disclosed to buyers, then that's between the seller and the potential buyers. But if any seller doesn't disclose what was done to a card, no matter what they call it, then that's a problem.
Somebody mentioned the adage that stuff trumps all. I think that's partly true. Stuff matters, but relationships also matter. And I know I'm not the only one that will flat-out not buy from a seller who doesn't disclose alterations/conservation/whatever that's been done to a card that they know of. If a "bent region of a card" has been laid flat (as given as an example in the first post), I want to know about it before bidding (much less buying) and I believe that is a reasonable expectation to have. And if any seller doesn't disclose this, I would no longer do business with them. It doesn't matter what stuff they have, I wouldn't touch it based on principle.
I'm also curious how the final wording of the PWCC tenets will look, as it is described as the "rules of engagement" for dealing with PWCC. If conservation is not a necessity to disclose and a buyer finds out after the fact, I believe that eBay's rules will dictate a return is possible - will these tenets follow suit? To that end, I believe it is held that PWCC has a different seller fee schedule than others; does PWCC also have a different set of rules and regulations with eBay that would potentially eliminate the right for buyers to return items "not as described," should they discover some conservation efforts that were not disclosed? These tenets would make more sense if PWCC had its own platform, which may or may not be the end goal for this business.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Please name one seller who does disclose? How can you know who doesn't so as to avoid them?

[ullmandds]

After taking time to think about what PWCC's Marketplace Tenets might mean, I'm not sure it moves the needle that much. The broad reason is because these tenets are for dealing with PWCC, and while Brent and people there can refer to it as the "Market" (with a capital 'M'), they're talking about the PWCC marketplace and not the larger market. And as has been mentioned, the larger market has its established opinions on alterations.
What remains to be seen is if PWCC will include anything about disclosures in their tenets, which will go a long way in knowing how this will all play out. Altering, conserving, rebuilding, rejuvenating... whatever anybody wants to call it; this stuff happens and as long as this is disclosed to buyers, then that's between the seller and the potential buyers. But if any seller doesn't disclose what was done to a card, no matter what they call it, then that's a problem.
Somebody mentioned the adage that stuff trumps all. I think that's partly true. Stuff matters, but relationships also matter. And I know I'm not the only one that will flat-out not buy from a seller who doesn't disclose alterations/conservation/whatever that's been done to a card that they know of. If a "bent region of a card" has been laid flat (as given as an example in the first post), I want to know about it before bidding (much less buying) and I believe that is a reasonable expectation to have. And if any seller doesn't disclose this, I would no longer do business with them. It doesn't matter what stuff they have, I wouldn't touch it based on principle.
I'm also curious how the final wording of the PWCC tenets will look, as it is described as the "rules of engagement" for dealing with PWCC. If conservation is not a necessity to disclose and a buyer finds out after the fact, I believe that eBay's rules will dictate a return is possible - will these tenets follow suit? To that end, I believe it is held that PWCC has a different seller fee schedule than others; does PWCC also have a different set of rules and regulations with eBay that would potentially eliminate the right for buyers to return items "not as described," should they discover some conservation efforts that were not disclosed? These tenets would make more sense if PWCC had its own platform, which may or may not be the end goal for this business.

But once an "asset" is sold by PWCC it will likely be sold/traded at a later date no longer under PWCC's tenets. So this tainted asset will flourish without the disclosure of PWCC's tenets.

This is all so Ree-dickulous!!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

But once an "asset" is sold by PWCC it will likely be sold/traded at a later date no longer under PWCC's tenets. So this tainted asset will flourish without the disclosure of PWCC's tenets.

This is all so Ree-dickulous!!!!

See you're learning the new lingo. I think you need some investment advice from Brent and crew now.

[Goudey77]

Without further ado, here is Will Jaimet:

William Thom Jaimet
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100014391516111
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/will-jaimet-4b851915
Heroes of Sport/Jaimet's Personal Twitter: https://twitter.com/HeroesofSport/media




Blongley,

I made a few in person sales on post war sets with Will Jaimet years ago while he was under the Rose City name. Nice guy with a lot of knowledge. Sorry to hear about his family situation. Fascinating what you can find on the internet.

[steve B]

What if it's the jawbone's job to smite the Philistines? Does that make Brent guilty?

I'll wait.


Only if the jawbone was a 6 and is now an 8....

[steve B]

Other than possibly the PSA 8 Wagner, what doctored cards has PSA KNOWINGLY graded with a number grade? You use plural so I assume you have multiple examples.


The one over on the postwar side that graded an 8 but had a corner that layered and folded over, supposedly during slabbing. Which PSA folded back and reslabbed, still as an 8. That would be a good start.

In that case, PSA was both the doctor and slabber.


And the response was pretty much crickets.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The one over on the postwar side that graded an 8 but had a corner that layered and folded over, supposedly during slabbing. Which PSA folded back and reslabbed, still as an 8. That would be a good start.

In that case, PSA was both the doctor and slabber.


And the response was pretty much crickets.

You mean the conservator.

[steve B]

I don't know the Taylor postcards well, but unless they're typically cut with one end much narrower than the other that shouldn't be a 7 or any other numerical grade.

But PSA is the best because they sell for more!

Exhibits A-C as to why I'm doing business with PSA:

https://live.staticflickr.com/3159/2909247865_87fd1a9f8d_z.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/3118/2909248245_c80066146f_z.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/3020/2910087380_2ef80cdf16_z.jpg

I paid about 11K total for these three cards. Grading fees were less than $100. What are they worth now?

[jchcollins]

What evidence do you have that it is the policy of PSA to "KNOWINGLY" assign a number grade to "doctored" cards? (It's okay to grade "doctored" cards as long as you "grade" them as altered.)

If you take PSA at their word, their founder Mr. Hall was not competent enough to "KNOWINGLY" call the Gretzky Wagner altered. Because he didn't know. Really, I'm sure he didn't...:rolleyes:

[Goudey77]

You know in theory all cards that are handled will intercept the oils and residue that comes with human hand contact. Same goes for coins. So all cards have foreign residue and oil or print marks from these transactions. Just saying if you want to get really technical this topic will never end.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Email blast from PWCC. Touting the altered Mantle. Funny, not a word about conservation. I guess the tenets will only apply prospectively?

Baseball 1949-1953 Highlights
Closing Today: 6-9pm PST
__________________________________________________ _




A glowing and altogether stunning '52 Topps Mickey Mantle for the grade. We love this card as it lights up the room, boasting unquestionably NM-MT surfaces with pristine clarity, near flawless print and vivid color. By far the cleanest and brightest copy we've brokered in years (including many which grade higher than the offered PSA 4.5). Perhaps what's most impressive about this shockingly beautiful card is the centering. Virtually 50-50 from every angle; an extremely rare quality for the condition sensitive kick-start to the ultra difficult high-number series. Boasts clean white borders with crisp edges and card stock void of any wrinkles. Extremely modest corner wear to the right two are all that accounts for the harsh assessment.

