Net54baseball.com Forums
Page 8 of 10 « First 67 8 910
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7 (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=234837)

Peter_Spaeth 02-17-2017 10:04 AM
David I am telling you my source is absolutely reliable, among the most respected figures in this hobby. I am not going to give him up right now. Use your common sense. Brent and Betsy have been waging a PR campaign to try to counter Cortney's assertions about shill bidding. Without commenting on that issue, don't you think if Brent hadn't bought the SGC 50 they would have denied that? Au contraire, they essentially admitted it by pointing out that they sometimes buy cards for clients. Go back and read their posts.

Rookiemonster 02-17-2017 10:05 AM
Didn't know how sensitive some grow men could be. I might be considered a 10 dollar collector to many in the hobby. I really don't care what it's called or how someone feels about my collecting budget or anything for that matter.

Next PWCC nice stance but with a name like pre-war card collector you would think that your damage control would be more direct then a I'm not talking about this anymore. Considering this extremely damaging info on the biggest pre war card site.

Those are the two questions you feel compelled to respond to? Not that fact that you knew before hand that card was purchased by your company and the altered and resold? Well as it's stands and not expecting any more responses from you. I could tell you my 10 dollar or 20 won't be going towards your company.

I mean you also have the texts so let's see them from Brent. If it's just some angry guy blow him out the water and fix your name . Or if you can't ! Just walk away......

Peter_Spaeth 02-17-2017 10:06 AM
Post 409, David.

Though not part of our regular service offering, PWCC has had cards graded on behalf of our clients, usually at major shows, which are then consigned to our auctions. In rarer cases, we have also purchased cards on behalf of consignors with whom we manage a credit. This is largely consistent with every other auction house in the country.

Enough of this.

Peeonduke 02-17-2017 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79 (Post 1632167)
I am sure he had no issues with disclosing that your card had an issue with it. The problem here is, it was his card, and he was the one who had it cleaned. See how they are not even close in comparison?
I was not comparing my situation to the DiMaggio, they are clearly two entirely different things. I was just trying to shed light as to why I trust Brent's intentions as it relates to the hobby and give an example of why I feel this way. I feel he made some questionable calls with regard to the DiMaggio situation and stated as much in my post. But I also believe this situation is the exception rather than the rule.

1952boyntoncollector 02-17-2017 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whodunit (Post 1632095)
Please read the entire comment before responding.
1) Brent marked the cards paid before my paying for them; I have not received the cards. If he cancelled the purchase due to a non-payment, why was I not blocked for being a non-paying bidder? Also, why did I wire him 250K the month prior for another agreement? All of this is simple, elementary logic.
2) I stated that since the cards were marked "paid", that ebay or paypal doesn't allow you to pay them "again". That being the case, the only method of payment that falls within the ebay/paypal buyer/seller protection guidelines is not available to me since he's marked them as already paid. My only option now is to pay via wire or paypal gift. THAT is what I said was not going to happen....paying him a disclosed amount with no accounting in place to document it.
3) Therefor, I have asked on multiple occasions for a PAYPAL INVOICE detailing what the $59,310 was for and STATED THAT IT would be paid immediately.

My guess is he knows I've got him by the balls here and wants to be able to throw rocks at me for this "unpaid debt" that they referenced. I owe them $59,310. I'm not disputing that. Get them to invoice me, and I'll screenshot a picture of the payment min's later.

Do I need to detail that any further b/c it seems pretty cut and dry to me? I can't pay what he marked paid b/c ebay won't let me. I'm not going to wire them when they're bashing me due to a "very large unpaid debt" even though he and I have worked off of wires for over 5 years. This particular case is a little different; wouldnt you agree? Again, I've asked for an invoice on multiple occasions and he refuses to send it to me. The last time I asked (2/8/17) was actually 2 min's after he said "you need to worry about what you owe us and not.....". In that screenshot, I asked again for an invoice and have yet to get one. I would absolutely love for Brent/Betsy to provide "proof" of something that can dispute ANY of what I've said or am saying. Again, I'm not going to put myself in a legal jam by saying things that aren't true about someone or a company. However, when I have the proof, and when you lie to me and piss me off bad enough, I will go to the ends of the earth to unearth the last thing on the planet that he wants you guys to see.

Again, if you're going to question me on something I've already stated, please at least make sure you've read the entire post and not simply skimmed through it.

I'm beginning to think that you and David are on the same team here and no matter what one says, you're going to try and find a way to spin it in another direction, or intentionally manipulate or overlook SHOWN FACTS.

