Fair question, as I am mostly a buyer also. Truth be told, I've bought 90% of my cards on PWCC. Over the last 6 years, close to 2,000 cards, all from 70-77 and all PSA 9's (except for a few 71 8's; and this doesn't include the high end raw sets I bought 3-5 years ago before they started breaking them up)

Until you can show me another auction house that has their hands clean and has the quantity and quality that I look for, then I'll stick with PWCC. And if I can't snipe, I essentially stay away.

PWCC will be at the National. I recommend if anyone has an issue with them, ask for Brent, look him in the eye, and ask away. It's easy to tell someone to F-off or make accusations on a forum (others besides Irv). Face to face, little different.

I will be at the National this year also, my first one in 30? years, and would love to meet some of you whether we disagree or not. You can find me at the $20 card bins.

Originally Posted by bnorth View Post
That is me. I am itradeerrors on BO. I posted the same in this thread. I truly believe David just posts to argue for no reason and I honestly still have no idea what Jake even posts about most times.
Oh. Ok.

Phillip: Not sure why you keep bringing me up. You mentioned me for some reason being brought up on another board but it was from a poster here. I guess if another poster here says something on another board about me you will post it here as well. Still not sure why you are so interested in posting information like that but whatever floats your boat but you are bringing up off topic things in this thread.

So you would rather have someone buy the card without knowing the prior sale. People look at net54 everyday. It is forseeable that someone would post the prior sale on that card during the auction.

You just seem to be complaining for the wrong reason. I dont think anyone on the board besides you will say it was bad that Greg brought up the prior sale. I guess you wish he brought it up AFTER the auction? The winner could of returned the card and asked for a refund if went for 60k.

So if the thread started after the sale the net effect may of been the same. I guess you wanted something to post that past sale AFTER the potential refund period expired.

I get why you are upset in general but dont understand why you are upset at the timing of the information of the thread and you did Make a Thousand dollars and the buyer may have been fully informed as well and wont ask for a refund. I just think you are mad at the wrong people.

Also again, i guess i am crazy because i still dont think the card goes for 7500 more than what you paid for it a short time ago and nobody else bothered to bid higher than you and give up a 'sure $5000'

Uh? Where did that come from? I am disappointed with a lot of things in this thread, but telling someone to F-off to their face isn't something that has even crossed my mind at this point.

I have had nothing but good luck with pwcc, and like I said, spoke highly of them prior, but I personally hate to read things like this in any type of scenario, so, like I said earlier, I think I'll avoid/stay away from them, or at least for a while, or until everything comes out in the wash, if it ever does?

Lately, I have had pretty good luck purchasing cards cheaper and not having to pay a $15 dollar shipping fee, which works out to about $20, give or take, to get it up here.

Curious, is the $15 what you guys pay state side as well?

Ok Jake, you don't think this thread hurt the card at least 7500 bucks?
Cmon, seriously ?!? I don't care if I get banned from this site, as you can tell from my measly 67 posts in 4 years I don't live on this site like you.
So go F yourself!, better yet have Greg do it for you. Loser! Get a life you spend way too much time arguing nonsense on this message board!

LOL. Of course we can't know with certainty unless someone comes forward and so attests, but I agree with John it is certainly very plausible that there are folks who read or heard about this thread and didn't bid, or bid less. It's just common sense. I don't know why certain people on this thread want to fight different aspects of the obvious.

I second Johns response. This ridiculous post definitely put a damper on the card for bs. Frankly who gives a sht whether a card was any grade before. I think someone should pay restitution to John for hurting auction.

Obviously it COULD have hurt his auction, but I gotta say, while, if I were in his shoes, I would be pissed as well for a lot of reasons, at a lot of people, I doubt it hurt it by $7500. (diagram THAT sentence grammar police!) I mean really what % of the buying public for a card in this echelon do we really think N54 represents? We already have proof that people shelling out big bucks don't necessarily do any research on the card before they pull the trigger. So a non-member very likely never stumbled across this debacle.

Seriously though I'd love to hear estimates on a %. We may collectively be a big fish in a small pond, but I'm guessing we're a smaller fish in a bigger pond than you might think.

All that said I still feel for him as, unless I missed something, he was an innocent bystander who got slammed by circumstance.

Now if he would just apologize for the douchey $20 collector comment...

Greg dont you think you should compensate John for interfering with his auction whether privately or with PWCC for that matter?

If I owned a card like that and you messed with it on me we would be having a different conversation. And I am sure others on here would be same way. You should have waited until it ended. Curious to here your thoughts...

