Other than more ad revenue for Leon, what would that accomplish? Not trying to be snarky, just realistic. He could always submit under a different name.

Jim Crandell has a testimonial on PSA's website. It's also worth reading Ken Kendrick's and Brian Seigel's testimonials in light of the Mastro T206 Wagner PSA 8 debacle.

http://www.psacard.com/About/Testimonials

The problem I see with all of these testimonials is that there is a an on-going theme of blind confidence with no persuasive proof of PSA's ability to detect alterations. Nowhere does anyone say, "I deliberately doctored some cards to see if they would get detected by PSA and when I submitted them, PSA caught each and every type of alteration."

Does anyone in this day and age really doubt that submitters who exclusively use one grading company and submit thousands and thousands of cards to them for grading, don't receive better grades than Sam P. Collector who submits a handful of cards a year? These testimonials are a joke.

Can't you say this for anyone's collection, however? I mean even for the raw collections of the long time collectors and experts on this board, can they say with 100% confidence that all of the card in their collection that they believe are unaltered are that way? I think that's tough unless you have a very small collection or just have the original cards that you purchased right out of the pack.

Unfortunately, you're probably correct. If he lived in the foothills of Northern California, I could have a couple of my associates swing by his house for a quick visit. Heck, since he seems like a pretty nice guy, they might even be able to convince him to submit some of his own personal PSA/DNA on the barrel of a Louisville Slugger...

I would just like to see him "come clean" and stop doing it. Expose everybody involved if there is a conspiracy. Dave.:)

I think if someone in NJ swung by house and had a little chat with him, he'd probably stop doing it...I'm just guessing though...

ha ha ha ha! :) Dave

Don't worry about Ken Kendrick
 

and the T-206 Wagner card. That card is worth more today then when he purchased the card, even with what we now know. Having a whole book written about that card should be proof enough of the fame and I would wager that for the ownership pride Mr. Kendrick could sell that card at a profit right now.

Rich

Someone sent me a PM and asked me why I put his name back in title. I told them that I felt Joe didn't hold up his end of the bargain. Had he come clean and admitted everything (as it is all right there for everyone to see), I would have left his name out of the title. But since he came here and only defended his character and didn't address the doctoring, shilling, etc., I put his name back into the title.

Ok, I'll go out on that limb.

My collection is good sized. I've never really counted, but since I have sports and non-spors, and don't avoid the late 80's-early 90's junk era......probably a bit over 20,000 cards? Oldest 1887, newest this afternoon.

I do have a few altered cards, everything from trimmed/skinned to just written on. And a small number - maybe 5 that I'm not certain of. The rest I'm confident are not altered.

Steve Birmingham

I don't believe you can say the cards like drysdale and gehrig are the same
cards that have been bumped when the identifying marks are all related
to the printing process.Take a look at these two cards that are not even the
same players, besides the same exact plate scratch marks look at all
the other marks that are the same.

you make a good point. i think that its totally possible for 2 cards to have the same markings. i had thought this before.

your cards have different fronts though. there is a smaller percentage of cards with the same front and same markings on the back. what are the percentage of cards that have the same number of marks on them.

then what percentage of them are in higher grade, with a desirable player on the front. what percentage of those cards are owned and sold by the same person in a short period of time?

kevin

The two T206s have printing anomalies within the normal print of the card. The Drysdale, Gehrig, etc all had stray print marks that were the same from card to card. There's a big difference.

Also, there were other factors besides the print marks such as natural flaws within the cardboard that was the same from card to card - something that shouldn't occur. Another factor was also centering that was the same from card to card.

When you look at all the evidence, and the fact that he shilled the cards, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that each card was the same.

And Joe did not deny they were the same cards unless I missed something, just claimed he did nothing to them.

bingo!

To quote the Kingston Trio, "He never returned no he never returned."

Or to quote Fitzgerald, "I think he realizes his presumptuous little flirtation is over."

I got nothing to add here except to say that a good Fitzgerald quote is a great addition to anything.

last name is Van Hess, just to make sure Im within the rules....

And his fate is still unlearned...

What Ella Fitzgerald song is that from?

He'll get bumps forever neath the graders' radar
He's the man who never returned.

The one with the gothic "F" stamp on the back of the sheet music.

ha ha ha good one!:D

Is that where that song comes from? I remember it from an episode of Malcolm in the Middle. :D

very interesting thread
 

i dont get it....

he simply admitted to cherry picking cards and resubmitting them....

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE APPARENT ALTERATIONS DONE BEFORE THE RESUBMITS?

many clear scans in this thread show the cards have been altered....

an EX-grader using his knowledge to alter cards in a way that cant be detected?????

SAY IT AINT SO................................................ .....................:confused:

whatever happened here. still not responses right?

kevin

Not to keep this thread alive, but does anyone know the business aspect between Pank and Rick? Since Rick hasn't addressed it here? And Pank hasn't won anything from him recently.

a)Rick told him to take his business elsewhere?
b)Still bids with a new ID or a friends account?
c)Pank found a new seller?
d) Fill in your own thought? :D

Also, will be curious what SGC will determine in regards to that infamous Goudey Gehrig?