If the latter is the case, STFU and quit responding to my posts.
Yes i understand why you want to pay by ebay, its actually shady to do it through paypal. Perhaps when he blocked you he is unable to go through ebay. What cards were purchased, and what has become of them?

I am not on either ones side. You did state you would be sending more texts from before and after the texts you provided which havent been showed yet.

Your tact and bedside manner is pretty poor but no one should be ripped off. In any event i think you explained things better on that post, which was not explained before and my post was fair to ask for a better response.

1952boyntoncollector 02-17-2017 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by botn (Post 1632160)
At the risk of your feeling interrogated I think you make a leap of faith when you conclude that there is nothing for PSA to detect. PSA misses stuff all the time, intentionally and not, so without your handling the card yourself after it was cleaned you cannot assume because it is in a holder now that there was nothing to detect.

As far as it being graded accurately, I am one who feels they missed the boat, at it should be in a 6. The remnants of the stain/toning are still there and should not be on a NM card. A card of that magnitude I would expect to have more than a cursory examination.
I agree it should be a 6 but its in a gray area.


Peter: If you buy a card raw for 10 dollars at a yard sale and then 'restore' it..and send it in to PSA and get a grade of PSA 7 and now that card is worth $7000, i dont think anyone would say that sale of the card for $7000 wasnt fair or that the sale of the card was a SCAM.

Whats really the difference of buying a card in a SGC holder or a raw card in terms of then having the card restored and graded by PSA

You have to send in the raw card first to PSA and get an 'authentic' and then send it in again 'restored' and get a PSA 7 to now have to disclose the prior grade. The fact that the card got a grade before changes everything?

If the card earns a grade it earns a grade. To quote a football coach, you are what your record is....

You may not agree with what i said about a raw card earning a grade but you have to agree that i have never seen an auction in history talk about a card that was sent in to PSA after it was restored ever.

The only exceptions i can see is if the 'restoring' did something that could be reversed as the card sits in the holder where it would be obvious that in a unreasonable amount of time the card was waaaay overgraded. Like seeing a wrinkle after a year on a PSA 8 etc.

Rookiemonster 02-17-2017 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1632179)
I agree it should be a 6 but its in a gray area.


Peter: If you buy a card raw for 10 dollars at a yard sale and then 'restore' it..and send it in to PSA and get a grade of PSA 7 and now that card is worth $7000, i dont think anyone would say that sale of the card for $7000 wasnt fair or that the sale of the card was a SCAM.

Whats really the difference of buying a card in a SGC holder or a raw card in terms of then having the card restored and graded by PSA

You have to send in the raw card first to PSA and get an 'authentic' and then send it in again 'restored' and get a PSA 7 to now have to disclose the prior grade. The fact that the card got a grade before changes everything?

If the card earns a grade it earns a grade. To quote a football coach, you are what your record is....

You may not agree with what i said about a raw card earning a grade but you have to agree that i have never seen an auction in history talk about a card that was sent in to PSA after it was restored ever.

The only exceptions i can see is if the 'restoring' did something that could be reversed as the card sits in the holder where it would be obvious that in a unreasonable amount of time the card was waaaay overgraded. Like seeing a wrinkle after a year on a PSA 8 etc.
You mean like t206 mastro Wagner? Look where it got them but that only happens when you didn't do anything that wrong and psa was also innocent in that matter.

Peter_Spaeth 02-17-2017 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1632179)
I agree it should be a 6 but its in a gray area.


Peter: If you buy a card raw for 10 dollars at a yard sale and then 'restore' it..and send it in to PSA and get a grade of PSA 7 and now that card is worth $7000, i dont think anyone would say that sale of the card for $7000 wasnt fair or that the sale of the card was a SCAM.

Whats really the difference of buying a card in a SGC holder or a raw card in terms of then having the card restored and graded by PSA

You have to send in the raw card first to PSA and get an 'authentic' and then send it in again 'restored' and get a PSA 7 to now have to disclose the prior grade. The fact that the card got a grade before changes everything?

If the card earns a grade it earns a grade. To quote a football coach, you are what your record is....

You may not agree with what i said about a raw card earning a grade but you have to agree that i have never seen an auction in history talk about a card that was sent in to PSA after it was restored ever.

The only exceptions i can see is if the 'restoring' did something that could be reversed as the card sits in the holder where it would be obvious that in a unreasonable amount of time the card was waaaay overgraded. Like seeing a wrinkle after a year on a PSA 8 etc.
Altering a raw card and getting it graded is the same thing. How is that not obvious? Your logic would say that if I trim a card and get it past PSA, that's fine too. "If a card earns a grade it earns a grade."

