Right, if they already re-considered and confirmed the grade during the PWCC auction..why change their mind now...they already would of been aware of the past sales of the card and what it looked like when they confirmed the grade..

however, in the end, the buyer of the card did get his money back and pwcc apparently is eating the entire purchase price of the card as they paid the consignor (who made $1300+ on the sale) and not asking for money back from the consignor so there is no real victim here as far as the pwcc auction..

Something like this work? Or maybe this? So defend your dude man.

This may still be my favorite credibility burner, though I am biased. Posts 76 and then 78.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...75#post1196475

need more than that...which cobb are they referring too.......where is the actual payment of $1500 knowing the card is not real...any other correspondece after that..im assuming the sale was not on ebay....there may be more emails...they also not technically agreeing the card is fake...would want to see what you wrote to them too

Since Joe is in a mood to write checks and Betsy and Brent are so keen on cleaning up the hobby, Joe might want to take a closer look at Brent's submission below that the DiMaggio was part of. Many of the cards bumped and before pics are posted on this thread...http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=234837 Brent and Betsy ought to be more careful whose cards they are submitting and then selling. :D

24692740 1911 D304 Brunners Bread Ty Cobb PSA 4.5 Sold by PWCC 12/6/15
24692741 1915 Cracker Jack #105 Joe Jackson PSA 3 Sold by PWCC 11/8/15
24692742 No Grade
24692743 No Grade
24692744 1933 Goudey #29 Jimmy Foxx PSA 5 No Record of Sale
24692745 1933 Goudey #149 Babe Ruth PSA 5.5 Sold by PWCC 10/6/15
24692746 1934 Goudey #61 Lou Gehrig PSA 5 Sold by PWCC 10/6/15
24692747 1935 National Chicle #34 Bronko Nagurski PSA 3.5 Sold by PWCC 10/18/15
24692748 1936 World Wide Gum #36 Joe DiMaggio PSA 7 Sold Privately by PWCC
24692749 1940 Play Ball #1 Joe DiMaggio PSA 5 Sold by PWCC 10/6/15
24692750 1940 Play Ball #27 Ted Williams PSA 6 Sold by PWCC 10/6/15
24692751 1941 Play Ball #14 Ted Williams PSA 6 Sold by PWCC 11/8/15
24692752 1941 Play Ball #71 Joe DiMaggio PSA 5 Sold by PWCC 11/8/15
24692753 No Grade
24692754 1957 Topps #95 Mickey Mantle PSA 8.5 Sold by PWCC 10/8/15

I'm sorry I'm not here to indulge you. But if you say you don't care if a card is real or not, then you don't care if its fake either. Can't have both. Mic drop I'm out! Look on the bright side man at least I don't bash you like everyone else on here does...but don't push me too far. ;)

I had to laugh thinking the consignor to REA asked Brent to shill it up... and ended up winning it.


A vicious circle

Jake,
Why do you always got to dispute everyone on this site?
You make yourself look like a complete idiot!
Brad Pencil is one of the nicest guys in this hobby and he is not the con artist in this situation.
Read the darn eBay messages, they can't be edited. What the hell is your problem?

I just don't understand your MO on this site. You are always on it and post about every piece of nonsense there is.
Don't you got anything to do in your life?

Your show is getting stale, you are barking up the wrong tree all the freakin time!!!

+1000000000000 to the first sentences.

Brad Pencil's reputation really should not and cannot be questioned. Don't go down this road Jake. There are more than enough scumbags in this hobby for you to attack to even consider F u cking with Brad. That guy is as honest and decent as they come, and I am proud to call him a friend. He didn't have to come out and say he sold them the card, and yet he did. So what is your theory exactly? That they offered to buy ANOTHER COBB off brad that they knew was fake?
GTFOH defending some shady ebayer over a respected member of this board.

I seriously considered requesting a profile name change to "Archive" a while back during another dust up...then I figured Leon had to put up with enough crap, he didn't need my smart ass to deal with...

Long live Archive...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Somehow these two things don't seem to agree with each other.

I know you said this was the last post on the thread, but there are still real questions to be asked/answered. Here is mine: will the card now be returned to PSA under their insurance policy and bought back down to the original price/grade range and then either cracked or reholdered? If the card is still out there as a slabbed PSA 7, then it's still a problem. And theoretically, if PSA is liable for the incorrect grading, you could recoup 90% of your costs by busting it down to a PSA Authentic or mid-grade and taking the difference in a check from PSA.

I'm sure PWCC won't be completely left holding the bag on this. A bump or two and a wink can easily make up 50k. Just need to make sure the card(s) involved aren't as easily identified from past sales!

