Brent Huigens - PWCC. Do you really want to keep this game up? I'm ready boss.

[Bliggity]

[shernan30]

This kind of stuff is getting old.

[hangman62]

still have no idea what this is about

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by Bliggity

That is the funniest I've seen in a while!!



Spring 2015: Sold in REA as an SGC 50 for $6600 to Brent (according to Betsy from PWCC "for an unnamed client" - a request to confirm the unnamed client has no ownership interest in PWCC has not been responded to)

Question - Has anyone on here had any dialogue with Brent about purchasing cards for them from other AH's? Is this a service he offers or something he has done for anyone?

August 2015: Sold privately by Brent to Courtney as a PSA 7 for $75k (Betsy from PWCC states that this was on behalf of another client (it has not been clarified how the card made it from alleged client 1 to alleged client 2), Courtney the buyer states that Brent represented the card was owned by him personally). It was between the Robert Edward purchase and the Courtney purchase that the card was altered and jumped from an SGC 50 to a PSA 7.

Speculation - Brent had the card altered and submitted to PSA (the submission is fact) and at this point Brent is +$68,400 (less shipping, alteration and grading fees)


Oct 2016: Consigned by Courtney to Goldin and won by John Perez for $46,800

Courtney -$28,200
Brent - +$68,400

Feb 2017: Consigned by John to Brent and sold to unknown buyer for $52,300 (after which according to Betsy from PWCC - buyer returns card to PWCC who is "taking the loss" on the card)

Courtney -$28,200
Brent +$16,100 ($68,400 - $52,300)
John +1,300.


Speculation:

The "loss" on the last sale still leaves Brent +$16,100 from the original sale to Courtney. The card conveniently for PWCC - "disappears". If PWCC is truly innocent, it only makes sense that they go to PSA looking for reimbursement of the sale price - as PSA missed the alteration and $52,300 is A LOT of money........unless PSA would be able to come back and prove that in fact PWCC did or contracted for the alteration - giving them a solid argument not to pay. By not pursuing it, PWCC conveniently avoids this potentially more visible and costly public relations nightmare. I think PWCC has created a story about the "unnamed clients", believing it allows them "plausible deniability". PWCC tries to spin it that they are "doing the right thing" by taking the card back and refunding it's latest purchaser, when it actually conveniently leaves the card in their hands, Brent +$16,100 and Courtney out $28,200 (leaving him starting this thread and understandably upset).

Would be really curious to hear PSA weigh in on the conversation. Unfortunately, I presume PWCC is one of their best customers and they have a vested interest in finding a way to cover their own ass while protecting PWCC.



This situation raises a number of questions:

1) Is it illegal to alter a card, make no representation about it and let a grading company grade do the talking? What if it is ungraded? Some have suggested "removing what is not supposed to be there is okay" - curious to hear opinions - where is the line? soaking to get rid of paper or scrap book residue? removing tape? removing stains? removing creases? whitening? trimming? Coloring? replacing missing pieces? Does it make a difference if the card is $50 or $50,000?

2) I like the idea of doing something similar to what CGC does - a separate color label with details of alteration (these comic books sell for less than unaltered books in the same grade) - Clearly the grading companies have a harder time detecting alteration? - or just choose to ignore it?


2) If PSA's policy is it will not grade cards it determines are altered, then like many have raised, why is the Gretzky Wagner still in the PSA population?

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by hcv123

That is the funniest I've seen in a while!!

I do what I can.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by hcv123

That is the funniest I've seen in a while!!



Spring 2015: Sold in REA as an SGC 50 for $6600 to Brent (according to Betsy from PWCC "for an unnamed client" - a request to confirm the unnamed client has no ownership interest in PWCC has not been responded to)

Question - Has anyone on here had any dialogue with Brent about purchasing cards for them from other AH's? Is this a service he offers or something he has done for anyone?

August 2015: Sold privately by Brent to Courtney as a PSA 7 for $75k (Betsy from PWCC states that this was on behalf of another client (it has not been clarified how the card made it from alleged client 1 to alleged client 2), Courtney the buyer states that Brent represented the card was owned by him personally). It was between the Robert Edward purchase and the Courtney purchase that the card was altered and jumped from an SGC 50 to a PSA 7.

Speculation - Brent had the card altered and submitted to PSA (the submission is fact) and at this point Brent is +$68,400 (less shipping, alteration and grading fees)


Oct 2016: Consigned by Courtney to Goldin and won by John Perez for $46,800

Courtney -$28,200
Brent - +$68,400

Feb 2017: Consigned by John to Brent and sold to unknown buyer for $52,300 (after which according to Betsy from PWCC - buyer returns card to PWCC who is "taking the loss" on the card)

Courtney -$28,200
Brent +$16,100 ($68,400 - $52,300)
John +1,300.