I understand completely how anyone reading this thread would have been dissuaded to bid on this card. This was bad PR. Nothing good came to the consignor from the thread.

What I don't understand is the presumption that the card would have appreciated 30% in the course of five months had this thread not existed. I'm not even trying to be confrontational, but can someone please explain what economic forces are at play to drive a card from $47k in Oct to the expected $60k+ in Feb? Are eBay buyers that much more deep pocketed than the ones shopping Goldin? Perhaps it's because I'm not a flipper, but what am I missing here?

Thought this was supposed to be a community that looked out for each other's common interests? I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that Greg should have kept his mouth shut until someone bought the card without knowledge of its history.

You seem to be able to walk in John's shoes for a mile, try on the moccasins of the buyer who may have unknowingly spent a small fortune on the card. Do we just keep passing the buck until the game of musical DiMaggio is over and someone is left holding the bag?

I am usually on the same page as Ed but I disagree with him here. As there was no question these were the same card, I think it was appropriate to call the matter to the attention of the community because it was potentially highly relevant information. Had Greg been speculating, or just offering a personal opinion about the card, I would feel differently. Sure, it sucked for John, but the information presented was undisputed and factual and the greater good justified it, in my opinion.

We are all entitled to opinions but the consignor John had nothing to do with any of this so potentially he could have suffered financially. That is not right.

So the issue is that half of us think its ok to remove stains and the other half not. Face the facts or not it is accepted in the hobby. By auction houses, grading companies and individuals. And if some people cant see it, they should move on.

So IMO Brent or whoever owned card is in no way required to state he cracked out a card, took tape off and resubmitted. There are hundreds of cards in pop reports that are still listed and no longer in grade.

John

This thread was started on 2-3 with the auction ending on 2-7. Four days that action could have been taken.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the card in this auction was your property. Why didn't you pull the card?

No matter who is at fault here, you were the last link in the chain and could have done something.

Jantz

So, it's wrong for Greg to potentially cost an innocent consignor but what about the potential winner that he might have saved? I feel for John in this situation but seems like he might have some recourse with PWCC. The more times this card is sold it seems it would be more difficult to be made right by the original parties involved in the cleaning of the card.

It would really suck to pay for a PSA 7 and 5 years from now those stains start to reappear.

I still do not see where Greg is saving anyone money but tampering with an existing auction. Nothing more to it. I am all about honesty and integrity in this hobby which is why I will refrain commenting on others in this post.

The card is in a PSA 7 holder graded by PSA. And I do not see anything wrong with that nor did PSA see anything when grading. There are many cards out there that have had stains etc removed. Would others like it if some of us start digging into some cards that are posted on this board. Lets put it this way there would be a lot of problems if so. There are plenty of scans and high end cards on this board that have been tampered with or changed holders.

This is much different then what people like Battlefield are doing to the public by artificially changing scans to sell a card.

The real question that some of you super sleuths should be asking is who comes up with a $75k price tag on a card in a fictitiously inflated market.

Ed this was not tape that was removed. The light areas were where the card had been protected by some sort of mount. The REST of the card was toned heavily, and that toning was removed, likely by a chemical. That may not affect your view, but that is what happened.

Hopefully Ed, we can discuss and possibly even disagree without devolving into name calling unlike some other people in this thread. Seems like you're the kind of guy who can do that.

There's an inherent flaw in your logic. If people feel that a PSA 7 is a PSA 7 is a PSA 7 then the back story on the card isn't going to matter to them. So in essence it's a self-correcting issue. If the back story bothers you, then you wanted to know, and Greg did the community a service. If you feel the grade absolutely clears any concerns about the card, which you imply (and there are many who agree with that sentiment, just ask the owner of the Diamondbacks.) then the back story doesn't matter and so Greg's post didn't matter.

Funny you should mention that Scott. Last night I thought how ironic it would be if the owner of the sliced & diced Wagner also bought this 36 WWG DiMaggio.

One question I have for anyone on the board. When did PSA become the almighty authority in this hobby?

Just because PSA says it's a 7 does not mean it is a 7. They gave nothing more than an opinion, which they were paid to do.

Scott: You and I and many others agree to this. The truth is the defense for outing the card. If someone said something untruthful about a past sale which hurt the value thats a different story.

What if the card sold to a Net54 member who doesnt 'live on the board' and had not checked awhile. Then after the sale the card was 'outed' dont you think that buyer would of wanted their money back. I disagree with anyone who thinks it was wrong to out the card during the auction.

