Really Kevin...you're hijacking this thread...maybe if you posted scans or a link in your thread there'd be response...I'm too lazy to seek them out.

Are you an idiot or what? 2 high profile cards like PSA 7 Uzits? Maybe you should take a nap....

I'm the idiot?

Here we go again....game on

Pete- All I was doing was making a comment about 2 high profile cards. Sorry if I offended....

Lol! :rolleyes:

So edgy.

1

:D

1

The cards were not removed from the auction.

The Wagner sold for 165K less than it did a few years ago.

Here's one of the Uzits...........

http://milehighcardco.com/1909_11_T2...-LOT38866.aspx

Doesn't look like tape removal. Looks like it was in a scrapbook with the little corner holders to me. Not sure how that warrants a 7 with the discoloration since PSA is so consistent on doling out grades, but not as egregious as the others............

Tom, that's exactly what it is. Just discoloration from being in a scrapbook under hinges. SGC would have given that card a 30.

I could see a '5' maybe. Anyone paying $11K for a common Uzit knows what they're getting into and the backs were plain to see.

Agree on all counts - except I have such a card with razor-sharp corners and a back with hinge stains which received a 30. I thought it deserved a 5 as well but as you point out, what's the difference? Anyone with eyes can see what's going on there.

Ouch, might have been better off pulling it.

Maybe. There is a loose definition of "sold" in this hobby

Well that's very true. Maybe some of the senior hobby members on Net 54 who are always rubbing their temples and bemoaning their concern about the future of the hobby can comment on this phenomenon.

Mile High clearly discloses that some lots have reserves. So if (and I have no idea) there was a reserve and the card did not meet it there is no issue.

d) Minimum Bids- Each and every lot within the auction does have a minimum bid designated in both the catalog as well as online. A very few of the lots in the auction have a reserve price (please note the vast majority of the lots within the auction do not have a reserve price) A reserve price is the confidential minimum price that a consignor will accept before they will sell the material, this means that a bid of equal or greater than the confidential reserve must be placed for a succesful bid to be accepted on that lot. MHCC may implement this reserve by bidding on behalf of the consignor and may place a bid up to the amount of the reserve, by placing succesive bids if necessary. In the limited instances where MHCC has a financial interest in a lot beyond our commision we may place a bid to protect our financial interest. Reserves when in place will be pre-determined and set within the auction software prior to the start of the auction. Again, please note the vast majority of the lots in every auction will be offered without a confidential reserve in place. For all items in the auction (unless an item is withdrawn during the auction)without a reserve they will be sold to the highest bidder at or above the minimum bid.

Another Major AH "protecting" their best interests by bidding on their own lots.

If it's disclosed, there is no fraud. People can make an informed decision whether they want to bid or not, knowing there is the potential for the AH to bid up to the reserve. It would still be better, in my view, just to put the reserve as the opening bid, but AHs don't seem to ever want to do that.

I suppose one could also argue that this style of auction can create some pricing misinformation, for lots that didn't meet reserve, but I don't see that as a legal issue.

So the way I'm reading that disclaimer...potentially...A consigner could negotiate a deal with said AH where in exchange for their consignment...the AH will receive buyer fees + for example...1% of the selling price as incentive for the AH to set a large reserve and help bid the lots up past that point.

Sounds like a good deal for the consigner to me!!!!

There was a high profile card I really wanted in their auction but withheld bidding because their policy scares me away.

IMO there is a pretty fine line between protecting interest.....and shilling, just disclosure it seems.

In real life gatherings such people wouldn't be invited to the gathering, or would at least not get a second invite. This is part of the price we pay for the right to be bombarded quickly with more information than we could ever possibly need.

As far as expecting more outrage over trimmed cards, many of us gave up long ago on holdered NM pre-war cards. I now assume they are all trimmed.

In real life gatherings, people that try to impose their values on someone else usually get put in their place. I find nothing wrong with soaking a card to remove a stain to increase its value and, I think if you conducted a fair poll, many others feel the same way. If that violates your morals, so be it - don't participate in that activity - but don't come on here and tell others that they shouldn't do it.

You and I are in agreement about soaking cards, but I don't see a problem with someone adamantly disagreeing with me about it. The issue to me is the difference in the way people express themselves in real life vs the internet. Flaming and trolling are out in real life, as is word manipulation and parsing. I am still amazed that people use those last two techniques in discussion forums - anyone with half a brain can see through them.

