PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Leaving aside whether it should have been graded at all, the grade is generous but not indefensible. There are lots of cards where the number grade is marginal but technically accurate.

Leon, what's your opinion on the disclosure issue?

I would disclose things I have done to a card as I have before. I have never sent any card off to be cleaned or conserved. I routinely use water, Q tip and a Mars Plastic eraser. Those are my tools of trade and the only ones I find personally acceptable. That Dimaggio doesn't look out of place in a 7 holder to me. And if if there is nothing to detect, minus the shadow left, I don't know how any sane person can fault a grader for not seeing something that can't be seen. Such idiotic comments ....but then again, we are a microcosm of society. Not much better or worse....

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Leon

I would disclose things I have done to a card as I have before. I have never sent any card off to be cleaned or conserved. I routinely use water, Q tip and a Mars Plastic eraser. Those are my tools of trade and the only ones I find personally acceptable. That Dimaggio doesn't look out of place in a 7 holder to me. And if if there is nothing to detect, minus the shadow left, I don't know how any sane person can fault a grader for not seeing something that can't be seen. Such idiotic comments ....but then again, we are a microcosm of society. Not much better or worse....

What do you think about the images of the text messages from Brent to Cortney?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

I would disclose things I have done to a card as I have before. I have never sent any card off to be cleaned or conserved. I routinely use water, Q tip and a Mars Plastic eraser. Those are my tools of trade and the only ones I find personally acceptable. That Dimaggio doesn't look out of place in a 7 holder to me. And if if there is nothing to detect, minus the shadow left, I don't know how any sane person can fault a grader for not seeing something that can't be seen. Such idiotic comments ....but then again, we are a microcosm of society. Not much better or worse....

So you agree PWCC withheld a material fact, given his prior involvement with and knowledge of the card's history?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So you agree PWCC withheld a material fact, given his prior involvement with and knowledge of the card's history?

I am not being interrogated here. Please get that straight...same with the previous question from the other member. I said I would disclose things I have had done to a card.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Leon

I am not being interrogated here. Please get that straight...same with the previous question from the other member. I said I would disclose things I have had done to a card.

If you are referring to me, I am not trying to interrogate you. I am merely looking for you opinion. Do you think that Brent has done something wrong? Whether it is the request to bid issue, or not disclosing information about the card.

[Leon]

You comprehended my last statement well. Thank you.

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

If you are referring to me, I am not trying to interrogate you. I am merely looking for you opinion. Do you think that Brent has done something wrong? Whether it is the request to bid issue, or not disclosing information about the card.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

You comprehended my last statement well.

There's a first.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

There's a first.

You have a multi year history of being an idiot on this board based on the posts I have read. At what point do you listen to what other people say about you, over and over again, and leave in pure shame?

I would never be able to show my face in public if everyone I knew through here thought I was a complete moron.

Good lord. Give it up.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Leon

You comprehended my last statement well. Thank you.

So my understanding of this is you don't want to comment because your opinion of it is negative, and they are an advertiser? I am assuming this because you did not have an issue commenting about the cleaning of a card and that the card they sold should be a 7.

[Leon]

I am glad you have your understanding of it.

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

So my understanding of this is you don't want to comment because your opinion of it is negative, and they are an advertiser? I am assuming this because you did not have an issue commenting about the cleaning of a card and that the card they sold should be a 7.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

I am not being interrogated here. Please get that straight...same with the previous question from the other member. I said I would disclose things I have had done to a card.

That seems unnecessarily defensive, Leon. I was simply asking your opinion, as I didn't think you had stated one, and after all you are the moderator and a leading hobby voice.

[1952boyntoncollector]

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1632041]So you agree PWCC withheld a material fact, given his prior involvement with and knowledge of the card's history?[/QUOTE

Leon appeared to say that the card doesnt look out of place in a PSA 7, and PSA was not totally in the wrong for grading the card a 7 So that would mean that someone bought a legit PSA 7. Thats far from scam behavior. Someone bought a PSA 7 and received a PSA 7 as far as the scam side. As far as integrity and civil issues aside, this does not look criminal/scam if some people share those views.

PWCC may of withheld a material fact as well as you keep saying, and other sellers would of disclosed things but that does not change what i said above. Others may disagree but my position is supported as well. The shilling and colluding is another issue.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Leon

That Dimaggio doesn't look out of place in a 7 holder to me. And if if there is nothing to detect, minus the shadow left, I don't know how any sane person can fault a grader for not seeing something that can't be seen. Such idiotic comments ....but then again, we are a microcosm of society. Not much better or worse....

At the risk of your feeling interrogated I think you make a leap of faith when you conclude that there is nothing for PSA to detect. PSA misses stuff all the time, intentionally and not, so without your handling the card yourself after it was cleaned you cannot assume because it is in a holder now that there was nothing to detect.