Psa
 

John, psa does not refund the submitter of a card anything for an incorrect grade. They will reimburse a subsequent buyer but not the original submitter. I know it seems odd but I have had this happen to me a couple times in the 25 years I have been dealing with psa. They thank you and give you back the grading fee but nothing for the card. You just get it back correctly graded and a refund of the grading fees. I have even experienced this within the last year. It is still their policy.

So psa should be the one paying the buyer who overpaid due to psa,s mistake according to what we have been told.

Again, i think we have not been told the whole story or even necessarily the truth.

I do care if the card is real, not having both...would just like to have one! Showing one picture without any before or after context and refusing to provide doesnt look good. Even selling a fake card for $1500 looks really shady. When it comes to bashing, i think its pot calling the kettle black in this case but thats not really fair to me either. .i never accused of selling a fake card.. I have had arguments whether 2 home runs and a double is better than hitting for the cycle but thats nothing compared to being accused of committing fraud..

I not defending toppsholoc at all. I agree Topps is the worst ebay seller in the world. So your post makes no sense. Now knowing Toppsholic is the worst ebay seller in the world (thus i am not defending some shady seller )would you sell him a fake card for $1500? No one would have a right to question you for doing that? Also when you comment about you dont care if you screw someone over (as another poster in this thread quoted you), because whoever the seller is, well I do care if it was me. I just wouldnt do the deal with toppholic or whether it was battlefield selliing a great graded card. That could be just me that doesnt do that , but I dont think its ridiculous for me to questions others that do.

John, you are upset that you didnt make more on the sale of the altered card and i get that. You made several posts that the net54 threads impacted the final sale value. Did you not? However you did make $1300+, and the card was removed from the PSA registery. You didnt eat the loss, PWCC did on your consignment. The card ultimately was returned back to PWCC, so not sure what your argument is about people impacting the auction when its obvious the auction was unfair to whoever bought the card. Lets not pretend you are not biased no matter what I put on here but i do not think anything i put here on this thread was unfair. You are free to point out anything you think was unfair that i put on this thread and have others chime in.

When i see comments about 'dont you have to do anything in your life' it sort of implies you dont have any real argument. You always appear to be in disputes with others on this board.

Jake,
I hate to tell ya, you are NOT the judge and jury of this hobby!
No one really gives a rats ass about what you think.
It's just annoying as hell to constantly read your whining, especially about subjects that are none of your business.

I understand you are a semi struggling lawyer, do you really think practicing "debate" on message boards is gonna help your career?
It's not!

It just makes you look like a jack ass.

I am not the judge and jury and I agree. Neither are you. Just because you are rich does not mean you can be a bully without being questioned. I dont bring anyone's profession into the post whether you are accurate or not but i not going down that road.

So your post says the selling of your card in the PWCC auction is none of my business. Why post on here then, keep it private. What about the other posters on net54, is it their business or none of their business as well.

I do notice you did not address my prior post at all in regards to its content You just attacked. Maybe you can say that I have no life again. (Some people would say people responding to my posts also may have no life)

lol

(Some people would say people responding to my posts also may have no life)

Yet some others would say they have difficulty reading through grammar and punctuation errors.

I can see the blood pressure rising , John. Im not going to voice my opinion on that sale or the final value from pwcc, but your comment to Jake about made me spit my coffe out laughing. Get him, John!! Lol.

Man, we have a very noteworthy event, a 50K card that PSA supposedly specifically blessed during a live auction after serious questions were raised about it being altered, the card now suddenly gets yanked from the registry, all sorts of questions remain about the supposed explanation from PWCC and the lack of other relevant information, and the thread degenerates into a name-calling and pissing contest.

Excellent point!!!!!

Still waiting on the photos that you said you couldnt download from your phone. Im sure there are a lot of people laughing right now....

No offense but i dont think many net54 posters would be looking for you to endorse any of their posts...

Lets get to issue in hand like Peter S. states...

+1. Don't hold your breath. He said he got them off of his phone. He can't release something he doesn't have.

Peter, I think you're trying to make the situation more complicated than it is. Perhaps it really was sent in for a review, but PSA didn't know the controversy surrounding it at the time? Then later, after the card was already sent back, they were made aware of it and decided to get the card off the market?


If it really was sent in for a review, it was probably overnighted, PSA spent all of 3 minutes looking at it, then it was probably mailed back the same day.

IDK, maybe your conspiracy theory is better than my logical explanation?

If after all that Brent did not make them aware of the controversy when he sent it in, and the reason for doing so, then shame on him. And I doubt PSA was unaware of it even if Brent didn't say anything, do you really think nobody made Joe aware of the thread here?