Speculation:

The "loss" on the last sale still leaves Brent +$16,100 from the original sale to Courtney. The card conveniently for PWCC - "disappears". If PWCC is truly innocent, it only makes sense that they go to PSA looking for reimbursement of the sale price - as PSA missed the alteration and $52,300 is A LOT of money........unless PSA would be able to come back and prove that in fact PWCC did or contracted for the alteration - giving them a solid argument not to pay. By not pursuing it, PWCC conveniently avoids this potentially more visible and costly public relations nightmare. I think PWCC has created a story about the "unnamed clients", believing it allows them "plausible deniability". PWCC tries to spin it that they are "doing the right thing" by taking the card back and refunding it's latest purchaser, when it actually conveniently leaves the card in their hands, Brent +$16,100 and Courtney out $28,200 (leaving him starting this thread and understandably upset).

Would be really curious to hear PSA weigh in on the conversation. Unfortunately, I presume PWCC is one of their best customers and they have a vested interest in finding a way to cover their own ass while protecting PWCC.



This situation raises a number of questions:

1) Is it illegal to alter a card, make no representation about it and let a grading company grade do the talking? What if it is ungraded? Some have suggested "removing what is not supposed to be there is okay" - curious to hear opinions - where is the line? soaking to get rid of paper or scrap book residue? removing tape? removing stains? removing creases? whitening? trimming? Coloring? replacing missing pieces? Does it make a difference if the card is $50 or $50,000?

2) I like the idea of doing something similar to what CGC does - a separate color label with details of alteration (these comic books sell for less than unaltered books in the same grade) - Clearly the grading companies have a harder time detecting alteration? - or just choose to ignore it?


2) If PSA's policy is it will not grade cards it determines are altered, then like many have raised, why is the Gretzky Wagner still in the PSA population?

The prior thread has extensive discussions on issue #1. And as far as I know, PSA has never made a determination the Wagner is altered. Mastro acknowledges he trimmed it, but I have not seen PSA acknowledging this.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The prior thread has extensive discussions on issue #1. And as far as I know, PSA has never made a determination the Wagner is altered. Mastro acknowledges he trimmed it, but I have not seen PSA acknowledging this.

Nor will they ever!

I think, although this is not breaking news, that the 2 parties being discussed in this thread are more than just acquaintances.

Still a ton of unanswered questions from both parties, and although one has attempted to clear the air, so to speak, the other has been silent.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by irv

Nor will they ever!

I think, although this is not breaking news, that the 2 parties being discussed in this thread are more than just acquaintances.

Still a ton of unanswered questions from both parties, and although one has attempted to clear the air, so to speak, the other has been silent.

PSA is notorious for avoiding public discussion and shutting down dissent on its own board. It seems to be the right judgment, as business is thriving. Similarly, I doubt the issues some of us have with PWCC have much if any impact on its business.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Perhaps if those who sell on EBay, link to the threads here, it may.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by irv

Still a ton of unanswered questions from both parties

Not really. I think both parties have explained their side pretty well. Answers only lead to more and more questions. That's pretty obvious. Where does it end? At this point I think we have enough information to draw our own conclusions.

That's just my opinion.

[swarmee]

Again, the main unanswered question is when Brent gets the card back from the buyer, will he crack it out of the PSA 7 case? If not, it's still a problem as PSA has disavowed the card. It could still be sold as a PSA 7 in a private sale, even though it technically isn't anymore.

I would bet PSA and Brent will probably come to a settlement that allows them both to show that the card was removed from the holder and both split the loss. PSA has bought back cards graded in error before when called on it, especially since they're financially liable to losses based on the insurance policy covering their grades.

Another good question is whether or not any of the buyers of the other cards in that submission asked for and received refunds due to the possibility of them having been altered and bumped. If so, those prices in VCP are now bogus, as the sale never actually took place. Or whether the buyers of those cards were even informed about the bumps/possible cleaning.

[PowderedH2O]

I'll ask the stupid question. Comments have been made about soaking being ok if it is with water, but not with other chemicals. So why is one ok and not the other?

To me it is like taking a shower. I can just use water, or I can choose to use shampoo and soap. Either way, it is still just me underneath. Nothing changed. Is a card so much different?

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by PowderedH2O

I'll ask the stupid question. Comments have been made about soaking being ok if it is with water, but not with other chemicals. So why is one ok and not the other?

To me it is like taking a shower. I can just use water, or I can choose to use shampoo and soap. Either way, it is still just me underneath. Nothing changed. Is a card so much different?

Yes. Chemicals can cause the paper, ink or other materials to degrade faster and cause physical harm long term, not otherwise seen in the immediate short term. One such similar example may be like rusting. Its not rusty now, but once it starts rusting, it will continue to get worse and worse.

[swarmee]

Not a stupid question, but one that's been asked over and over again on this board and elsewhere. And it's still being debated, but the current accepted practice is that soaking in just water is acceptable, while using chemicals is not.

Some people think erasure is okay and many do not. One of the most open card doctors is a member of this site, and to my knowledge, has never been banned.

Without soaking, high grade vintage cards become almost impossible. With soaking, they can be removed from scrapbooks and present very nicely, and are accepted across the community.