Also name calling from John is pretty ridiculous given the post I wrote he is responding too. Several posters agree that a $7500 expected profit was not realistic. Some posters say that the prior sale would not of impacted their bidding as well. In any event, it was just an opinion that many agree with and not sure why there would be insults to that. You have admitted on this thread 'that you have been a bit of a jerk'.

I hope the person that bought the card knew about the cards history if he didnt live on the board/site. Also i have made several posts there that i dont believe the card was sold as a fraud. Peter has been arguing with me when I have said a PSA 7 was sold and PSA 7 was purchased, so its not like i have an agenda against the sale.

I also notice that the board doesnt need my help when there is lively discussion (720 posts and counting) Peter has said when you are losing an argument you tend to curse and say profanities. ]


In any event, I do think the post by John was uncalled for and he said he doesnt care if he is banned...but im sure he is sorry for his behavior and wants to post more here..


This was my post and his post responding for reference:

So[B][B] you would rather have someone buy the card without knowing the prior sale. People look at net54 everyday. It is forseeable that someone would post the prior sale on that card during the auction.

You just seem to be complaining for the wrong reason. I dont think anyone on the board besides you will say it was bad that Greg brought up the prior sale. I guess you wish he brought it up AFTER the auction? The winner could of returned the card and asked for a refund if went for 60k.

So if the thread started after the sale the net effect may of been the same. I guess you wanted something to post that past sale AFTER the potential refund period expired.
I get why you are upset in general but dont understand why you are upset at the timing of the information of the thread and you did Make a Thousand dollars and the buyer may have been fully informed as well and wont ask for a refund. I just think you are mad at the wrong people.
Also again, i guess i am crazy because i still dont think the card goes for 7500 more than what you paid for it a short time ago and nobody else bothered to bid higher than you and give up a 'sure $5000'

Scott,
I dont see what service Greg did except potentially cost John money who bought card legitly. Not picking a fight but what would you think if I (basis of argument only) go look for some posts on here or collectorsfocus of guys showing off some big cards and I find the before and afters costing them thousands. So next time every major auction has any of the cards up we can say if was screwed with. I have a problem with this and what Greg did during an auction. It does nobody any good except piss people off.

Also on the flip side I dont really believe the $75k. It was an arbitrary number and coming from a guy who made so many people leave hobby for good after the National. And if some people dont see that open your eyes.

I just don't understand one fundamental thing. I have collected baseball cards, comic books, prints and posters. What do they all have in common?

They are all made of paper.

Comic books, prints, and posters all make restoration a public matter, whether it's by a grading company or by the dealer. Are there omissions? Sure. But just look around and you'll see -- as others have already pointed out -- that original condition, with flaws intact -- commands higher prices than items that have been altered or restored.

Why can't we do the same for baseball cards? Is that too much ask for?

Again many people would agree with you that the card is legit. Those people would not be influenced by this thread or the information contained herein. The people who feel the card is not legit definitely would want to know, so I see it as no harm, no foul. You allowed the people who wanted the card because of the PSA grade to compete and greatly reduced the chance of a return from a buyer who was unhappy with the card due to the changes.

Without this thread if a buyer who DID mind the changes had won it and found out, it would have been a very likely candidate for a return, so which is worse a disappointing sale or a no sale? If you're arguing that the next buyer should've never found out, then you are back to pushing the problem onto the next guy until someone is left holding the bag. Should Greg have waited until the return period was over before making the post?

Now, ostensibly, the card is in the hands of someone who wants it with full knowledge of its history, and to me that's as it should be.

You said exactly what i was getting yet.

Plus for now on when we buy a card we can ask for a 30 day return in the event a prior sale of the same card comes to light that is 2 grades lower for example and if the seller refuses this then make an offer accordingly

Sorry guys but I just don't agree with you.

What I do agree with is that if an individual chooses to look for a card and find it was in a much lower holder than they should choose not to bid. However, making a big issue and getting a debate isn't the right way to go about it.

I think people will cause more problems then helping if they do this. But who am I.

#4
 

This thread just moved into #4 all time.


Threads in Forum : Net54baseball Vintage (Pre-WWII) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions Forum Tools Search this Forum
Rating Thread / Thread Starter Last Post Replies Reverse Sort Order Views

225 Attachment(s) Go to first new post What's your Monster number? (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
frankbmd
02-10-2017 08:45 PM
by Wayne Go to last post
1,893 293,228
You have 1 post(s) in this thread, last 01-28-2016
17 Attachment(s) the list (of criminals) is revealed (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
sflayank
03-30-2016 07:54 AM
by Leon Go to last post
998 207,768

741 Attachment(s) Go to first new post Let's see some postcards (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
jb217676
Yesterday 11:49 PM
by BeanTown Go to last post
911 156,639

35 Attachment(s) PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7 (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
botn
Today 09:50 AM
by ezez420 Go to last post
724 50,422

58 Attachment(s) I'm almost POSITIVE this card features Shoeless Joe... (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
brett
01-24-2015 06:41 AM
by EvilKing00 Go to last post
720 75,606

Reminded me of this one: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=174608




.

