Simply amazing - the doctored Cobb is back [Archive]

Archive

10-08-2004, 11:02 PM

Posted By: Julieand if they have an unslabbed card that they think is a better "ex-mint" than a slabbed one, they'll charge the higher price for their unslabbed one. If two slabbed (graded) cards have the same grade, and they think one superior to the other, there will be a price difference. They've never sold me anything remotely questionable..I've probably bought 10-12 cards from them--conserevative estimate (out of their catalogue); they carry GAI, PSA SGC--I think that's it, besides ungraded. This was a graded card they sold me, a 5 or a 6. <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/N162Brot.JPG">

Archive

10-09-2004, 01:33 AM

Posted By: Rob LSorry all. I'm clueless on this one. What's the story behind his card?

Archive

10-09-2004, 01:44 AM

Posted By: Joe P.As you probably know by now, I'm not a slab fan. I've known Wayne and Zimp for about 20 years. They're members of the Nice Guys and Straight Shooters Club. Any newbie coming into the selling side of this hobby, would only hope to have their rep after X amount of years. Wayne, I may not be into slabs, but please keep me on your mailing list. Joe Pelaez -- (tobacco-r-us)

Archive

10-09-2004, 09:40 AM

Posted By: runscottThe previous owner of the card told me months ago (after the last controversy about this had subsided) that he had sold it to 'someone' for $200 and told them that it had been altered, and also that that person elected to send it to PSA anyway, and that it was slabbed as a '3'. Now it shows up as a Wayne Varner card. The person who last owned it is now telling me (email today) that he sold it to Wayne and elected NOT to tell Wayne that it had been altered, and that Wayne then sent it to PSA. I now have scans of this same e95 card in SGC, GAI and PSA holders, as well as a scan of when I owned it, prior to the doctoring. This is a truly sad statement about our hobby.

Archive

10-09-2004, 09:47 AM

Posted By: ChuckkieB...can someone kindly explain to me how the card has been altered?

Archive

10-09-2004, 09:59 AM

Posted By: runscott<img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/catchme/Cobbe951.JPG">

Archive

10-09-2004, 10:06 AM

Posted By: Julie<img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/042502_2178_1220_prv.gif"> Should be EASY to see with black light...fairly subtle--the borders just barely touched.

Archive

10-09-2004, 10:44 AM

Posted By: runscottthere was a horizontal paper tear that was "fixed".

Archive

10-09-2004, 10:57 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanWell, I can't blame the seller, I blame PSA. If you can get the card encapsulated by one of the few reputable graders, so be it. But Scott's before and after pics make it painfully clear that the card for sale has been altered (and frankly it doesn't even look very real in the PSA slab). How in the hell did this card get through?

Archive

10-09-2004, 11:03 AM

Posted By: jonnycat"I blame PSA" you might as well blame SGC & GAI too! Since the same card resided in their holders at 1 time. Ungraded is where its at!!!

Archive

10-09-2004, 12:23 PM

Posted By: Joe P.runscott: "I don't know Wayne, but I DO know this"... * * The above is obvious. ----------------------- runscott: "The previous owner of the card told me months ago (after the last controversy about this had subsided) that he had sold it to 'someone' for $200 and told them that it had been altered, and also that that person elected to send it to PSA anyway, and that it was slabbed as a '3'." * * The road map points to PSA ----------------------------- runscott: "Now it shows up as a Wayne Varner card. The person who last owned it is now telling me (email today) that he sold it to Wayne and elected NOT to tell Wayne that it had been altered, and that Wayne then sent it to PSA." * * Now we have a picture of a Questionable previous owner, and the road map still pointing to PSA. ----------------------------- runscott: "I now have scans of this same e95 card in SGC, GAI and PSA holders, as well as a scan of when I owned it, prior to the doctoring. This is a truly sad statement about our hobby." * * Scott, WHO DID THE DOCTORING? Did any of the expert slabbers, SGC, GAI, PSA - indicate the word ALTERED? Scott, I want to thank you for updating us with information on a thread that you started. Having said that. Don't you think that you owe Wayne Varner of Shoebax an apology? Joe

Archive

10-09-2004, 01:02 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthI bought the card in the GAI holder and crossed it to SGC prior to knowing the history. The card sat on my webpage for months in both the GAI and SGC holders. It was also listed on ebay twice with a reserve and did not sell. In March I placed it up with no reserve and it sold for $750. At that time Scott identified the card as being one he had owned. He posted an image of the card illustrating its condition when in his possession. I told the buyer of the card I could not sell it since it appeared that it may have been restored and I refunded his money. I sent the card back to SGC who offered to buy it back from me at $750. I declined and asked they send the card back to me in an ungraded state. I received $200 in free grading for my gesture. In May I sold the card for $200 to a customer disclosing the history. He did not feel that the card was altered and sent it to PSA and they graded it. I informed Scott of this at the time and sent him a scan of the card in the PSA holder and Scott assured me he would not post about the card anymore and stir up controversy. In Mid July my customer's Father died and he needed money. I met him at the National and purchased his collection. At the same show I sold the card to Wayne along with several other pre war cards. As I told Scott today, I made a judgment call not to go into the history of the card with Wayne. The card had been graded by GAI, SGC and now PSA. To me it was now irrelevant. Contrary to what some of the board (bored) experts write, this card does not light up like a Christmas tree. I examined the card in an ungraded state under high band and low band blacklights after SGC sent it back to me. NO COLOR WAS ADDED TO THIS CARD. It seems the card was rolled out. There was still evidence of the tear or flap on the back as well. It appeared to be nothing more than a break in the paper stock from the surface crease. Wayne is owed an apology. Wayne is a great guy and an honorable dealer.

Archive

10-09-2004, 01:14 PM

Posted By: MWedited

Archive

10-09-2004, 01:50 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthMike, Since when does my opinion, one that you have concluded is uneducated and inexperienced, trump that of GAI, SGC and PSA? I did not "roll out" the card and did not send it in for grading. It is easy to conclude that Wisconsin is not held to similar disclosure requirements. Of course this is just a small sampling. I assume <a href="http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=ViewBidItems&sort=3&userid=buying_sgc_cards&completed=1&all=0&rows=200&satitle=&sorecordsperpage=50&sspagename=h%3Ah%3Afitem%3AUS%3FssPageName%3Dh%3Ah %3Afitem%3AUS&sofocus=bs&nojspr=y&nojspr=y&pfid=0" target=_new>these</a> will be in significantly higher holders soon. [edited to fix link]

Archive

10-09-2004, 02:20 PM

Posted By: MWedited

Archive

10-09-2004, 02:29 PM

Posted By: runscottYou should apologize to Wayne for knowingly selling him an altered card and exposing him to the same reputation that you have.

Archive

10-09-2004, 02:43 PM

Posted By: runscottWhatever

Archive

10-09-2004, 02:54 PM

Posted By: john/z28jdIm not taking any sides Scott but your initial post still makes Wayne from shoebox look like hes also partly guilty which hes obviously not.So the apology part of Joe's post should at least be something to think about.Its not hard to go back and edit it or apologize. Ive only bought from shoebox once and had a great experience but ive talked to them numerous times at fort washington and as a group they are very nice and knowledgable people with a great reputation

Archive

10-09-2004, 03:20 PM

Posted By: runscottWayne, I apologize. I think that anyone who is involved in our hobby should take advantage of every resource available to them, and certainly this board is such a resource.

Archive

10-09-2004, 06:08 PM

Posted By: warshawlaw"It seems the card was rolled out. There was still evidence of the tear or flap on the back as well." You elected not to reveal this to Wayne? As I read it, you owe Wayne an apology and an explanation and should probably buy it back for whatever he paid you. MW, as far as California law goes, you have the right statute but the wrong locale. The transaction in question took place entirely in Cleveland, so Ohio law is likely to apply to it because the contract was formed and performed in Ohio.

Archive

10-09-2004, 06:26 PM

Posted By: MWedited

Archive

10-09-2004, 07:29 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth3 grading companies graded the card as VG. The card was therefore not altered. Apparently whatever was done to the card did not meet the definition of an alteration since it was holdered 3 different times. It was only due to this boards lynch mob practices that SGC thought it would be best to have the card out of their holder. MW Can you please explain <a href="http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?MfcISAPICommand=ViewBidItems&sort=3&userid=buying_sgc_cards&completed=1&all=0&rows=200&satitle=&sorecordsperpage=50&sspagename=h%3Ah%3Afitem%3AUS%3FssPageName%3Dh%3Ah %3Afitem%3AUS&sofocus=bs&nojspr=y&nojspr=y&pfid=0" target=_new>these purchases</a> to us? Back in March you explained to me in PM's that you never buy lower graded cards unless they are within collections. Guess you have to start somewhere. This is the beginning of the evolution of a MINT card. It will be exciting once the work is done and I can show the before and after images. [edited to fix link]

Archive

10-09-2004, 07:51 PM

Posted By: Joe SSo, let me get this straight. This card is an issue, despite being graded by 3 company's, but the fact that WHEAT makes tons off of REPRINT cards that are a very serious problem within the Vintage collecting industry? MW, you may also want to go back to Legal School, you seemed to have missed some classes there.

Archive

10-09-2004, 08:56 PM

Posted By: 823dekIam not so sure that the MW"S that you are refering to are the same people ! BE SURE !

Archive

10-09-2004, 09:30 PM

Posted By: 823deklook over your shoulder whatever it is that your doing then you too can sleep at night !

Archive

10-09-2004, 09:55 PM

Posted By: Julie Vognarsacrificing our daughters, and it doesn't seem so bad anymore...

