Really, PWCC?
 

Shady.

I'm not a PWCC hater and I bid in their auctions, but I have to call shenanigans on this. I expect this from bottom-feeder eBay sellers, but was very surprised to see PWCC describe a "? AUTHTCT" card as "PSA AUTH" in both the listing title and item description.

Now, I understand their point that the card looks legit, and I agree that the card looks good, especially assuming that it came from the same collection as the dozens of other E cards of similar condition in the current auction. But don't tell us it's a "PSA AUTH" card when that's the opposite of what PSA determined. Yeesh.

But they are confident it is real.:rolleyes:


EDIT: Also kind of weird that the zoom option was disabled for that listing.

I don't consider myself an expert on that particular set, but from what I can see the card looks real to me, FWIW. Grading companies are not infallible.

I"m guessing it was an error on their part. Why not send them an e-mail and let us know what transpires?

I agree, which gave me pause about the language in the listing. But then either send it back in or just list it raw and guarantee its authenticity.

Yes, I agree the title of the auction should be changed to better reflect the grade (non grade) status. From the auction title, you'd think it was graded Authentic.

Done. Will update when I get a response.

Card looks real to me also. PSA blew it. I guess PWCC just wanted to be as transparent as possible.

If they are being so transparent why is the zoom option disabled on this auction but is not on their other listings. That has to be done on purpose.

They're not being transparent. Yes, they showed the flip, but they're clearly saying that PSA deemed it authentic, when that's not true. I agree that maybe it was a mistake. They haven't answered my inquiry yet.

To me it looks like they are showing PSA said it wasn't authentic with the "?", by showing the flip, and they are saying it is authentic. But yes they could have been more clear on the title.

Hi,

I was interested in this card, but definitely not any more. I think the wording on this card is 'intentionally clever'.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T206...cAAOSwMtxXwixY

What the hell is a "small paper pull"? What does that even mean? If you have a big card like this, would you want to give a better explanation of the problem. You can't zoom in far enough to really see what is going on.

Is this one with a large paper pull?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/T206-Miller-...gAAOSw3xJVcOcY

Phillip Abbott

I had some interest in this card until examination revealed those " lines" adjacent to his chin and the " paper pull" on the back. That's paper loss. Its a nice card but WAY over graded.

I don't buy questionable "?" authentic cards, but holy crap, can't PSA be more clear in the flip. the have the word "authentic" in the flip for frick sake. Really? That's just plain dumb. And the the question mark "?" before the word "authentic" is suppose to be a prefix?

Note to PSA, just say "unknown origination" and lose the word "authentic" in the flip. Stop with the hieroglyphics.

I wish all grading companies would just call them what they are, a reprint. Whether it's authorized or not, if it is made much, much later, not from the original mfg, and isn't real it is a reprint. That would look good on the labels..

PWCC follow up
 

Thanks to the board for flagging this. The title of this listing is indeed misleading and was a sloppy oversight on our part.

We are going to end the listing.

Brent Huigens
PWCC Auctions,LLC

all of this hullabaloo for a $100 card.

Hey Brent, thanks for the follow-up. :)

I would love to see the Cobb listed as missing paper which means it is roughly a PSA 2, and not a PSA 6, instead of the clever wording that is in place, to get people to bid as if it was a PSA 6.

Phil

But it IS a PSA 6! Even with the light scuffing on back, which PWCC called our attention to, it's still a 6! That's a major over-grade by their own standards or even by SGC's grading standards. You would think since it is Cobb, that it would be more strictly graded, but sheesh . . . I guess not.

The problem is not that it is in a 6 slab. It is that they use the wording 'paper pull' to describe paper 'loss'.

You can go onto Ebay and buy the winning McDonald's boardwalk game board game piece. You get a cut out of the game board. Same thing here. It is intentionally worded tricky to get maximum dollar for a card that does not deserve it. When was the last time you heard any paper loss called a 'pull'

Its intentionally worded too lighten the blow of the word 'paper loss' and help hide the fact the fact it is highly over graded. Additionally, I am sort of shocked that he would come here to address a problem, and leave this one, unattended.

Nothing like drawing the clock down on it. I know I am new here, but seriously. Leaving this unanswered is shameful at a minimum.

I think that assessment is a little harsh. PWCC didn't grade the card, and it certainly wouldn't be good for business to post a description saying something like "this card is way over graded." If that was your consignment I don't think you would appreciate it.

I have seen many auction houses use creative wording that makes flaws sound less severe than they are. Or not mention them at all. At least he drew some attention to it. It's up to the bidders to decide if it's worth PSA 6 money or not. It looks like at least a few bidders have decided it is.

I do prefer this description to one with three paragraphs about the history of t206 cards and a sentence or two about the actual card.

