If it's been graded by PSA, and it's past the return window, the seller could tell you to take it up with PSA. Or he could take the return and try to return it to his own seller or go to PSA himself.

Kind of reminds me of the thread where we discussed the theft of some rare caramel cards that were summarily sold to a dealer and spread amongst the National buyers/sellers. The theory at that time was that "good title" was not conveyed during the sale because they had been stolen. So the cards were supposed to be rebought by the sellers until they made it back to the dealer who bought the stolen cards. I'm not sure that concept is in play here, but as PSA has a grade guarantee, I'd call them first.

To those who apparently still have a problem with the way this was handled I will say this. I found out Friday that a card I legitimately purchased was altered and bumped from an A to a 2 holder. I notified the AH immediately, and communicated back and forth via email. An agreement was reached to disclose the history and keep the auction live.

It became clear soon after that the disclosure was insufficient, and the auction was almost immediately pulled once I became aware. This was about 24 hours after the first mention on blowout. This was all going on while I was in the office and also focused on work there. I did my best to communicate in real time what was going on.

I have heard back from the person I purchased the card from. He declined to buy it back for what I paid. It will go to PSA next for a review.

Just curious who you got it from Jesse and Hi. Sucks, that there are many worked on cards in the hobby that have been holdered over the years. There shouod be a database like the registry but it has all the bad cards and cert numbers listed. It would make great cross reference for all AHs to use going forward.

Maybe he couldn't take the return because he submitted it himself and the guarantee therefore would not apply? Anyhow Dan is certainly free to tell his side of the story.

Peter/John R my mind is going in circles.....it’s all to much for me...it’s like clearing a building with endless rooms and hallways...one twist to the others is another Shit Show...it’s really a shame/stressful ... Keep up all the due diligence, you guys have done a excellent job so far exposing this and keeping it real .....I’m not as intelligent as many...I try to keep it simple....my mind has been made up a while now...

Any clue who Dan bought it from, if not Greg Biz?

I have no idea if he bought it from Greg or if there was an intervening sale or at what point the work was done on the card.

End of the day, you did the right thing. That’s what matters. It’s nice to see someone act with integrity. You may get crap from others for prior comments and/or opinions, but in this case, you 100% acted well (you did not have to).

Also, Jesse, for what's it worth, I for one didn't think you were the one who decided to bury the disclosure in the bottom of the description where nobody would see it. I could be wrong, but I figured Brent talked you into leaving the listing up and that he told you he would take care of it and all would be good. Then when you found out how he handled it you didn't agree with his method and you decided to remove the listing altogether. A class A move. I could be wrong, but that's what I thought anyway.

He knew about the disclosure and even posted it here in this thread word for word.

I know that. But I didn't think he was in on the decision to bury it in the description like Brent did. I never said he didn't know about the disclosure.

Which disclosure opined that the card was appropriately graded a 2. So placement was only one serious problem.

I can't believe in this atmosphere Brent would do that.

Anytime something is added to the description on an eBay auction that has bids whatever is added is automatically added to the very bottom of the listing. I am in no way defending Brent, just saying that he had no choice as to where the "disclosure" was added.

I think James is right about that, it's an addendum not a change, but all the more reason he should not have even considered that option. A highly misleading additional disclosure that virtually nobody will see. On an altered card in a numerical holder. In this atmosphere.

I did not know that. Thanks for clarifying.

Peter, I can’t agree with you more. The fact that in this atmosphere, PWCC continues to act so brazenly unethical is mind blowing. One would think they would be cautious. Instead, they are reckless and/or sociopathic. It’s remarkable. Perhaps it’s a strategy: Keep doing what you were always doing because changing could indicate past guilt/culpability?

I think it's just who he is, and how he does things, at this point.

What I would find interesting is the mindset of the other employees at PWCC.

nice spoon feed...Fact is, Mr pokerPlayer has been standing up for the biggest fraudster this hobby has ever seen and still is giving Brent Mastro more fake cards to sell for him. He HAS ZERO integrity. That's what I thought anyway.