Archive

10-09-2004, 10:51 PM

Posted By: Joe P.Three (3) different crack slabbers, count 'em three (3). SGC - GAI - PSA sang together like a rap trio, and the Alter word was left in Rio. Even an 1980 - 1970 vintage collector newbie can walk right onto this forum for the first time and see the difference between the ungraded Cobb, and the thrice graded Cobb. Same Cobb, but we now really know what they mean by plastic surgery. Questions abound. 1. Who doctored the card? 2. Who had it slabbed by GAI? 3. Why did a dealer on this board feel that just because 3 different morticians slabbed the card it thus became a cleansed card and there was no need to alert the buyer of same, namely another dealer. Let me stop here and try to digest this tale. Let me see if I can understand this correctly? The SGC Slabbers, offered to buy back their mistake for $750.00 in an effort to protect their credibility -- an intelligent move. The dealor generously declined the offer, wanted his card back ungraded and gracefully accepted $200.00 of free slabbing. In May the dealer sells the card to a customer. Customer is advised of the sordid details. Customer says, not a problem, and he sends the card for a PSA grading - card is graded - what else is new? Dealer informs Scott of this and sends him a scan of the card in the PSA holder and Scott assured him that he would not post about the card anymore and stir up controversy. In Mid July the dealer's customer's Father passed away and the customer needed money. He met him at the National and purchased his collection. Whereupon, at the same show he sold the card to Wayne along with several other pre war cards. As he told Scott, he made a judgment call not to go into the history of the card with Wayne. The card had been graded by GAI, SGC and now PSA. To the dealer, "it was now irrelevant." In other words, this particular dealer negated what he saw with his own eye's in favor of the mistake done by the 3 slab experts (sic) because their mistake inadvertently gave him the chance to deal. BOTN: "Wayne is owed an apology. Wayne is a great guy and an honorable dealer." * * You got that right. At what point did you decide that he didn't have to know the details about that card? Joe

Archive

10-09-2004, 11:38 PM

Posted By: BOTNJoe It was not a premeditated act and in no way was I trying to deceive Wayne. I have a very good relationship with him. I just simply no longer felt it was relevant. 3 grading companies saw the card in a raw state. All 3 agreed it was ok. Whatever has been done to the card did not warrant it coming back as restored. I am just not sure how much farther my responsibility is supposed to go when I was not the one who flattened out the card, not the one who sent it in for grading and not the one who encapsulated it with my 3 initials on the holder. If you had any idea of exactly how many cards in holders have undergone some kind of extra assistance, you might not be so appalled by this Cobb. Cards like the Cobb and ones that have had far more done to them trade hands countless times a day and also reside on numerous dealers' webpages, even some who post here. I sell graded cards. I cannot start to second guess every single card I have in inventory. That is why we have PSA, GAI and SGC. These are the experts and for the most part I have a great deal of faith in them. As for the Cobb, SGC was willing to buy the card back due to the negative publicity surrounding it. I did not want them to take a hit for $750 when they charge $10 to grade. My declining their offer was not in an attempt to get the card back either. Keep in mind they were not obligated to encapsulate it once I sent it in the GAI holder for a crossover, even after breaking it out. They could have said, "Sorry Greg but after we broke the card out we saw that it was restored and therefore we cannot holder it."

Archive

10-10-2004, 07:53 AM

Posted By: warshawlawMW: I don't know Ohio law so I don't know if they even have a law pertaining to altered sports cards. My guess is not; CA often leads the way on laws like this. Greg: I don't follow your reasoning here: SGC was willing to pay your price on the card to get it out of circulation and you turned them down? You could see it had been altered but since it was graded anyway you decided not to tell Wayne it had been altered? If I cannot understand the logic, I cannot buy the reasons given. If I don't buy the reasons given I cannot believe the statements or trust the person making them. I've bought a number of cards from you without a hitch, but I am losing my confidence over this situation. I think it would behoove you to explain this a little better and tell us what you plan to do about it. Regards, Adam

Archive

10-10-2004, 09:06 AM

Posted By: runscottFirst of all, when Greg told me back in May that he had sold the card for $200 and that it was now in a PSA 3 holder and he would send me a scan, based on his previous actions and correspondences, I had no reason to believe him, i.e - I thought he was "yanking my chain" in an attempt to get me to post something on the board that he would later deny...what would be better than getting Scott to start screaming "Now it's in a PSA holder!!!" and then it turns out to be a lie...and NO, he never sent me the promised scan of the card in a PSA 3 holder. I discussed this with at least two board members back in May and we all agreed that Greg was just ****ing with me. So I told Greg on May 18, and this is an email quote: "Greg, Thanks for sharing this - yes, please send a picture. I am taking a LONG break from the board, so I won't stir up any more controversy about it. Scott" ...and I never got a scan or any other response. And in fact, I basically DID take a break from this board for a couple of months (which is LONG for me). And yes, it was primarily because of all the **** I took from Greg back in the Spring, and the pathetic support from others on the board. When this card did in fact show up in a PSA 3 holder, I was amazed and I posted about it. And before, Joe P, you jump my ass again, for the umpteenth unprovoked time, I apologized to Wayne in an above post, basically because I was stupid enough to believe Greg's previous email once I saw the card in the PSA 3 holder that he had told me about back in May. How in heck was I supposed to know that Greg sold the card, bought it back in yet a third company's holder, then sold it again without notifying the purchaser of the alterations? It was EXTREMELY naive of me, and if I had any sense at all I would have deleted Greg's email without even reading it. I won't make this mistake again. Yes, the grading companies have a responsibility to do their best to spot alterations. It's odd and encomprehensible that all three companies missed this, but with today's technological advances we will start seeing even more professionally altered cards show up in "safe" holders - there is always someone out there who will do anything to make a buck. Regarding who altered the card to begin with...there is no proof as to who actually did this. I'm sure that some of you on the board DO know who altered the Cobb, but I don't expect that the answer is ever going to be posted on this board. For every unscrupulous card dealer there are dozens of normally honest collectors who continue to turn their heads the other way when things like this occur. Joe P - I would think that with your investigatory skills and incredible connections to everyone in the hobby, that you would have the answer for us by now? Get on it man.

Archive

10-10-2004, 10:49 AM

Posted By: Juliethere ARE non-flourescing colors, too, made especially for the purpose of secret restoration. I think Greg should return Shoebox's money, and Shoebox should return Greg's card. The SGC 30 T202 I won from the Sloate auction could really use some ironing out--would probably turn it into a 50. It looks like a--SGC 30 T202! What did I expect, a miracle? (no point in posting a scan; wrinkles don't show well enough). <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/042502_2178_1220_prv.gif">

Archive

10-10-2004, 12:23 PM

Posted By: warshawlawMy T200 'Jints w/Thorpe, Matty. etc. I'm happy as a pig in poop...

Archive

10-10-2004, 02:04 PM

Posted By: BOTNAdam "SGC was willing to pay your price on the card to get it out of circulation and you turned them down?" Yes. It did not feel right to me to have them pay me $750 when they did nothing wrong. They took the card out of their holder because of the stink that was made here. I did not want to be the benefactor. "You could see it had been altered but since it was graded anyway you decided not to tell Wayne it had been altered?" I never wrote that Adam. I wrote it appeared the card was "rolled out". If I could see that and 3 grading companies could see it, and holdered the card, then it is obviously not considered an alteration is it? "I've bought a number of cards from you without a hitch, but I am losing my confidence over this situation. I think it would behoove you to explain this a little better and tell us what you plan to do about it." There is nothing that I can say that will make you or anyone else who posts here have any faith in me. I lost that battle long ago and have moved on. I am not on trial here and I have nothing to explain to any of you. I resent your tone towards me. I am not your son and you are not the judge. Save it for your next case against CU. Scott, The e-mail was sent with the scan of the card in the PSA holder. You are a complete liar and I can expect nothing more of you. I have the e-mail. You have twisted the facts to justify your rants. I have no beef with you except that you have one with me. Get over it and move on. At first I thought this happened only when you were drunk but it seems to be a constant in your life now. MW, Are you going to ignore my questions about the auctions that you won under one of your buying ID's, buying_sgc_cards? I enjoyed the constant lies when you denied the Battery arrest in Rosemont in August 2002. I was hoping for more entertainment. And last but not least, my dear Julie... The card was not touched up. Like MW, you have never held the card as I have and PSA, SGC and GAI. I am more than happy to buy the card back from Wayne at any price. I can assure you that what I sold it to him for does not cover my car payment for 1 month. In fact I may just hit his Buy It Now and send the card off to each of you to inspect, as long a Scott promises not to spill any of his cheap beer on the card when he is looking at it.

Archive

10-10-2004, 02:48 PM

Posted By: honus3415more famous Cobb card in the world at this point? Beer doen't have to be expensive to be good, and I for one appreciate having Scott as the Ralph Nader of the hobby.

Archive

10-10-2004, 03:09 PM

Posted By: warshawlawyour father. I mean you no harm and do not seek to create resentment. However, I think as a customer who has seen some troubling things here, I have the right to ask for an explanation as part of my decision as to whether to engage in further transactions with you. You've responded that you think the card was rolled out (i.e., altered by somebody to remove a crease) but because the slabbers ok'd it, you don't feel any explanation is needed to your buyer. Fine. You've made your position known, which I appreciate and understand. I happen to disagree with selling a card that you have determined to have been altered without a disclosure because the slabber passed it (I certainly don't do it), and consequently, I will take my business elsewhere in the future.

Archive

10-10-2004, 03:22 PM

Posted By: BOTNAdam, If you were really concerned and really wanted an explanation you could pick up the telephone and call me or send me a private e-mail. You decided the personal pursuit was more suitable in a public forum. This is not the first time that you took your concerns with me to a public forum instead of contacting me directly. I do not agree that you mean me no harm. Once again you are putting words in my mouth. I never wrote that the card was altered, nor did 3 grading companies think it was altered. By all means take your business elsewhere. One less bottom feeder customer I see as an improvement to my business.

Archive

10-10-2004, 03:51 PM

Posted By: dennisits not really like it went from vg to nm.,(and into a slab) now thats altering.that should be told under those circumstances...but a slabbed 3 vg. just my opinion.

Archive

10-10-2004, 05:42 PM

Posted By: runscottYour words and actions speak for themselves. I have nothing further to say about this.

