What's there left to say at this point? Anyone just buy this 33 Gehrig?

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...&postcount=965

Sold on eBay for $1,999.00 on May 06, 2019 by jtur5101 (Item #112519688231)

[Johnny630]

PSA can not detect alterations.....prob 10’s of thousands if not more altered cards slabbed with number grades in their holders.....sad.....
I used to love this hobby now it’s like work......frauds and cons all around

“A fool and his money are soon parted”

[Peter_Spaeth]

All is well!! Just ask Steve Sloan.

[Republicaninmass]

Just so sad these cards have been ruined. Sadly, this one doesnt even bother me as much as the trimming and recoloring. I guess Brent's tenets about restoration are numbing me into silence.

This one did the ole pwcc to probstein flip. I'm sure if the detectives follow that trail, they will find some other fraud going on.

[ejharrington]

Do the creases eventually re-appear when a card is pressed like this?

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Do the creases eventually re-appear when a card is pressed like this?

I doubt it, but I would think the thickness of the card would be altered.

[swarmee]

Susan Cicconi Sothebys restoration expert bragged on facebook that she altered this card (and many other 40s, 50s, and 60s cards) and that this one got through PSA. It is on her resume that she "restores" baseball cards for the auctionhouse.
Maybe this is one of those famous conservators Brent was talking about that he wants to bring to the masses under his new Marketplace Tenets. PWCC leading the field in fraud again.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Do the creases eventually re-appear when a card is pressed like this?

Yes they can. Usually creases are not fixed internally in the card.

Originally Posted by bbcard1

I doubt it, but I would think the thickness of the card would be altered.

That kind of pressing is used to make the card bigger to be able to trim the edges and not remove creases.

[mechanicalman]

It’s for sale now on eBay for $2500 if anyone wants to buy the “evidence.” And, no, it’s not mine.

Is there anyone who tries to earn an honest buck anymore?

[thenextlevel]

Originally Posted by mechanicalman

It’s for sale now on eBay for $2500 if anyone wants to buy the “evidence.” And, no, it’s not mine.

Is there anyone who tries to earn an honest buck anymore?

Lol, so the buyer probably saw that his purchase was altered, and now is trying to not only sell it, but to sell it for a premium to what he paid.

[swarmee]

He should sell it for even more. Then PSA's liability is even higher. Why PSA hasn't recalled all these cards by known doctors and PWCC conservators and told auction houses to stop auctioning their tainted products seems like something the SEC would be interested in.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

He should sell it for even more. Then PSA's liability is even higher. Why PSA hasn't recalled all these cards by known doctors and PWCC conservators and told auction houses to stop auctioning their tainted products seems like something the SEC would be interested in.

Rhetorical question I assume.

[ajg]

Here is the solution tho this mess. And make no mistake this is a disaster. However we cannot undo what has already been done. If we want to stay in the hobby we need to assume that ALL graded cards are altered unless proven otherwise. The TPGs created this mess but if we want to stay and enjoy the hobby we need to reassess what a graded card is worth. I will be developing a new scale for what a graded card is.

For example a PSA 8oc used to = a PSA 6 and we paid accordingly. Basically that was the rule of thumb.

Now my new grading scale will be the same 2 point deduction. Sort of similar to a gymnastics scoring.

PSA 7 old = PSA 5 today
PSA 2 old = PSA authentic today

No such thing anymore as a PSA 9 or 10. Those days are gone thanks to 18 year old graders with no clue. These grading companies do not need a curtain to hide behind anymore at the National. We know that the kids looking at these cards are 18 year olds with back packs munching on Oreo's.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Rhetorical question I assume.

Who can tell anymore.!?

[Johnny630]

Pressing a card Like this completely Smashed the card stock two pieces of cardboard smashed together top and bottom. Cardboard is completely different then comic books, the women claims to be a comic book restoration expert, which is paper, cards are cardboard, totally different thickness and consistency. PSA missing this ought to be ashamed of itself. If you held this card up horizontally you can see the thinness of the card
Stock. What good are their services, nothing is full proof I’m not saying that, if they can’t consistently tell the difference of a altered card ?? To many misses and ugly ones like this. Kool Aid Drinkers Wake Up
PSA either sucks at their job or something worse....I’m going to stick with they really just suck at their job.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by ajg

Here is the solution tho this mess. And make no mistake this is a disaster. However we cannot undo what has already been done. If we want to stay in the hobby we need to assume that ALL graded cards are altered unless proven otherwise. The TPGs created this mess but if we want to stay and enjoy the hobby we need to reassess what a graded card is worth. I will be developing a new scale for what a graded card is.

For example a PSA 8oc used to = a PSA 6 and we paid accordingly. Basically that was the rule of thumb.

Now my new grading scale will be the same 2 point deduction. Sort of similar to a gymnastics scoring.

PSA 7 old = PSA 5 today
PSA 2 old = PSA authentic today

No such thing anymore as a PSA 9 or 10. Those days are gone thanks to 18 year old graders with no clue. These grading companies do not need a curtain to hide behind anymore at the National. We know that the kids looking at these cards are 18 year olds with back packs munching on Oreo's.