This card would not be questioned for a second in a PSA 5 or even 5.5 holder. The '52 Topps Mantle is the most important post-war trading card in existence and seldom seen on the market with such exceptional overall eye appeal. Most educated investors appreciate that a card's eye appeal can fluctuate considerably within a single grade, and we are excited to label this example as being in the upper echelon of our quality spectrum. Comes with our highest recommendation.

Closes Today @ 8:09pm PST

[ullmandds]

Email blast from PWCC. Touting the altered Mantle. Funny, not a word about conservation. I guess the tenets will only apply prospectively?

Baseball 1949-1953 Highlights
Closing Today: 6-9pm PST
__________________________________________________ _




A glowing and altogether stunning '52 Topps Mickey Mantle for the grade. We love this card as it lights up the room, boasting unquestionably NM-MT surfaces with pristine clarity, near flawless print and vivid color. By far the cleanest and brightest copy we've brokered in years (including many which grade higher than the offered PSA 4.5). Perhaps what's most impressive about this shockingly beautiful card is the centering. Virtually 50-50 from every angle; an extremely rare quality for the condition sensitive kick-start to the ultra difficult high-number series. Boasts clean white borders with crisp edges and card stock void of any wrinkles. Extremely modest corner wear to the right two are all that accounts for the harsh assessment.

This card would not be questioned for a second in a PSA 5 or even 5.5 holder. The '52 Topps Mantle is the most important post-war trading card in existence and seldom seen on the market with such exceptional overall eye appeal. Most educated investors appreciate that a card's eye appeal can fluctuate considerably within a single grade, and we are excited to label this example as being in the upper echelon of our quality spectrum. Comes with our highest recommendation.

Closes Today @ 8:09pm PST

just got that...I unsubscribed.

[AGuinness]

Please name one seller who does disclose? How can you know who doesn't so as to avoid them?

This thread has gone off the rails in other ways already, and while I typically don't like tangents, I'll indulge on this because it offers an opportunity to highlight a good seller (and add a photo of a card). I've bought from a number of people on this board and had great experiences so far, including the card below, purchased from mybuddyinc. He noted that it had to be trimmed (it is still raw in my collection, I may get it slabbed at some point).
As for those who don't disclose, I'm sure you can peruse some of the threads offering tales of purchases gone wrong, bad experiences and find out some of the sellers out there to avoid.

[drcy]

As the resident museum person here, who is professionally certified in museum sciences, I can say that the original OP post is very problematic-- though I won't take the time to say why.

I will, however, say that conservation and restoration are kinds of alteration. That's not a comment on if they good or bad, ethical or unethical, just that they are alteration. Cataloging them as not comes across to me as trickery.

Also, if there is nothing errant or wrong with conserving or restoring a card, and it shouldn't effect the market value, then you should not have an issue with disclosing that it's been conserved. If one says there's nothing material about, say, conservation and it shouldn't/won't effect market value, but bends over backwards not to disclose it, that speaks for itself that the person doesn't believe what he is saying. I do not know, and am not claiming to know the purpose. However, If this all a method to hide from bidders and buyers the presence of conservation or restoration or other alterations, it's wrong, and, while I'm not a lawyer and will dutifully defer to the lawyers here, might be illegal.

[Peter_Spaeth]

This thread has gone off the rails in other ways already, and while I typically don't like tangents, I'll indulge on this because it offers an opportunity to highlight a good seller (and add a photo of a card). I've bought from a number of people on this board and had great experiences so far, including the card below, purchased from mybuddyinc. He noted that it had to be trimmed (it is still raw in my collection, I may get it slabbed at some point).
As for those who don't disclose, I'm sure you can peruse some of the threads offering tales of purchases gone wrong, bad experiences and find out some of the sellers out there to avoid.

I have a pretty good idea who to avoid at this point, and always willing to learn more, but my point is your stated standard -- I won't buy from anyone who doesn't disclose -- is not practical because you have no way of knowing who has something to disclose but isn't. And if you're only going to buy from people who have affirmatively disclosed something, that's an awful small universe.

[AGuinness]

I have a pretty good idea who to avoid at this point, and always willing to learn more, but my point is your stated standard -- I won't buy from anyone who doesn't disclose -- is not practical because you have no way of knowing who has something to disclose but isn't. And if you're only going to buy from people who have affirmatively disclosed something, that's an awful small universe.

At the same time, one should be willing to give sellers the benefit of the doubt and a chance to do their job honorably. There are people I won't buy from for a number of reasons, some from my experiences with them (non-disclosure or otherwise) and others from the experiences I've read about from others who have posted here.
If PWCC's tenets do not address disclosure of alterations, conservation or whatnot, or if the tenets note that disclosure will not be performed on some at their discretion, that makes things pretty easy as far as I'm concerned.
And I'm fine with an awful small universe, if that what it ends up being. I'm not going to be a slave to buying cards regardless of their sources.

[jchcollins]

I read most posts, skimmed some, and boy howdy was this was an exhausting thread. Following the OP, we went sarcastic-pissed, then off on extreme legal tangents, and then (I think) actually got back around to talking about grading and alterations.

For what it's worth I will attempt to give my thoughts sans sarcasm, since I don't really have any personal experiences which sting. I've bought from PWCC before, but don't have any particular grudge against them for selling altered cards or dealing with shady consignors or anything like that.

For what it's worth I do think the "Conservation" (tongue-in-cheek) argument is interesting, but as many others have already pointed out - the hobby at large more or less set the bar there years ago, regardless of what PWCC does or does not decide to do for their limited marketplace.

Me personally, I've always been intrigued by the prejudice which seems to be accorded to cards assumed to be altered (trimming, obvious recoloration, etc.) vs. "honest wear" because - yes for some, at least a good deal of the time you can kind of tell - but if you weren't there to personally see how each card got it's wear, how do you really know definitively? You don't. That being said, cards upon which no dishonest work can be physically detected don't bother me. I think it should be left to TPG's and who you personally do or do not trust as to whether or not you believe their opinion on the state of alteration on the card or lack thereof is valid. All of the big TPG's make mistakes. Some think that at least one company among them is knowingly dishonest. All of it comes back around to are YOU happy with the particular example of the particular card, or does it mean more to you what PSA, SGC, BVG, (and then perhaps further qualifed by PWCC) have said or insinuated about the card or not? Because as we all know, what they grade or say is apt to be wildly different even if you submit the same card to each of them.

