This is the problem with grading...

[honus94566]

I don't see any problem with what went down on ebay. Someone got the card re-graded, and someone was dumb enough to pay 3K+ for a 73 art shell.

Sure, PSA shouldn't have graded that card a 10. But still... as far as I see it, this is the buyer's problem. Gotta be smarter than that.

I don't think there is anything unethical or dishonest about probstein re-auctioning the card after it was regraded.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by honus94566

I don't see any problem with what went down on ebay. Someone got the card re-graded, and someone was dumb enough to pay 3K+ for a 73 art shell.

You're not looking at the big picture. The cards never exchanged hands. Look at the time frame. It doesn't add up. The 'buyer" didn't have time to pay for the purchase, wait for it to be delivered, crack and re-submit the card and send it back to Probstein for consignment.

Also, look at the bid history for each card. The same "buyer" won both the Shell and Havlicek cards. Are you telling me that "buyer" was lucky enough to get significant bumps on both cards? Heck, I should have that buyer re-submit some of mine.

Be reasonable.

Edited to add: I don't believe for a minute the cards ever exchanged hands. But, even if they did, you're missing the part where the "buyer" (Pang21) bid on his own auction when he consigned it back to Probstein. Isn't that shilling? And you don't have a problem with that? Look at the bid history. I think some of you guys are just making random comments w/o looking at everything.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You're not looking at the big picture. The cards never exchanged hands. Look at the time frame. It doesn't add up. The 'buyer" didn't have time to pay for the purchase, wait for it to be delivered, crack and re-submit the card and send it back to Probstein for consignment.

Also, look at the bid history for each card. The same "buyer" won both the Shell and Havlicek cards. Are you telling me that "buyer" was lucky enough to get significant bumps on both cards? Heck, I should have that buyer re-submit some of mine.

Be reasonable.

It was noted on the CU board that the "buyer" was a noted dealer from the same area as Probstein and probably was able to pick his winnings up in person. Much in the same manner he was allowed to view the lots in person. So the buyer won cards from a local seller a week and a half before the National which also happened to be close and feature on site grading. Yes, the time frame seems very tight, but it is not obviously impossible nor blatantly fraudulent. There is also no record of how many cards the "buyer" purchased and resubmitted without the bump.


Edit: Yes the buyer seems to have shilled his auctions. But as long as eBay censors the bid history that is going to happen.

[wonkaticket]

There's an even bigger problem here....who the hell pays $3150.02 for a 1973 Art Shell let alone $47.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

There's an even bigger problem here....who the hell pays $3150.02 for a 1973 Art Shell let alone $47.

He's no Ozzie Smith, that's for sure.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

There's an even bigger problem here....who the hell pays $3150.02 for a 1973 Art Shell let alone $47.

And I too was thinking the $47 itself was blown money!!

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

There's an even bigger problem here....who the hell pays $3150.02 for a 1973 Art Shell let alone $47.

You got me.. But if someone wants a raw Shell rookie that looks every bit as nice as that graded card, I'll gladly sell mine for half of what the graded Shell sold for. --note extreme sarcasm--

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You're not looking at the big picture. The cards never exchanged hands. Look at the time frame. It doesn't add up. The 'buyer" didn't have time to pay for the purchase, wait for it to be delivered, crack and re-submit the card and send it back to Probstein for consignment.

The card was likely regraded at the National and then consigned back to Probstein who was set up there.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Edited to add: I don't believe for a minute the cards ever exchanged hands. But, even if they did, you're missing the part where the "buyer" (Pang21) bid on his own auction when he consigned it back to Probstein. Isn't that shilling? And you don't have a problem with that? Look at the bid history. I think some of you guys are just making random comments w/o looking at everything.

You nailed him on this one. The winner of the "8" bid $250 on the "10":
http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=110909530402

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=140819406508

[Ronnie73]

First let me say that i've bid on and won many auctions from Rick and never once felt like any funny business was going on. As far as the turnaround times, if the winner is at a show that Ricks at and PSA is there too, then the trunaround is possible. Only Rick could confirm this but i'm sure he owes some sort of privacy to his buyers and consigners. If the buyer has a good track record for upgrades, then they can afford to travel the country and do this sort of thing full time. One important thing to remember, nobody is forcing the final buyer to pay crazy money for a PSA 10 grade except their need of that 10 on the label. I agree that some cards don't deserve the upgrade but there are others that do. Plain and simple, buy the card and not the holder. Me personally, I'm more than happy with a nicely centered PSA 8 any day over a 10.

Look at the bidders from $250 up. All the bid percentages are way high with Rick. Then again he could have a strong following

[glchen]

This is why buying 10's is a fool's business. There's just a hair's difference between the top grades, yet thousands of dollars. If the grader misses just one tiny thing, it's what you have here. Obviously, with that print dot on the back, no way that Shell card deserves a 10. The original 8 was probably the right grade.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

I have won several auctions with Rick, he does probably indeed have a good following, because you know for sure you are going to get that item, and Rick will do whatever he can to make it a perfect transaction.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I thought "pank21" was an account set up by Probstein. That's just where the clues led me. After all, there were 2 cards won by the same buyer, both cards were re-submitted to PSA and received significant bumps and both cards were once again sold by Probstein. I was wrong and my apologies to Rick.