As far as it being graded accurately, I am one who feels they missed the boat, at it should be in a 6. The remnants of the stain/toning are still there and should not be on a NM card. A card of that magnitude I would expect to have more than a cursory examination.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by botn

At the risk of your feeling interrogated I think you make a leap of faith when you conclude that there is nothing for PSA to detect. PSA misses stuff all the time, intentionally and not, so without your handling the card yourself after it was cleaned you cannot assume because it is in a holder now that there was nothing to detect.

As far as it being graded accurately, I am one who feels they missed the boat, at it should be in a 6. The remnants of the stain/toning are still there and should not be on a NM card. A card of that magnitude I would expect to have more than a cursory examination.

I agree it should be a 6 but its in a gray area.


Peter: If you buy a card raw for 10 dollars at a yard sale and then 'restore' it..and send it in to PSA and get a grade of PSA 7 and now that card is worth $7000, i dont think anyone would say that sale of the card for $7000 wasnt fair or that the sale of the card was a SCAM.

Whats really the difference of buying a card in a SGC holder or a raw card in terms of then having the card restored and graded by PSA

You have to send in the raw card first to PSA and get an 'authentic' and then send it in again 'restored' and get a PSA 7 to now have to disclose the prior grade. The fact that the card got a grade before changes everything?

If the card earns a grade it earns a grade. To quote a football coach, you are what your record is....

You may not agree with what i said about a raw card earning a grade but you have to agree that i have never seen an auction in history talk about a card that was sent in to PSA after it was restored ever.

The only exceptions i can see is if the 'restoring' did something that could be reversed as the card sits in the holder where it would be obvious that in a unreasonable amount of time the card was waaaay overgraded. Like seeing a wrinkle after a year on a PSA 8 etc.

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I agree it should be a 6 but its in a gray area.


Peter: If you buy a card raw for 10 dollars at a yard sale and then 'restore' it..and send it in to PSA and get a grade of PSA 7 and now that card is worth $7000, i dont think anyone would say that sale of the card for $7000 wasnt fair or that the sale of the card was a SCAM.

Whats really the difference of buying a card in a SGC holder or a raw card in terms of then having the card restored and graded by PSA

You have to send in the raw card first to PSA and get an 'authentic' and then send it in again 'restored' and get a PSA 7 to now have to disclose the prior grade. The fact that the card got a grade before changes everything?

If the card earns a grade it earns a grade. To quote a football coach, you are what your record is....

You may not agree with what i said about a raw card earning a grade but you have to agree that i have never seen an auction in history talk about a card that was sent in to PSA after it was restored ever.

The only exceptions i can see is if the 'restoring' did something that could be reversed as the card sits in the holder where it would be obvious that in a unreasonable amount of time the card was waaaay overgraded. Like seeing a wrinkle after a year on a PSA 8 etc.

You mean like t206 mastro Wagner? Look where it got them but that only happens when you didn't do anything that wrong and psa was also innocent in that matter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I agree it should be a 6 but its in a gray area.


Peter: If you buy a card raw for 10 dollars at a yard sale and then 'restore' it..and send it in to PSA and get a grade of PSA 7 and now that card is worth $7000, i dont think anyone would say that sale of the card for $7000 wasnt fair or that the sale of the card was a SCAM.

Whats really the difference of buying a card in a SGC holder or a raw card in terms of then having the card restored and graded by PSA

You have to send in the raw card first to PSA and get an 'authentic' and then send it in again 'restored' and get a PSA 7 to now have to disclose the prior grade. The fact that the card got a grade before changes everything?

If the card earns a grade it earns a grade. To quote a football coach, you are what your record is....

You may not agree with what i said about a raw card earning a grade but you have to agree that i have never seen an auction in history talk about a card that was sent in to PSA after it was restored ever.

The only exceptions i can see is if the 'restoring' did something that could be reversed as the card sits in the holder where it would be obvious that in a unreasonable amount of time the card was waaaay overgraded. Like seeing a wrinkle after a year on a PSA 8 etc.

Altering a raw card and getting it graded is the same thing. How is that not obvious? Your logic would say that if I trim a card and get it past PSA, that's fine too. "If a card earns a grade it earns a grade."

Carry on with the spin and defense. Apparently Brent and Betsy are not posting any more so they need good proxies.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Altering a raw card and getting it graded is the same thing. How is that not obvious? Your logic would say that if I trim a card and get it past PSA, that's fine too. "If a card earns a grade it earns a grade."

Carry on with the spin and defense. Apparently Brent and Betsy are not posting any more so they need good proxies.

Now its you doing the spin. I never said anything about trimming the card, noone said the Dimaggio was altered that way.

What about soaking a card. If you soak a card at a yard sale for $5 and you get the card graded a 7 and sell it for $5000. I dont think anyone would complain. But if you bought the card as a SGC 4, and there is a auction sale of the card and now you soak the card and get a PSA 7 and make $5000 people will have a problem with that. At least more people would have a problem with that second example then the first, but to me they are the same level.