Archive

10-10-2004, 06:03 PM

Posted By: BOTNGosh Scott. Does this mean that you too will not be spending $259.45 with me every 6 months? Good news for you--more money for booze. Just get off my back, really. Before you can become the Hobby Protection Committee you need to report the facts. Why have you STILL not come clean with the contact information of the people who you know owned the card after you? Instead you decide to take your personal vendetta out on me and make me the bad guy. The hobby has changed. This is not 1974 anymore. Any of you who think the Cobb is an isolated event need to wake up too. I sold a card that you feel is altered but was graded by 3 grading companies and I did not tell the buyer of the card that the experts on the Network 54 board feel the card is altered. I only wish this were the most unconscionable thing to have occurred in the hobby. Take a look around. When the card goes from Good plus to EX or as we have seen EXMT to MINT (for a certain Old Judge), let’ talk.

Archive

10-10-2004, 06:37 PM

Posted By: runscottyou're ramblin' Greg ... but I do think I'll have a beer.

Archive

10-10-2004, 06:43 PM

Posted By: MWedited

Archive

10-10-2004, 06:50 PM

Posted By: MWedited

Archive

10-10-2004, 07:00 PM

Posted By: David VarghaThanks, Eliot. DavidVargha@hotmail.com

Archive

10-10-2004, 07:02 PM

Posted By: gcalexI would love to see evidence of an ebay post, or any other communication, where any of you people faulting Greg for his supposed lack of ethics have advertised and sold a graded card while at the same time expressing your opinion that you had reservations about the grading company's opinion as to authenticity, or expressing your opinion that the card was overgraded, or otherwise doing anything less than trying to garner the full benefit of the third party grade. Surely given the volume of prewar cards out there and the prevalence of alteration (however one defines it), you must at some point have encountered a card that in its raw state (or even its graded state) you weren't sure about. I would be very interested in proof that you guys follow the same standards you would now impose on Greg.

Archive

10-10-2004, 07:09 PM

Posted By: MWedited

Archive

10-10-2004, 07:10 PM

Posted By: runscottI think it's obvious where yours are.

Archive

10-10-2004, 07:19 PM

Posted By: BOTNScott, would you mind disclosing to the board the identities of the individuals who owned the card after you? MW, I am relieved that you do not mind my revealing the truth about you. Would you care to address the purchases you made under ebay id, buying_sgc_cards? It is one thing to be criticised by members who do not engage in the practice of altering cards but I do not have to take this from the likes of you.

Archive

10-10-2004, 07:27 PM

Posted By: MWedited

Archive

10-10-2004, 07:33 PM

Posted By: MWGreg, Despite what you continue to say about me, I wish you only the best. I'm sure this was only a benign mistake.

Archive

10-10-2004, 07:34 PM

Posted By: gcalexVERY refreshing to see. I commend you. Now I suppose there are folks out there who would say you should not have sold the card in the first place given your concerns, but what you did certainly appears more than sufficient.

Archive

10-10-2004, 07:36 PM

Posted By: BOTNExamples such as this were merely done in an effort to continue your long battle with PSA. The history of your anti-PSA campaign is only second to that of your history with embrassing card restoration services or performing the tasks yourself.

Archive

10-10-2004, 07:38 PM

Posted By: MWedited

Archive

10-10-2004, 07:50 PM

Posted By: MWGreg, I'm not here to start a fight with anyone and I willingly accept your salacious criticism. I think the words you speak reflect some of the anger and personal problems you have recently experienced so in no way do I fault you for them. The link I included was only meant as an illustration. I ran this auction on eBay approximately two years ago. Again, I wish you only the best.

Archive

10-10-2004, 07:56 PM

Posted By: runscottgcalex - this is not a matter of someone having a personal opinion that differs from that of three grading companies. When the card popped up on Greg's web-site, I recognized it and posted. Greg was shown the before and after pictures of both the front and back of the card - he "understood" at that point (despite what he currently claims) that the card had been altered prior to encapsulation. The grading companies did not have access to the "before" pictures at the time of grading, or they too would have realized that the card had been severely doctored. In fact, Greg returned the card to SGC and they took it out of the holder and sent it back at his request. So you see, this isn't a matter of personal opinion about alteration.

Archive

10-10-2004, 08:08 PM

Posted By: gcalexOK, I have no knowledge of the history of this card (never heard of it till I happened to read this thread) or the personal dealings involved, but it appeared to me that the criticism of Greg was ASSUMING his version of the facts, that is that he had an opinion that differed from PSA but no first hand knowledge that the card actually had been altered. I obviously can't speak as to what he knew or didn't know, I was just commenting generally on what seemed to me to be too high an ethical standard being suggested by folks, namely that one has to disclose one's own opinion when a card has been third party graded. That was my only point.

Archive

10-10-2004, 08:08 PM

Posted By: BOTNScott Get your facts straight dude! I owned this card since June 2003. It was on my page until it sold on ebay in March 2004. Your thread about the card was posted on March 3, 2004 after you saw the card listed on ebay. You never brought it to my attention. I happened to stumble upon the before scan while looking on this forum. SGC took the card out of the holder due to the beating they were taking here. Not because the card was altered. What is your malfunction that you insist on changing the facts? Whay are you hiding the indentities of the guys who you know owned the card after you? Everything that you do is done in an effort to make me look like the creep that you are.

Archive

10-10-2004, 08:14 PM

Posted By: runscottIf I were selling a graded card and was sent "before" scans showing that it had been altered, I would either modify my description to state that the card had been altered, or I would pull the auction and if possible get a refund from the person who sold it to me. I would expect similar behavior from anyone with ethics in this hobby. And I'm sure based on what MW says, that you are one of the good guys. (it's hot in here).

Archive

10-10-2004, 08:25 PM

Posted By: gcalexYes I agree there is a difference between actual knowledge that a card has been altered and merely having an opinion based on the appearance of the card or whatever. I was speaking only to the second circumstance, which I thought was Greg's situation. The fact that grading companies do get it wrong sometimes is unfortunate, but I don't think each of us is obligated to second guess them when we sell one of their cards. Of course noone hesitates to express his view that PSA UNDERGRADED his cards (PSA 7++++++; PSA 7 (8???) etc.), but most buyers probably discount that I would guess.

Archive

10-10-2004, 08:26 PM

Posted By: runscottGreg, okay since you've dropped the ravings about drunkenness, I'll respond to you... You are right - I spotted the card on ebay and posted in this forum. You were a regular poster at the time and you got involved immediately and we had a rather heated discussion. You happened to "stumble" on the thread?! (where the heck is the laughing smiley?) And SGC, after taking it out of the holder, could NOT tell that it had been altered?!?! (where's the incredulous, head-scratching smiley?) No, I don't remember who I sold it to - I forwarded you a defunct ebay handle or address that I dredged up from my 'sent' folder, which didn't do any of us any good - I no longer have it, but perhaps you do? And no, oddly enough, I don't know who that person sold it to (the 'what, are you thick-headed?' smiley goes here) ...does this make me guilty of something? <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> (I finally found a useful smiley) Greg, I haven't done anything to make you look like the creep that anyone else is (insert the brain twisted in a knot smiley here)

Archive

10-10-2004, 08:32 PM

Posted By: runscottMW discloses his opinions about slabbed cards he is selling, because he is very knowledgeable about the card issues he deals in. So he feels obligated to state his opinion, even though it will almost certainly have a negative impact on a sale. Let's just say that someone like Greg has much less of a burden in that area.

Archive

10-10-2004, 08:59 PM

Posted By: BOTNWentz "discloses" negative information about cards in PSA and GAI holders. Have you ever seen him do that with an SGC card or does SGC not make mistakes or overgrade anything? Additionally, why does his description of the N172 Kelly PSA 9 go into the history of that card? Shouldn't perspective buyers know the card was EXMT?

Archive

10-10-2004, 10:22 PM

Posted By: MWGreg, I describe cards based on how I grade them. Some grading companies grade differently than I do. Thus far, I have found that SGC grades cards closest to how I grade. There's a level of consistency that I don't see with every grading company. As for the N172 Kelly, you're talking about the original PSA grade which was inaccurate and which Mastro and Steinbach also thought was inaccurate (they described it as the best condition N172 known). It doesn't happen often, but this was one case where I agreed with the catalog description of both the flaw on the reverse side (which is still there) and the overall assessment...independent of the grade on the holder. If you look back at the actual catalog description, Mastro and Steinbach also mention that everyone who viewed the card at that year's National also thought it was the best Old Judge they had ever seen. That's no small coincidence. No one ever characterized the card as EM after it was initially graded. Mastro didn't. Steinbach didn't. PSA didn't. BMW Sportscards didn't. SGC didn't. And many forum members who have seen this card in person at the last two Nationals didn't. Combined, those individuals and entities know considerably more about grading than you do. I say this not to aggravate you or diminish your stature in the hobby but to clear up your misconceptions. My description of the card always has been and always will be accurate and those who have seen the card know it. Thank you. edit: grammar

Archive

10-10-2004, 10:49 PM

Posted By: JasonI don't know everyone here exactly but I know the response in offense to the Wentz's are not at all accurate. I have bought tons of pre war vintage from them over the last few years in lower and mid grades. They ALWAYS disclose anything questionable on their product. Matter of fact I have NEVER had a card not grade from them. I have purchased cards like M101-5 Ruth rookie, Wide pens, Caramels, tobacco, Bowmans, Leaf, Goudeys, Play Balls, etc........As far as your "grading companies" go on the other hand I did buy a t206 set from SCP auction last DEC in which several of the SLABBED PSA cards were trimmed in the holders. To simply say that the cards that Mike may purchase off of ebay will soon turn into mint slabbed holders is just a ridiculous statement to make. Sounds like someone is trying to make far out false accusations to get the heat off their ass! BOTN- I think you should burn the stinkin card in a ritual ceremony with members of the forum at the next National. If this continues to be a problem I will take the card off your hands for $200. Mike, if you and Brian have any nice pre war groups in mid lower grade available email me. Greg- your statements about the Wentz's are just not accurate. I am sure you are a swell guy but you shouldn't make rash statements without knowing exactly what they do and sell. Jason