I've always maintained that it's absurd to think that some "professional" graders can have a valid opinion over and above some veteran hobbyists who have 30-50 or more years in looking at and evaluating vintage cards. At the end of the day what you can get comfortable with is all that matters. I don't particularly care one way or the other about graded cards - I think on the whole it is helpful to buy them that way online so as not to risk getting a creased card that is described as "Excellent" and things like that, but at the end of the day - ALL of this, even down to what PWCC wants to further cloud judgment with, purple stickers and altered vs. conserved, etc. etc. is really just opinion. There never will be a silver bullet for it, unless someone invents a time machine and we can go back and observe the whole, complete and unedited timeline provenance for every single existing baseball card in every collection today. Which of course ain't happening. I think what PWCC is propsing is pretty useless based on the fact that when it comes down to it - there is no way to be 100% certain about anything. Will it soothe collectors / investors already basically willing to look the other way into an easier false sense of security? Sure, and that's unfortunate for those of us who do care. But all of us here today reading this like / enjoy collecting vintage cards at least enough to be ~5% or more unsure about their true state of preservation. If we are being honest, how much leeway is really there - is it that - or more? Because as with just about everything, you can never really know 100% for sure. Taking the technical approach, as someone pointed out earlier - at some point gets so detailed as to be absurd and not consistent with the reasons people collect in the first place. I will be interested to see how much traction tactics like that can get...

[jchcollins]

Caveat to my post above - if you are talking about the Vintage Breaks guys or whatever and you have a pack that is graded and most people agree is authentic unopened - THEN that card going directly to PSA at a show is likely to have a much clearer provenance trail, isn't it? But is it FOR SURE? LOL. See what I've done here? I've created my own tangent.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Please name one seller who does disclose?

Raises hand.

[Exhibitman]

What if it's the jawbone's job to smite the Philistines? Does that make Brent guilty?

I'll wait.

I gave up smoting years ago.

"Anyone really care what some freaking hayseed in Oregon thinks about cards?"

Ted, best line of the year.

A Lord on high at one of the TPGs admitted to me years ago that they are all aware that cards are being altered but that they cannot detect a good job of removing a foreign substance from a card. Light erasures, soakings, etc., it has been going on ever since TPGs started minting money for their customers based on the perceived grade of the card and it is not going to stop.

No one is going to be swayed by anything said here. The fans of PWCC and those who don't care what happened to get a card into a TPG holder have their beliefs and nothing rational will shake them.

DRCY writes: "If this all a method to hide from bidders and buyers the presence of conservation or restoration or other alterations, it's wrong"

I view it as more of an effort to shift concern away from criticism of the piss-poor job the TPGs have done on delivering on their promises of no alterations getting through their sieves. PWCC's entire business rests on two concepts: the TPG-encapsulated cards are what they are and as long as they have the right capsules around them the cards themselves are basically interchangeable commodities. Well, we know that the TPGs are missing all sorts of stuff: fake signatures, trimmed cards, cleaned cards, etc. So what can you do in the face of the evidence? Change the discussion or change the parameters of what you define as a wrongful alteration. The discussion itself ain't gonna change, so the OP is just a way of trying to sell us on the idea that even if the PSA or BGS slab has a card that has had one of these procedures, like a bath and cleaning, that's fine because it merely brought the card back towards its original state and the TPG then blessed it. So what if it went from a 4 to a 7 and the person who rode that train will make a fortune?

It's bulls**t of the highest order tossed out there to keep the gravy train rolling.

[Bigdaddy]

So should I feel bad about wiping wax stains off of my 1970s Topps cards with my shirt-tail?

And should I disclose the deed? It may not warrant a numerical bump by a TPG, but it could eliminate the dreaded (ST) qualifier.

BTW, thank you BLong for putting some of the pieces together and shedding more light on all of this. Much like the college admissions scandal, I'm a bit disheartened, but not surprised.

[frankbmd]

So should I feel bad about wiping wax stains off of my 1970s Topps cards with my shirt-tail?

And should I disclose the deed? It may not warrant a numerical bump by a TPG, but it could eliminate the dreaded (ST) qualifier.

BTW, thank you BLong for putting some of the pieces together and shedding more light on all of this. Much like the college admissions scandal, I'm a bit disheartened, but not surprised.

Shirt-tail wax removal isn’t woke. I’ve always thought panty-hose wax removal was the preferred technique. Then again I fully realize that everyone with shirt tails does not wear panty-hose. To make matters worse the Untuckit shirts eliminate the shirt tail alternative. The future should see a bump in panty-hose sales for this reason.

[ullmandds]

and in recent news:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BxQhjthHUpr/

[Peter_Spaeth]

and in recent news:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BxQhjthHUpr/

Funny how they get the same reaction everywhere.

[ullmandds]

Funny how they get the same reaction everywhere.

right! apparently noone cares!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Conserve - protect (something, especially an environmentally or culturally important place or thing) from harm or destruction.

Restore - repair or renovate (a building, work of art, vehicle, etc.) so as to return it to its original condition.

Alter - change or cause to change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way.

Oddly after a lot of digging I found there already ARE definitions for these words. It took seconds of mind-bending labor, but I found them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

right! apparently noone cares!

No, they got ripped, look at the comments on the link you posted.

[ullmandds]

well that's good...but doesn't seem to be affecting bidding on their auctions!

[Peter_Spaeth]

well that's good...but doesn't seem to be affecting bidding on their auctions!

Of course not. The Mantle doubtless will go for a world record.

[Dpeck100]

Of course not. The Mantle doubtless will go for a world record.

CLCT broke out to a new 52 week too.

https://www.stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=clct


This isn't going to slow either down anytime soon.

[Peter_Spaeth]

CLCT broke out to a new 52 week too.

https://www.stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=clct


This isn't going to slow either down anytime soon.

I just had to laugh at the guys on Blowout talking about shorting it, I mean come on how naïve.

[Dpeck100]

I just had to laugh at the guys on Blowout talking about shorting it, I mean come on how naïve.

They better be careful. This is a low float stock that has no liquidity.

If someone smells blood they could destroy some shorts in this stock.

[Peter_Spaeth]

They better be careful. This is a low float stock that has no liquidity.

If someone smells blood they could destroy some shorts in this stock.

More likely just a few giddy millenials drunk on their own perception of their influence, who are just yapping.

[Dpeck100]

More likely just a few giddy millenials drunk on their own perception of their influence.

Haha

Yep.

Virtue signaling shorting.

The make believe kind.

[Peter_Spaeth]

58K for the Mantle asset.

[Republicaninmass]

58K for the Mantle asset.

Someone hoping PSA buys it back? Or will it be relisted

[111gecko]

Or is it even paid for as a “true” sale..?

[calvindog]

Someone hoping PSA buys it back? Or will it be relisted

Who cares? Brent put a sticker on it. The card is “exceptional” for its grade. Of course it had to be altered to get there but who cares considering how hard he’s working to improve the hobby.

[Republicaninmass]

Who cares? Brent put a sticker on it. The card is “exceptional” for its grade. Of course it had to be altered to get there but who cares considering how hard he’s working to improve the hobby."(With more alterations) it could be a 5 or 5.5"


Hey Jeff, how many times have you spoken with Peter Nash? Just curious, I'm keeping tabs on many times people talk to each other for a list character witnesses during the trial.

This will be bigger than "steroids in baseball" government investigation. The smokescreen while the housing market (fraud) was taking place.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Who cares? Brent put a sticker on it. The card is “exceptional” for its grade. Of course it had to be altered to get there but who cares considering how hard he’s working to improve the hobby.