I do not have any problem with what PSA put on the flip. Authentic cards are slabbed and have a flip that states such. This sleeve is not intended to be sold with whatever card someone chooses to put with it. The card was not sealed in so there is no proof that this reprint was even the reprint that was sent in. PSA is not stating that it is a reprint, just that it is their opinion that the card is not original. They could be mistaken. I have had SGC return cards to me because they did not think that they were real and then slab them later when I pointed out what why the card was what I said that it was on the sub.

The other problem was brought to his attention directly. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess Brent doesn't always have time to monitor these boards looking for issues people may have with his listings.

I politely disagree.
If any TPG knows something isn't real they should state it. They shouldn't leave something like "? AUT" on the flip. It can be interpreted different ways. They should know this by now. And the "reprint" designation should be reserved for ones they are sure of. If they aren't sure then they should say "Not sure" :)..... I would respect them more for that then what they do now. BTW, Beastmode and I feel the same way....

I agree with you, Leon. And this has been discussed before. It's nothing new...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=221667

This is all the fault of PSA. They either lack the balls or intelligence to label a card for what it really is - a reprint, counterfeit, fake (or whatever term you want to use to describe it). Look at the Wagner (first post in the link just above). Why not just label it for what it is? Why call it questionable authenticity? There is nothing questionable about it. The term 'questionable' leaves room for hope. Keep drinking that PSA Kool Aid, guys!

As for Brent's listing, I saw the card and I believe it's absolutely authentic.

I assume PSA leaves it vague on advice of their lawyers because they want to skirt a potential lawsuit and avoid having the curtain pulled back on the man behind the screen pulling the levers. To me saying "authenticity questioned" is probably as much as they can say in a lot of cases, even where they strongly suspect fraud.

I think there is a way to be vague about the questionable authenticity and prevent scam artists from abusing the PSA brand.

Buyers mistake "?AUTH" as "there is a possibility that this is authentic" when this isn't the case. PSA should either return the card without a flip (like BVG) or issue a flip that adds no value to a counterfeit card.

PSA labeled the card "? AUT" which is shorthand for "Questionable Authenticity". That is a polite way of saying that the card is a 'fake'. That being said, I strongly believe PSA blew it, just like Brent thought. The card appears to be the real deal, and would likely be reholdered properly upon a return trip to PSA, or even SGC for that matter. Case closed.

There are other polite ways of saying it though that don't leave room for hope. To me, the term 'questionable' leaves room for hope in the mind of the buyer. If you look at a PSA/DNA rejection letter it states, "After a thorough examination of your item we regret to report your item did not pass PSA/DNA authentication." Pretty clear to me. So, if they're going to issue a flip with a card that doesn't pass authentication, why not just put "Did Not Pass Authentication" on the flip?

Entirely too long. Their computer program can't handle all those characters.

DNP Auth? :D

Did Not Pass Authentication

The problem is that a ?AUTH flip also has the card information included.

If a counterfeit 1952 Topps Mantle is submitted the flip reads: "1952 Topps # 311 Mickey Mantle <serial number> ?AUTH"

It's confusing to the casual collector and misleading to more experienced collectors. It should just read "Not deemed Authentic" instead of the card year/player name/number. A serial number can still be issued that links the cert lookup to a general explanation of what "Not deemed Authentic" means.

Um, a LOT of people on this board think that it is indeed the case in this instance.

I have been reading the board for a little while before having this be my first few posts.

I don't think its a matter of whether or not I would "like it" if it were my card. I would expect the same thing to happen to me, or anyone else if they submitted a card like this with this problem. I have been reading threads here about honesty, integrity, and calling attention to problems without shading the situation for good or bad.

Here is, without a doubt, a perfect example of it. You have a high dollar, big name player in a fantastic shape and tough grade to get, being sold in a case does not hold par for its grade on it, and being sold by a company who a lot of people here don't revere as a solid seller for doing enough to protect their auction buyers from fraud......and tricky wording is "harsh"?

Then, on top of that, in this thread, the problem is mentioned by me(regardless of specifically brought to his attention or not), he joins the board to comment on the thread, and skips right over it without addressing it??

"Seriously" is right.
Phil

I meant your statement that his lack of a response to your question was "shameful at a minimum" was a little harsh. If you'll re-read the thread you'll notice he responded before you made your comment. He only did so because a couple of us emailed him directly to notify him about the PSA Auth listing and this thread. Chances are he hasn't even seen your comment. If you feel the wording of the Cobb listing is a problem email him, or give him a call and see what he says. His phone number and email address is listed on the pwcc website.

With all due respect Phil, this thread was about an "?authentic" card. You piped in somewhere along the way about a card being misrepresented, asking for an explanation from Brent. You have a worthy complaint, but it's not Brent's job to hold conversations on net54.

I think you should write to PWCC direct, and if you don't like the explanation, start another thread about "linguistic embellishment"; which seems to be the soup du jour with ALL auctions houses and e-bay sellers these days. Remember, they're all selling-whores, trying to get the best price for their clients while straddling the line of descriptive exuberance.