Archive

10-10-2004, 11:28 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthMike, I am quite certain that the N172 appears to be, then and now, one of the finest examples of its kind. Fortunately there are no high definition images of the back and front of the card to compare it to in the raw or PSA 6 holder and the holder it now resides in. I am however puzzled about why you now use Mastro and PSA as endorsements to confirm the condition of the card--two entities that you have no respect for and openly criticize at almost every chance you get. Also on April 22, 2004 in this forum you wrote: "The N172 Kelly first publicly appeared in a Mastro auction many years ago. Despite the grade of PSA 6, Mastro proclaimed it to be the best Old Judge on earth. Those who had viewed the card at the previously National agreed with this conclusion. And, based on the barcode, we know that it was a very early PSA grade. I purchased the card raw and submitted it to PSA. PSA graded it a 9. When I stopped submitting to PSA, I converted the card to an SGC holder." You stopped submitting to PSA (and are clearly an SGC supporter) but the card back in the PSA 9 holder? You do not need to address any of this as this really is my witch burning and I hate sharing the spotlight. Hi Jason, Careful calling me a swell guy. Around here that is punishable by weeks of endless public ridicule. My inquiry to Mike about his purchases of the lower graded cards on ebay, was not my way of taking the heat off of me. I was trying to illustrate again that Mike is not being honest. I have a PM from him from March 2004 where he told me he never buys low grade cards unless they come in a collection. The purchases were also made under an ID that did not directly identify them as the buyers. I have already stated that I did not feel there was any relevance in telling Wayne about the history of the card given the thrice- graded Cobb. That was a judgment call that I made and I did not feel anyone was being injured in my doing this. I thank you for your offer of the $200 but it is not necessary. I have already contacted Wayne and the ball is in his court as to what he wants to do about this. I can assure all of you that this card would grade every time it was submitted. I understand it appears slightly different than the image Scott provided but it does not appear to have been changed as drastically as some are making out. Admittedly I have become jaded being in this hobby. I am not going to throw anyone under the bus but those of you who are making an issue over what you feel is a lack of ethics by selling the card to Wayne, really have no idea what really is going on in the hobby. I have read several threads on this board and PSA’s where folks are openly talking about removal and restoration and what they are doing to their cards to “improve” their appearance. Do we know with absolute certainty that these cards will not make it back into the hobby at some point? One day it is a collection, the next it becomes a vehicle to make a buck or upgrade to a better one. This is the stuff at the collector level. What do you think goes on at the dealer level where guys make their livings?

Archive

10-10-2004, 11:54 PM

Posted By: MWGreg, The Mastro-Steinbach catalogs had different verbiage and varying content years ago. I don't think any knowledgeable vintage collector would argue with that statement. Also, the fact that I disagree with someone on one particular issue does not mean that I can't agree with them on a different issue. For instance, if Bill Mastro told me that he found you to be repulsively odorous and hideously ugly, I just might have a difference of opinion. I think you smell just fine. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> Finally, the Kelly is not "back" in a PSA holder. Please check your facts. Thank you.

Archive

10-11-2004, 12:15 AM

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth"Finally, the Kelly is not "back" in a PSA holder." What does this mean? "I purchased the card raw and submitted it to PSA. PSA graded it a 9. When I stopped submitting to PSA, I converted the card to an SGC holder." If it was in the SGC holder as you admitted, how is it now in the PSA 9 holder? "Also, the fact that I disagree with someone on one particular issue does not mean that I can't agree with them on a different issue." I would say that you have more than one particular issue with both PSA and Mastro. Guess it is all a matter of convenience. I am sure you do not want me to start opening old wounds. "For instance, if Bill Mastro told me that he found you to be repulsively odorous and hideously ugly, I just might have a difference of opinion. I think you smell just fine." I am relieved that you do not find me attractive but concerned that you have been so close to me that you know I smell fine.

Archive

10-11-2004, 12:37 AM

Posted By: Kenny ColeI don't have a dog in this fight, but I do have to say that it strikes me as extremely odd that three seperate grading companies would look at and grade this card if it was in fact altered. If they did, it seems to me that raises a bigger issue, one that encompasses more than just this card. I will be the first to admit that I am not a fan of grading companies or of graded cards. However, that being said, one thing I thought that most of them could do at least moderately well was to authenticate cards and detect alterations. At least they all tout themselves as being able to do so, and they don't have a problem charging for that service. Up until now, I generally credited them with the ability to at least do that. Assuming for the moment that there's a problem with the Cobb card, PSA, SGC and GAI ALL graded it. What are the odds of that occurring? If the "professional" card graders are as good as they hold themselves out to be, and if they use all of the resouces they say they use, I would think those odds to be infinitesimal. If the Cobb card has issues and everyone at 3 separate grading companies who looked at it missed those issues, shouldn't that be a major cause for concern? How many cards with issues are missed, and therefore graded, when they are only sent to one grading company? I've never sent in a card for grading. However, as I understand the theory, you supposedly do it because the neutral and impartial grading card gods are there to tell you what you have. Consequently, if you've got qualms about a card and it comes back graded, I suppose that should normally mean its fine. I've never quite figured out how some cards could be repeatedly sent to the card gods and receive different grades, but I can understand a slight difference in assigning a grade to a given card much better than I can 3 companies missing what is claimed to be an altered card. How many more are out there? How do we tell which ones they are (I thought that's what they were sent in to determine in the first place)? Why are people paying for a "service" that, at least based upon the comments in this thread, they cannot trust even to determine whether or not the card they submit has been altered? Are the card doctors getting that good?

Archive

10-11-2004, 12:44 AM

Posted By: MWedited

Archive

10-11-2004, 12:56 AM

Posted By: MW"I am relieved that you do not find me attractive but concerned that you have been so close to me that you know I smell fine." Greg, It was a hypothetical. I concede the fact that you might not.

Archive

10-11-2004, 01:09 AM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthKenny makes some very valid points and ones that I have argued repeatedly to no avail. Mike you can view the card despite three qualified grading companies already having done so, I would like others to see it as well as I know you do not have my best interest at heart. "I am relieved that you do not find me attractive but concerned that you have been so close to me that you know I smell fine." Greg, It was a hypothetical. I concede the fact that you might not. Even more disturbing that this was your hypothetical example due to the rumors abound.

Archive

10-11-2004, 01:13 AM

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth"Finally, the Kelly is not "back" in a PSA holder." What does this mean? "I purchased the card raw and submitted it to PSA. PSA graded it a 9. When I stopped submitting to PSA, I converted the card to an SGC holder." If it was in the SGC holder as you admitted, how is it now in the PSA 9 holder? "Also, the fact that I disagree with someone on one particular issue does not mean that I can't agree with them on a different issue." I would say that you have more than one particular issue with both PSA and Mastro. Guess it is all a matter of convenience. I am sure you do not want me to start opening old wounds. Care to address the above? While you are at it can we openly discuss one of your ebay buying ids, buying_sgc_cards.

Archive

10-11-2004, 01:26 AM

Posted By: Kenny ColeMy concern isn't primarily with this card. I don't care one way or the other about it except insofar as it affects my more overriding concern. If the card has alteration issues, 3 seperate companies shouldn't have missed it, simple as that. If they did, that doesn't say much for them. In fact, to my way of thinking, it raises huge red flags about the competence of all 3. I can see maybe one company missing what Scott and others are saying is a clearly altered card. But all 3? If it is truly altered, that's simply ridiculous. And, it raises all of the issues I alluded to in my earlier post. I don't have a problem with your suggestion of sending the Cobb to yet another grader. However, I really don't know what that accomplishes. The problem I see is that, at this point, I'm not sure who that almighty authority is. The 3 purported authorities have evidently already screwed it up, so who is next in line? If someone doesn't like the judgment of grader no. 4, does it then go to grader no. 5? That was sort of my point. If all of the purported best graders around missed on this card then, as best as I can tell, the available options are that: 1) three seperate card graders missed it; 2) the card is OK; or 3) the card doctors are getting so good that the card gods can no longer tell. Anything other than #2 isn't really calculated to build my confidence in the abilities of the people who slab for a living.

Archive

10-11-2004, 01:32 AM

Posted By: Lee BehrensA question: If you clean a dirty item is it considered altered?

Archive

10-11-2004, 01:35 AM

Posted By: Kenny Coleon whether you're talking about clothes, catfish or cards. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-11-2004, 01:47 AM

Posted By: Lee BehrensI know you can bleach clothes and cards but can you bleach a catfish? A cleaned catfish would definately be altered, but I don't know why you would ever want to clean one? Kenny what did you have for supper? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-11-2004, 01:54 AM

Posted By: Kenny ColeLee, Down here in the sort-of-south (Oklahoma - BTW, as you know, we just kicked Texas' ass for year no.5 in a row- so sweet), we eat catfish. Depending on the kind, they can be pretty dirty, so we damn sure clean them first. I've not ever bleached one though. Does it taste better that way?

Archive

10-11-2004, 02:03 AM

Posted By: MWedited

Archive

10-11-2004, 04:59 AM

Posted By: Joe P."Are the card doctors getting that good?" * * Yes, and the grading experts, (sic) aren't as good as they claim to be. Somehow I get the feeling that their real first jobs were outsourced Kenny, back in 1990, I dealt with a card doctor that was damn good, so good he was scarey. It involved some very heavy scratch, and you know I was going to get that scratch back. Then we have the Alan Rosen - SGC - Keith Olbermann episode of Dec. 1999. The painful story follows below. <a href="http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_5.html" target=_new>http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_5.html</a> Now here in 2004, we have the harmonious grading rap trio of GAI - SGC and PSA rapping to the tune of "See No Evil - Speak No Evil" Then we have Greg of the Gregorian Chants doing a monodic fugue with the trio like - "Although I saw it - I was outvoted - the Devil made me do it." Greg is right in saying that there are problems out there. Unfortunately, he's also part of it. Come on, he knew about the before and after of that card. We're suppose to believe that just because three so called experts got it wrong in unison that that was enough justification to not give Wayne the background of that card? Tell it to the Marines, and unfortunately for Greg, I'm an ex Marine, and his tale doesn't cut it. Kenny, why are you always chasing my Cuban and T207 cards? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Stay well, Joe P.

