I didn't know that they actually updated the report. I wonder whether they will do that for each card that is returned or only the high profile ones.

VCP should be updating their records also by removing these cards from their databases.

https://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball...2/bowman/34030

The PSA 10 Musial is no longer in the pop.

There are two AUTH copies graded so no telling if one is the recent 10 that was removed.

All of them that are deemed bad.....

They also need to remove the Cert #s of the cards that were in the "before" pictures from the Pop Report as well.

You know, I can't control what other assholes do. This asshole doesn't appreciate the fraud and what that dick Brent Mastro has been doing.

Does anyone ever stop to ask how a 70 year old card could be in such pristine condition? Did it go straight into a non-existent holder as soon as it came out of the pack? Where was this card stored for the first 30 years of its life that protected it so well?

As was pointed out by Rich there was a find of these in the mid 80s. Otherwise I agree with you on most super nice vintage cards.

I also had a nice stack of 66 Topps in NrMint condition. The original owner opened the packs and put them in a drawer. They sat untouched till I got them 20 years later. It does happen but it is rare.

Read this article on PSA's website:

https://www.psacard.com/articles/art...-baseball-find

Steve

No doubt...finds such as this...BSF, etc...provide cards to the market in possibly never been seen before condition. But this is not to say that the doctors were not hard at work even back then turning 5's-6's...or 8's-9's into 10's.

Probably even easier to do on cards such as this?

52 mantle psa 8 will be in pwcc's next auction.

Hi everyone. Jdoggs is correct. The auction for the '52 Topps Mantle PSA 8 starts tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. I see the listing on PWCC's website.

Ended with a high bid of $489,300.00. More than the $456,000.00 earlier this year. But I would have guessed at least $500,000.00.

Winner has zero feedback.

Buyer has “0” feedback... awesome.

Im sure the seller was approved to bid.
Im sure eBay will be paid fees for the winning amount
Im sure the winning bidder will be paying the winning amount
Im sure this is the only holder this card has ever been in
Im sure the consignor doesnt know the winning bidder

The old ebay "reserve" bid. :rolleyes:

So I understand, a PWCC auction for a PSA 8, 1952 Mantle, ended recently for $489k, and the “winning bidder” had zero (0) feedback? If that is accurate, I think this is something that BODA and net54 should be posting about and the FBI should know about. When I first got back into eBay and had nominal feedback, I had to call pwcc and convince them to let me bid on multiple cards and above a small, minimal amount. Now, in the face of all this scandal, a zero feedback bidder is permitted to bid on, and win, a near $500k card?

Will this be relisted from the Vault in a new upcoming auction ?

It's not shilling. It's "conserving".

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Do you really think with all eyes on them and this particular item that they would be possibly be putting themselves in any questionable position? If you read through the description of the item every bidder was vetted before being allowed to participate in the last day of bidding. Whether you particularly care for Brent or not, he’s not doing something that stupid.

What we've seen/heard so far from, Brent, I think that is open for debate.

I don’t think they are stupid (in fact Brent seems very smart), but it’s more cockey or cavalier (or maybe they are stupid, or greedy). Maybe their strategy is don’t stop what we were doing because changing indicates some culpability. Regardless, the optics are terrible- why, under the current circumstances, would PWCC allow a zero feedback bidder to win a $500k card? Vetted or not, it looks real bad and, if vetted, shows that they will continue to treat certain people special. $500k card and zero feedback is as logical as a fish riding a bicycle.

I tried to buy it. The transaction was legit. Probably just a rich guy who doesn’t use eBay but sure knew how to snipe it in the last few seconds.

Quoted for posterity

For Ryan. Would make a good avatar.

I know what that's like.....:D

But just because you got outbid does not mean it was legit; it just means you were outbid, by who we dont know, unless you know something more (and I am guessing you may). Either way, I think it is "nuts" (because I dont if they are stupid, greedy, insane, cockey, cavalier, following a game plan, etc), to publicly log a $500k purchase of a very high impact and visual card/sale to a bidder with Zero feedback, especially under the current climate.

Thanks for the Pic Peter. Its actually a lyric from a U2 song" "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle".

Ryan, I'm looking for a better image, but I still haven't found what I'm looking for.