Many on this board think soaking a card isnt scam behavior. Please refrain from adding extra things to fake make a point. I also do not think its ok to buy a card thats ripped in half then put it together. Thats also not what happened with the Dimaggio. I can fake make a point as well and say a card was altered because somebody removed dust. No need to make up extreme fact patterns.

I also concur with you that at this point that it does appear Brent knew the history of the card when it was listed at PWCC.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

What about soaking a card. If you soak a card at a yard sale for $5 and you get the card graded a 7 and sell it for $5000. I dont think anyone would complain.

If they know about it, they likely would. Which is exactly the point of this thread. Disclosure.

How after hundreds of posts is that not perfectly crystal clear? It doesn't matter if you think that, it is wrong or right. It is wrong to not disclose it. It has proven to affect value.

It is that simple. The rest is people attempting to win the argument with their point of view, and items presented are irrelevant to the facts that 'lack of disclosure brings less profit'.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

If they know about it, they likely would. Which is exactly the point of this thread. Disclosure.

How after hundreds of posts is that not perfectly crystal clear.

Thats not industry standard. How many cards that have sold at auction do you think were soaked previously. What percentage of those card are disclosed? Zero?

If a wrinkle/paperloss/crease is not disclosed thats different because thats industry standard.

Peope dont show what the card looked like when they bought it raw after its graded and people may not show what a card looked like in a different holder when they bought the card.

I do not have any expectation as a buyer at an auction that they would disclose if a card was soaked previously, would you? if i was buying a 50k card i know i would check past sales. for the Dimaggio it was not hard to track down the exact card being sold previously. Now if you couldnt find any prior sales in 5 minutes with google, maybe that would be a better argument, but thats not the case here. 5 minutes of due diligence and the buyer is fully informed.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

...items presented are irrelevant to the facts that 'lack of disclosure brings less profit'.

I believe that full disclosure typically brings less profit.

Still, it's the ethical (and legal, if I'm not mistaken) thing to do.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

You may not agree with what i said about a raw card earning a grade but you have to agree that i have never seen an auction in history talk about a card that was sent in to PSA after it was restored ever.

Here you go:

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...tored-example/

Now let the argument be that its a Wagner and the other card is not as if that matters.

[botn]

I have recreated the PSA submission that contained the 36 WWG Joe D and identified who sold the card and when it was sold. Also added pics of those cards except for the 33 Foxx and of course the infamous 36 WWG Joe D. I am sure David James and Jake will have no problem with this. 5 out of 10 happened to be Certified HE. Have not bothered to try to trace the cards to lower graded holders so if someone out there wants to...

24692740 1911 D304 Brunners Bread Ty Cobb PSA 4.5 Sold by PWCC 12/6/15
24692741 1915 Cracker Jack #105 Joe Jackson PSA 3 Sold by PWCC 11/8/15
24692742 No Grade
24692743 No Grade
24692744 1933 Goudey #29 Jimmy Foxx PSA 5 No Record of Sale
24692745 1933 Goudey #149 Babe Ruth PSA 5.5 Sold by PWCC 10/6/15
24692746 1934 Goudey #61 Lou Gehrig PSA 5 Sold by PWCC 10/6/15
24692747 1935 National Chicle #34 Bronko Nagurski PSA 3.5 Sold by PWCC 10/18/15
24692748 1936 World Wide Gum #36 Joe DiMaggio PSA 7 Sold Privately by PWCC
24692749 1940 Play Ball #1 Joe DiMaggio PSA 5 Sold by PWCC 10/6/15
24692750 1940 Play Ball #27 Ted Williams PSA 6 Sold by PWCC 10/6/15
24692751 1941 Play Ball #14 Ted Williams PSA 6 Sold by PWCC 11/8/15
24692752 1941 Play Ball #71 Joe DiMaggio PSA 5 Sold by PWCC 11/8/15
24692753 No Grade
24692754 1957 Topps #95 Mickey Mantle PSA 8.5 Sold by PWCC 10/8/15

[1952boyntoncollector]

[QUOTE=botn;1632193]I have recreated the PSA submission that contained the 36 WWG Joe D and identified who sold the card and when it was sold. Also added pics of those cards except for the 33 Foxx and of course the infamous 36 WWG Joe D. I am sure David James and Jake will have no problem with this. 5 out of 10 happened to be Certified HE. Have not bothered to try to trace the cards to lower graded holders so if someone out there wants to...

Nothing wrong with tracking it down. I actually have more of a problem of any colluding shill bidding that is known by the auction owner versus worrying about a difference in opinion on grading companies and any accepted forms of altering cards.. There are more legal legs to the shilling..

[Republicaninmass]

Interesting that suspected shilling by the consignors was always a topic, but not that PWCC was the actual owner and seller.