Archive

10-11-2004, 07:33 AM

Posted By: Scott ForrestKenny and Joe - I have tried several times to get a discussion going on this board regarding the actual grading process that the "big 3" use...to no avail. It seems to be a trade secret. My interest in the e95 card was not because I have dubbed myself some sort of consumer protection guy for card collectors, but because I used to own it and I'm very familiar with it's problems - the card jumped out at me when I spotted it originally on ebay. Honestly, it had a heckuva lot of character at one time - nice caramel residue on the back, scratches, creases,etc., and it still has great color - even a little extra. If I had not owned the card, I doubt I would have been able to see alterations through a plastic slab, and I doubt that Greg or anyone else could have either. ...however, I would think that tools exist that the grading companies would routinely use to spot alterations such as glue and re-coloring. So to me, this indicates that either doctoring techniques have rendered such tools (blacklights, for instance) totally ineffective, or the slabbing companies don't use the tools. I really don't know their process - does anyone? This question has never been answered on this board to my satisfaction. Greg would have us believe that SGC took the card out of the holder, and still felt that it was un-altered. Rubbish. I think that the slabbing of this card by 3 companies was simply forgiveable sloppy work, and that if any of the three were handed the raw card today and asked to use all reasonable resources available to determine if it had been altered, all three could give us a list of alterations at least as long as the repaired formerly torn player list on the back of the card.

Archive

10-11-2004, 07:48 AM

Posted By: dan mckeeIs it maybe possible that the first company that slabbed it made a mistake and that the next 2 that crossed it over didn't look quite as closely since it was already slabbed? Just a thought. If no color was added and it was just simply soaked in water and rolled out, could you actually tell? Now if paperloss was repaired on back and missed, yes, that is impressive! Dan. Oops! forgot to hide my name under a nickname. I agree with Barry, everyone should show their full name.

Archive

10-11-2004, 09:15 AM

Posted By: Scott ForrestAccording to Greg, all three got to look at it raw at some point.

Archive

10-11-2004, 09:33 AM

Posted By: Kenny ColeI'm familiar with the Olberman fiasco, although I never had the impression that the card doctoring there was real sophisticated. I don't send cards in to be graded because I personally think the whole concept is pretty much a farce. However, I will buy a graded card if is one I want and if the fact that it has been entombed hasn't jacked its price way up. For that reason, the topic now under discussion is of concern to me. In that regard, one purported justification for grading is that it supposedly allows people to who can't personally inspect the card to buy it on-line with a greater degree of comfort than would otherwise exist. In my opinion, situations like the one at hand tend to undermine even that purported justification for grading. I've never been more than luke-warm about card grading, but I'm feeling even less warm and fuzzy about it now. As far as your question about Cuban and T207 cards goes, I make it a habit never to chase yours. I only go after those that should rightfully inhabit my house. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Best, Kenny Cole

Archive

10-11-2004, 10:21 AM

Posted By: PASJDI agree fully that this episdode -- and others I have heard about -- gives one some pause about the competence of grading companies. What concerns me most, frankly, is that the volume of cards they review suggests that they have very little time to spend inspecting any given card, although one hopes that on issues more likely to be vulnerable to alteration for economic gain -- prewar cards and expensive cards generally -- they take more time. However, it is an imperfect world, and it seems to me especially given that most cards today are purchased without visual inspection that reliance on third party grading is far better than the alternative. It also appears from the example given in this thread that a grading company will acknowledge an obvious mistake, which further reduces one's risk. Just one man's thoughts.

Archive

10-11-2004, 11:03 AM

Posted By: Tim Mayerwow, its hard to trust anyone anymore,,,, I want forget I even read this thread,,I don't want to know what you guys did to my cards before I bought them,,,if they are graded, I guess my value is secure,,, but this is scary

Archive

10-11-2004, 11:13 AM

Posted By: warshawlawGreg: "Bottom feeder": Is that in reference to my job? Not very creative... I don't buy your story. Bottom line: it is one thing to say you aren't sure about the card so you want a third party's opinion, but you knew the history of the card and sold it without disclosing it. That's fraudulent and you don't need to debate the meaning of "is" to come to that conclusion. I also don't believe for a moment that SGC offered to buy out the card only because we criticized SGC here. We don't have that kind of juice. We bag on PSA, SGC and GAI all the time and nothing comes of it. The more I hear the less sense you make, so I'm done with you and with this thread. Grading: I've been saying for a long time that a grader cannot be expected to pick up on a removal and that the services make mistakes. We all do. That's not the point. The real issues are whether the services add a value to the business and whether they stand behind their service. As to the former, I believe they do add value and are here to stay, and people who complain about the concept of grading per se need to face reality. As far as standing behind their services, I for one am glad to hear that SGC allegedly offered to stand behind its service. If that is true, it is heartening.

Archive

10-11-2004, 11:16 AM

Posted By: PASJDIf you really want to see something scary check out the article on card restoration in the July 1996 issue of the Vintage & Classic Baseball Card Collector, if you can find one. I have the article in pdf format but don't know how to post a link to it, or even if that can be done technologically, but some of the discussion and before and after photos are quite disturbing. And one can only assume that the technology and capability to alter cards has advanced from 1996.

Archive

10-11-2004, 11:18 AM

Posted By: Tim Mayerthanks for the comment on my addition to the post,,,heres my email, I'd love to see the article if you can forward it..my eyes are open, why not see the whole picture...<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> tim timjmayer@yahoo.com

Archive

10-11-2004, 01:15 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninthwas not a reference to your occupation since I have never retained your services and know nothing of your reputation, aside from beating CU. Believe what you want to believe about me, or this situation. Your mind was made up about me long before the Cobb incident and losing you as a customer will have absolutely no material impact on my life. If you had an issue with me you could have addressed it privately instead of reprimanding me here. Now get in line and join the ranks of the other BOTN haters. Scott has a cold beer waiting for you. Aside from it now being the infamous Cobb and now being identifiable, this card will grade each time it is submitted. It is not the art project that some of the alarmists make it out to be. None of you were part of the conversations with SGC about this card it is pure speculation on your part as to why they removed the card. The same speculation you employ in concluding the card went through massive restoration. Your arm chair analysis is most impressive.

Archive

10-11-2004, 03:44 PM

Posted By: Joe P.Kenny Cole: "I'm familiar with the Olberman fiasco, although I never had the impression that the card doctoring there was real sophisticated." * * Kenny, it was so unsophisticated it fell into the ranks and subclass of amateurism. .... and SGC passed it. Bad enough that there are people practicing questionable medicine out there, but to have the so called experts blow it, and blow it LOUD -- that's scary. Kenny, in 1990 between Memorial Day and Labor Day, I went through one of the more learning experience of my life. ... it was a crash course. Thankfully with the help of Lew Lipset, Larry Fritsch, Herman Kaufman, (my counselor and friend) Bob Lemke (mediator) and my West coast sidekick Mark Macrae - we got to the medicine man and my scratch. I had obtained two (2) Slow Joe Doyle error cards. My bad - my greed - and a typical too good to be true episode. - a very heavy learning experience. After going through hundreds of T206 Nat'l's and comparing them to the two wannabees, and a real Doyle error, I finally got to see the constants of the true T206, and the tell tale signs of the medically treated T206. - and folks, that was worth the trip. The cards were not slabbed, so it has nothing to do with slabbing. My point is that in 1990 those two Doyle's were more sophisticate and passable by far than the Rosen - SGC Doyle in 1999. Adam is absolutely right. The grading experts (sic) are here to stay. They are fantastic when it comes to Size - Corners and Sides. However, there should be an addendum on their slabs, and that is: "BUYER BEWARE". Somehow I feel that the buyers are slowly becoming aware. It will not be a 1929 style crash, but the stocks will go down. Kenny, always good to see you on the bidding boards. From one collector to another, may you always find the cards that are looking for a warm home, but please give me a break and let some of them fall through a crack to my home. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Joe P.

Archive

10-11-2004, 04:00 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninthand I have reacquired the card. Wayne is sending the card back out to me tomorrow morning. Wayne did say had he known the stigma associated with this card he would not have bought it. This was my error in judgment and I should have know given the reputation that Wayne, Bill and Shoebox have earned from their years in the business. For those who have never visited Shoebox's website or done business with Wayne and Bill, it is a great place to shop for raw and graded cards. Here is a link. <a href="http://www.wvshoeboxcards.com/catalog.cfm" target=_new>http://www.wvshoeboxcards.com/catalog.cfm</a>

Archive

10-11-2004, 04:58 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth<a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=153652&messageid=1082828425&lp=1082940745" target=_new>http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=153652&messageid=1082828425&lp=1082940745</a> This is a perfect example of a point I made yesterday where collectors are posting about the restoration they do to thier own collections. At some point when Adam croaks, unless he is being buried with his collection or God forbid he live forever, these cards will hit the marketplace. Unsuspecting collectors will end up purchasing these altered cards without proper disclosure. I am assuming that based on Adam's reprimanding of me as well as his obligation as an attorney, that all of these cards, he has doctored, are cleary identifed as such. There is no chance that Adam the Ethicist is imposing a double standard. I would like to thank a good friend of mine who provided me with the above link.