I'm thinking the conversation might have gone something like this: "The jig is up, let's lay low." Dave

Lol! I'm thinking it went more like this: "Well, we've been caught red-handed twice now and nobody seems to care and it hasn't hurt sales, let's take it up a notch."

To answer the question though, Pank still continues to consign with Rick. Pank currently has 571 currrent active auctions consigned to Rick.

Does anybody have an update of the Gehrig card that was the subject of post #98 (Page 13)? It’s the one that went from a PSA 6.5 to an SGC 8.5. When it was pointed out to Greg Bussineau (who was selling the card on eBay), he removed it from eBay and was supposed to send it back to SGC for re-evaluation. That was a couple of weeks ago and surely SGC has looked at it by now.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ht_3264wt_1200

Of all the bumps I’ve seen, this one really bothers me the most. Here’s why. I don’t think anybody is going to crack a PSA 6.5 Gehrig (a $7300 card) to try to cross it over unless they know beforehand that they are going to get a bump. It’s just too much of a gamble. In other words, I believe the crossover/bump was pre-arranged. After all, if the submitter only wanted a crossover, they would have just sent it in still in the PSA slab. Make sense?

Does anybody know Greg and, if so, can they ask him what SGC said about this card? If this card is deemed to be trimmed, I think SGC owes us some answers:

1. Who submitted this card for grading?
2. Who was the grader that missed the obvious trim?

Note: I should point out that I do not believe this was one of Panky’s bumps. I only brought it up originally because we were on the topic of bumps. I just think that’s worth mentioning.

Greg hasn't heard back from SGC yet.

Bussineau
 

I find that hard to believe considering an expensive card like that would get next day or the most 3 day turnaround.

I think you meant "wouldn't get next day". If the owner sent it in 2 weeks ago I DOUBT he doesn't have an answer. Perhaps SGC owner could be on vacation and wants to personally look into it? What is the current pop on that card?

I still think the Gehrigs are two different cards. There is a white dot below the
R in Gehrig at the very bottom where the blue meets the white border on
the 8.5 there is a smaller version on the 6.5 but it does not break the line where the blue meets the white like the 8.5 does.

Greg
 

When you send in a card like that you ARE going to pay for next day service. If he sent it in 2 weeks ago, he does have an answer.

If he has an answer, why is it a secret?:rolleyes:

I see what you see, but I think that could be a speck of dust on the 8.5. If you compare the print marks on the back (and there are many of them) of the two cards, there is no doubt in my mind that the two cards are the same.

Bussineau
 

Birds of a feather.

As a related point, I never have understood the large disparity in values of high-graded material (8 v. 8.5 for example). Even setting aside the issue of fraud, the subjectivity of the grading process

I posted my comment accidentally before finishing my point. It just seems to me that the subjectivity inherent in the grading process should over time reduce the large disparity in values at the high end.

did rick ever say why this guy still is allowed to consign with him still?

the silence is deafening.....

Nope, but he (Joe) currently has 627 auctions running in Probstein's store. Why should he give us an explanation though? After all, he's been busted twice now and there are no repercussions, so why not just do business as usual if you’re Rick?

On another note, tomorrow has been 3 weeks since Greg B removed that '34 Gehrig from eBay and sent it back to SGC. I wonder if he's heard anything back yet? :rolleyes:

Patience, lad.

We're not bound to hear anything from Probstein, and board members will continue to buy from him even after reading threads like this. Thus, allowing him to get bigger and bigger. fools and their money.........

+1

We do a great job of complaining about the ills in the hobby but most of us are very poor at going without.

Can't tell you how many times in the last few weeks I have clicked on a card, seen it was Probestein, and decided not to bid. I don't know if I can continue this forever because the guy has some nice looking cards, but I hope to never buy from him again unless he bans JP from his auctions and makes an effort to combat shill bidding.

d avid $hip$ey

Ok, must be something I'm missing.

How do you know they're his?

Steve B

Do an eBay advanced search by seller, type in Probstein123.
Click on the store icon next to Probstein's username (to the right of the about me page).
The various store names appear on the left side of the page.
Panky's store is "The GEM Collection"
Click on "The GEM Collection" and search by "Butkus"
This result will pop up...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1966-Philade...ht_1036wt_1042

The Butkus card can be linked back to when Panky bought it in this auction...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1966-Philade...#ht_1458wt_932

That's one example. You can find many more if you're willing to do the research. It's definitely Pank's cards/store.

Rick is a douchebag for letting Panky still consign with him knowing he doctors cards and shills his own auctions.

I wonder if the SGC population report will be changed, (revised) after they review the 34 Goudey Gehrig? Dave.

Pank just won this one. Study the pics, will a higher graded version of this exact card be made available in the near future? After all he does have a keen eye for this stuff!

http://tinyurl.com/n2js5du

That card looks like it could be in a 6/7 holder and it would be acceptable
by most.

+2

Some of the biggest complainers in this thread about him have bought NUMEROUS cards from him in the last month...HYPOCRITS!!!...