I think Jake might be secretly working undercover :cool: for PSA/PWCC. Just kidding!

I agree with you David. So far, I feel PWCC has done the right things to make things as right as they can be. :) A lot of the other stuff seems to be guys whining over speculating and losing money. Just not a ton of sympathy out there for that. On the other hand, if fraud or lies are proven against anyone, things can change. But I spoke with PWCC quite some time ago about the card in question. If I recall correctly I told them, if it were me, I think the deal should be undone at the buyer's discretion. It has been and still the griping and conspiracies..oy vey..move onto the next speculation...

..And I think it's good it came off the pop report (if it did) and it's not in that holder any longer. That being said, to me it didn't look like any worse of a grade than I have seen on a daily basis. :) How is that for an underhanded compliment and back-stab in the same fell swoop?

**of course PWCC is an advertiser but it's not like they are being protected, this is just my opinion so far....

PWCC never should have sold the card without full disclosure of its history of alteration/restoration. It's that simple. The card's history was a clearly material fact, known fully by Brent who personally was involved. How has PWCC done the right things here, Leon? Is a fraudulent omission a "right thing"?

I think they sold a card without full disclosure but it was a graded card. They undid the deal or allowed it to be undone. That was the right thing to do, imo. And I am done as I stated my opinion already. Unless there is something different I will just give the Gorsuch stare. :)

To beat the horse again, that it was graded does not excuse the absence of disclosure, particularly where Brent knew the grade was the result of alteration/restoration and that the card had been in a three grades lower holder previously. And I don't think we have the full story on post-sale events.

Oh, and let me add...
:)

I have seen in some auction houses that a card used to be a SGC7 and the card now is a PSA 6.......basically when its a positive thing for them to disclose....

Just a simple question and maybe someone knows the answer. In the comic book community, a comic book can be restored and given a better appearance. The graders can detect all the restoration done to a comic and give it the applicable grade with a purple label that basically means "restoration has taken place". Are the graders of cards unable to detect the restoration techniques? I am in the camp, that I see nothing wrong with restoring a card, as long as it is taking away something that shouldn't have been there to begin with from the factory (surface wrinkle, ink mark, etc).

As an outsider, and hindsight being 20/20, I really don't understand why Brent didn't just kill the auction when he saw how much was being made of the grade, etc. Why chance having to eat that kind of money if things go bad, like they did. Especially if you compare your commission to the amount you may have to refund, it seems like a no-brainer. Brent should know that nothing ever gets by this board, there are way too many knowledgeable people on here. Also, I don't get why PWCC would post a couple of comments and in the second one state that this is the last time you're going to address this issue. It seems like a really big issue with potential fraud, and if you are just an innocent auction house, why not answer as many questions and be as transparent as you possibly can? Again, I'm new to this issue and these are just my 2 cents.

Joe K

Because lawyers.

It seems to me PWCC only did "the right thing" after Courtney blew the lid off of this issue. I truly believe PWCC would not have done ANYTHING if Courtney had not come on here. So, I won't give PWCC the "easy pass".

We have similar threads/issues over their years where people were caught doing shady things and only did "the right thing" after getting called out on here.

Mark

That's not the PWCC way. Read the old posts I linked above. And it works, because ultimately "stuff" trumps transparency.

One of the things that may be overlooked here is that it appears that PSA is stating (without actually stating) that before and after photos are in fact enough to deem a card "Evidence of cleaning", regardless of a lack of chemical smell or other indicators.

I added Jake to my ignore list about six months ago. Best decision I've ever made.

Tu.rner Eng.le

If true, I wonder if they could then ship it back to SGC, so SGC could put it back into the "4" holder it apparently belongs in?

Nah, SGC cannot seem to provide a proper grade for their cards...

;)

It belonged in that holder before it was altered. Not so sure now.

totally agree!!!

Are you new here?

++This is true. The 2nd item overlooked is the fact this crap happens every day at the AH's and nobody seems to give a hoot.

Technically the card is now altered and belongs in an authentic slab.

I would assume PSA detected nothing...why would they slab it a 7 if they had?

What a shit storm...and what are the odds that this is the tip of the iceberg?

Yes lets endorse John.....John did say this about the Dimaggio card that he was the consignor while it was still being bid on with PWCC in that famous thread people are referencing..

"Whoever cleaned it up did the hobby a huge favor. Great card either way"


Is there anyone on net54 that agrees with that statement? I will assume nobody does unless someone posts otherwise.

Correct me if I am wrong and he did not say this in that thread. Yes hes doing the card community a favor so lets support him... Yes later on he did disclose he was the owner of the card so he may of had a bias. So its a situation where Bias is involved and its not Len I am talking about.

