PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[rats60]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Man, I didn't check the forum yesterday and all hell broke loose. I tried to get a handle on this massive back and forth and this stuck out to me.

I have trouble with this quoted post as this clearly says to me (and please correct me if I am misinterpreting) that you do shill your cards so they can reach the value you believe it should be at and even if you accidentally win them back and pay for it, it's a non-issue because it was not yours after providing it to the auction house.

Is that interpretation right?

Because to be honest that's not "complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value"...that's more so admitting possible wire fraud on public forum.

If that's the case then this is a way bigger issue for all involved then one cleaned card.

Do you not understand what you quoted " it's not yours to begin with?" How are you shilling your cards when they are not yours, but are owned by someone else?

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by rats60

Do you not understand what you quoted " it's not yours to begin with?" How are you shilling your cards when they are not yours, but are owned by someone else?

I was asking for clarity, I don't have it.

The statement in question brings to mind the talk of people possibly artificially inflating the prices in the market that was talked about all last summer.

where is the clarity on this statement:

"Some call it "shill bidding". Others call it "pushing/protecting". Regardless of what you call it, as long as you pay for what you win, and it wasn't yours to begin with, that's all it is............complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value. As someone with millions at stake in this hobby, I'm not going to let a card go a dime under its value which is the reason that I have so many duplicates of high end cards."

The last sentence certainly calls question. Were cards shilled or "pushed" to amounts that protected or built investment? Whether they are his or someone else's, was bidding manipulated to get top dollar? Was this done with his listings?

It was an open question.

We started with a thread of possibility of wrongdoing, my only gripe was that guilt was assumed without corroboration. This sounds like a bit of admittance to me and just wanted some background on who had the correct interpretation.

[bounce]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I was asking for clarity, I don't have it.

"Some call it "shill bidding". Others call it "pushing/protecting". Regardless of what you call it, as long as you pay for what you win, and it wasn't yours to begin with, that's all it is............complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value. As someone with millions at stake in this hobby, I'm not going to let a card go a dime under its value which is the reason that I have so many duplicates of high end cards."

The last sentence certainly calls question. Were cards shilled or "pushed" to amounts that protected or built investment? Whether they are his or someone else's, was bidding manipulated to get top dollar? Was this done with his listings?

It was an open question.

We started with a thread of possibility of wrongdoing, my only gripe was that guilt was assumed without corroboration. This sounds like a bit of admittance to me and just wanted some background on who had the correct interpretation.

I think this was the sequence. Courtney bought the card from PWCC at the 2015 (or 2016, can't remember?) National in it's PSA 7 form, and subsequently consigned it to Goldin where it sold to someone else in Sept/Oct 2016, at a loss to Courtney. That buyer subsequently consigned it to PWCC and Courtney started bidding again as the price had not surpassed the Goldin sale price. He didn't own the card when it was consigned back to PWCC, but was bidding to potentially win it back.

As far as "defending" prices, I will give a personal example as I think this is what he probably means. There are about 8-10 cards that I currently or have previously owned, and any time another one is put for auction I almost always drop in a "minimum" bid which effectively sets a "floor" for that card generically. If no one outbids me at that level, I'm happy to own another copy but I don't necessarily expect to win every time I put in a bid. However, I certainly do stand ready to pay should I win.

I expect most people would describe that as "defending" certain price levels of cards, but I wouldn't expect that to be considered negative. However, if a group of collectors got together and were to engage in this sort of "defensive" bidding with the cards just changing hands between the group, I can certainly see how that would be viewed differently.

To be clear, I am not part of the "buyers group", as far as I know!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Leon, you seem awfully sensitive and defensive (uncharacteristically) on this thread. Earlier I simply asked you what your opinion was on the disclosure question and you responded that you refuse to be interrogated, or words to that effect. Greg simply points out another example of a before and after of what appears to be the same card that received a significantly higher grade and you attack him personally not to mention a guy (Adam) who died tragically many years ago. I suppose you may well attack me now, but I don't get it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Leon, you seem awfully sensitive and defensive (uncharacteristically) on this thread. Earlier I simply asked you what your opinion was on the disclosure question and you respond that you refuse to be interrogated, or words to that effect. Greg simply points out another example of a before and after of what appears to be the same card that received a significantly higher grade and you attack him personally not to mention a guy (Adam) who died tragically many years ago. I suppose you may well attack me now, but I don't get it.

Quite the contrary, Peter. I am only stating my thoughts just as you are stating yours. If I feel I am being asked questions in a manner that seems interrogatory, or in a pointed manner, I will state so. That is all. As for Greg, since he started this whole thread, which is fine, I just thought I would ask a question concerning the very thing he is talking about, which his ex-partner (who seemed like a nice guy to me, RIP) was doing as a normal hobby practice. I guess I don't understand your need to go after PWCC so vigorously either. It is as if you have a vendetta against them, whether you dismiss the claim or not. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Counselor.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Leon

Quite the contrary, Peter. I am only stating my thoughts just as you are stating yours. If I feel I am being asked questions in a manner that seems interrogatory, or in a pointed manner, I will state so. That is all. As for Greg, since he started this whole thread, which is fine, I just thought I would ask a question concerning the very thing he is talking about, which his ex-partner (who seemed like a nice guy to me, RIP) was doing as a normal hobby practice. I guess I don't understand your need to go after PWCC so vigorously either. It is as if you have a vendetta against them, whether you dismiss the claim or not. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Counselor.

Evasive is a good word. I asked for your opinion about whether or not PWCC did something wrong by not disclosing that they helped the cards appearance out and you won't give one. I can only presume because your opinions about it are financially contrary, right?