Archive

10-11-2004, 05:33 PM

Posted By: warshawlawI have never sold a card that was altered by me. Period. And I never would do so absent a disclosure. As far as cards altered by others go, I've sold two that I know of, both with full disclosure and I've eaten hundreds of dollars by reselling them with an honest disclosure after I'd purchased them as supposedly unaltered: a PRO-graded [I know, I know...it was a while ago] N28 Dempsey and a CSA-graded 1953 Bowman Spahn. Want to see the Dempsey? Check out VCBC issue #30, page 20. I ate hundreds on this card by selling it with an accurate disclosure. I still have the 1959 PSA 9 Drysdale mentioned in the article; maybe you want to buy it and pass it on to another dealer as a PSA 9 card? Seems to have worked so well for you here. The two cards mentioned in the article in VCBC have already been unencapsulated, BTW. See, that's the difference between you and me, Greg; I don't have to dance through a 100 post string of stinging questions before doing the right thing because it would not cross my mind to do the wrong thing in the first place. Your argument also is what's known as a straw man argument (it's certainly GWB's main mode of reasoning; that circumspect enough Bill <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> }. You try to avoid discussing your own blunders by bringing up someone else's actions as a smokescreen. It wasn't a defense to say the others were doing it too if you get caught smoking in the boys room, it isn't a defense in court if you're the one caught speeding out of all the maniacs on the freeway, and it isn't gonna fly here, either. Cast all the aspersions you want, Greggy, because I ain't the one who cheated a customer, and no matter what theoretical arguments I've made in past strings here, I never will be. As far as what happens to my cards when I die, hopefully that won't even be an issue for another 40-50 years. I'll leave it to my heirs to deal with that situation. I don't think I'd like to live forever, either; too expensive <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> who's the anonymous good friend??

Archive

10-11-2004, 06:03 PM

Posted By: PASJDAdam, just so I understand your position and I seek only to understand not to judge, is removal of a crease (which is discussed in the posting to which Greg provided a link) "alteration" or is it not in your judgment; have you sold cards which you "improved" (to use a neutral term) by the methods described in that posting; and if so, did you disclose that you had done so? Thank you in advance. Also, I suppose it would be interesting to know in light of the subject matter of the thread whether any cards "improved" by this method were slabbed by the grading services. Again, thank you for whatever light you can shed.

Archive

10-11-2004, 06:09 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthWell I am certainly glad to hear that you find absolutely nothing wrong with doctoring cards. Funny that it is you who is concerned about buying from me. You still have not addressed the fact that were you to be run over by a bus tomorrow crossing Magnolia Blvd, would your heirs know which 3 cards in your collection have not undergone restoration? I assume you are saying that were I to view your collection this evening I would see labels on the holders of these cards that clearly identify these as cards that you restored. As for your history of disclosing on two sales--congrats! How are we to know that constitutes all of the sales you have made of cards that you have restored? I can make similar claims ask Steve Rochhi, Mike Baker and Joe Orlando. In my situation the losses were measured in 5 figures. Once again, three grading companies giving their approval on a card is more than good enough for me, especially after I handled the card and was able to observe it ungraded. How many cards do you know of that were submitted three times to three different grading services all having the same results? Most cards do not go through that level of scrutiny. I am not dancing at all. After I noticed Scott go against his word again, and dredged up this card, I contacted Wayne. I never made excuses for what I did.

Archive

10-11-2004, 06:29 PM

Posted By: MWedited

Archive

10-11-2004, 07:40 PM

Posted By: ElliotMy understanding is that SGC only viewed this card when it was in the GAI slab, not raw. Is this correct?

Archive

10-11-2004, 07:50 PM

Posted By: Kenny ColeIf you go up about 30 posts, Scott has one indicating that according to Greg, all three companies had an opportunity to view the card raw. That's one of the things that really concerns me about this whole deal. Kenny

Archive

10-11-2004, 07:52 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthAs I stated yesterday it is abundantly clear that you do not have my best interest and are not to be trusted; therefore I see no value in making the card available to you. Besides I am afraid the card might get mixed up with your next shipment to Dick Towle or Graphic Conservation Company and end up coming back to me in a VG-EX holder.

Archive

10-11-2004, 08:02 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthElliot, I submitted the card in the GAI holder to SGC. At some point SGC had to break the card out to place it in their holder. If at that time SGC saw something wrong with the card they never would have placed it in their holder. Appeasing me is not their obligation. If there was a true liability associated with the card why take that on for $10? The card could have been returned to me in an ungraded state. I have a close enough relationship with them that this would not have been an issue. Greg

Archive

10-11-2004, 08:46 PM

Posted By: ElliotI'm not trying to defend SGC here, but if they viewed it in the GAI slab, they might not have seen the alteration. In fact they might have been influenced by the fact that it was already graded. That's not to absolve them of culpability as they still should have closely examined the card, however it is an explanation as to why they would not have picked up the alteration. I would also assume that once a grader gives an Ok to the grade, it is left to somebody else to break the card out of the GAI slab and then entomb it in an SGC slab. Thus, an SGC grader would never have seen this card raw.

Archive

10-11-2004, 09:01 PM

Posted By: MWedited

Archive

10-11-2004, 09:02 PM

Posted By: MWedited

Archive

10-11-2004, 09:23 PM

Posted By: Julie VognarDoes the preferred second grader make his decision while the card is in its old holder and have the new holder waiting for it, or does he break it out, examine it raw, and then pick a new holder? The second alternative is DEVOUTLY to be hoped for...

Archive

10-11-2004, 09:32 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthThere are other alterations and flaws that may not be detected by viewing the card inside a holder, hence the reason cards are graded outside of protectos and lucite holders. All of the grading companies are aware their competitors make mistakes. I am sure they do not always rely solely on a viewing of the card inside of the holder in deciding to cross the card. I take cards graded by PSA and SGC to GAI all of the time for cross over. Baker does not look at the card and say, "OK, PSA says this is a 7, I have no issue with it. Now it is a GAI 7." On many instances he says he needs to see the card out of the holder before issuing an opinion. I then assume the risk by giving the "ok" to break a card out that he might conclude is not worthy of the cross over.

Archive

10-11-2004, 10:22 PM

Posted By: Kenny ColeThat is perhaps not an unusual state of affairs. Maybe Scott and I are drinking the same piss-poor beer. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Nonetheless, to my way of thinking, the posts about this issue really raise some issues that as of yet remain unanswered, and they also seem to the posterchild for inconsistent statements. I don't know how to reconcile it all. For example, I presume Adam was talking about one of my previous posts when he wrote: Grading: I've been saying for a long time that a grader cannot be expected to pick up on a removal and that the services make mistakes. We all do. That's not the point. The real issues are whether the services add a value to the business and whether they stand behind their service. As to the former, I believe they do add value and are here to stay, and people who complain about the concept of grading per se need to face reality. As far as standing behind their services, I for one am glad to hear that SGC allegedly offered to stand behind its service. If that is true, it is heartening. Wow. I agree that grading is probably here to stay, much as that entire concept makes me want to vomit. However, at least insofar as this thread is concerned, mistakes ARE the point. People send cards to be graded so that a mistake is not made. You just sued PSA's ass off for making a mistake, albeit one that was worse and more expensive. I was all in favor of that and was happy for both you and Dan that y'all won. And, as you are very well aware, that happened because PSA was negligent. Now you appear to have become a graded card apologist when it comes to a "mistake" made not by one, but by three, separate grading companies. You and I are both plaintiff lawyers. If you had a client who thought they had cancer and therefore saw the top 3 oncologists in California, all of whom said that cancer wasn't present, I have to think that you'd look pretty hard at the failure to diagnose case if in fact your client had cancer (OK, maybe with that horrific MICRA law you wouldn't, but you get my drift). To some degree, that's analogous to what's going on here. I understand that mistakes can be made. However, I don't understand how each of the "big 3" graders can look at a card which EVERYONE here assumes to be altered and miss them. What are the odds of that occurring? And, as I've mentioned before, isn't it the self-professed job of all those god-like card graders to tell you what you have? Isn't it somewhat telling about the people who the cards are being sent to that it wasn't caught on 3 seperate occasions? When all is said and done, I'm not sure where everything stands. The one thing I do know is that the "everyone makes mistakes" position is a complete crock of sh** when it comes to card grading. If people are going to pay them for the service, they should damn sure do it right. Off my soapbox now. Gotta get beer.

Archive

10-11-2004, 10:48 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninththe issue is that everyone here has ASSUMED this card is altered. Define altered? How can 3 grading companies be wrong if it is so obvious to those here? Maybe because of the people who post here I am the only one who has held the card in it's so called "altered" state. Maybe as I said, this card has not undergone anything nearly as extreme as what Warshaw JD, MD does to his cards. As I stated the card still has missing lettering on the reverse, noticeable creases and missing stock on the front. The back is still discolored and there are still caramel stains. The back even has the area that Scott described as a lift. I am not an apologist for the grading companies but I also contend that nothing drastic had been done to the card. When I got the card back from SGC ungraded I sold it as altered because the issue was still fresh in my mind. The person I sold it to also thought the card was ok and therefore sent the card in for grading only to have it grade a 3rd time.

Archive

10-11-2004, 10:55 PM

Posted By: ElliotI didn't save a back scan from the 1st go round on this card. Greg, could you please post a back scan of this card in one of the slabs?

Archive

10-11-2004, 11:28 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthI deleted all of the scans about 2 weeks ago. Figured I did not need them. I am sure that one of the many BOTN haters has that and more and can share the images with the board. It is interesting that nobody has posted the image of the card when it was in the SGC 40 holder.

Archive

10-12-2004, 12:20 AM

Posted By: Scott ForrestGreg's back to dancing, and he's not going to stop until we all tell him what a good boy we think he is. Are you ready to buy botnian logic? Today he says this: "...When I got the card back from SGC ungraded I sold it as altered because the issue was still fresh in my mind. The person I sold it to also thought the card was ok and therefore sent the card in for grading only to have it grade a 3rd time." but on May 18, he said this: From: "greg" <grays@botn.com> > > >To: <Runscott@bellsouth.net> > > >Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:39 AM > > >Subject: E95 Cobb... > > > > > > > I had sold the raw altered Cobb card for $200 to a guy who wanted a >low grade Cobb. Told him it was altered. He decided to send the card to >PSA and they graded it a 3. So on May 18 he thought it was altered, but now he doesn't remember thinking that at all. That works well with his new logic: if three grading companies slabbed it, then the alterations simply never occured, therefore his own memory can be wiped clean as well. Botnian logic is tough to follow...I would recommend integrity as a simpler alternative.