Carry on with the spin and defense. :) Apparently Brent and Betsy are not posting any more so they need good proxies.

vintagetoppsguy 02-17-2017 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1632173)
Post 409, David.

Though not part of our regular service offering, PWCC has had cards graded on behalf of our clients, usually at major shows, which are then consigned to our auctions. In rarer cases, we have also purchased cards on behalf of consignors with whom we manage a credit. This is largely consistent with every other auction house in the country.

Enough of this.
Post 456 Peter:

Brent says that whoever removed the toning from the card did the hobby a favor. While that's his opinion, it sounds to me like from the tone of the text somebody else did it and he's not sure who it was.

PhillipAbbott79 02-17-2017 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1632179)
You may not agree with what i said about a raw card earning a grade but you have to agree that i have never seen an auction in history talk about a card that was sent in to PSA after it was restored ever.
Here you go:

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...tored-example/

Now let the argument be that its a Wagner and the other card is not as if that matters.

Peter_Spaeth 02-17-2017 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1632187)
Post 456 Peter:

Brent says that whoever removed the toning from the card did the hobby a favor. While that's his opinion, it sounds to me like from the tone of the text somebody else did it and he's not sure who it was.
He knew it had been worked on when he submitted it to PSA. It's obvious he knew who had done the work or who commissioned it, but it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. I have wasted enough time on this, nobody else on this Board believes Brent did not know the history of this card including the work done on it.

1952boyntoncollector 02-17-2017 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1632184)
Altering a raw card and getting it graded is the same thing. How is that not obvious? Your logic would say that if I trim a card and get it past PSA, that's fine too. "If a card earns a grade it earns a grade."

Carry on with the spin and defense. :) Apparently Brent and Betsy are not posting any more so they need good proxies.

Now its you doing the spin. I never said anything about trimming the card, noone said the Dimaggio was altered that way.

What about soaking a card. If you soak a card at a yard sale for $5 and you get the card graded a 7 and sell it for $5000. I dont think anyone would complain. But if you bought the card as a SGC 4, and there is a auction sale of the card and now you soak the card and get a PSA 7 and make $5000 people will have a problem with that. At least more people would have a problem with that second example then the first, but to me they are the same level.

Many on this board think soaking a card isnt scam behavior. Please refrain from adding extra things to fake make a point. I also do not think its ok to buy a card thats ripped in half then put it together. Thats also not what happened with the Dimaggio. I can fake make a point as well and say a card was altered because somebody removed dust. No need to make up extreme fact patterns.

I also concur with you that at this point that it does appear Brent knew the history of the card when it was listed at PWCC.

PhillipAbbott79 02-17-2017 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1632191)

What about soaking a card. If you soak a card at a yard sale for $5 and you get the card graded a 7 and sell it for $5000. I dont think anyone would complain.
If they know about it, they likely would. Which is exactly the point of this thread. Disclosure.

How after hundreds of posts is that not perfectly crystal clear? It doesn't matter if you think that, it is wrong or right. It is wrong to not disclose it. It has proven to affect value.

It is that simple. The rest is people attempting to win the argument with their point of view, and items presented are irrelevant to the facts that 'lack of disclosure brings less profit'.

botn 02-17-2017 10:48 AM
10 Attachment(s)
I have recreated the PSA submission that contained the 36 WWG Joe D and identified who sold the card and when it was sold. Also added pics of those cards except for the 33 Foxx and of course the infamous 36 WWG Joe D. I am sure David James and Jake will have no problem with this. 5 out of 10 happened to be Certified HE. Have not bothered to try to trace the cards to lower graded holders so if someone out there wants to...

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

1952boyntoncollector 02-17-2017 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79 (Post 1632192)
If they know about it, they likely would. Which is exactly the point of this thread. Disclosure.

How after hundreds of posts is that not perfectly crystal clear.

Thats not industry standard. How many cards that have sold at auction do you think were soaked previously. What percentage of those card are disclosed? Zero?:cool:

If a wrinkle/paperloss/crease is not disclosed thats different because thats industry standard.

Peope dont show what the card looked like when they bought it raw after its graded and people may not show what a card looked like in a different holder when they bought the card.

