Originally Posted by aloondilana (Post 1629365)

Are you guys seriously still crying about this card?
The auction is over. It got about $7500 less than I expected, maybe this thread had something to do with it.
Yes I flip cards, is there anything wrong with that? I read some posts that are attempting to knock me because of this.

I do what I do, and you guys can worship your beat up t206 Walter Johnson's.

Guys, really there is a lot more to life than whining about what grade a card should be or whether washing a card should not allow to get a numerical grade.

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1629391)

So a 5k profit wasn't quite good enough, you wanted 12k? I see your point.

It really depends on what the card is washed with to many of us, me included, as far as how we feel about the card. BTW, in case you haven't checked this is a chat board and whining is allowed, please continue. :)

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469 (Post 1629406)

LOL......good one!

PS - I would LOVE a beat up Walter Johnson!! Play Ball preferably!!

Originally Posted by aloondilana (Post 1629375)

Thanks Justin.
You are correct, this thread has frustrated me. I'm not attacking everyone, just about 4 people.

Originally Posted by 100backstroke (Post 1629478)

I also appreciate the shared knowledge that comes with following this board. Thank you everyone.

...Even if I loved the card, finding out it was messed with would change my opinion of it immediately...

If it were a $100. card or a $50,000. card, I would take advantage of the return policy so fast it make your head spin. Certified, Delivery signature, insured, personal plane ride to return, whatever it takes - card is going back. Done. Then Brent can return it to the doctor or whatever.

Originally Posted by sterlingfox (Post 1629460)

Is it just me, or does the PSA 7 look like the reverse text is bleeding a bit? I find the reverse text on the SGC 4 to be significantly sharper.

Could just be a slightly out of focus scan... or just me ;)

Originally Posted by botn (Post 1629542)

however all the resident board experts know without a doubt that only distilled water was used to turn the Joe D into a 7

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1629559)

Show me one post where anybody said they know without a doubt that only distilled water was used. Just one post. Nobody can say that because nobody knows for certain.

Conversely, there are several posts where the resident board experts say there was more than just distilled waters used. I guess they were there and watched :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1629568)

Or maybe they are experts on soaking cards and know what water only may remove.

Originally Posted by conor912 (Post 1629548)

That's one of the ugliest cards I've ever seen. Looks like a mugshot with a Yankees cap on.

Originally Posted by scotty21690 (Post 1629574)

Still nicer than his 38' Goudey Heads Up, albeit not by much.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1629559)

Show me one post where anybody said they know without a doubt that only distilled water was used. Just one post. Nobody can say that because nobody knows for certain.

Conversely, there are several posts where the resident board experts say there was more than just distilled waters used. I guess they were there and watched :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1629583)

People can make reasonable inferences based on detailed before and after scans as well as their experience and knowledge. One doesn't need eyewitness testimony.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1629592)

Based on that experience and knowledge, what chemical(s) do you think were used?

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1629592)

Based on that experience and knowledge, what chemical(s) do you think were used?

Originally Posted by ullmandds (Post 1629424)

sure is a lot of ass kissing and stone throwing at glass houses going on here.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1629583)

People can make reasonable inferences based on detailed before and after scans as well as their experience and knowledge. One doesn't need eyewitness testimony.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1629596)

but I am just really skeptical that water alone could bring about that change.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1629619)

To my eye the issue with the DiMaggio was toning, not staining, and my understanding which could be wrong is that water alone will not remove extensive toning.

Originally Posted by JustinD (Post 1629627)

David, could you please remove the altering info so it is not used by random lurkers?

That info is better im'ed to Peter.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1629635)

Done. I just wanted to show there are ways to remove/reduce toning where no chemicals touch the card at all...which I'm of the opinion that it's not considered altering given that it doesn't change the card whatsoever.

Originally Posted by conor912 (Post 1629548)

That's one of the ugliest cards I've ever seen. Looks like a mugshot with a Yankees cap on.

Originally Posted by Paul S (Post 1629675)

My thoughts as well. If I owned it I might say, "Here's my Dimag PSA 7". But I could never say, "Here's my Dimag PSA 7. Ain't it a beaut?".

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1629816)

Right but if was a PSA 4 Diimaggio you can say its an excellent example for the grade and a candidate for a bump.