I wonder how much trouble Doug Allen had getting cards past PSA that he had worked on? I wonder if PSA looks past their "big" customers? I honestly don't believe that any of what is going on is on the up and up. The HUGE dollar amounts between a 7 to 8 to 9 to GEM MINT have got to be very tempting. When the number a grader slaps on a slab pushes a card up tens of thousands of dollars when the difference between a 9 and 10 is difficult for anyone to see...I don't see how there isn't fraud happening unless every grader is Mother Theresa.

Well whoever is making the cards better is doing the hobby a favor some would argue, at least the submitter would argue and anyone who buys the card trying to sell it at a profit

All submitters are equal, but some are probably more equal than others.

Where did you read/hear this? It is not in Brent's post. That's why I asked the question as to what the end state of the card would be.

Well, the SMR on this card in PSA 1 is 950 (authentics not listed). I would be willing to help the hobby and buy this infamous card at "their" valuation :)

I assumed (yikes) this from what I read, I don't know if it is there or not, personally. I thought I read it got cracked out of the holder (and therefore wouldn't be there) but am not wading to find out. Again, if it is still in the 7 holder and on the report, so be it. I don't really care that much.

Unequal Submission----
 

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...EWJOE7_NEW.JPG

..I have never had much contact with any of the brass at PSA.... except for a couples rounds of golf at Pebble Beach with Joe O. ( Oh ,and yeah --there was that crazy weekend at Catalina....)

...

Brent did say it had been removed from the registry.
"PSA decided to remove the card from the registry due to concerns raised by the hobby about the restoration."

I was questioning the cracking out of the card. It sounds like the buyer hasn't sent it back yet.

I wonder how many soaked cards have been sold by members here without full disclosure.
James

I liken it to theft. Someone gets caught stealing something, they return the item, they apologize. Because the item went back to the owner, doesn't mean that a crime or misdemeanor wasn't committed and that there isn't consequences to the actions. The police could still get called, and that person could still be charged.

Regardless of the fact that they ate the commissions, price of the card, the card was pulled from the registry, all does not change the fact that the act actually occurred, and that there should be and could be consequences to that.

Full disclosure? Lol. How abiut ANY disclosure?

James is trying to suggest Brent did nothing different than what people here do. I very much doubt anyone here has had a card chemically treated (a virtual certainty see other thread) and obtained a three grade bump making the card worth 50k plus and then said nothing about it. So no it's not at all the same as soaking a card out of a scrapbook or soaking it in water to remove glue or paper. But carry on with the defense, please.

I learn something new every day. That will really shorten certain threads.

Lmao
 

That is the funniest I've seen in a while!!



Spring 2015: Sold in REA as an SGC 50 for $6600 to Brent (according to Betsy from PWCC "for an unnamed client" - a request to confirm the unnamed client has no ownership interest in PWCC has not been responded to)

Question - Has anyone on here had any dialogue with Brent about purchasing cards for them from other AH's? Is this a service he offers or something he has done for anyone?

August 2015: Sold privately by Brent to Courtney as a PSA 7 for $75k (Betsy from PWCC states that this was on behalf of another client (it has not been clarified how the card made it from alleged client 1 to alleged client 2), Courtney the buyer states that Brent represented the card was owned by him personally). It was between the Robert Edward purchase and the Courtney purchase that the card was altered and jumped from an SGC 50 to a PSA 7.

Speculation - Brent had the card altered and submitted to PSA (the submission is fact) and at this point Brent is +$68,400 (less shipping, alteration and grading fees)


Oct 2016: Consigned by Courtney to Goldin and won by John Perez for $46,800

Courtney -$28,200
Brent - +$68,400

Feb 2017: Consigned by John to Brent and sold to unknown buyer for $52,300 (after which according to Betsy from PWCC - buyer returns card to PWCC who is "taking the loss" on the card)

Courtney -$28,200
Brent +$16,100 ($68,400 - $52,300)
John +1,300.


Speculation:

The "loss" on the last sale still leaves Brent +$16,100 from the original sale to Courtney. The card conveniently for PWCC - "disappears". If PWCC is truly innocent, it only makes sense that they go to PSA looking for reimbursement of the sale price - as PSA missed the alteration and $52,300 is A LOT of money........unless PSA would be able to come back and prove that in fact PWCC did or contracted for the alteration - giving them a solid argument not to pay. By not pursuing it, PWCC conveniently avoids this potentially more visible and costly public relations nightmare. I think PWCC has created a story about the "unnamed clients", believing it allows them "plausible deniability". PWCC tries to spin it that they are "doing the right thing" by taking the card back and refunding it's latest purchaser, when it actually conveniently leaves the card in their hands, Brent +$16,100 and Courtney out $28,200 (leaving him starting this thread and understandably upset).