I do not have any expectation as a buyer at an auction that they would disclose if a card was soaked previously, would you? if i was buying a 50k card i know i would check past sales. for the Dimaggio it was not hard to track down the exact card being sold previously. Now if you couldnt find any prior sales in 5 minutes with google, maybe that would be a better argument, but thats not the case here. 5 minutes of due diligence and the buyer is fully informed.

PhillipAbbott79 02-17-2017 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1632194)
Thats not industry standard. How many cards that have sold at auction do you think were soaked previously. What percentage of those card are disclosed? Zero?:cool:

If a wrinkle/paperloss/crease is not disclosed thats different because thats industry standard.

Peope dont show what the card looked like when they bought it raw after its graded and people may not show what a card looked like in a different holder when they bought the card.
You can't take history and justify righteousness with it. Insert another quarter.

REA's disclosure and PSA's label of restoration are righteous and noble. PWCCs cleaning/doctoring or whatever you want to call it, without disclosure is not. Tomorrow there may be yet another thing new that has not been discovered yet, that nets money that is less than pure and perfectly ethical. Does that mean that because its not industry standard it is OK? Of course not. Things take time to become standard. Scams take time to be discovered.

1952boyntoncollector 02-17-2017 10:55 AM
[QUOTE=botn;1632193]I have recreated the PSA submission that contained the 36 WWG Joe D and identified who sold the card and when it was sold. Also added pics of those cards except for the 33 Foxx and of course the infamous 36 WWG Joe D. I am sure David James and Jake will have no problem with this. 5 out of 10 happened to be Certified HE. Have not bothered to try to trace the cards to lower graded holders so if someone out there wants to...

Nothing wrong with tracking it down. I actually have more of a problem of any colluding shill bidding that is known by the auction owner versus worrying about a difference in opinion on grading companies and any accepted forms of altering cards.. There are more legal legs to the shilling..

1952boyntoncollector 02-17-2017 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79 (Post 1632196)
You can't take history and justify righteousness with it. Insert another quarter.

REA's disclosure and PSA's label of restoration are righteous and noble. PWCCs cleaning/doctoring or whatever you want to call it, without disclosure is not. Tomorrow there may be yet another thing new that has not been discovered yet, that nets money that is less than pure and perfectly ethical. Does that mean that because its not industry standard it is OK? Of course not.
Actually you can. Thats actually a valid legal defense. It doesnt mean they win but it shows its far from scam behavior. Experts can be hired to argue those points for both ways. People lose tons of money and time pursuing cases in which maybe in 10 years they could of been right. Tell them dont worry it will take time for there to be a new standard even though they have now lost everything.

Again, when you buy anything at an auction house, do you expect them to disclose if a card was soaked prior to submission? You will say no.

Do you expect an auction house to disclose if a card is micro wrinkled that you may not be able to see from a photo? You will say yes.

You also didnt comment that its common practice to do due dillgence on a 50k card. A 5 minute google search would of resolved that. I dont buy a used card at a dealership and rely on the dealer to tell me everything about the car. There is an industry standard.

As an analogy, I may have caused your auto accident, but if you are only injured because you did not wear a seatbelt, you are to blame.

Republicaninmass 02-17-2017 11:01 AM
Interesting that suspected shilling by the consignors was always a topic, but not that PWCC was the actual owner and seller.

botn 02-17-2017 11:05 AM
1 Attachment(s)
Here is the 15 CJ Jackson before it was cleaned. Come on David and Jake, you guys try to find the other 9 on the list and let's all have fun.

PhillipAbbott79 02-17-2017 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1632203)
Actually you can. Thats actually a valid legal defense. It doesnt mean they win but it shows its far from scam behavior. Experts can be hired to argue those points for both ways. People lose tons of money and time pursuing cases in which maybe in 10 years they could of been right. Tell them dont worry it will take time for there to be a new standard even though they have now lost everything.

Again, when you buy anything at an auction house, do you expect them to disclose if a card was soaked prior to submission? You will say no.

Do you expect an auction house to disclose if a card is micro wrinkled that you may not be able to see from a photo? You will say yes.

You also didnt comment that its common practice to do due dillgence on a 50k card. A 5 minute google search would of resolved that. I dont buy a used card at a dealership and rely on the dealer to tell me everything about the car. There is an industry standard.

As an analogy, I may have caused your auto accident, but if you are only injured because you did not wear a seatbelt, you are to blame.
The law will attempt to defend righteousness, but being lawful at all times isn't always righteous. My guess is you are a lawyer, so I completely understand why you may be blind to that fact. I believe relevant facts about items should be disclosed. It is good for both the seller and buyer to eliminate confusion on items by providing clear communication about the items state. If their pictures are not clear enough to disclose what can be found out by holding an item in your hand.