[Leon]

And asking the same questions usually elicit the same responses. Not sure that is evasive. I have stated that if I had a card cleaned I would state it. I am not prepared to say it should be "the law". Sorry I can't give the answer you are looking for. You are welcome to keep trying though.

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

Evasive is a good word. I asked for your opinion about whether or not PWCC did something wrong by not disclosing that they helped the cards appearance out and you won't give one. I can only presume because your opinions about it are financially contrary, right?

[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.

[Leon]

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.

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.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by swarmee

It's been a while since I've posted in this thread, so here are my current thoughts:

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.
.

4.
Spin.. The winner of the 36WW DiMaggio was instructed by Brent to win the card. This could be a close friend or family member. This is why Cortney was told to make higher bids as it wòuld better for the public to see multiple bidders on it. Brent knew Cortney would not win it for this reason. Since all hell broke out on this card during the auction (this Net54 thread) , I'm sure Brent wanted this card to disappear for many reasons for a long time.

Plus, the ending price worked out just about perfect for John the consignor of the card to PWCC where he broke even or up 1k from his purchase price from Goldin.

So, the perfect storm for Brent was this card returning to PWCC to be sold. Then, this thread started which educated Cortney whose lack of research of the card came to light. Cortney had a great mutual business relationship with Brent over 5 years and that all came to an end, as it's easy to read his bias to Brent.

It's safe to say this card won't be seen for many years to come and if it does I can't wait to see how the auction company discloses the murky history of it.

5.
Agreed, the timeline does not add up and there's was no visual evidence that this occurred. The card should have a qualifier on it with the numerical grade. I am disappointed that PWCC didn't add to their description about the history once this thread started, but we all know why now. I'm also surprised no one spotted this in the Goldin auction. I see PWCC uses the word "Completeness" on other cards to be accurate.

Bottom line is I like Brent and think they are professional and have a great team. I see the same pattern forming that happened to Doug Allen who I used to be close to. I think his success along with greed caught up to him and then being around the wrong type of people. Doug Allen/John Rogers..... Brent/Cortney. Best advice to everyone is just keep doing what got you there and pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

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.

It was not Dick to the best of my information.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Quite the contrary, Peter. I am only stating my thoughts just as you are stating yours. If I feel I am being asked questions in a manner that seems interrogatory, or in a pointed manner, I will state so. That is all. As for Greg, since he started this whole thread, which is fine, I just thought I would ask a question concerning the very thing he is talking about, which his ex-partner (who seemed like a nice guy to me, RIP) was doing as a normal hobby practice. I guess I don't understand your need to go after PWCC so vigorously either. It is as if you have a vendetta against them, whether you dismiss the claim or not. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Counselor.

I have no vendetta against PWCC. I am simply expressing my opinion on one of their auctions. Many years ago a similar issue of dramatic but undisclosed "restoration" came up in the context of a Legendary auction, or maybe it was still Mastro, and I expressed the same opinion about the need for disclosure then. The difference was, Doug ended up disclosing it as a result of the Board's input. Obviously that did not happen here. It was some sort of Keeler cabinet.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Greg simply points out another example of a before and after of what appears to be the same card that received a significantly higher grade and you attack him personally not to mention a guy (Adam) who died tragically many years ago.

You don't find it a bit hypocritical that someone (Greg) started a thread about card doctoring was a (alleged) card doctor himself?

You can't make this stuff up.

Come on, Greg! Inquiring minds want to know. Have you ever cleaned or doctored a card with the intention of re-sell?

[KendallCat]

"I expect most people would describe that as "defending" certain price levels of cards, but I wouldn't expect that to be considered negative. However, if a group of collectors got together and were to engage in this sort of "defensive" bidding with the cards just changing hands between the group, I can certainly see how that would be viewed differently."

David - I think that defending a price is when someone is willing to bid on the card and at the right price win that said card or cards if their bid holds up. I don't think any collector has a problem when people legitimately bid and win cards.

The issue that this thread has brought to light is one that most have speculated has been going on, had strong evidence has been going on, and some have posted on message boards the last few years about. People started noticing irregularities with bids back in April/May last year with certain cards that were increasing in price for no apparent reason at an exponential rate - Clemente rookies, Koufax rookies, Rose rookies, a few Ryan rookies... Same bidder was bidding up the 7's and 8's but only in certain auction and with a certain seller. Care to connect the dots and figure out the seller in quesion and the person who has stated they were bidding them up in this thread are where this happened.

Anyone could have looked at the auction results on VCP I figured the a***t bidder was clueless when it came to bidding on cards. Would bid 15-20 times on the same card rather than a snipe at the end costing themselves a lot of money and always losing out on the card and being the underbidder; however, the easy tip off was that the same bidder had over 50+ retractions with the same seller. This person was not clueless about how to bid they were just clueless that nobody had figured out who was doing it, what they were doing, and a bunch of people knew who it was and why they were doing it.

This week's events are a good thing for the hobby in the long run. Those who do business the right way will continue to do so, and they will see their sales increase, pick up new customers, and the hobby will go on. I have no issues buying from the people I deal with and will only buy even more from them exclusively.

I also think that those who were ignorant enough to publicly out themselves and all of their dirty shenanigans will become no longer welcome in the hobby or lose business. Believe that happened a while back, and all the events of this week did was make it public and let the collecting community decide who they would not deal with going forward. Interesting part is all of the items being brought forth are going to be decided on with the help of some lawyers, maybe some federal bureaus looking into it... When you add the potential fraud, items being shipped across state lines, and the dollar amounts being discussed I think the delete button would have been a really good idea for some parties involved. They have now have made investigating this whole thing on both sides a whole lot easier.