Just to clarify, the auction with the retraction I experienced this morning was not PWCC.

My apologies, I thought it was.

I still stand by my comment, however, as it has been shown multiple times in the other thread, and a few others, that they clearly don't obey their own rules or guidelines.

"Tell people what they want to hear-and what they want to hear, is what won't happen.

"...there is no reason to limit honest and thoughtful dialogue. This will be our only post on this thread." Betsy and Brent must think everyone is not as smart as they are. No other POSSIBLE explanation for any of their responses.

For their sake they had better hope they are never cross examined. If their posts are any reflection of their testimony it would not work out too well for them. We all know there be no consequences for the BS that has been going on in their auctions and now the links to card doctoring but they really should have made it a policy to not reply at all.

A policy that seems to be working out for Goldin auctions.

Greg i think many people just have no interest in or appetite for controversy or negativity. So they convince themselves it is ok, or it doesnt affect them. I mean we just had a rather startling admission, that pwcc sold a counterfeit card in a compromised holder, and the silence is deafening. Not implying any fault, but it calls out for more information from pwcc as the implications go well beyond a dispute between brent and cortney.

My thoughts for years were that if I were to send cards to pwcc they'd never get those prices. I can only say I shocked they'd admit it regardless of the "context" provided. Not only did they ask someone to bid, whether or not it was their own consigment, they ASSURED they'd be outbid!

Man talking about going round and round...there is a lot of discussion about if they ASSURED they would be outbid. If you bid a $1000 on a 1952 Topps PSA 8 Mantle and i said 'you will be outbid' does that mean anything..

plus leon i believe said that the text we saw could be open to many interpretations...

Anyway, we never got to see any of those other texts that were promised by Courtney (he said had problems getting them off his phone)

Sounds like an episode of catfish (im sorry my camera doesnt work )

It is quickly looking like Courtney/Cortney (really unsure of spelling as it has been used so interchangeably) has taken some stuff out of context, unless of course he unleashes the beast like he should and proves us all wrong.

He has been contacted multiple times and is ignoring/dancing around things when specifically told he can be helped to get the items off of his phone, repeatedly going back to the beginning when he joined.

I don't doubt that the texts are not damning by themselves to a certain extent, but it may not be as extreme as he is making them out to be. This doesn't change the fact that PWCC isn't addressing it either, and that they were likely the ones to who cleaned the card, which is an entirely different issue.

I will stand corrected. He did just reply to my post privately.

Hopefully he will take necessary steps to secure his phone conversation content soon, should something go wrong like, theft, failure or damage.

The issue surrounding compromised cases is not new to the hobby and has sadly affected every major auction house. We receive 15,000+ items for consignment each month. We have at least five sets of eyes review each card. In most cases, we identify the rare instances of fraud. On some unfortunate occasions, we miss it. In each case, just like the case with Cortney, we do what is right, take responsibility for the loss, and refund the purchase price to the buyer.

Betsy Huigens

Ok. Based on the message above. Is PWCC making it right? Did PWCC offer a refund to the winner? And if so, Will PWCC reholder the card, such the fact saying its been 'restored'. And if PSA doesn't label it as such, well the pitchfork turns to them I guess. What ever has or will or will not happen, just bad business for the hobby.
Edit: I am asking about the DiMaggio, not about the compromised holder.

Just another guy with a pitchfork.

The problem, and not by any means limited to PWCC, is that the problems are not always discovered later, as they were in Cortney's case. I was surprised to hear that the card was counterfeit though, I previously was aware of lower graded cards going into higher graded holders but not outright counterfeiting.