D.P.- Interesting observation, because this has been going on for what seems like months....

Eraser marks?
 

If you look at the blown up scans in the description area you can see what appears to be erased writing on the right side of the card. It is difficult to tell from the scans, but it looks like it could grade maybe a 4, or maybe authentic.

Rick

Wow!! Very interesting.

Not me. I haven't bid on any of his stuff since it was discovered that Pank was shilling his own cards. I kind of gave Rick the benefit of the doubt last time thinking he would ban Pank as a bidder and consignor and that would be the end of it. It turns out that Rick doesn't give a crap, hasn't done anything about it and therefore I won't be bidding on any of his auctions in the future.

I've bought from probenstien in the past, but will no longer.
Brent ingr@m

David,
i think this thread just passed the (fake packs & an FBI investigation) thread
as the most viewed post of 2013 people love controversy NICE!!!

For what it's worth, this card appears accurately graded to me....

Those corners & edges certainly don't warrant a 7 in any way---6 would be pushing it!

Let's wait until it resurfaces--then a 7 maybe!:D

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I feel there is still a really important issue here that hasn't been resolved. 4 weeks ago today, Greg Bussineau removed the '34 Goudey from his eBay auction and sent it back to SGC for re-evaluation - that's the one that went from a PSA 6.5 ($7300 card) to an SGC 8.5 ($40K card) - see post #98 in this thread.

Surely they've had time to look at it by now. Does anybody have an update of the Gehrig card or does anybody know Greg and, if so, can they ask him what SGC said about this card? Surely SGC wouldn't sweep this problem under the rug like PSA does their problems, would they?

Can sgc pop report be checked to see if it's changed? I thought Greg was a good guy, why no response?

I'm certainly curious!

Don't be shocked if they did....

Or maybe (hopefully) an attorney/s (and/or law enforcement) have gotten involved and they have told their client/s to not discuss what is going on.....

David

Generally speaking if a card gets bumped 2 grades up or down, it's not a law enforcement issue. It's hard to take action against an opinion or opinions.

Sorry but when a card changes appearance or size it no longer falls under opinion.

Leon,

I thought Greg Bussineau bought the card and was trying to sell it? So, I was talking about him buying the card thinking it was good and then being told it was bad and him going after the person who sold it to him.

Maybe the attorney's have gotten involved between Greg and SGC or Greg and the person he bought the card from. Maybe law enforcement has gotten involved because the person Greg bought the card from has been caught doing these same types of shenanigans on more than one occasion so "an honest mistake" can not be used as an excuse.

David

Greg hasn't hear back as of the 16th, suggested we reach out to SGC.

No, but it does fall under too difficult to prove.

SGC is going to disclose the result of a private submssion? How likely is that? If hypothetically they decertified it would that show up in a pop report though?

Got it. Tough to take a few seconds to look and see clear evidence in the before and after pics.

One man's clear is another man's cloudy.

Oh I know...

There's also the problem of proving exactly who did the alterations. People who doctor cards typically don't admit it and the cards pass through numerous hands starting from initial purchase to the grading company and to then to the final sale.

Well I agree that the artists do not sign the pieces but it is easy to know who submitted the suspect cards. Just takes a subpoena. It is easy to look at submissions by that person and see if there is a trend by reviewing their purchases and comparing them, when possible to the results of submissions.

Few admit to crimes that is why there is law enforcement. Card doctors are the furthest thing from hardened criminals. A hint of pressure and I am pretty assure they admit to plenty. If you simply ask casually, I agree they do not admit it. There is plenty of paper trail if one were to want to make the effort.

I could be naïve, but it seems to me a government that proves the most sophisticated financial crimes and forgeries or extracts plea bargains could, if it wished, nab some brazen idiots working with sandpaper and files and solvents, and buying openly on ebay. But as I said I could be naïve.

I am the one who could be naive. A man buys a card (graded) cracks it out then cleans, trims, colors, doctors, whatever to it then resubmits it (remaining silent) and it gets a higher grade....then he sells it for a big profit. Has he done anything illegal? Unethical perhaps, but I don't know what law he is breaking. Help me understand.

It's fraud. I don't know the legal definition of fraud, but dictionary.com defines it as "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage." I'd think the legal definition would be similar, and that pretty much describes what is being done with the cards in these situations.

David,

It is called fraud.

"Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result." - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

In the PSA agreement: "Customer represents and warrants that it has no knowledge and no reasonable basis to believe that any card submitted for grading has been altered in any way or is not genuine."

So if someone knowingly alters a card and submits it, they meet items 1 and 2. Let's say PSA doesn't catch it and slabs it as graded. If the submitter then sells the card, they have then met item 3, and assuming that the buyer is relying on the PSA grade (item 4 and the signed PSA agreement) and would not knowingly pay the same price for an altered card (item 5), the seller has now met all 5 criteria for fraud.

The extent of PSA's liability does not matter regarding the actions of the original submitter. The original submitter, without full disclosure to the buyer, could still be committing an act of fraud.

Maybe the lawyers could explain it a little better than I?