I am 100% sure the one I made bold is true.
It has been shown that PWCC has screwed eBay on fees. I believe it was even shown on a item won by the gentleman I quoted.
Have no idea on the others but if history has taught us anything there is a good chance something shady happened.:)

If the guy was vetted and showed the assets able to pay for it, should he be excluded because he has zero feedback which makes the optics bad? I would think a lot of non traditional ebay buyers and PWCC customers would have come out of the woodwork to purchase this card.

I guess one theory is with so many eyes on this auction; the real buyer may not have wanted anyone to know who they are so they created a new account and was approved by Brent. Bad optics true; but if they wanted the card; that's the way to do it.

There's dumb, dumber, dumbest and then there's something beyond even that. With law enforcement presumably watching PWCC's every move, coupled with them being advised by astute defense counsel, for PWCC to even contemplate doing anything not entirely kosher with this sale would fall into the "beyond even that" category.

Steven, I hear you, and in most normal cases I totally agree with you. However, this is a unique time for PWCC and I would just think prudence dictates that the optics of all transactions, especially the high profile ones, look normal/proper.

Peter - very nice! But I am going to keep posting Without or Without a better avatar.

I see what you did there!:)

Like trying to sell an altered T3 Cobb in a PSA 2 slab with a bullshit addendum buried at the bottom, and claiming the numerical grade was appropriate? And trying to convince Jesse it was ok, and only taking it down when he insisted?

That said, on a sale of this magnitude, I would hope he walked the line.

What are the odds on this; Back in the vault will be relisted down the road

Wonder if the winning bidder is a member or a new member of the famed "buying group".

Impressive appreciation in the asset. Maybe back in Feb had Heritage been involved in a massive hobby scandal the card would have sold for more.

the only thing inflammatory is the hemorrhoids from your mouth. Thousands and thousand of trimmed cards that He personally scammed people. And a ZER0 feedback bidder bids 1/2 million on a card. Yeah right

Dammit, trashed another keyboard laughing and drinking at the same time. Well played Peter.

You are a real piece of work.

thanks:D

Paging Mark Allen...

It's best to accuse PWCC when there are facts (and there a many cases where there are facts).

It is plausible that someone who doesn't ordinarily use eBay, or wants to make sure he purchases a half a million-dollar item anonymously, signed up just to buy this card.

I deal with the former frequently when I sell current concert posters/prints. Normally they are non-ebay conertgoers scrambling to get a print they just missed since designs change in each city.

Considering PWCC circumstances and the final price, the Mantle buyer hit a good price point. The consigner's ROI was likely not as good as would be expected from PWCC pre-scandal imo, although it was a short turnaround (flip). The buyer has a 14-day NQA return window to examine the card personally and potentially have one or more third parties weigh in. He/she has the backing of ebay, paypal, and PSA. The buyer could choose to challenge PSA directly on its guarantee.

Under those circumstances, I don't find the purchase to be much of a risk, on the contrary it seems a perfect time for an astute buyer to get a nice Mantle.

I could be mistaken, but didn't PSA claim to have $700K in reserves for their potential "Guarantee" payout?

If that figure is correct, this one card would wipe out 71.4% of their total reserves. Not that they'd ever actually pay out, but that would be a hoot, if it happened. :D

If PSA reexamines it and determines "the card can no longer receive a numerical grade under PSA's standards" it guarantees to "buy the card from the submitter at the current market value." I think determining that value is going to involve a judge.

especially since the card has been soaked in bleach or peroxide and had the corners trimmed, IMHO...and won by a bidder with ZERO feedback.:D:D:D

You can't make this stuff up...

Did you happen to notice that the underbidder, who bid $100 less, has feedback of 1315? So do you think that means for the extra $100 Brent decided to pull a maneuver or that perhaps a guy with zero feedback just happened to win the auction?

I mean I know everyone wants to crucify the guy but 10 seconds of checking eBay and a little common sense can show you this isn’t the one to pick on.

You can’t make this stuff up.

I'm waiting to see if this same card will be relisted within the next few months by same seller.

The skeptics are saying it was a fake bid... attempting to drive the price up further. So the actual price realized would not be an extra $100... it would be a "no sale".
PWCC has already admitted to, and attempted to justify shill bidding.

That said... I think it's very possible that a legitimate "zero feedback" person was made aware of the auction, and was authorized to bid. It's not like a card of this magnitude is widely available, and a distinct possibility that a non-ebayer would want it. So while it does raise suspicion, I agree it's best we stick with discussing concrete evidence and facts, and what we KNOW to be true (which is a lot... and keeps mounting with no perceptible end in sight).