Sales tax on that asset could add quite a bit to the price. Oh wait...

[calvindog]

Sales tax on that asset could add quite a bit to the price. Oh wait...

Evading taxes — more good for the hobby. Won’t raise a red flag at all and surely there will be no audits.

[Exhibitman]

This is a low float stock that has no liquidity.

If someone smells blood they could destroy some shorts in this stock.
I read and write pretty good but I don’t understand either of these sentences. Something to do with urine and pants?

[frankbmd]

I read and write pretty good but I don’t understand either of these sentences. Something to do with urine and pants?

Just look up the differential diagnosis of hematuria associated with renal failure, Adam.;)

[Dpeck100]

I read and write pretty good but I don’t understand either of these sentences. Something to do with urine and pants?

CLCT is a very illiquid stock. It only trades on average just over 55,000 shares a day. The current short position is only 38,570 shares as of the last update so roughly two thirds of the daily average volume. That said there are days where this stock has only traded 13,000 shares.

This is a very small short position but if someone tried to put on a much larger short position and then a fund decided to put heavy buying pressure on the stock they could make it sky rocket and create a very serious short squeeze.

If you look at the stock right now the bid and ask are only showing 200 shares on each so the largest market order you can use and get the inside bid or ask is 200 shares. Nothing. To put that in perspective if you wanted to buy GE you could use a market order and get 45,000 shares.

Low float stocks that are heavily shorted are prime targets to try and manipulate higher with constant buying pressure. When a stock is sold short it represents pent up demand because the only way to exit the position is through a buy order. If someone is pressing it higher the shorts begin to lose and at some point just like in MMA they tap out and have no choice but to buy further exacerbating the scenario. Short squeezes can be violent.

Moral of the story a terrible stock to short because you can't get in or out easily. Even if one doesn't like a company they need to look at the short interest and trading volume to get a feel if it is a good short candidate and CLCT isn't.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You would have better insight than I, but it doesn't seem like a great stock to go long either.

[Dpeck100]

You would have better insight than I, but it doesn't seem like a great stock to go long either.

Hard to say. Roughly two thirds of the company is their coin division and that has been soft. If you read the recent report it seems to be picking up some. Their card and autograph division is what is carrying the company.

It looks to me like it is running back up to the the top of the gap of $21.63 from February 7th last year. If it gets above that it could have legs.

The stock got hammered in the fourth quarter last year on general market weakness and heavy tax loss selling but I am not a fan personally of buying a stock that has doubled in five months.

Regardless this issue that has created many to be upset isn't going to change the direction of PSA.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Hard to say. Roughly two thirds of the company is their coin division and that has been soft. If you read the recent report it seems to be picking up some. Their card and autograph division is what is carrying the company.

It looks to me like it is running back up to the the top of the gap of $21.63 from February 7th last year. If it gets above that it could have legs.

The stock got hammered in the fourth quarter last year on general market weakness and heavy tax loss selling but I am not a fan personally of buying a stock that has doubled in five months.

Regardless this issue that has created many to be upset isn't going to change the direction of PSA.

I guess people keep grading the new bullion coins although I can't imagine why as even the MS70s don't seem to bring much of a premium, unlike PSA 10s of current cards.

[TMKenKen]

This thread has gone off the rails in other ways already, and while I typically don't like tangents, I'll indulge on this because it offers an opportunity to highlight a good seller (and add a photo of a card). I've bought from a number of people on this board and had great experiences so far, including the card below, purchased from mybuddyinc. He noted that it had to be trimmed (it is still raw in my collection, I may get it slabbed at some point).
As for those who don't disclose, I'm sure you can peruse some of the threads offering tales of purchases gone wrong, bad experiences and find out some of the sellers out there to avoid.

I joined this site about 7 years or so ago. Scarcely comment, but always follow the forum. I have made a few purchases from other here, including Leon from whom I bought a few items shortly after joining. Unsolicited he disclosed the condition about each item, including that the item had been altered. That let me know that I could trust those here. This debate and the emphasis on disclosure lets me continue to believe that this is the right place to be. Thanks to all for that!

[Dpeck100]

I guess people keep grading the new bullion coins although I can't imagine why as even the MS70s don't seem to bring much of a premium, unlike PSA 10s of current cards.


From their press release.


Part of the growth in PCGS Bulk was aided by a successful Apollo 11 coin-grading program that generated thousands of these popular commemorative coins for submission. The creative packaging designed by the PCGS team helped raise our Q3 Bulk ASP over last year's ASP.



"The PSA and PSA/DNA business set another all-time revenue quarterly record for the division and eclipsed last year's Q3 revenue by roughly $1.3 million, a 24% increase year-over-year. Based on the first three quarters of fiscal 2019, this part of our company is expected to close out its ninth consecutive year of top and bottom line growth. The PSA backlog remains at record levels heading into Q4. The Company is currently revamping our existing space to expand operational capacity, so we can ultimately improve the extended turnaround times facing our customers."

[Exhibitman]

Suuuuure they are. Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpost.php?p=14661992&postcount=684

[ullmandds]

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpost.php?p=14661992&postcount=684

WOW! Thank god for PWWC and PSA for that matter for helping to bring such great cards to market!

[Peter_Spaeth]

WOW! Thank god for PWWC and PSA for that matter for helping to bring such great cards to market!

And doing good things for the hobby?

[Peter_Spaeth]

On a roll on BO.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpost.php?p=14662036&postcount=691

[calvindog]

And doing good things for the hobby?

Their charm offensive didn’t last very long did it? Back to the drawing board!

[benjulmag]

Ideal World

1. There is full disclosure of what was done to the card, without any pretense to give such "work" a definition.

2. The sole purpose of a slab is to opine that the card is authentic and to describe what was done to the card without concluding whether such work fits into the category of conservation or alteration, and that all numerical grades will be eliminated.

Real World

1. People buy the slab, and once it is slabbed, what was done to the card becomes irrelevant.

2. IMO all T206 10's have been trimmed.

3. IMO the overwhelming majority of T206 8's and 9's have been worked on.

4. The cover card of the hobby has been trimmed and would grade an "A" if taken out of the slab and resubmitted.

5. To my knowledge, the founder of PSA has not recanted his view that because he is one of the very few people who has seen said cover card out of the slab, his opinion that the card was not trimmed is correct, regardless that the person who trimmed the card has admitted such and went to prison in part because of such admission.

6. To almost everyone in this hobby, points 2, 3, 4 and 5 are irrelevant.

7. This entire discussion of "altered" versus "conserved" as a practical matter is irrelevant because regardless what one calls it, if the card gets slabbed with a numerical grade, mission accomplished -- to most people in this hobby the end justifies the means.

8. The notion of paying multiples more for a 10 than a 9 is my definition of insanity.

9. That PWCC came into being with its business model was inevitable.

10. At some future point PWCC's business model will be looked upon with the same awe and respect that PSA's set registry now is.

