Altered high grade E93s in Mile High?

[smtjoy]

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.

[Beastmode]

Originally Posted by smtjoy

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Beastmode

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 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.

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by bbcemporium

Tough to tell on the Cobb. It looks like the Wagner has been submitted a few times. These all have the black fisheye by the ear, but the red backgrounds appear to have subtle differences, which could just be due to scanner settings.






(edited to add the PSA 6 and PSA 9 scans for comparison)

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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[ejharrington]

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?

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.