PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[vintagetoppsguy]

As long as there are no long term effects to the card, I have no problem with it. And, until someone can prove it was more than just a soaking in water (which is acceptable in our hobby), then you're just making assumptions. That said, I do think the grade is a little generous. Looks more like a 6 to me.

Oh, and to blame PWCC for selling it just shows you have an axe to grind wirh Brent.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

As long as there are no long term effects to the card, I have no problem with it. And, until someone can prove it was more than just a soaking in water (which is acceptable in our hobby), then you're just making assumptions. That said, I do think the grade is a little generous. Looks more like a 6 to me.

Oh, and to blame PWCC for selling it just shows you have an axe to grind wirh Brent.

On a card whose appearance has changed that much, and in the manner it has changed, what is your basis for assigning the burden of proof to those who believe more than water is involved? From my perspective the burden is on those who claim it's only water.

[Beastmode]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

On a card whose appearance has changed that much, and in the manner it has changed, what is your basis for assigning the burden of proof to those who believe more than water is involved? From my perspective the burden is on those who claim it's only water.

Correct. IMO, disclosure is the problem here. This card should have an asterisk on it, just like Barry Bonds.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

On a card whose appearance has changed that much, and in the manner it has changed, what is your basis for assigning the burden of proof to those who believe more than water is involved? From my perspective the burden is on those who claim it's only water.

Peter,

Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe that the stains in the REA scan are more pronounced than they really are? Maybe it was the scanner settings? I'm not saying that the card hasn't been cleaned. It has. But I am saying that maybe the card wasn't that bad to begin with. Maybe it was the scanner? Let me give you an example. Below is a post card that I purchased from Sterling a few months back. I wanted the post card, I was willing to live with the heavy stains. However, when I got the card in hand, the stains were barely noticeable. The only thing I could think of was that maybe Lee's scanner settings made the stains appear worse than they really are. Later, I'll scan it with my own scanner and show you the difference. You'll swear it was cleaned. But I can tell you it's the honest truth that I didnt do anything to the card at all. So, when you say "the appearance has changed that much..." maybe it really hasn't changed all that much? Again, I'm not suggesting that it hasn't been cleaned. It has. But I am suggesting that maybe the stains weren't as bad as REA's scanner made them out to be. Then again, all that sounds too complicated. I guess its just easier to blame GWTS, PSA, PWCC and everybody else, right?

[Peter_Spaeth]

David, as I said before, I hope this involves water only. But I believe that is wishful thinking at this point, especially as this appears to be not a simple matter of a stain being removed, but widespread toning.

I have not said a word about PSA.

[aloondilana]

Some of you guys really need to get a life!
The card is in a PSA 7 Holder now, get over it. It's obvious some of you are the types that are still whining over the election.
Call Joe Orlando and take it up with him.
You've all certainly put my investment with this card at a high risk due to all this.
Thank you!
Yes I am the consignor of the card, I purchased it at Goldin Auction for what I thought was a very decent price.
I am a card flipper, I don't hold on to any card I own.
I consigned this card to hopefully make a few bucks. I did not have any knowledge of all the issues many of you have on this thread.
I watch you guys periodically, all you do is bitch about everything. Especially cards you can't have.
Please give this hobby a break!

[Bestdj777]

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Bestdj777

How did you clean the card?

That's not fair to John, he bought it out of Goldin where it was already PSA graded, not out of REA.

[BeanTown]

1. PSA blew it with the grade. How could they not see different shades of color with whatever device they look at it through. It looks borderline for being off center. Plus, not putting any kind of qualifier on the card just screams out that a favor was done for whoever the consignor was.

2. PWCC, already set a precedent earlier last year when someone posted they had bought and won a PC796 Honus Wagner card which they advertised as being power erased and it was certified by SGC as authentic. The new buyer was unsure of it and PWCC allowed a return on it for full refund.

I imagine the future winner of the PWCC 36 DiMaggio won't even know about this thread. If they do, it wouldn't shock me if they would want to return it for full refund as PWCC has not updated their description about the card for full disclosure. I see Brent has acknowledged this now.