This is the problem with grading...

[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.

[DJR]

.

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by DJR

To make this sordid tale even spicier, pank21 is actually an SGC employee / rep...WTF!

http://www.sgccard.com/appearances.htm

Even SGC employees choose PSA. Haha

This is all very terrible. I'm glad I don't collect high grade crap.

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Even SGC employees choose PSA.

It's because he knows SGC would have graded it accurately.

As far as Probstein relisting cards after sales. I have seen this done several times with 205's. I have not bought from him in yrs because I thought I was shilled up on some high grade AB's a few yrs back. 3 of which I lost last second and was relisted with a BIN 2 weeks later at about 20% higher than closing bid which was already high enough for the cards. I got crazy on bidding but still got out bid on them This thread kinda confirms that there is some awkward bidding going on. Then again he gets great prices for his cards so the buyer might have consigned the cards back to get a quick flip or try anyways.

[howard38]

/

[barrysloate]

Let's suppose for a minute that the Art Shell is a 10, which it isn't, but let's just say that it is. What does that tell you about the grader who gave it an 8? What is his skill level if he can't get within two grades of the card's actual condition? That doesn't say much for the grader's ability, whatever its actual grade is, if he's that far off in either direction. Aren't they supposed to bring a little more accuracy than that to the table?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Let's suppose for a minute that the Art Shell is a 10, which it isn't, but let's just say that it is. What does that tell you about the grader who gave it an 8? What is his skill level if he can't get within two grades of the card's actual condition? That doesn't say much for the grader's ability, whatever its actual grade is, if he's that far off in either direction. Aren't they supposed to bring a little more accuracy than that to the table?

Barry,

I'm a mechanical engineer by profession. When we design parts, the drawings call out dimensions with tolerance limits. Perhaps PSA should do the same. "This Art Shell card is a PSA 8, +2, -0".

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by Pup6913

It's because he knows SGC would have graded it accurately.

I was kidding Andrew. I know SGC would have done a better job. Iv'e found the best grader in the world for me,,, thats myself.

If I ever decide to sell a worthless card for a bunch of money I'll call Ken Goldin I mean PSA. Seems like the latter is perfectly acceptable. Of corse I don't know anyone over there so I probably wouldn't get the grade I want.

I see a lot of great arguments on PSAs behalf, so I'm convinced, nothing wrong there :roll eyes: So does anyone want to talk about the shilling? Or does that get a pass?

[SMPEP]

... when your shill bidding at $250 and the card sells at $3,150 ... I can't get too worked up. Yeah, you shill bid, but your bid was essentially irrelevant because two people went WAY over the top of you.

When you shill for $250, and the card sells for $251 ... that's a different story.

Cheers,
Patrick

[smtjoy]

So what about the $475 shill on the $611 Havlicek? You ok with that too?

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=120964176990


Also might be nothing but the winner of the Havlicek with their 595 Bids this month of which 456 are with only Probstein123 or 79%, humm yea that looks good too.

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

... when your shill bidding at $250 and the card sells at $3,150 ... I can't get too worked up. Yeah, you shill bid, but your bid was essentially irrelevant because two people went WAY over the top of you.

When you shill for $250, and the card sells for $251 ... that's a different story.

Cheers,
Patrick

Thanks Patrick, I didn't know this kind of shilling was acceptible. I learn something new everyday...

[mark evans]

Grading is inherently subjective, no way around that. Having said that, though, it is my view that TPG is, on balance, of benefit to the hobby largely because it facilitates long-distance including internet transactions.

The problem I see relates to the enormous differences in value ascribed to high grades of even modern day commons. Even assuming no ethical problems in the grading process, the subjective nature of grading should over time reduce these disparities in my view, perhaps risking the investment of those collecting the highest-graded cards.

Originally Posted by SMPEP

... when your shill bidding at $250 and the card sells at $3,150 ... I can't get too worked up. Yeah, you shill bid, but your bid was essentially irrelevant because two people went WAY over the top of you.

When you shill for $250, and the card sells for $251 ... that's a different story.

Cheers,
Patrick

Pat look at the bid % of the 3 bidders over the $250 mark. 2 of them are way high IMO and the 3rd is the winner. Probably legit but still ripped off

[howard38]

z

[brob28]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

... when your shill bidding at $250 and the card sells at $3,150 ... I can't get too worked up. Yeah, you shill bid, but your bid was essentially irrelevant because two people went WAY over the top of you.