There are many collectors i know that for their personal collection they would rather have a prime '6' than a low '7' and would trade straight up by giving the higher grade card for the lower grade card depending on the card or at least giving a great deal on paper

Originally Posted by Paul S (Post 1629892)

Wrong. Get your you's straight. I was commenting on Conor's remark (Hi Conor) that the image itself is a mugshot. Fugly foto no matter what the grade.

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1630044)

Wrong, I think my you's were straight (agree to disagree), and am going with the same comment even after your comment to my comment about your comment about the comment

There are are many collectors i know that for their personal collection they would rather have a prime '6' than a low fugly foto '7' and would trade straight up by giving the higher grade card for the lower grade card depending on the card or at least giving a great deal on paper

Originally Posted by Stonepony (Post 1630046)

I tried to read this post twice, then headed for the Tylenol.

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1630053)

I was going to add some more 'comment to the comment' to the post perhaps 7 or 8 more but then you would of needed more than just Tylenol :cool:

Originally Posted by JustinD (Post 1629366)

I don't rely on grading or buy flips over cards and I see your point in this discussion completely.

I think it only matters in this circumstance due to PWCC's return policy:
"We at PWCC are not professional graders so we trust in the reputation and opinion of 3rd party professional graders. Professional grading is subjective and different 3rd party graders will often disagree over the grading on a single card. Such a disagreement is NOT a justifiable reason for a return with PWCC."

it also matters because if the card shows no signs of chemical cleaning and we are only going on assumption of wrongdoing it does not meet a burden of proof in my mind to start a coup. If you have insider knowledge of what took place could you reveal without sources the method you were told cleaned this card or if you were just told it was cleaned in an untoward way?

If proof exists that is concrete and physical that other than natural items were used, than I think it would weigh my opinion heavily.

I have an opinion of how this was done in my mind also, but I do not have proof of it and it would be impossible to prove unless the person who did it admitted fully. I am also in a quandary as to if I feel it is wrong as it is a common practice in other hobbies and does not involve direct contact with any chemical.

Originally Posted by nrm1977 (Post 1630984)

Good points. On a side note, unfortunately return polices don't mean to much on ebay these days. Sadly, the buyer will always "win" if the seller accepts returns. Good old ebay. :/

Lastly, I would feel sick if I had bought this card knowing the history. We're all different but, I would be upset.

Originally Posted by Whodunit (Post 1631519)

So, did we ever decide who was behind the scam here? Who won it in REA....who cracked it.....who washed it....who submitted to psa......who THAT ONE PERSON sold the card to.

Originally Posted by Whodunit (Post 1631519)

So, did we ever decide who was behind the scam here? Who won it in REA....who cracked it.....who washed it....who submitted to psa......who THAT ONE PERSON sold the card to.

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1631542)

I would not call it a scam, its a legit graded psa 7 card.

Originally Posted by Whodunit (Post 1631547)

So, you don't think that buying an SGC 50 in REA, cracking it, cleaning it and then submitting raw to PSA is a scam? You also don't think that selling (as being the same person) a card privately for 75K without revealing such information (disclosure) is a problem? Now, as someone with more than a 3rd grade education, I find that hard to believe.

Originally Posted by Whodunit (Post 1631558)

To further that argument Peter, regarding not disclosing material facts, make sure that he knows that we know who won it in REA, who cracked it, who graded it raw by PSA and who sold it to the "first" buyer (as a private sale). There have been 4 owners in a PSA holder: 1) the "person" who bought it from REA and worked on it, 2) the person he sold it to, 3) John Perez via Goldin Auctions and now 4) the winner of Brent's auction. I wouldn't put it past Brent to have won the card himself just to get that cert # off of the mkt. Quite frankly, I've got some pretty juicy texts, emails, spreadsheets,etc. from the "man himself" regarding this card. It will surely be fun to see some of his guys (I was one of them for a long time) come to his defense. If you noticed early on in this thread, he defended this card 3 days into the auction, monitors this board tirelessly (told me to stay away from it {the board}..........."I've got it handled"), yet slipped away like a thief in the night when facts start divulging about who actually had factual and material information about the card from the point of its coming out of REA. He left John hanging high and dry when the rubber hit the road.