Let’s stick to facts in these trying times. Plenty of legitimate things to complain about. This myth of the inexperienced 18 year old graders is a-pipe dream a made up story. Let’s stick to the facts please. Like I said enough legitimate stuff to discuss. Inaccuracies just water down the facts.

[silvor]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Susan Cicconi Sothebys restoration expert bragged on facebook that she altered this card (and many other 40s, 50s, and 60s cards) and that this one got through PSA. It is on her resume that she "restores" baseball cards for the auctionhouse.
Maybe this is one of those famous conservators Brent was talking about that he wants to bring to the masses under his new Marketplace Tenets. PWCC leading the field in fraud again.

What other things does she restore and pass off as original? Furniture, paintings, jewelry etc?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by ajg

Here is the solution tho this mess. And make no mistake this is a disaster. However we cannot undo what has already been done. If we want to stay in the hobby we need to assume that ALL graded cards are altered unless proven otherwise. The TPGs created this mess but if we want to stay and enjoy the hobby we need to reassess what a graded card is worth. I will be developing a new scale for what a graded card is.

For example a PSA 8oc used to = a PSA 6 and we paid accordingly. Basically that was the rule of thumb.

Now my new grading scale will be the same 2 point deduction. Sort of similar to a gymnastics scoring.

PSA 7 old = PSA 5 today
PSA 2 old = PSA authentic today

No such thing anymore as a PSA 9 or 10. Those days are gone thanks to 18 year old graders with no clue. These grading companies do not need a curtain to hide behind anymore at the National. We know that the kids looking at these cards are 18 year olds with back packs munching on Oreo's.

and you will lose every auction to someone without that scale.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by swarmee

He should sell it for even more. Then PSA's liability is even higher. Why PSA hasn't recalled all these cards by known doctors and PWCC conservators and told auction houses to stop auctioning their tainted products seems like something the SEC would be interested in.

Yep PSA will pay every dollar that someone wants because everyone will agree what the damages are. Being the 3rd buyer after the card was 'altered' wont cause any issues at all. Especially when that 3rd buyer paid 2x more than the 2nd buyer.

Or if there is an issue. Any lawsuit will be too time consuming and costs involved and attorney fees will prevent anyone from doing anything apparently...

[commishbob]

Originally Posted by silvor

What other things does she restore and pass off as original? Furniture, paintings, jewelry etc?

Mostly comics

:::edit:::

I had her website link there but it's easy enough to find w/Google


Even as one who is likely not to be directly affected by all this nonsense, the whole thing is just depressing as hell. And getting more so every day.

[drcy]

Actually, her radio interviews are interesting. People should listen.

http://www.comiczoneradio.com/susan-cicconi.html

Three interesting points are she specifically calls conservation a type of restoration; she says any work, including conservation, has to be disclosed; and she says any work done to the item (including pressing out a wrinkle) is restoration/conservation and has to be disclosed. She said she's a professional conservator/restorer, so any work she's paid to do she says is conservation/restoration. If you ask her to remove a piece of scrapbook paper from a card, she would call that conservation/restoration that she would disclose.

She basically considers 'restoration' and 'conservation' to be different variations of the same basic thing-- and lumps them together under the same heading: work done to an item.

She talks about comic books and, in answer to a call in question, she calls removing a collector's pen or pencil mark to a card be restoration/conservation, in part because she said she finds it impossible to believe you aren't removing some of the surface of the item. And, even if you could remove the pencil or pen mark without removing any of the card, she catalogs it is conservation/restoration because you're doing work on the card.

So as a professional restorer/conservator for Sotheby's she's pretty hardcore-- including more hardcore than most baseball card collectors--, and what she says refutes PWCC's 'tenants.' 1) She would not separate 'conservation' and 'restoration' as PWCC tried to do, and she'd say "Of course it (anything done to a card) has to be disclosed." And she'd refute PWCC's retoric about "bringing back a card to its original state" and "any work that cannot be detected." She would say you can't do work to an item (including removing errant ink or removing scrapbook paper) without physically altering the original item is some way.

And she's clearly against non-professionals doing the work, as amateurs can, and often have, damaged the items by doing ignorant stuff.

And, in response to a call in question about pressing comic book pages, she implies that CGC is wrong for not disclosing certain types of restoration/conservation in their grades. From the discussion with the caller, it's apparently also controversial within the comic hobby that CGC doesn't disclose it.

And listening to her talk how she does her work, I'm certain she disclosed in writing what she did to the Ruth card. She says she produces a form listing/checklisting all of the work she did to the item, no matter what is the work. The omission of that information (whether when submitting for grading and at sale) would have been done down the line.

But she also talks about the processes, which is interesting.

As Sotheby's collectibles restorer/conservator/preservationist, she'd provide most useful expert testimony in a lawsuit or prosecution.

And as an added bonus she basically refutes everything the "maturing the hobby/watch this CGC video" PWCC defenders posted on Net54.

I predict that provenance will become integral to the hobby and grading.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

So she's ethical? That's a refreshing change.