When you shill for $250, and the card sells for $251 ... that's a different story.

Cheers,
Patrick

He was all set to shill, but soon after starting realized two fools with registry dreams were going to take care of that for him!

[RobertGT]

I agree there is no way in hell that card is a 10.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I hate to disillusion people, but buying cards and resubmitting them is an extremely common practice. Given the arbitrariness of grading, lots of cards go up when resubmitted, particularly when cracked out. I know countless stories of cards that have made multiple trips to grading before being "maximized." Maybe Rick is friends with Pank21 and alerted him that he had a couple of cards that he thought were undergraded. Nothing wrong with that.

My much bigger worry is the 5 to 8 scenario, where work is done on the cards in the interim. Certain people just LOVE to buy ex to ex mt centered cards!!!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I hate to disillusion people, but buying cards and resubmitting them is an extremely common practice. Given the arbitrariness of grading, lots of cards go up when resubmitted, particularly when cracked out. I know countless stories of cards that have made multiple trips to grading before being "maximized." Maybe Rick is friends with Pank21 and alerted him that he had a couple of cards that he thought were undergraded. Nothing wrong with that.

My much bigger worry is the 5 to 8 scenario, where work is done on the cards in the interim. Certain people just LOVE to buy ex to ex mt centered cards!!!

Peter, you are correct that resubmitting is a common practice, but no way that Shell card should have ever received a 10. It's not even close. The registration is horrible. Go back to the first page and look at the scans. The white numbers on his jersey are out of focus and you can also tell around his calf area. Not to mention the large fisheye and staining on the back.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Peter, you are correct that resubmitting is a common practice, but no way that Shell card should have ever received a 10. It's not even close. The registration is horrible. Go back to the first page and look at the scans. The white numbers on his jersey are out of focus and you can also tell around his calf area. Not to mention the large fisheye and staining on the back.

So PSA made a mistake. It happens all the time. Look at the PSA 10 1993 SP Jeter now on ebay and tell me what you see wrong.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So PSA made a mistake.

Surely you can't be serious? That was a backroom favor by some grader at PSA. As I said before, Joe O Needs to investigate this. Read that PSA thread. It's been updated. They keep finding more cards - same buyer, same seller and a bump every time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Surely you can't be serious? That was a backroom favor by some grader at PSA. As I said before, Joe O Needs to investigate this. Read that PSA thread. It's been updated. They keep finding more cards - same buyer, same seller and a bump every time.

What other cards, I can't follow the CU thread but it seemed to me they were still talking about the Shell and Havlicek only.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What other cards

This PSA 8 sold by Probstein and winning bidder was Pank21:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ht_1230wt_1165

Magically re-appears as a PSA 9 again being sold by Probstein:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1955-Red-Man...ht_1129wt_1165

What a lucky submitter

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

They keep finding more cards - same buyer, same seller and a bump every time.

I just read the PSA thread, but I didn't see any mentions of additional cards found with the "same buyer, same seller and a bump in grade" - how many more have been uncovered beyond the original two, and which cards? I looked through Probstein's completed auctions, but came up empty there also. Thanks.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by 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.

Just to add a bit of clarity it is my understanding that Joseph M Pankiewicz hasn't worked at SGC in nearly 10 yrs. Now back to my popcorn.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

Just to add a bit of clarity it is my understanding that Joseph M Pankiewicz hasn't worked at SGC in nearly 10 yrs. Now back to my popcorn.

It's my understanding that he hasn't been a grader for them in nearly 10 years. The SGC website refers to him as a representative that accepts consignments on their behalf. Whether or not that means he's on their payroll I don't know.

http://www.sgccard.com/appearances.htm

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

It's my understanding that he hasn't been a grader for them in nearly 10 years. The SGC website refers to him as a representative that accepts consignments on their behalf. Whether or not that means he's on their payroll I don't know.

http://www.sgccard.com/appearances.htm

Just going by what I was told with regards to his grading status. So my apologies for that....... I would assume if he is accepting consignments or submissions he is being paid for his time.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Leon

Just going by what I was told with regards to his grading status. So my apologies for that....... I would assume if he is accepting consignments or submissions he is being paid for his time.

My assumption was incorrect. It is now my understanding, from a very reliable source, that he doesn't get paid whatsoever from SGC, for anything he does for SGC. I stand corrected.