We both know that "As an analogy, I may have caused your auto accident, but if you are only injured because you did not wear a seatbelt, you are to blame." is a moronic statement and is an flawed analogy. If I am liable for your injuries I may argue that if you had worn your belt your injuries would have been a lot less severe. Wearing your seat belt is the law, much like not doing whatever caused the accident makes me liable.

You can stop playing word games. That only works in the court on stupid people.

1952boyntoncollector 02-17-2017 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by botn (Post 1632206)
Here is the 15 CJ Jackson before it was cleaned. Come on David and Jake, you guys try to find the other 9 on the list and let's all have fun.
Took you like 5 minutes to find it. I bet when you buy a card you will know the history of it. Looks like that card was soaked and not ripped in half and no razor was involved. I bet a tidy profit was made. The buyer of the card may of known about the alteration as well. Not sure what you are proving except that soaking is commonplace and never disclosed.

Peter_Spaeth 02-17-2017 11:10 AM
Looked better with the stains, Greg.

Peter_Spaeth 02-17-2017 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1632211)
Took you like 5 minutes to find it. I bet when you buy a card you will know the history of it. Looks like that card was soaked and not ripped in half and no razor was involved. I bet a tidy profit was made. The buyer of the card may of known about the alteration as well. Not sure what you are proving except that soaking is commonplace and never disclosed.
Now it's the buyer's fault. Cortney should have figured it out for himself. Yes indeed. I deceived you, but it was your fault because you should have figured out I was deceiving you.

1952boyntoncollector 02-17-2017 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79 (Post 1632209)
The law will attempt to defend righteousness, but being lawful isn't always righteous. My guess is you are a lawyer, so I completely understand why you may be blind to that fact.
Im guessing you arent a lawyer when looking at your legal arguments and also think the law is about being fair. There is politics in the law. Politicians create law. Judges gets voted in and politicians pick judges as well. If you think politicians are righteous then really nothing more to be said.

Rookiemonster 02-17-2017 11:15 AM
Who sold that card Greg ?

Ps your awesome

1952boyntoncollector 02-17-2017 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1632214)
Now it's the buyer's fault. Cortney should have figured it out for himself. Yes indeed.
For once we agree on something. Personal responsibility is not a bad thing. No reason to buy Title insurance when you buy a house. Just take it how it is, it cant be the buyers fault when buying anything.

botn 02-17-2017 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1632211)
Took you like 5 minutes to find it. I bet when you buy a card you will know the history of it. Looks like that card was soaked and not ripped in half and no razor was involved. I bet a tidy profit was made. The buyer of the card may of known about the alteration as well. Not sure what you are proving except that soaking is commonplace and never disclosed.
Well I know what you prove with each of your posts so I will not even bother responding to your "content".

Peter_Spaeth 02-17-2017 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1632218)
For once we agree on something. Personal responsibility is not a bad thing. No reason to buy Title insurance when you buy a house. Just take it how it is, it cant be the buyers fault when buying anything.
No we completely disagree obviously, I was being sarcastic.

botn 02-17-2017 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rookiemonster (Post 1632217)
Who sold that card Greg ?

Ps your awesome
All of the cards in the recreated submission, that graded, were tied to PWCC, except for the 33 Foxx.

Peter_Spaeth 02-17-2017 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1632216)
Im guessing you arent a lawyer when looking at your legal arguments and also think the law is about being fair. There is politics in the law. Politicians create law. Judges gets voted in and politicians pick judges as well. If you think politicians are righteous then really nothing more to be said.
Philip may not be a lawyer (or maybe he is) but as one who is, I must say I am impressed with the cogency and simple logic of his arguments here.

1952boyntoncollector 02-17-2017 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1632221)
No we completely disagree obviously, I was being sarcastic.
and I wasnt? :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1632223)
Philip may not be a lawyer but as one who is, I must say I am impressed with the cogency and simple logic of his arguments here.
Right anyone who agrees with you is someone you are impressed with.



I just have more of a problem with the shilling then the arguable accepted practices of what to disclose and how a card can be soaked/altered.

If there are more people out there that implicate PWCC with colluded shilling that would be interesting...

Eric72 02-17-2017 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79 (Post 1632192)

...items presented are irrelevant to the facts that 'lack of disclosure brings less profit'.
I believe that full disclosure typically brings less profit.