Conclusion

1. I feel very fortunate I got started in the hobby when cards had no value, which allows me to continue to collect as a hobby and for fun.

2. It felt good to vent.

[Leon]

Finally there is a well reasoned lawyer in this thread.

Ideal World

1. There is full disclosure of what was done to the card, without any pretense to give such "work" a definition.

2. The sole purpose of a slab is to opine that the card is authentic and to describe what was done to the card without concluding whether such work fits into the category of conservation or alteration, and that all numerical grades will be eliminated.

Real World

1. People buy the slab, and once it is slabbed, what was done to the card becomes irrelevant.

2. IMO all T206 10's have been trimmed.

3. IMO the overwhelming majority of T206 8's and 9's have been worked on.

4. The cover card of the hobby has been trimmed and would grade an "A" if taken out of the slab and resubmitted.

5. To my knowledge, the founder of PSA has not recanted his view that because he is one of the very few people who has seen said cover card out of the slab, his opinion that the card was not trimmed is correct, regardless that the person who trimmed the card has admitted such and went to prison in part because of such admission.

6. To almost everyone in this hobby, points 2, 3, 4 and 5 are irrelevant.

7. This entire discussion of "altered" versus "conserved" as a practical matter is irrelevant because regardless what one calls it, if the card gets slabbed with a numerical grade, mission accomplished -- to most people in this hobby the end justifies the means.

8. The notion of paying multiples more for a 10 than a 9 is my definition of insanity.

9. That PWCC came into being with its business model was inevitable.

10. At some future point PWCC's business model will be looked upon with the same awe and respect that PSA's set registry now is.

Conclusion

1. I feel very fortunate I got started in the hobby when cards had no value, which allows me to continue to collect as a hobby and for fun.

2. It felt good to vent.

[calvindog]

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1290614&page=29

[Leon]

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1290614&page=29

Whatever you do, don't text. They can come back to bite you and that might not taste as good as some other things.

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1290614&page=29

Corey may be right that most people don't care, but for anyone who is bothered by trimming, this thread is quite educational and disturbing on several levels.

[swarmee]

Obviously PSA cares because they're on the hook for reimbursing people when their inability to catch these alterations is proven. And it's obvious they're being targeted because their cards have proven to sell for much higher over time for vintage. The majority of modern cards found so far were in BGS slabs and the majority of the forged T206 autos were in SGC slabs. None of the major grading companies are coming out unscathed.

Has anyone determined the identity of the eBay user whitman111?

Looks like they've recently bought cards from Greg Morris and painthistorian. Will those cards end up trimmed/bleached in slabs?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Years of complaining and nothing's changed. Nothing will change. Your frustrations are misdirected. Until you focus on the root of the problem, things will remain the same. But ignore me, just keep doing what you're doing while PWCC keeps profiting.

Profiting While Collectors Complain

[Peter_Spaeth]

Obviously PSA cares because they're on the hook for reimbursing people when their inability to catch these alterations is proven. And it's obvious they're being targeted because their cards have proven to sell for much higher over time for vintage. The majority of modern cards found so far were in BGS slabs and the majority of the forged T206 autos were in SGC slabs. None of the major grading companies are coming out unscathed.

Has anyone determined the identity of the eBay user whitman111?

Looks like they've recently bought cards from Greg Morris and painthistorian. Will those cards end up trimmed/bleached in slabs?

He was identified today on Blowout.

[calvindog]

He was identified today on Blowout.

And has a very long relationship with Brent.

[swarmee]

Reported to be Gary Moser. Scams going back 20 years if you google his name.

[BLongley]

And has a very long relationship with Brent.

Gary Moser... looks like it’s been officially confirmed over there, so I will just let it out over here... yes a very long history with Brent... so much so the cards he purchases pre conservation from Brent they stay out of the “vault”... only the newer nicer version of the card makes it in... with the strong eye appeal sticker... He sure is a talented conserver!! Scary good!

[Peter_Spaeth]

And has a very long relationship with Brent.

Is this relationship good for the hobby though?

[Republicaninmass]

Another long time scammer connected with Brent. I guess they must be targeting him. There are no such things as coincidences. Wondering when the Forbes article comes out?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Johnny630]

Waiting for the hammer to fall.....I’ve been selling most all into this market when it crashes it’s gonna crash hard....real hard. The sad part is many good guy collectors will also see their cards drop big time. I hope the good guys do not get hurt, we will be collateral damage. The time to sell is now.
:-)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Per Blowout the 52 Mantle asset has not been paid for yet by the winning investor.

[barrysloate]

Agree with Corey 100% that nearly all high end T-206's have been tampered with, and likewise that nobody cares as long as they are numerically slabbed.

It's possible that the original intent of third party grading was to objectively grade and authenticate cards, but the way the industry evolved their job now is to make cards as marketable as possible, and to mint money for their clients.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Agree with Corey 100% that nearly all high end T-206's have been tampered with, and likewise that nobody cares as long as they are numerically slabbed.

It's possible that the original intent of third party grading was to objectively grade and authenticate cards, but the way the industry evolved their job now is to make cards as marketable as possible, and to mint money for their clients.

I don't think that's entirely fair. PSA is for the most part grading very strictly -- higher grades obviously would bring in a lot more money -- and they reject tons of cards which if slabbed would make lots of money. What I think you're missing is that card doctors are very very good, or some of them, and without a crime lab and without the before and after photos that make alteration obvious that you see on Blowout, it's pretty tough sometimes to tell.

[T206Collector]

I don't think that's entirely fair. PSA is for the most part grading very strictly -- higher grades obviously would bring in a lot more money -- and they reject tons of cards which if slabbed would make lots of money. What I think you're missing is that card doctors are very very good, or some of them, and without a crime lab and without the before and after photos that make alteration obvious that you see on Blowout, it's pretty tough sometimes to tell.

I think Peter is spot on. And it’s the same with forged signatures. As long as a slabbed card is accepted as a liquid asset, criminals will be flooding the grading companies trying to get worthless garbage into their holders. PSA, SGC, and Beckett are all very good at sorting through the garbage, but well done fraud will sneak in occasionally. And if it gets caught by enterprising collectors with days and weeks of research, it highlights the limitations of the system.

If you want to spend thousands on graded cards, you must accept that system that graded your card very likely devoted less than a minute or two on your card.

Someone really ought to invent a grading company for high end cards, where the company spends a few days at least on each individual card that gets submitted — check each paper fiber, get a few different eyes in each card, do some research into the history of the card on-line and otherwise, build a database of crooked submitters that gets shared with the FBI and local law enforcement, keep records of each card and track the history going forward, with a digital notification if the seal ever gets broken, and other fun stuff I’m just making up.

[slidekellyslide]

I think Peter is spot on. And it’s the same with forged signatures. As long as a slabbed card is accepted as a liquid asset, criminals will be flooding the grading companies trying to get worthless garbage into their holders. PSA, SGC, and Beckett are all very good at sorting through the garbage, but well done fraud will sneak in occasionally. And if it gets caught by enterprising collectors with days and weeks of research, it highlights the limitations of the system.