Here's the Nagurski before the faint check mark (top and center above the "T" in "STARS") on the back disappeared, followed by card scans as it looked in the PWCC sale.
Based on your recreated submission, is it fair to assume the submission came from PWCC, and PWCC doctored many of these beforehand?

PSA 4(MK): Heritage Auctions 05/14/2015 Sold for: $3,824.00
PSA 3.5: PWCC 10/18/2015 Sold for: $4616.00

Not 100% they're the same card. I also see what looks like writing in his armpit area of his left arm (our right) on the before.

Good catch, I did not see that writing. It appears on the after, also, possibly less so?

I don't think that's the same card, if it is the upper right corner got more rounded. Also the bottom border is smaller on the newer one, although it could be the slat is making it appear so.

I agree about the upper right corner being more rounded, but that could have been due to handling. The border difference is probably more from the scans being slightly different in size altogether. The focus is the same, multiple print marks are the same, the writing under the armpit is the same.

If it is the same card, the color suffered badly when it was worked on:

The dot in the right margin a quarter of the way up the right border looks the same, as does the centering. I think it's probably the same card, but the top right corner did get injured during the crack/erasure. The washed out color could just be a difference in scanner settings.

Addition: The cert number still checks out in the registry, so if it was cracked out, the flip wasn't sent back in for removal from the registry.

Lolol

Hold on, be right back, need more popcorn and a pit stop...

God, sick of popcorn. Need a beer and a shower.

Why in heaven or hell would you buy a graded card after reading this?

You know why.

Just so I don't have dig through 50 something pages. Is there real truth the fact offered that Brent encouraged a member to bid without the intention of winning. I'm a Brent supporter and have been defending him elsewhere, but that would make me look like quite the clown.

Attachment 262612

You may wanna read through the 50 something pages...

Start with post #412.

On a related side note, I strongly feel those cards mentioned are just the "tip of the iceberg" of the whole grading industry. I recall reading a section in the book Mint Condition about the card "Doctor". In which he sent in cards that he "worked" on to the grading companies without detection. Granted, from what I remember those cards he sent in aren't in circulation. Though, if one guy can do it, I'm sure many others can as well.

With that said, I do feel at some point, the grading market might come "crashing" down to a certain degree. Whether it be, some government agency stepping in (with the amount of money being exchanged for these high dollar cards, I'm sure "they're" watching) or people just flat out losing faith in a 3rd parties opinion.

Lastly, I've never sent a card in for grading (been collecting 30ish plus years), I do in fact buy graded cards online to help reduce the risk of me buying a counterfeit, altered card. With the countless stories I've seen or heard about over the years, I cannot put too much faith in a 3rd party opinion on high dollar sports card. Hell, PSA was founded on a trimmed Wagner. Yes, it does help reduce my risk of receiving a counterfeit or altered card when buying online. No way in hell am I paying $10k for a card that you can buy raw for $600 just because of some guys opinion at a grading company. More power to anyone that feels comfortable buying a $50k sports card based on someone's opinion of the condition.

Now that is just funked up! Where money is to be made you will always have corrupt people. Insane...unless I'm reading this wrong? Brent is telling the guy to bid on an auction? :eek:

That is the most ironic part of all of this, PWCC asked the guy to do a shill bid so that his other bids wouldn't appear to be shill bids. He was told to temporarily become the high bidder but PWCC assured him that it would be eventually overtaken by a higher bid.

There is a lot of upside to TPG, but the inevitable downside is that they are going to miss a certain amount of highly-skilled card doctoring. There are people out there who are just really good at what they do, and they put a lot more effort into it than TPGs have the time or resources to always detect. It's like PEDs, the masking technology usually runs ahead of the detection technology. What I find interesting and somewhat discouraging is that so many people, particularly high end collectors, seem indifferent to that, and care only about the flip.

And there is a chance a lot of this is being taken out of context. It happens and has happened to me. It's not fun. Just because someone says you won't be the high bidder actually means very little to me. I have put in bids on 500k cards at very first with a 50k bid. I was the temporary high bidder but I wasn't going to win, maybe the same here? I can't hardly read all of the texts as they are too small....and Brent gave a reason too, but let's not try to look at both sides. Let's just look at the jackass's side.