Would be really curious to hear PSA weigh in on the conversation. Unfortunately, I presume PWCC is one of their best customers and they have a vested interest in finding a way to cover their own ass while protecting PWCC.



This situation raises a number of questions:

1) Is it illegal to alter a card, make no representation about it and let a grading company grade do the talking? What if it is ungraded? Some have suggested "removing what is not supposed to be there is okay" - curious to hear opinions - where is the line? soaking to get rid of paper or scrap book residue? removing tape? removing stains? removing creases? whitening? trimming? Coloring? replacing missing pieces? Does it make a difference if the card is $50 or $50,000?

2) I like the idea of doing something similar to what CGC does - a separate color label with details of alteration (these comic books sell for less than unaltered books in the same grade) - Clearly the grading companies have a harder time detecting alteration? - or just choose to ignore it?


2) If PSA's policy is it will not grade cards it determines are altered, then like many have raised, why is the Gretzky Wagner still in the PSA population?

I do what I can.

The prior thread has extensive discussions on issue #1. And as far as I know, PSA has never made a determination the Wagner is altered. Mastro acknowledges he trimmed it, but I have not seen PSA acknowledging this.

Nor will they ever!

I think, although this is not breaking news, that the 2 parties being discussed in this thread are more than just acquaintances.

Still a ton of unanswered questions from both parties, and although one has attempted to clear the air, so to speak, the other has been silent.

PSA is notorious for avoiding public discussion and shutting down dissent on its own board. It seems to be the right judgment, as business is thriving. Similarly, I doubt the issues some of us have with PWCC have much if any impact on its business.

Perhaps if those who sell on EBay, link to the threads here, it may.

Not really. I think both parties have explained their side pretty well. Answers only lead to more and more questions. That's pretty obvious. Where does it end? At this point I think we have enough information to draw our own conclusions.

That's just my opinion.

Again, the main unanswered question is when Brent gets the card back from the buyer, will he crack it out of the PSA 7 case? If not, it's still a problem as PSA has disavowed the card. It could still be sold as a PSA 7 in a private sale, even though it technically isn't anymore.

I would bet PSA and Brent will probably come to a settlement that allows them both to show that the card was removed from the holder and both split the loss. PSA has bought back cards graded in error before when called on it, especially since they're financially liable to losses based on the insurance policy covering their grades.

Another good question is whether or not any of the buyers of the other cards in that submission asked for and received refunds due to the possibility of them having been altered and bumped. If so, those prices in VCP are now bogus, as the sale never actually took place. Or whether the buyers of those cards were even informed about the bumps/possible cleaning.

I'll ask the stupid question. Comments have been made about soaking being ok if it is with water, but not with other chemicals. So why is one ok and not the other?

To me it is like taking a shower. I can just use water, or I can choose to use shampoo and soap. Either way, it is still just me underneath. Nothing changed. Is a card so much different?

Yes. Chemicals can cause the paper, ink or other materials to degrade faster and cause physical harm long term, not otherwise seen in the immediate short term. One such similar example may be like rusting. Its not rusty now, but once it starts rusting, it will continue to get worse and worse.

Not a stupid question, but one that's been asked over and over again on this board and elsewhere. And it's still being debated, but the current accepted practice is that soaking in just water is acceptable, while using chemicals is not.

Some people think erasure is okay and many do not. One of the most open card doctors is a member of this site, and to my knowledge, has never been banned.

Without soaking, high grade vintage cards become almost impossible. With soaking, they can be removed from scrapbooks and present very nicely, and are accepted across the community.

So if Zima and wine coolers aren't cool anymore, I guess you guys are going to tell me my bottles of Boone's are not good anymore too. Damn it!!

Andy's Boones Farm....
 

......could still be good if it is vintage 1969 or 1970. And only if it has been stored in an appropriate wine cellar at the correct angle And temperature....with no direct sunlight....or...in the original case in the back of the garage. It could have morphed into ..."The Bomb". Thinking back to 1968 and 1969..Boone's Farm Apple "paired" nicely with a wide assortment of other products.

UNCLE already!

Why don't you guys use PMs instead of all this BM?


-

Relax....
 

have a glass of Ripple.....or Tingle...

..

It seems that the hobby will always have these issues regarding alterations until an agreed upon set of practices is adopted. Since there is no organization to fill this void, maybe next best would be for the more reputable third-party grading companies to consult with major figures in the hobby -- including auction houses, dealers and collectors -- and come up with a set of principles to guide future practices.