If you want to spend thousands on graded cards, you must accept that system that graded your card very likely devoted less than a minute or two on your card.

Someone really ought to invent a grading company for high end cards, where the company spends a few days at least on each individual card that gets submitted — check each paper fiber, get a few different eyes in each card, do some research into the history of the card on-line and otherwise, build a database of crooked submitters that gets shared with the FBI and local law enforcement, keep records of each card and track the history going forward, with a digital notification if the seal ever gets broken, and other fun stuff I’m just making up.

The PSA grader is overworked. They clearly do not have enough help in that area if you consider their turnaround times are double and triple of what they say they are.

And a grading service for only high end cards would not work unless it said PSA on the label. I would bet the large majority would not want their cards scrutinized to that extent also. It would be a money losing proposition for anyone who tried it (except for maybe PSA).

[jchcollins]

Ideal World

1. There is full disclosure of what was done to the card, without any pretense to give such "work" a definition.

2. The sole purpose of a slab is to opine that the card is authentic and to describe what was done to the card without concluding whether such work fits into the category of conservation or alteration, and that all numerical grades will be eliminated.

Real World

1. People buy the slab, and once it is slabbed, what was done to the card becomes irrelevant.

2. IMO all T206 10's have been trimmed.

3. IMO the overwhelming majority of T206 8's and 9's have been worked on.

4. The cover card of the hobby has been trimmed and would grade an "A" if taken out of the slab and resubmitted.

5. To my knowledge, the founder of PSA has not recanted his view that because he is one of the very few people who has seen said cover card out of the slab, his opinion that the card was not trimmed is correct, regardless that the person who trimmed the card has admitted such and went to prison in part because of such admission.

6. To almost everyone in this hobby, points 2, 3, 4 and 5 are irrelevant.

7. This entire discussion of "altered" versus "conserved" as a practical matter is irrelevant because regardless what one calls it, if the card gets slabbed with a numerical grade, mission accomplished -- to most people in this hobby the end justifies the means.

8. The notion of paying multiples more for a 10 than a 9 is my definition of insanity.

9. That PWCC came into being with its business model was inevitable.

10. At some future point PWCC's business model will be looked upon with the same awe and respect that PSA's set registry now is.

Conclusion

1. I feel very fortunate I got started in the hobby when cards had no value, which allows me to continue to collect as a hobby and for fun.

2. It felt good to vent.

Extremely well put. I feel fortunate I got started in the hobby after cards had value, but at least before the advent of professional grading so that I have some perspective on what makes a card have worth and utility to me personally...

[barrysloate]

I don't think that's entirely fair. PSA is for the most part grading very strictly -- higher grades obviously would bring in a lot more money -- and they reject tons of cards which if slabbed would make lots of money. What I think you're missing is that card doctors are very very good, or some of them, and without a crime lab and without the before and after photos that make alteration obvious that you see on Blowout, it's pretty tough sometimes to tell.

So why aren't they developing technology that will help to spot these alterations? If a painting has been restored and you shine a black light on it, the modern work is easy to detect. It seems to me the same technology can be used on cads. To use a common phrase, they can land a man on the moon but they can't detect card doctoring?

[Peter_Spaeth]

So why aren't they developing technology that will help to spot these alterations? If a painting has been restored and you shine a black light on it, the modern work is easy to detect. It seems to me the same technology can be used on cads. To use a common phrase, they can land a man on the moon but they can't detect card doctoring?

False equivalency.

Go back and read VCBC 7. These people are very sophisticated.

[conor912]

To use a common phrase, they can land a man on the moon but they can't detect card doctoring?

Two very different "theys". One set of "they" were literally rocket scientists. The other, well, aren't.

[vintagetoppsguy]

False equivalency.

Go back and read VCBC 7. These people are very sophisticated.

But wouldn't it depend on the type of doctoring? Obviously a black light isn't going to detect a water soaking or a trim job, but it should detect added paper (building up corners) or re-coloring, right?

[Peter_Spaeth]

But wouldn't it depend on the type of doctoring? Obviously a black light isn't going to detect a water soaking or a trim job, but it should detect added paper (building up corners) or re-coloring, right?

I would think unless they have come up with ways to pass a black light test, which I agree seems unlikely. I don't think, though, that that's where the major alteration is taking place, I think it's trimming, filing, taking out creases, laying down corners.

[barrysloate]

Then if it is in fact impossible to detect sophisticated alterations, then what is the purpose of the whole third party grading business? To make cards marketable, and to make sure as many clients as possible are making money with slabbed material.

[jchcollins]

Maybe a new TPG could be started, even by somebody here - with a focus only on authentication and detection of attempts at altering - along the lines of earilier suggestions where that and that alone, not a numerical grade - is what is important. My fear of course is that we would be in the vast minority with something like that, and it would not be a sustainable business.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Then if it is in fact impossible to detect sophisticated alterations, then what is the purpose of the whole third party grading business? To make cards marketable, and to make sure as many clients as possible are making money with slabbed material.

I asked the same question in another thread, just in a different way. I was told it was to "add value" to the card. Well, the card doctors are certainly doing that.

[drcy]

There are many other sophisticated scientific methods that could be used: authenticating art and artifacts (https://www.amazon.com/Authenticating-Art-Artifacts-Introduction-Methods/dp/1387447459)

One word that I often use: provenance. Cards that have been altered don't have a history-- or at least a history that shows it wasn't altered. Of course there are new finds. However, as autograph expert Jim Stinson once said of autographs: “Authentic autographs have a history or sources. Forgeries do not. They just ‘appear’.” Provenance is one thing that is standard is the high end art collecting world that is not in baseball card world.

Also, common sense is always useful.

[steve B]

A really quality alteration should still be detectable. The Philatelic foundation (One of the authenticators for stamps) showed a collection of alterations they'd caught. I'm pretty good at spotting that stuff on an item in hand, but most of what they showed I'm not sure I'd have caught.

But then, I only looked for the same few seconds graders at the grading companies do.

And that's the problem. A quick inspection won't catch any thing but the simplest alterations. Philatelic foundation etc can take months, but they are seldom wrong. And the more money is involved, the slower they are.

As far as I know getting a rebuilt corner past a blacklight wouldn't be all that hard.

[irv]

There are many other sophisticated scientific methods that could be used: authenticating art and artifacts (https://www.amazon.com/Authenticating-Art-Artifacts-Introduction-Methods/dp/1387447459)

One word that I often use: provenance. Cards that have been altered don't have a history-- or at least a history that shows it wasn't altered. Of course there are new finds. However, as autograph expert Jim Stinson once said of autographs: “Authentic autographs have a history or sources. Forgeries do not. They just ‘appear’.” Provenance is one thing that is standard is the high end art collecting world that is not in baseball card world.

Also, common sense is always useful.

The only problem with common sense is, it's not very common.