I do think we would also be at more risk buying altered cards if everything was 'raw' . So many disputes as to what is Mint and Near Mint as well that do not exist now with the graded cards. Basically we would have 4000 Battlefield type sellers out there with high number of returns and negative feedback. Yes the great sellers with great reputation shoudl do well but thats how it is now as time goes on.

Just too many bad situations with no third party graders for anyone to think the third party grading will go away

As Leons stated there may be other reasons. However, this can also be inferred that if he 'won' the card he wouldnt have to pay for it because he was assured that he wouldnt win the card. Thus, there would be no way he could of been sued for payment when he has a text like that.

Lol
 

No one is going to walk into a court room with that as a defense. I am pretty sure it is incriminating.

Interesting read, and many varying opinions as well. Seems there might be a spin off thread in the making.

DCMeale

Yes, this is Cortney DeLorme, the one that started this spiral around page 30 or so. I provided a screenshot showing Brent asking me to bid on the card and assuring me that I would be outbid. On that auction, I think the account that I used was the one you guys will refer to as S***N.

A lot of people think this is a one time deal. When the dust settles on this, more is to come. Anyone supporting Brent, will absolutely look foolish. I'm not saying that they are less intelligent than anyone else, but in light of the new evidence that has been shown and what all else I have, he has no defense.

Have you noticed that Betsy has called me out on many occasion about a "very large unpaid debt" and that I've refuted it with screenshots and timestamps asking for an invoice prior to her post...............and, now she won't address it at all.

Then, to make it even more fun, she originally said I was blocked b/c of the debt, but when that was refuted, changed it to "Cortney DeLorme is the first person in the history of PWCC to be blocked as a person and not as a bidder". Every time I shoot em down, they reload and try to stick a dagger in me somewhere else. They'll eventually learn, I have 5 years of this stuff and I have no problem implicating whoever needs implicating to make my point.................and, again, my point is NOT that I lost 30K on the card when I sold it via Ken. It is the fact that Brent was my best friend (or so I thought), I was high biggest consignor with no close second, I trusted him wo reservation, he knew I wouldn't check behind what he told me..................and he used that against me to unload a card that he knew I'd have had no interest in had I known it's history.

Back to your original question, yes, there is proof of shill bidding requests by brent. Another quick screenshot can quickly alleviate that question.

Another question that keeps getting brought up is bid retractions. That account has 10 in the last 6 months (0 in last 30)...............when all of them were over a year ago . And of those 10 retractions, 9 were on ONE AUCTION where I had to manually retract each bid that i placed (t206 plank......therefor getting more retractions) to back out of the auction b/c of other shill bidding. So, Im absolutely positive that the "6 month" retraction goes away over MUCH LONGER time frame. I have another account that I use maybe once a month and haven't retracted since 2/16 but yet all of them are still there.

Cortney

Anger provokes responses. Those responses can sometimes be damaging to ones credibility and insulting to others. I have no intention of doing any of those to anyone or any business...........except to those who INTENTINALLY lie to me and steal from me. My previous comments about SGC and a "$20 Card Collector" (which from what I hear is the name of a new forum page) was directed at ONE PERSON for being an argumentative prick with no substantive argument............not people that collect cards in a range less than, say, $10K. The posts were unacceptable, and I sincerely apologize. SGC has graded with the toughest of them and aggravated the crap out of me on one particular instance..............but, garnered great respect from it. For example, I had 9 PSA 8 '57 Unitas 8's that I took to a show and wanted to have ONE crossed over to an SGC 8.5 or 9. I spent over 3K on crossovers for them to tell me that only 3 of those 8's even fit their 8 requirements. So, my respect of their grading techniques grew tremendously. However, the reason I don't buy SGC is b/c of their lack of qualifiers. When I buy a card, if it's been trimmed, altered, etc., (ahem.......cue, BRENT) I want to know so that I can STAY AWAY (AGAIN, CUE BRENT) from it. I don't buy that stuff. That's just my personal preference. The same goes for BVG. I prefer PSA b/c of their qualifiers. Are they perfect, no. Are any of us, absolutely not. But, PSA, in my humble opinion have garnered the respect of the hobby and hold the most stable prices of any of the companies. That's MY OPINION, nothing more; so please don't attack me over that. This post is simply an apology for those 2 comments that I made out of frustration and to otherwise defend SGC and their business practices, which I made a fool of myself earlier in the thread for saying the things that I did.

And quite a few of you brought it to my attn. ;-)