Archive

10-12-2004, 12:25 AM

Posted By: Scott Forresthmmm...don't tell me - your memory is coming back <a href="http://www.network54.com/Realm/V_B_C/E95BANDA.JPG" target="_blank">SGC and raw Cobb</a> [edited to fix thread formatting]

Archive

10-12-2004, 12:40 AM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthHad no idea that I was obligated to send you the full dialogue about the Cobb card when I sold it. The conversation went slightly longer than, "Here is an altered Cobb that I need $200 for." Nice job touching up the SGC scan. Amazing that the GAI graded card the first card to grade) as provided by MW (has the chipping on the top surface). This can also be seen on the tiny scan of the card taken from Wayne's listing on ebay, the third time the card graded. Oddly Scott produces an enormous scan of the SGC version that does not have that. This card was graded after GAI and before PSA. Also his scan does not have some of the missing lettering on the reverse. Editted to add: Why did you change the scan Scott? Editted again to remove an insult.

Archive

10-12-2004, 12:45 AM

Posted By: runscottI took the scan you posted on ebay and super-imposed the front and back of my original scans. But you might want to go back and edit your post Greg, because I'm sure someone other than me saved the SGC scans from your ebay listing. Didn't think of that, did you Greg?

Archive

10-12-2004, 12:47 AM

Posted By: runscottyou've been nailed.

Archive

10-12-2004, 12:49 AM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthScott The initial scan you posted was completely recolored and in one of your edits you changed the photo. The scan that is up there now does appear the be the one I posted of the card in the SGC holder. And does represent the condition of the card as I last remember it. Editted to remove an insult.

Archive

10-12-2004, 12:52 AM

Posted By: runscottYou are right - I originally uploaded the wrong scan, of a totally different holdered SGC card. I edited that post as quickly as I could to add the correct scan. You, too are also still a pile. See, we do agree on something?

Archive

10-12-2004, 12:56 AM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthProgress. I see sublte differences in your scan and that of the card in the SGC holder. Your scans are larger and lighter than mine, which might account for some of the differences in appearance. I still see missing letters, chipping on the surface, creases, etc on the card in the SGC holder. If someone were going to recolor and add lettering wouldn't they go all of the way and not leave out certain obvious areas?

Archive

10-12-2004, 07:08 AM

Posted By: runscottNo, anyone could see this would never be a NM card, but I think it's not unlikely that someone sent this to a restorer just to see what work they were capable of producing - this was a perfect test case, given all it's problems. What that person then did with the card is anyone's guess. Is it likely that they just dropped it back in the market after seeing the results? Or instead that they then decided to give the work the final litmus test by sending it directly to a grading company? I couldn't say, but the second scenario would be incredibly stupid. So what is the future of this well-traveled card? Anyone's guess - when I thought it was buried in Greg's collection never to see daylight again, I promised not to bring up more controversy concerning it...but then it re-surfaces, PSA-slabbed, on ebay, for sell by a reputable dealer...I don't have that kind of self-control! Worst-case scenario is it ends up dumped on the market and someone else gets one of the big 3 to re-slab it. That is a very likely scenario, but someone else can pursue that if it happens.

Archive

10-12-2004, 09:57 AM

Posted By: Todd SchultzGreg, now that the card is on its way back to you, can/will you share with us what you plan on doing with it?

Archive

10-12-2004, 11:08 AM

Posted By: warshawlawyou think it might be getting better so you stick your tongue in there again to probe and you find out otherwise. Kenny Cole: Actually, I'm primarily a real estate and construction guy so the med mal reference goes right over my head. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> In real estate, the rule is that the seller must disclose any material fact which might adversely impact on the value of the property. In my mind, the rather checkered history of the card is a material fact worthy of disclosure because it would tend to adversely impact the decision of a buyer to purchase the card, as it did with Wayne. It is not equivalent to a failure to diagnose because it is a non-disclosure of a known fact rather than a non-detection error. PSA: Their error in Dan's case was not grading, it was losing the card. I made it clear that I have no comments as to their grading practices as a result of the case; it was not part of the issue. Now, considering their history of grading fakes (Ruth rookie) and altered cards (my card; an OJ with the ad trimmed off was in the November 2002 Lipset auction and offered as an example of a PSA error), I don't happen to like their service itself, but that has nothing to do with Dan's case. Greg: after reading your post yesterday, I went home and consigned the two altered cards to the trash bin where they sleep today with the fishes. I hope you do the same with the Cobb.

Archive

10-12-2004, 11:30 AM

Posted By: Scott ForrestIt was a nice card before, and it looks even better now. I would make a display for it, creating a back-drop using high quality prints of it in each of its three holders.

Archive

10-12-2004, 12:53 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthScott your e-mail reply to me was this: <grays@botn.com>; Tue, 18 May 2004 08:28:20 -0400 Message-ID: <000701c43cd3$9bf42010$6501a8c0@Forresthome> From: "Scott Forrest" <Runscott@bellsouth.net> To: "greg" <grays@botn.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040517213727.02a16c30@mail67.pair.co m> Subject: Re: E95 Cobb... Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 08:28:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2739.300 Greg, Thanks for sharing this - yes, please send a picture. I am taking a LONG break from the board, so I won't stir up any more controversy about it. Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: "greg" <grays@botn.com> To: <Runscott@bellsouth.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:39 AM Subject: E95 Cobb... > I had sold the raw altered Cobb card for $200 to a guy who wanted a low > grade Cobb. Told him it was altered. He decided to send the card to PSA > and they graded it a 3. He is sending me a picture of it. Want me to > forward it on to you? So your promise not to fuel the fire was made well after you knew the card was not buried in my collection. Adam, I am wondering why you have not addressed those questions posed to you by PASJD. Your basis for disclosure does not seem to hold here since it is only this board who claims the card was altered. How many of you have passed the grading test that PSA, GAI and SGC impose on their graders? If anything I have a claim against all of you for damaging the value of my property and undoing my sale. I am not sure what the future holds for this card.

Archive

10-12-2004, 01:00 PM

Posted By: Scott ForrestI thought you were lying.

Archive

10-12-2004, 02:23 PM

Posted By: runscottit really sounds like you were relying on everyone else keeping mum while you did whatever it took to pawn off that Cobb...on someone who doesn't normally read this board.

Archive

10-12-2004, 03:03 PM

Posted By: Joe P.Greg's e-mail to Scott: ----- Original Message ----- From: "greg" <grays@botn.com> To: <Runscott@bellsouth.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:39 AM Subject: E95 Cobb... > "I had sold the raw altered Cobb card for $200 to a guy who wanted a low > grade Cobb. Told him it was altered. He decided to send the card to PSA > and they graded it a 3." * * * Greg, that's your e-mail to Scott. Your words. And on May 18 2004 you knew the card was ALTERED. Your feeble and lame attempt to try to smoke screen the readers of this board, borders on the supernatural. It's almost insulting to anyone that reads this board, and that includes the 1980's & 1970's newbies. Greg, you held back on the known facts when you sold the card to Wayne. The fact that you're desperately feebly trying to use the combined errors of your 3 fallen hero's, makes your plea even more embarrassing. In my eyes, your misdeeds are not what I want in my hobby.

Archive

10-12-2004, 03:11 PM

Posted By: Julie Vognarthat there are no FRONTS which have NECESSARILY been altered.(It seems to me that when I looked at this thread much earlier, alteration to the front was apparent...oh well.)If the back presented a few posts back is the same card as the fronts, it has obviously been altered, based on the back next to it. It is obviously the same back, because of the odd-shaped stain and some nearly identical partially destroyed letters. Why make such obviuous changes to the back, while making only very subtle (to say the least) changes to the front? Is a puzzlement...

Archive

10-12-2004, 03:58 PM

Posted By: warshawlawAre these the questions from PASJD you were referring to: "have you sold cards which you "improved" (to use a neutral term) by the methods described in that posting; and if so, did you disclose that you had done so?" "Also, I suppose it would be interesting to know in light of the subject matter of the thread whether any cards "improved" by this method were slabbed by the grading services." As stated above, I've never sold the cards I'd played with. There were only 2. I have sold 2 cards that I suspected had been played with by others, but I did so with a disclosure of my suspicions, and took a bath financially as a result. As stated above and as referenced in VCBC #30, SGC and PSA both slabbed cards which had removals performed (1 by each service).

Archive

10-12-2004, 04:33 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthPlease take more information out of context. As stated a few posts above I used the word "altered" in a one sentence summary in my e-mail to Scott about a conversation that took place between me and my buyer. Had I know that I was going on trial I certainly would have videotaped the entire transaction. You are almost too unreasonable to even address so I will not comment on some of your other inanities. Scott, "only one problem your logic Greg October 12 2004, 3:00 PM I thought you were lying." Well, again you thought wrong and drew yet another conclusion without any foundation. "but by constantly bringing that up October 12 2004, 4:23 PM it really sounds like you were relying on everyone else keeping mum while you did whatever it took to pawn off that Cobb...on someone who doesn't normally read this board." Again you draw a conclusion without having any first hand knowledge of what took place with my customer. Even after being notified by me that a sale took place. Whether or not the card was altered, I sold it as such and based on the price paid it was bought with full knowledge of the accompanying story. I understand that $200 or even $750 is a great deal of money to you so I can understand from your POV why you might think that I would attempt to deceive someone for such incredible wealth. You got the wrong guy though.

Archive

10-12-2004, 04:39 PM

Posted By: PASJDOK I just wanted to make sure we weren't getting into a Clintonesque semantic quibble (depends on what the meaning of "is" is) about the meaning of "altered"; the juxtaposition of your statement that you had not sold an "altered" card and the link to your previous posting suggesting (my interpretation anyhow) that you viewed crease removal as different from other forms of restoration is what led me to ask the questions. As you pointed out in your earlier comment about "right to life," the words one uses to frame an issue often dictate the result. (On that particular one I would suggest to you that a "woman's right to choose" is equally misleading, but that is not for this forum I guess.) Personally I would view crease removal in the same category as trimming and corner restoration, particularly because as a practical matter the crease might come back (I have seen it happen to a PSA 8 card); I am not quite sure how I feel about some other "improvements."

Archive

10-12-2004, 04:41 PM

Posted By: Rob LMan, am I glad I don't collect cards. Seems like a lot less controversy with other baseball memorablia.