[Exhibitman]

The initial TPG marketing (PSA) was to detect altered cards and avoid card doctors. That was the scary advertising PSA used. The SMR was created to boost PSA card prices and market the service in the guise of price guide; I wrote an article on the fake pricing and false marketing in the SMR; VCBC ran it. Fun to write but no impact.

Fast-Forward to the creation of the Registry and the TPG idea has morphed into a pee-pee measuring mechanism: the higher the grade, the bigger the wiener. Or so I've been told (I judge myself against other collectors by height). With great power comes great responsibility. But not in PSA's case. With great power comes great disclaimers. PSA says: "PSA guarantees that all cards submitted to it shall be graded in accordance with PSA grading standards and under the procedures of PSA." It is circular: PSA guarantees it will apply its own procedures and standards, which are basically, it will look at the card and opine on it. It is a popcorn fart. Now we learn that PSA graders really aren't that good at their first job of detecting alterations. Like airport security, PSA is aimed at stopping stupid, lazy, sloppy amateur wannabes while giving the illusion of safety to the masses. Just like no security can stop a well planned attack, the fact is that no TPG can detect properly done removals and now we are seeing that they also aren't much at detecting really good work. So we must have a remedy with PSA, right? The buy-back remedy PSA offers applies: "If PSA, in fact, concludes that the card in question no longer merits the PSA grade assigned or fails PSA’s authenticity standards". Another popcorn fart: you disagree with PSA? Tough, unless you have a Mastro style confession or photographic evidence of the alterations. But at least there is a shot there. Not so with PWCC.

The PWCC case is more interesting because it shows some underlying assumptions of collectors that are not merited. What exactly is PWCC selling when they sell a PSA 8 Joe DiMaggio card? The assumption here is that they are selling a guarantee that the card is an unaltered one and that when someone demonstrates that PSA screwed the pooch, PWCC is liable. For what, exactly? The reality is that PWCC is selling precisely what it delivers: the DiMaggio card that is in a PSA 8 slab. The meaning of that designation is based on the reputation of PSA for detecting alterations: see above. Now, the best remedy any PWCC buyer of one of these shady cards has is to make a quick return via eBay or PayPal for item not as described. But beyond that, except for the cards that have been successfully traced, you are dealing with opinions layered on assumptions. I wouldn't want that case on a contingency fee.

[CrackaJackKid]

How close are Joe and Brent? 🤔🤔🤔

[jchcollins]

The Philatelic foundation (One of the authenticators for stamps) showed a collection of alterations they'd caught.


I can tell you after having spent the past 15 mins or so on the website of the Philatelic Foundation, that it's a very interesting place. And funny enough I ran into no registry competitions or SMR-type price guides...:p

[Throttlesteer]

PWCC's recent inclusion of high-res scans should help with some of this stuff. But, nothing is going to be 100%.

[barrysloate]

The irony of developing sophisticated technology to detect card doctoring is that if it were incorporated, thousands of previously slabbed cards would fail, and collectors would be demanding refunds en masse. As such, it may not be in the best interest of the TPG's to look at things too closely.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The irony of developing sophisticated technology to detect card doctoring is that if it were incorporated, thousands of previously slabbed cards would fail, and collectors would be demanding refunds en masse. As such, it may not be in the best interest of the TPG's to look at things too closely.

Another irony is that I think submissions would be just as high if they removed that guaranty. I mean where else are people gonna go?

[bobbyw8469]

Obviously PSA cares because they're on the hook for reimbursing people when their inability to catch these alterations is proven. And it's obvious they're being targeted because their cards have proven to sell for much higher over time for vintage. The majority of modern cards found so far were in BGS slabs and the majority of the forged T206 autos were in SGC slabs. None of the major grading companies are coming out unscathed.

Has anyone determined the identity of the eBay user whitman111?

Looks like they've recently bought cards from Greg Morris and painthistorian. Will those cards end up trimmed/bleached in slabs?


I did not know that. Is that why SGC got out of the autograph business?

[jchcollins]

Another irony is that I think submissions would be just as high if they removed that guaranty. I mean where else are people gonna go?

Sadly true. Which is why we are moving towards the standard becoming authenticity and nothing else. If a card looks nice and is at least an "A", then go for it, money-hungry investors and nostalgia-hungry collectors alike. Increasingly we can offer no guarantees other than the card is authentic...:mad:

[T206Collector]

One word that I often use: provenance. Cards that have been altered don't have a history-- or at least a history that shows it wasn't altered. Of course there are new finds. However, as autograph expert Jim Stinson once said of autographs: “Authentic autographs have a history or sources. Forgeries do not. They just ‘appear’.” Provenance is one thing that is standard is the high end art collecting world that is not in baseball card world.

+1

[swarmee]

I did not know that. Is that why SGC got out of the autograph business?
Supposedly no, their autograph authenticators got hired by other companies.

[benjulmag]

Not being a slabbed card collector I am unfamiliar with the legal obligations of grading companies and don't know what if any disclaimers and/or damages limitations language is contained in their submission form.

Here's my question. I buy a PSA 8 T206 Cobb for $150k.
I subsequently CONCLUSIVELY establish through advanced forensic testing that the card was altered in such a manner that it should have been graded an "A". Am I entitled to receive damages from PSA and if so, what would they be?

It would seem to me that if PSA is on the hook for the $150k I paid for the card (and in return PSA has the right to resell the card (this time graded "A") and keep the sale proceeds), they have one huge contingent liability on their balance sheet. If I am correct in my view that the (great) majority of many types of N and T cards graded 8' and higher are altered, which alterations could be conclusively established through sophisticated forensic testing, PSA potentially could be wiped out.

Am I wrong in this assessment?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not being a slabbed card collector I am unfamiliar with the legal obligations of grading companies and don't know what if any disclaimers and/or damages limitations language is contained in their submission form.

Here's my question. I buy a PSA 8 T206 Cobb for $150k.
I subsequently CONCLUSIVELY establish through advanced forensic testing that the card was altered in such a manner that it should have been graded an "A". Am I entitled to receive damages from PSA and if so, what would they be?

It would seem to me that if PSA is on the hook for the $150k I paid for the card (and in return PSA has the right to resell the card (this time graded "A") and keep the sale proceeds), they have one huge contingent liability on their balance sheet. If I am correct in my view that the (great) majority of many types of N and T cards graded 8' and higher are altered, which alterations could be conclusively established through sophisticated forensic testing, PSA potentially could be wiped out.

Am I wrong in this assessment?

Q: Do you guarantee the grades for my cards?
A: PSA guarantees that all cards submitted to it shall be graded in accordance with PSA grading standards and under the procedures of PSA. If PSA, in fact, concludes that the card in question no longer merits the PSA grade assigned or fails PSA’s authenticity standards, PSA will either: 1) Buy the card from the submitter at the current market value if the card can no longer receive a numerical grade under PSA's standards, or 2) Refund the difference in value between the original PSA grade and the current PSA grade if the grade is lowered. In this case, the card will also be returned to the customer along with the refund for the difference in value.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Corey I am sure their auditors must review and approve of their reserve for the guaranty, it will be interesting to see if recent events affect that. I've always thought it was a time bomb and expected them to someday revoke it. Of course they do have control -- they have to agree with you.