[SMPEP]

I knew I'd be in the minority on this one!

In my opinion ... if there are two legitimate bidders above a shill bid ... eh. The are two other bidders would have pushed it to the same price any way. There was no change in the eventual sales price.

When the underbidder is fraudulent ... then yes, we have a problem ... because the high bidder would not have had to pay his highest price. So the $475 bid is a bit more concerning, because I see your concerns about the actual underbidder. (There could have been two shill underbidders in that auction, in which case the winner was defrauded.)

Cheers,
Patrick

[thehoodedcoder]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

I knew I'd be in the minority on this one!

In my opinion ... if there are two legitimate bidders above a shill bid ... eh. The are two other bidders would have pushed it to the same price any way. There was no change in the eventual sales price.

When the underbidder is fraudulent ... then yes, we have a problem ... because the high bidder would not have had to pay his highest price. So the $475 bid is a bit more concerning, because I see your concerns about the actual underbidder. (There could have been two shill underbidders in that auction, in which case the winner was defrauded.)

Cheers,
Patrick

the problem with this logic is the person who is schill bidding or under bidding, (which ultimately are the same thing, the user bidding on their own item) is that the person doesn't know what is going to happen after they put their bid in.

right? at the time of committing the act, they are essentially the same thing.

that is like saying, i robbed the bank, when it was illegal, but they made it legal a year later so its ok that i did it. the problem with that is you don't get out of jail because its now legal to rob banks. obviously robbing banks is a bad example but you get the point.

kevin

[PolarBear]

The ironic point of this thread are the people mocking someone for paying X dollars for a piece of cardboard with a picture on it, when they themselves pay 2X dollars for a piece of cardboard with a different picture on it.

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by Leon

Now back to my popcorn.

Yeah, but does a popcorn (leopard) change its' spots?

[Exhibitman]

The issues specified above are why I collect vg to midgrade postwar mainstream cards--no need to worry about nonsense like this.

I've played the bump game and the raw submittal game in the past quite profitably. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't see evidence of some grand conspiracy. Frankly, the idea is far-fetched. Think about what is being suggested: that a highly organized criminal conspiracy exists to make money in relatively small sums at the risk of the TPG employees' jobs. Does PSA really put its graders in such desperate straits that they have to take bribes? And if it is PSA corporate that is alleged to be part of the scam, does it really make sense that the officers of a $100 million public company are conspiring with an Ebay seller?

If you think high-grade [allegedly] postwar card submissions are a crooked endeavor, the answer is simple, of course: don't participate. Buiy cards that are objectively difficult to find in any grade, not cards made rare/desirable only by way of some inherently suspect, subjective decision.

If you think Probstein or any other seller is crooked, don't buy from him.

[CMIZ5290]

I have bought many, many cards from rick probstein over the past several years. I have never suspected anything pertaining some of these accusations that are being made on this thread. I have paid good money for some, and gotten good buys on others like last night ( psa 7 ed reulbach for $996, the last psa 7 sold for over $2k). I think alot of people that make these statements really need to have there ducks in a row, as people can be made accountable for such comments.......

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I think alot of people that make these statements really need to have there ducks in a row, as people can be made accountable for such comments.......

Pull your head out of the sand. I think Probstein needs to get his ducks in a row and explain (at the very least) why he allows his consignors to shill their own auctions.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Pull your head out of the sand. I think Probstein needs to get his ducks in a row and explain (at the very least) why he allows his consignors to shill their own auctions.

And how would you suggest he stop it, put a block on every single consignor? Monitor every one of his hundreds of auctions to see every bid?

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I have bought many, many cards from rick probstein over the past several years. I have never suspected anything pertaining some of these accusations that are being made on this thread. I have paid good money for some, and gotten good buys on others like last night ( psa 7 ed reulbach for $996, the last psa 7 sold for over $2k). I think alot of people that make these statements really need to have there ducks in a row, as people can be made accountable for such comments.......

This is what's puzzling.... If the same card you just bought somehow made it's way into a 5 holder, your price would have been a terrible deal. How do you know it hasn't been bumped?

I really like exhibitmans post. I try to avoid graded cards, but it's hard. When I see a card I want in a slab, I ask myself, if I purchase this card and bust it out, would it potentially lose "value"? If the answer is yes, I just don't buy it.

I know the hobby has grown accustomed to TPG, but it's soooo crazy to me that a card can lose value just by removing it from its holder.