Also, in a discussion forum, the only way to be guaranteed a civil 'real life'-type conversation, is to do it via PM. Any public discussion is subject to almost any type of behavior imaginable. But I guess having a public discussion on the internet, trying to solicit good conversationalists would be akin to standing up in a coffee shop and yelling "excuse me - anyone here want to talk about card soaking? No assholes please."

You get the bad with the good.

It's fruitless to have any real discussion on Net 54 about these issues because half the people have engaged in the very fraud being discussed. And while some will keep their mouths shut in order to not risk being outed, many others will do all that they can to obfuscate the issue, misdirect, or argue in favor of the fraud ("it's no big deal") in a useless attempt to get the heat off their area of fraud. Very tough to find genuinely objective people out here with no ulterior motives on these issues. The sad truth is the majority of hobbyists who have been buying and selling cards for decades have engaged in either shill bidding or card alteration, tax fraud, etc. relating to the hobby.

This. The Mile High Disclaimer should cause concern for bidders, not sure why more folks don't read the fine print of these AH's.

This thread is choke full of good stuff. Can we unwind this a little and educate me on how this works:

1.) Does PSA (TPG's) currently use any equipment during the grading process to detect any kind of chemical modification to a card; (Yes, don't know, No? If I'm buying +$5k pre-war cards, wouldn't this be good information.

2.) If PSA offered another level of grading service that detected the slightest bit of chemical alteration; and then slabbed the cards that passed with a distinguishing cert number for the grade (CU; Chemically Unaltered), would that be beneficial or detrimental to the hobby? I do not believe "authentic" answers this question.

The big elephant in this thread; when does TPG technology become sophisticated enough that EXISTING SLABBED cards from (pre-war?) need to be resubmitted to quell the buyers. That day is coming, and buyers will eventually determine that timeframe.



OK, my first post here....that was easy.

I just wanted to add another type of fraud to the laundry list: consignors working with the auction house as co-conspirators to “pretend sell” items when no sale of any kind has occurred or in any way could even be interpreted as occurring, no invoice is even generated, no commissions are paid, nothing; the sale is just reported, and the item is secretly funneled back to the consignor at no transaction cost, but now with a reported historical auction sale price to reference, potentially making it easier for the consignor to sell his card at a later date (note: in this type of scheme, if the auction house/consignor shill bids were high enough, and had been sufficiently topped by a real bidder, then a sale would have occurred, though the winning bidder would have been cheated).

Man, this is depressing. :(

If you think cards are bad try memorabilia. :D

I am not sure why the MH disclosure is an issue. It seemed clear enough to me. Very similar, I think, to Heritage's rules but I have not done a side by side. I think there are others as well. If you don't like it, you don't have to bid, I think all a bidder can ask is to know the rules and not to have stuff going on out of sight. If an AH doesn't misrepresent anything, and doesn't conceal anything material, it seems to me there is no cause for complaint.

As for TPGs, their fees really are quite low, and you get what you pay for. I doubt they will offer a more thorough review for a premium because that would tend to undermine the integrity of their regular review. But I don't know.

Ok so to get back to the original topic real quick, I'm still VERY confused about the Wagner.

So is the claim that the PSA 9, PSA 8.5 and PSA 7.5 and PSA 6 are all the same Wagner? Then can someone explain to me how this timeline makes sense?

2008: the PSA 9 wager sells at memory lane

2012: the PSA 8.5 wagner sells at Greg Bussineau

2015: the psa 9 Wagner surfaces again in the same holder from 2008 and sells at mile high

So if the PSA 9 Wagner was around in 2008 and 2015 in the same holder, then the psa 8.5 Wagner from 2012 must be a unique specimen, NOT the same card in the PSA 9 case. It seems like the assumption was that the 8.5 was resubbed to get the 9, but it doesn't seem like they can possibly be the same card. Unless I'm really missing something.

And yet the PSA 8.5 and 9 look identical, down to the black "hickey" to the right of their heads. If they are nearly indistinguishable, then isn't it feasible that the PSA 6 Wagner and PSA 9 Wagner also just look indistinguishable, and are not the same card at all?

Peter, Jeff, someone... can you explain to me what I'm missing?

8.5 has some white specks against the red background that the 9 doesn't seem to have?