[swarmee]

Except when she's not.

[mechanicalman]

Originally Posted by drcy

Actually, her radio interviews are interesting. People should listen.

http://www.comiczoneradio.com/susan-cicconi.html

Three interesting points are she specifically calls conservation a type of restoration; she says any work, including conservation, has to be disclosed; and she says any work done to the item (including pressing out a wrinkle) is restoration/conservation and has to be disclosed. She said she's a professional conservator/restorer, so any work she's paid to do she says is conservation/restoration. If you ask her to remove a piece of scrapbook paper from a card, she would call that conservation/restoration that she would disclose.

She basically considers 'restoration' and 'conservation' to be different variations of the same basic thing-- and lumps them together under the same heading: work done to an item.

She talks about comic books and, in answer to a call in question, she calls removing a collector's pen or pencil mark to a card be restoration/conservation, in part because she said she finds it impossible to believe you aren't removing some of the surface of the item. And, even if you could remove the pencil or pen mark without removing any of the card, she catalogs it is conservation/restoration because you're doing work on the card.

So as a professional restorer/conservator for Sotheby's she's pretty hardcore-- including more hardcore than most baseball card collectors--, and what she says refutes PWCC's 'tenants.' 1) She would not separate 'conservation' and 'restoration' as PWCC tried to do, and she'd say "Of course it (anything done to a card) has to be disclosed." And she'd refute PWCC's retoric about "bringing back a card to its original state" and "any work that cannot be detected." She would say you can't do work to an item (including removing errant ink or removing scrapbook paper) without physically altering the original item is some way.

And she's clearly against non-professionals doing the work, as amateurs can, and often have, damaged the items by doing ignorant stuff.

And, in response to a call in question about pressing comic book pages, she implies that CGC is wrong for not disclosing certain types of restoration/conservation in their grades. From the discussion with the caller, it's apparently also controversial within the comic hobby that CGC doesn't disclose it.

And listening to her talk how she does her work, I'm certain she disclosed in writing what she did to the Ruth card. She says she produces a form listing/checklisting all of the work she did to the item, no matter what is the work. The omission of that information (whether when submitting for grading and at sale) would have been done down the line.

But she also talks about the processes, which is interesting.

As Sotheby's collectibles restorer/conservator/preservationist, she'd provide most useful expert testimony in a lawsuit or prosecution.

And as an added bonus she basically refutes everything Goudey77 and other PWCC defenders posted on Net54.

I predict that provenance will become integral to the hobby and grading.

Interesting. When she bragged about it getting passed PSA, there didn’t appear to be concern about disclosure.

But she’s with Sotheby’s, so it must be legit.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by glynparson

Let’s stick to facts in these trying times. Plenty of legitimate things to complain about. This myth of the inexperienced 18 year old graders is a-pipe dream a made up story. Let’s stick to the facts please. Like I said enough legitimate stuff to discuss. Inaccuracies just water down the facts.

Ok, so they’re not all 18 years old. That excuse actually would have been far more acceptable/preferable to whatever reality is.

How would you explain the sheer incompetence then?

Poor eyesight?
Favorable treatment for “certain customers”?
General ineptitude at the one thing they’re employed to do?

I believe the “18 year old” explanation is far less damning than anything else that can be conjured up in PSA’s defense.

[glynparson]

Incompetence doesn’t mean they are 18 year old kids. Stop it you’re wrong. Like I said stick to facts they have no 18 year old graders. But keep coming if you want you’re foolish and you’re wrong. Go after the incompetence not the false narrative that these are 18 year old kids doing the grading. Most are in their 40s-50s. These are facts not made up BS stories.

[steve B]

I did some really good work when I was 18. Good enough he shop had me fill in on the 35" press my last week.

And I know a few kids who really have their stuff together, and did well before they were 18.

[cardsnstuff]

Personally, I think if the altering were disclosed, I would consider that acceptable, although I am not buying any of those 50-100k cards anyway.

[MULLINS5]

She removed the Gehrig post from her FB

[packs]

Why are people so convinced that teenagers can't be intelligent people?

https://www.msn.com/en-sg/lifestyle/...X1V?li=BBnb7Kz

[Johnny630]

In the words of Mrs. Clinton at this point what difference does it make.
Who cares how old the grader is ? I don’t

The bottom line relevance is regardless of age....they can’t consistently determine whether a card is altered or not. End

[irv]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Ok, so they’re not all 18 years old. That excuse actually would have been far more acceptable/preferable to whatever reality is.

How would you explain the sheer incompetence then?

Poor eyesight?
Favorable treatment for “certain customers”?
General ineptitude at the one thing they’re employed to do?

I believe the “18 year old” explanation is far less damning than anything else that can be conjured up in PSA’s defense.

Originally Posted by Johnny630

In the words of Mrs. Clinton at this point what difference does it make.
Who cares how old the grader is ? I don’t

The bottom line relevance is regardless of age....they can’t consistently determine whether a card is altered or not. End

And still nothing from Sloan/PSA about any of this.
Unbelievable that some still defend/utilize them and try to deflect attention away from their incompetence.