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?