I'm not sure I would go this far but I would definitely say that first hyping up the card without revealing his ownership, followed by the not-really-honest disclaimer, are not a good look.

Two more cards were taken down today by Brent, see the cert list thread.

Looks like some are giving sellers of “bad” stuff a pass by using the greater villain defense - unless they have PWCC in their name. I understand there is a return term, but is there a statue of limitations? what stops a TPG from invoking it? Technology has caught up they can claim. What about the expert sellers who state the Cobb is an obvious hack job? Did this slide by the novice seller and buyer? Apparently somebody turned a convenient blind eye.

Has the previous seller of this card chimed in?

As poster earlier buy Jesse, Dan McKee declined on buying it back.

Ahemmmmm. Some of us have husbands and boyfriends here.

Do they know about each other.:eek::D

Has he chimed in yet, anyone know where Dan may have got it?

Thanks Jesse for sharing and communicating everything. Given that this is a thread about a specific card I think your reply should be starred and kept above at the top of this thread. People may agree or disagree but regardless what you have to say shouldn't be lost in the mix of posts.

HAHA! Oooops. Didn't mean both at the same time (at least in my case!) You know what I meant. Hopefully that lightened things up a bit!

He has not.

gotta love the SPIN!!!!!!

I thought the story overall was a step in the right direction for the author.

I agree Peter. Very decent article - the article used actual names, stated actual facts, good and bad, and promoted no agenda other than better grading standards. Just report the facts, the facts tell the obvious story

He missed that McKee in fact refused to refund; he may have submitted it prior to that being reported by Jesse.

+1

title was/is deceptive

But at least he is now acknowledging the issues and not shying away from naming PWCC.

agreed

Two days ago, an eager collector asked advice about a highly desirable 1911 T3 Turkey Red Ty Cobb card for sale in an eBay auction raucous sports card chat room that prides itself on ferreting out fraudsters, Net54,

Is this English? This is different than me teasing someone about a typo this guy is supposed to be a writer.

Then he trots out the name "Jesse" with no antecedent (yeah WE know who that is but the average reader doesn't)

He did not feel comfortable requesting a refund from the seller since it had been two year

Still, the subject matter is an improvement over unbridled praise for crooks...

Better than before...

But no mention of the fact that Brent originally wanted to insert an addendum at the bottom of the description, as his initial solution. People who already had their snipes set (based purely on Brent’s original description) never would’ve seen the buried addendum.

The card was pulled as a last resort. Would’ve been nice to include a few of those relevant details. And to label net54 as a “raucous sports card chat room” is purely his opinion, and not fact. That wording is quite inappropriate. “Truth-seeking” would have been far more descriptive than “raucous”. Why even include that verbiage, unless his piece is labeled as a commentary?

Still a slightly better article than those which preceded it.

Remember he is a "contributor" not a staff writer. His stuff is not vetted (or edited) as an actual Forbes piece would be. It's a weird line that most people aren't aware of.

Nobody would have seen that buried addendum. Nobody. And the addendum itself was pure fraud -- the "2" grade was appropriate. Please, Brent.

I made the news.

Sorry to take this off track but I didn’t want to create another thread.
Anyone get the Probstein newsletters via email? I just noticed today that there is a link to current PWCC auction listings right below Probsteins listings. Did I miss something? Is there some partnership going on here? I found it strange.

This has been going on for a while. I have avoided both like the plague for years so no idea what kind of partnership they may have.

Anyone reach out to Greg Bussineau?

Hush hush...leadership at these companies ...pwcc, probstein, Major PSA sellers are being told to be quiet........this will pass....we are all benefiting and need this gravy train to continue.....the sucker collectors and registry fiends are addicted we will get through this just keep things rolling.......

I know someone who did, and did not get a response.

Anyone reach out to Dan McKee?

He obviously is aware of the issue because he refused to take the card back from Jesse.