Pank21 is Joseph M Pankiewicz and from what I understand a former grader at SGC and he also worked for Mastro and Heritage. I do know that he did shill his own auctions and that tells me everything I need to know about him.

It still amazes me how he got the bumps??? Maybe he "knows" one of the graders at PSA??? I think Joe O. needs to take a look at the grader of those two cards.

[toledo_mudhen]

[QUOTE=honus94566;1026687]I don't see any problem with what went down on ebay. Someone got the card re-graded, and someone was dumb enough to pay 3K+ for a 73 art shell.

No way that I am going to believe simply that "Someone got the card regraded". This is total BS and you wont convince me that there wasn't a "payoff" in there somewhere...............

Which leads to my final point - I buy PSA slabs to resell - I buy SGC slabs to keep.............

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by honus94566

No way that I am going to believe simply that "Someone got the card regraded". This is total BS and you wont convince me that there wasn't a "payoff" in there somewhere...............

You mean PSA employees are not honest?? OMG I never knew.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

I just saw this on the CU Board. There was a 1968 Topps Ryan rookie that was recently graded PSA 10 (the first and only) and according to Joe Orlando the card sold privately for $400,000.

Reading through the thread, one poster (Last post on Page 2) made this statement, which I have no reason to doubt since it would seem highly unlikely that the allegedly finest example just recently turned up:

I was at the Cow Palace show and at the PSA booth this guy said he has sent in his card 20 times and finally got the grade he wanted.

So there you go.


If this is true, then the submitter netted an easy $375,000 on this bump-up and a collector paid that extra $375,000 for a card that 19 out of 20 times was graded PSA 9 (or maybe less several times).

What insanity!

Here's the thread:

http://forums.collectors.com/message...05&STARTPAGE=1

[barrysloate]

Dan- do the graders know if a card they are examining is being submitted for the twentieth time? Would that kind of pressure them into finally giving it that hoped for bump, especially if it is a good customer?

I won't even go into why there is someone out there who feels it's a 400K card. That's for another time.

[bobbyw8469]

What insanity! I don't know if that is good for the hobby, or bad for the hobby. I am torn.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Dan- do the graders know if a card they are examining is being submitted for the twentieth time? Would that kind of pressure them into finally giving it that hoped for bump, especially if it is a good customer?

I won't even go into why there is someone out there who feels it's a 400K card. That's for another time.

Barry,

It's my understanding that as a "PSA policy" a PSA grader is not supposed to know who the submitter is.

But you bring up another good point. PSA made a lot of money on this same card and probably other cards from the same submitter since cracking out and bumping up has become a business in itself for a number of dealers and I don't know of any public discouragement by PSA to instruct submitters from playing the "crack-out" game.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Dan- do the graders know if a card they are examining is being submitted for the twentieth time? Would that kind of pressure them into finally giving it that hoped for bump, especially if it is a good customer?

I don't know about pressure, but what about incentive? A dirty grader (and I believe there are some) might be tempted to bump a card if he knew the submitter and there was something in it for him - say like 5% ($19K) or 10% ($38K) of the profit?

[Leon]

If I were the authorities and had any inkling of wrongdoing, or was investigating the hobby, I would probably have a conversation with the grader that bumped the card, the submitter and the graders manager. It wouldn't hurt to to see what they would say...

And if it's true that the card went from a 9 to a 10 after that many bumps, then I really don't know what to say about the people playing the "10" game. I wouldn't want to be the last one holding that potato though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I don't know about pressure, but what about incentive? A dirty grader (and I believe there are some) might be tempted to bump a card if he knew the submitter and there was something in it for him - say like 5% ($19K) or 10% ($38K) of the profit?

That is inherent in third party grading.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

I just saw this on the CU Board. There was a 1968 Topps Ryan rookie that was recently graded PSA 10 (the first and only) and according to Joe Orlando the card sold privately for $400,000.

Reading through the thread, one poster (Last post on Page 2) made this statement, which I have no reason to doubt since it would seem highly unlikely that the allegedly finest example just recently turned up:

I was at the Cow Palace show and at the PSA booth this guy said he has sent in his card 20 times and finally got the grade he wanted.

So there you go.


If this is true, then the submitter netted as easy $375,000 on this bump-up and a collector paid that extra $375,000 for a card that 19 out of 20 times was graded PSA 9 (or maybe less several times).

What insanity!

Here's the thread:

http://forums.collectors.com/message...05&STARTPAGE=1

If this is true (I don't necessarily doubt it but it's slim evidence) I'm impressed that a card that has been cracked out of a holder and mailed back and forth so many times is still anywhere near a 10.