[swarmee]

Yes, it seems PSA self-insures for their Grade Guarantee rather than pays an insurance company for protection. In their most recent quarterly stockholders report, they stated they increased their reserve fund to cover a predicted increase of grade guarantee liabilities.

Service Warranties
We generally issue an authenticity or grading warranty with every coin and trading card authenticated or graded by us. Under the terms of the warranty, in general, if a coin or trading card that was authenticated or graded by us later receives a lower grade upon resubmission to us for grading, or is found not to be authentic, based on our opinion, we are obligated under our warranty either to purchase the coin or trading card at
the current market value at the originally assigned grade or, instead, at the
customer’s option, to pay the difference in the current market value of the item between its original assigned grade and its lower grade. We accrue for estimated warranty costs based on historical claims experience, and we monitor the adequacy of the warranty reserves on an ongoing basis. If warranty claims were to increase in relation to historical trends and experience, we would increase the warranty reserves and incur additional charges that would have the effect of reducing income in those periods during which the warranty reserve is increased. See Item 7: “MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS-Critical Accounting Policies: Grading Warranty Costs”, and Item 8: Consolidated Financial Statements -Note 7 of this report for more information regarding our warranty reserves. As discussed above, before returning an authenticated or graded coin or trading card to our customer, we place the coin or trading card in a tamper-evident, clear plastic holder that encapsulates a label identifying the collectible as having been authenticated and graded by us. The warranty is voided if the plastic holder has been broken or damaged or shows signs of tampering.
We do not provide a warranty with respect to our opinions regarding the authenticity or quality of autographs or memorabilia.

We have no insurance coverage for claims made under these warranties, and therefore we maintain reserves for such
warranty claims based on historical experience. However, there is no assurance that these warranty reserves will prove to be
adequate, and as we expand our services in overseas markets, we may incur higher warranty claims than we have experienced in
the past. If our warranty reserves prove to be inadequate, our gross margin and operating results could be harmed. As a result, we
monitor the adequacy of our warranty reserves on an ongoing basis.

Due to the higher level of warranty payment in fiscal 2018, warranty expense recognized was $764,000 in fiscal 2018 as
compared to $302,000, and ($145,000) in fiscals, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Our warranty reserves were $862,000 and $834,000
at June 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

http://investors.collectors.com/static-files/a36b8c90-aab1-4ce2-8ec3-6a45441cf111

Will it bankrupt the company? Probably not. But it may hurt their stock price and increase costs of grading in the future to cover the losses.

[benjulmag]

It's an interesting issue. Continuing with the same example, suppose I waited 15 years before submitting the card for forensic testing, during which time the spread between an 8 Cobb and an "A" Cobb increased from, say, $20k to $125k. Could PSA argue I had a duty to undertake the testing years earlier (assuming the forensic testing method was commercially available during the entire 15-year period) and accordingly their exposure should be limited to $20k? By this line of reasoning, could they argue the statute of limitations has expired such that I am barred from collecting damages altogether?

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's an interesting issue. Continuing with the same example, suppose I waited 15 years before submitting the card for forensic testing, during which time the spread between an 8 Cobb and an "A" Cobb increased from, say, $20k to $125k. Could PSA argue I had a duty to undertake the testing years earlier (assuming the forensic testing method was commercially was available during the entire 15-year period) and accordingly their exposure should be limited to $20k. By this line of reasoning, could they argue the statute of limitations has expired such that I am barred from collecting damages altogether?

They really should have promised to reimburse for out of pocket cost, not current market value. The buyer gets a huge windfall this way in a rising market. As to your question, who knows, it would depend on what the cause of action is and what triggers the statute of limitations I guess. I'd have to think about that. But as it's likely to run from when you did or could have discovered your claim in the exercise of reasonable diligence, you likely would be out.

[irv]

It's an interesting issue. Continuing with the same example, suppose I waited 15 years before submitting the card for forensic testing, during which time the spread between an 8 Cobb and an "A" Cobb increased from, say, $20k to $125k. Could PSA argue I had a duty to undertake the testing years earlier (assuming the forensic testing method was commercially was available during the entire 15-year period) and accordingly their exposure should be limited to $20k. By this line of reasoning, could they argue the statute of limitations has expired such that I am barred from collecting damages altogether?

They really should have promised to reimburse for out of pocket cost, not current market value. The buyer gets a huge windfall this way in a rising market. As to your question, who knows, it would depend on what the cause of action is and what triggers the statute of limitations I guess. I'd have to think about that. But as it's likely to run from when you did or could have discovered your claim in the exercise of reasonable diligence, you likely would be out.

Is a statute of limitations something that a seller can declare or is it the law that dictates what that period of time is?

[benjulmag]

They really should have promised to reimburse for out of pocket cost, not current market value. The buyer gets a huge windfall this way in a rising market. As to your question, who knows, it would depend on what the cause of action is and what triggers the statute of limitations I guess. I'd have to think about that. But as it's likely to run from when you did or could have discovered your claim in the exercise of reasonable diligence, you likely would be out.

I agree with your point about exercise of reasonable diligence, unless I could fashion an argument that it was only recently that I was reasonably put on notice about the likelihood of alteration. I would think the action would be breach of contract, though there could be a lack of privity problem if I was not the person who submitted the card for grading. If I bought it from an auction house, they probably had a disclaimer that they are not responsible for the accuracy of graded cards. So they would be protected. However, they probably would have a duty to reveal the consignor, and that would be the person I would have to go after. That person in turn would assign me his right to sue the grading company (assuming he was the person who had the card graded). If he in turn bought it from someone else and it was that other person who had the card graded, then he would have to go after that person. This potentially could go on down the chain until I reached the person who had the card graded.

What a mess.

[barrysloate]

In Corey's example, what if PSA refused to agree with the forensic determination? What if they responded that they've reviewed the card several times and that in their opinion their grade of an 8 was completely justified. After all, it's an opinion, not a fact. It might be really hard to prove that they got it wrong.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I agree with your point about exercise of reasonable diligence, unless I could fashion an argument that it was only recently that I was reasonably put on notice about the likelihood of alteration. I would think the action would be breach of contract, though there could be a lack of privity problem if I was not the person who submitted the card for grading. If I bought it from an auction house, they probably had a disclaimer that they are not responsible for the accuracy of graded cards. So they would be protected. However, they probably would have a duty to reveal the consignor, and that would be the person I would have to go after. That person in turn would assign me his right to sue the grading company (assuming he was the person who had the card graded). If he in turn bought it from someone else and it was that other person who had the card graded, then he would have to go after that person. This potentially could go on down the chain until I reached the person who had the card graded.

What a mess.

It's probably like claiming on a manufacturer's warranty I would think off the top of my head.