3. I think you are wrong on this account. After speaking with an attorney just now (not about this particular thing) this question came up. Statement absolutely could have meant the bid would be so low someone else will beat you anyway....that comment is commonplace in the hobby.
4. Value of the card actually went up AFTER this thread started. This card is probably worth just about what the selling price has been, imo, stain or no stain. I could see the PWCC buyer asking for a return but that is it. And I think that this particular card, even with transparency of the stain, will be worth as much or more in the future. Others will disagree....
6. I have never had any "tacit' approval from SGC or anyone, anywhere to erase anything. If a mark is erased, and it can't be seen any longer AND there is no indention from it, NO grader can discount for it. So if that is a tacit approval, ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swarmee
It's been a while since I've posted in this thread, so here are my current thoughts:
1) The vast majority of people reading this thread probably think board member Dick Towle cleaned these cards, whether or not it's been stated in the thread. He is the most visible self-promoter of cleaning stains out of cards, and he claims to do it not to make them more valuable, but to allow people to enjoy their prized items more. The link I quoted about him being giddy about improving a 4 into a 7 seem to discount that premise.
2) There is definite egg on PWCC's face, and it's surprising to me that no one in hundreds of posts has even alluded to the fact that they used to promote California sales tax fraud and consignor's "hidden reserve" bidding on eBay when they started.
3) To the common man, both Brent and Cortney seem liable for different things, but as PWCC is a multimillion dollar company, they stand the greatest to lose. Their request to "take the high bid; it will get outbid" could be loose talk among friends, but I would think a jury would read it as direction to shill the auction and that they have another party willing to bid/push it higher.
4) I'm surprised the winner of the auction has not come on here or been identified. I'm wondering if PWCC will contact them directly and at least inform them of the thread and the likely decrease in value of this card in the future, and give the buyer the option to return the card. I realize this would hurt the consignor of the card, who is a member of this board.
5) I was glad that PWCC claimed to have the card re-inspected by PSA, but the timeline doesn't really add up unless they happened to do walk-through service and hand-delivered the card to PSA. Was the card given a new case and Cert number; if so, that would require the addition of a new set of scans uploaded to the auction. PSA claims that toning is not highly evaluated when scoring a card, unless it is uneven or causes an eyesore. I believe this card (if unaltered) could be a 7, since they are lenient on centering. Oddly enough, it probably couldn't be a 6.5. It could have also been knocked to a 7(MK) or a 5 due to the light stains on the back top.
6) As it currently stands, soaking a card in distilled water is an approved technique to clean up a card and a number grade should still be given to cards that have been soaked. However, cleaning with anything other than water is not accepted by the vast majority of the buyers of cards. I am not experienced enough in vintage cards to say whether or not this card was professionally cleaned with something other than water, but I can believe it. It still doesn't seem to be accepted for people to erase pencil marks from cards, despite the board host's doing it on his cards and having tacit approval from SGC (based on a previous thread, I believe). I believe PSA will still give erasure marks a (MK) designation if they detect erasures.
|