Archive

10-12-2004, 04:59 PM

Posted By: MWedited

Archive

10-12-2004, 05:04 PM

Posted By: MWThere also appears to be some border discoloration and distinctive staining that has been removed from the card. This does not appear to be a difference that can be accounted for due to individual image quality.

Archive

10-12-2004, 05:05 PM

Posted By: JasonRob- Well then what in the hell are you doing here?

Archive

10-12-2004, 05:07 PM

Posted By: Rob LLurking. I love reading this stuff.

Archive

10-12-2004, 05:18 PM

Posted By: AaronHey, MW, can you teach me how to do that with my computer? (With the circles and stuff.) I'm not very techno-savvy and am pretty much just able to get e-mail and surf the net.

Archive

10-12-2004, 05:40 PM

Posted By: MWedited

Archive

10-12-2004, 05:50 PM

Posted By: MW<edited

Archive

10-12-2004, 06:18 PM

Posted By: Julie VognarBorders are considerably whitened....

Archive

10-12-2004, 06:48 PM

Posted By: PASJDMW is right in my opinion, the corruption and uncertainty surrounding autographs and game-used jerseys and game-used bats and the like makes baseball cards look tame by comparison. I mean think about it, how does anyone KNOW if Babe Ruth signed a baseball being presented for sale 70 years later?

Archive

10-12-2004, 06:48 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthContrast is lightened but you are working with images of the graded examples that are significantly smaller than the ungraded version.

Archive

10-12-2004, 06:57 PM

Posted By: Julie Vognargouges to the left of the bigger gouge that has been about half removed; and the borders are considerably whitened. I think we're takng size into account...

Archive

10-12-2004, 07:17 PM

Posted By: Joe P.Greg speaks: "Joe P, Please take more information out of context. As stated a few posts above I used the word "altered" in a one sentence summary in my e-mail to Scott about a conversation that took place between me and my buyer." * * * What out of context? Your words. Who sent the e-mail to Scott? Wayne? Me? Scott to Scott? Who was talking about an ALTERED card in May 2004? Wayne? Me? It was you Greg you. You knowingly dumped the card on Wayne in July 2004. In that particular department, the road map points to you. You weren't just wrong, you were wrong LOUD.

Archive

10-12-2004, 07:17 PM

Posted By: Scott ForrestYou dropped the "Scott drinks beer" thing from your defense for a few posts and started going after the "Scott doesn't have money" angle. I guess if you kept working those two things, you could possibly build a case for me drinking more beer than you, or for you being wealthy compared to me - but neither would make you right about the Cobb...or make you any taller.

Archive

10-12-2004, 08:35 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthScott No need to be so bitter. You have already taken this too personally. Dude you are one angry MFer. Well you might be taller than me for the few minutes a day you are not hunched over drunk or lying in your own mess. Joe P You exemplify the oxymoron of military intelligence. I never made excuses for selling the card to Wayne. I gave you my reason and it is one that I still stand behind. Julie, Stop flip-flopping. You are still looking at a scan that is significantly smaller and a card that was not scanned with the surface directly on the scanner bed. Also who said those lines are gouges? Scott?--a guy who has been gunning for me at every chance. I do not recall off hand if those white marks are still on the card or have been reduced but in my conversation with Wayne yesterday he said the card looked very similar to Scott's scan. I did not ask for an analysis on a point-by point flaw, as the card will be in my hands in a few days. It seems that you are all in agreement that you are more qualified to grade a card by a scan than all of the graders at the top 3 grading services can do with the actual card in hand. Well I commend you and apologize for second guessing your abilities. It would then reason that none of you directly or indirectly pay for grading of your cards and would likely not pay premiums for cards that have been graded.

Archive

10-12-2004, 08:55 PM

Posted By: runscottblah blah blah

Archive

10-12-2004, 09:12 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthJohn, You have been a former customer for a while now (2+ years?) but it is ok with me if you want to attribute it to this episode. Maybe you knew in advance that I was a bad seed in the hobby. I was going to be sending out Christmas cards this year. The card layout was going to feature the E95 Cobb wearing a Santa hat (with Scott in the background sucking down spiked eggnog). So that I know exactly how many to print can I get a head count of those who want to remain on my mailing list? Editted to add: John, I went back to look at when we last did business and it seems we never did business. Since I cannot lose something I never had I have to place you in a new category, "Former Customers With No Prior Transactions." I hope you understand. And believe me it is just as prestigious to be in this category.

Archive

10-12-2004, 09:43 PM

Posted By: runscottPerhaps you could use yourself in a cameo role as an elf.

Archive

10-12-2004, 09:56 PM

Posted By: Joe P.Greg's dribble: "I never made excuses for selling the card to Wayne. I gave you my reason and it is one that I still stand behind." * * * Who the hell is saying that you made excuses to Wayne? Can't you get anything right? Simply stated, you omitted to tell Wayne the TRUTH about the card. Keep repeating your attempt at a smoke screen. You're beginning to sound like Bush. Everything is Honky Dory in Iraq. Why, Baghdad is just like Mayberry.

Archive

10-12-2004, 10:15 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthScott I love it! Just for that you get a card whether you want one or not. Joe, First of all say anything you want but please do not compare me to Bush. You are right, though. I failed to inform Wayne that there are some collectors who post on a vintage card forum who have deemed themselves more qualified than any of the professional graders. They felt that based on a scan this card is altered. For that I am going to drop down and give you 100 push ups.

Archive

10-12-2004, 10:22 PM

Posted By: Bill CornellWill this puny thread ever be worthy of the Old Judge Proof one? I am unimpressed. Unless someone has something new to add (I'm assuming that the 3 grading companies aren't going to pipe up), can we wind this down? See you all again next April for the biannual E95 Cobb battle. Bill

Archive

10-12-2004, 10:23 PM

Posted By: Jethro HatfieldBy cracki, dis har tread is mo fun dan da sadurday nite cockfites over at Joe’s barn. Mo fun dan wachin da wraslin shows on da TB set. Ain’t dat TB set sumtin else? We dun jurst git one dis yar and we luvs it. Piktur is still a wee bit fuzy cus we ain’t gots one a dem der fancy antennis like Jed has who hars dat butiful howse on da botum land. I jest bin a usin a coat-rak wire fur da antenni. Culd sumbuddy har xplane how dis har TB set gits dem pkturs frum da wraslin show? Dat TB set is mo amazin dan dat two-heded tortle I dun seed dat time over at McCoys pond. Gots ta run owtside now to da baffroom cus I dun et way too much possum las nite. But to all ya polks a fuzzin on dis har tread - yar always welcum at my howse. Sincarly, Jethro Hatfield

Archive

10-12-2004, 10:36 PM

Posted By: JasonJoe P- Why do you have to bring politics into this? If Kerry gets in we all should be praying for this country. I wonder how many times he would change his mind on this controversial Cobb?

Archive

10-12-2004, 10:38 PM

Posted By: runscottSo Greg, you mean you provided the "before" scan to each of the grading companies prior to their slabbings of the card? If not, then you probably should drop this - we had an advantage. Bill, you are right - nothing new here. I officially promise not to open this thread again; however, you are probably right - when Greg attempts to slip the card back into the market in a few months, and it shows up again on ebay, yes, I'll post.

Archive

10-12-2004, 11:13 PM

Posted By: Joe P.My apologies. That was nasty of me. I can understand the preference of being looked at as slightly tainted better than a comparison to Alfred E. Neumann. Tell us. Are you going to give us four more years of the Cobb? Will it be more of the same with a few more added Graders of Evil? Who will be the next dealer or collector/stock marketeer liberated by the Cobb? Is Ty the WMD that we've been looking for? Is There Anyone Out There That's Accountable?

Archive

10-12-2004, 11:15 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth"So Greg, you mean you provided the "before" scan to each of the grading companies prior to their slabbings of the card? If not, then you probably should drop this - we had an advantage." Don't think in this instance that the results would have been any different were the grading companies to have a scan. Graders reject cards based on their experience, knowledge and education. Unless there is yet ANOTHER thing you know that I am not aware of, submissions generally are not accompanied by photos or scans of the cards submitted. Unlike you, the graders actually have the ability to look at a card confirm the authenticity of a card and attribute a grade. Thankfully they do not do as you (plural) do and make the assessment based on a personal vendetta. And yes Bill I do believe that this thread has reached the end. I am hurt that you were truly unimpressed. I cannot wait until Scott create yet another controversial issue about me that he can post about.

Archive

10-13-2004, 01:34 AM

Posted By: honus3415Would everyone be happy if the card were encapsulated into a PRO holder? At least then, everyone should realize that the Cobb was questionable. And I'd even be willing to bet that if you stamped "ALTERED" on the back it would receive a higher grade than it has gotten so far.

Archive

10-13-2004, 01:34 AM

Posted By: Gary B.I'm not the only one who sneaks a little politics in here and there <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-13-2004, 02:49 AM

Posted By: Joe P.I was expecting you to beat out Jason. At least you have a sense of humor. You're not getting down on your knees and praying are you? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-13-2004, 03:08 AM

Posted By: Joe P.Bill Cornell: "Will this puny thread ever be worthy of the Old Judge Proof one? I am unimpressed. Unless someone has something new to add (I'm assuming that the 3 grading companies aren't going to pipe up), can we wind this down? See you all again next April for the biannual E95 Cobb battle." Bill * * * Not a problem Bill. Comes April, you know where to find us. We'll be right here. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-13-2004, 07:23 AM

Posted By: JasonJoe- I am praying that we can avoid another possible 4 or 8 years of the financial shambles that ole Cigar boy put us in. I would hate to see the Cobb keep getting flip-flopped into slabs over and over. Also I am afraid we may end up with laws allowing Cobb and Ruth possibly entering the same slab! Still yet, I would hate to see Cobb have to leave his slab for good because of tax hikes. Vote Bush another 4 years and we can see him off to the National to fight for his rights to be in a slab. Vote kerry and see him be pulled out to ultimately be attacked over and over or be destroyed. Jason