The original poster only claimed the Wagner 6 and 9 were the same card. The other two cards came up later in the thread. What you have shown, however, is that simply because there is a similar mark on the two cards and they look virtually identical does not mean they are the same card.

Also, I am still confused how the claim about the three Cobbs. How could the certified 50082114 and 50082116 cards be the same since presumably they were submitted together. And then how does a card with a corner that needs to be rebuilt pass and become a 9?

Exactly. I mean honestly I would have SWORN that the 8.5 and the 9 were the same card, but I would have been wrong (I noticed the wear on the 8.5 but attributed that to the saturation of the image or the scanner). And I think the 8.5 looks a lot closer to the 9 than the 6 does...

So if that's the case, it seems really difficult to make the claim that just because the PSA 6 and the PSA 9 look nearly identical that they must be the same card. That being said of course it's totally still possible, just not as sure a thing as I think many realize.

Again, I see specks on the 8.5 but not the 9, along the top border and in the upper left quadrant. Maybe it's the scan. But I see them.

Of course they're different, but that's not the point. It's their similarities that are significant.

I mean, imagine if the 8.5 didn't have those little specks. It would look exactly the same as the 9, you would swear they were the same card. They have nearly everything else in common. Same registration, centering, printing defects (hickey), etc. I would have thought that two cards with unique provenances from the e93 set could not possibly have so many features in common.

But they aren't the same card. And if Wagner already has one (nearly) identical twin, who's to say the 6 just isn't another card with the same registration, centering, printing defects etc. as the 8.5 and the 9?

In your prior post you said they looked "identical." Sorry but I am now confused as to your point.

Also, my assumption is that Lichtman is relying on more than scans to suggest the 6 and 9 are the same card.

going with this one by Peter
 

this thread reminds me a bit of the telephone game. Not quite sure what anyone is saying at this point - some of the argument seems to be lost in the translation and between too many cards............

Ok, let me clarify. People were saying "look how many similarities there are between the psa 6 and the 9, they must be the same card! Look at the registration! The centering! Look at the printing defect next to Wagner's head! They must be the same card!"

But all the similarities people are pointing out are also shared by the 8.5 and the 9, making all the similarities meaningless if you're trying to use them as evidence that the 6 and the 9 are the same card since we know that the 8.5 and the 9 are unique, individual specimens.

Must the 6 and the 9 be the same card because they share the same centering, registration, hickey etc? NO, because the 8.5 also has all those same features and but is not the same card. Therefore it would be faulty logic to assume that on the basis of their similarities the 6 and the 9 must be the same card, because the same similarities are shared by the 8.5 and the 9, which we know for a fact are not the same card.

That being said, I know you're saying there might be more evidence somewhere, but without it there seems to be absolutely no basis to assume they are the same card. It is however, entirely possible that they are of course and that someone doctored it. My only point is that their physical similarities are not enough to justify that claim alone. Which surprises me, because I would have though that two cards from the e93 set that shared so many similarities would have to be the same card, but the 8.5 and the 9 proves that that assumption is just not true.

Well I would assume PSA would have caught recoloring, so the 8.5 CAN'T be the same card as the 9, whereas there is no inconsistency between the 6 and the 9.

But to your broader point, I guess I was considering as part of the evidence the confidence with which the thread was posted, knowing it could potentially hamper the then-active auction of a card that had sold in 6 figures. And not just the scans.

I agree, PSA definitely would have caught that. But when the 8.5 and 9 were printed, they were printed identically. Before someone scuffed the front on the 8.5, those cards were indistinguishable from one another. At that point it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to imagine that the 6 and the 8.5 and the 9 were at one time indistinguishable from one another, right when they were made at the factory. We know the 8.5 was scuffed and the 9 survived pretty well. It could just be the case that the 6 was a third identical card that wound up with some caramel stains from being packaged.

I guess most people would say, "well duh." But I actually think it's surprising, since I've never seen cards from that set (or other sets from that era with low populations) that have examples of cards with IDENTICAL printing patterns/defects/etc (differences in condition aside).

And yea, I totally see the reason why someone wouldn't want to disclose the evidence. I just really want to know, because despite all my doubts I cannot deny that the 6 and the 9 being the same card is certainly plausible. The cynic in me would even say it's likely, given the shadiness of the hobby.