Still, it's the ethical (and legal, if I'm not mistaken) thing to do.

JustinD 02-17-2017 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whodunit (Post 1631622)
Some call it "shill bidding". Others call it "pushing/protecting". Regardless of what you call it, as long as you pay for what you win, and it wasn't yours to begin with, that's all it is............complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value. As someone with millions at stake in this hobby, I'm not going to let a card go a dime under its value which is the reason that I have so many duplicates of high end cards.
Man, I didn't check the forum yesterday and all hell broke loose. I tried to get a handle on this massive back and forth and this stuck out to me.

I have trouble with this quoted post as this clearly says to me (and please correct me if I am misinterpreting) that you do shill your cards so they can reach the value you believe it should be at and even if you accidentally win them back and pay for it, it's a non-issue because it was not yours after providing it to the auction house.

Is that interpretation right?

Because to be honest that's not "complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value"...that's more so admitting possible wire fraud on public forum.

If that's the case then this is a way bigger issue for all involved then one cleaned card.

Peter_Spaeth 02-17-2017 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1632224)
and I wasnt? :D



Right anyone who agrees with you you are impressed with.
I suspect that you were, but it can be difficult to decipher your Delphic posts sometimes. :D

Peter_Spaeth 02-17-2017 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1632224)
and I wasnt? :D



Right anyone who agrees with you is someone you are impressed with.
Not at all. I am equally impressed by people who disagree with me if they state their arguments well.

PhillipAbbott79 02-17-2017 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1632216)
Im guessing you arent a lawyer when looking at your legal arguments and also think the law is about being fair. There is politics in the law. Politicians create law. Judges gets voted in and politicians pick judges as well. If you think politicians are righteous then really nothing more to be said.

Correct. You could not pay me to become a lawyer.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. You just said "If you think politicians are righteous then really nothing more to be said."

Did I say that any where? Did I infer that...anywhere? You just shit a bunch of stuff out your word hole into a post.

I also never said the word fair. Fair and righteous are different. There you go straying from what I said to make your point more valid and correct.

jmb 02-17-2017 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by botn (Post 1632206)
Here is the 15 CJ Jackson before it was cleaned. Come on David and Jake, you guys try to find the other 9 on the list and let's all have fun.
I guess none of those white spots are paper loss that was colored in ?

What a way to make money. Lather, rinse, repeat.
And, it's not illegal like counterfeiting.

1952boyntoncollector 02-17-2017 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79 (Post 1632232)
Correct. You could not pay me to become a lawyer.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. You just said "If you think politicians are righteous then really nothing more to be said."

Did I say that any where? Did I infer that...anywhere? You just shit a bunch of stuff out your word hole into a post.

I also never said the word fair. Fair and righteous are different. There you go straying from what I said to make your point more valid and correct.
You said "The law will attempt to defend righteousness, but being lawful at all times isn't always righteous"


To many fair and righteous is not different and are easily confused with each other.

Actually on dictionary.com they say

Synonyms
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
3. good, honest, fair, right.


So you agree politicians are not righteous but the law will attempt to defend the righteous.

1952boyntoncollector 02-17-2017 11:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1632230)
Not at all. I am equally impressed by people who disagree with me if they state their arguments well.

Same here my friend. Still waiting for you to be impressed with someone that disagrees with you though. (saying someone now is too late, you would have to have posted in previously for it to mean anything)

PhillipAbbott79 02-17-2017 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1632235)
To many fair and righteous is not different and are easily confused with each other.

Actually on dictionary.com they say

Synonyms
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
3. good, honest, fair, right.


So you agree politicians are not righteous. Politicians do create the law. Not sure what i missed.
Yes. As a lawyer I can understand why you are confused. As someone with average intelligence I understand the difference between them.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+synonym

"Nearly the same" means with slight differences. "Or" means it can't be both...well that is not true. At least in this context it is.

botn 02-17-2017 11:36 AM
2 Attachment(s)
Here is the D304 Cobb before it was cleaned up. The corners look a bit tighter too but I suppose that is ok to all the spinners.

PhillipAbbott79 02-17-2017 11:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinD (Post 1632227)
Man, I didn't check the forum yesterday and all hell broke loose. I tried to get a handle on this massive back and forth and this stuck out to me.

I have trouble with this quoted post as this clearly says to me (and please correct me if I am misinterpreting) that you do shill your cards so they can reach the value you believe it should be at and even if you accidentally win them back and pay for it, it's a non-issue because it was not yours after providing it to the auction house.

Is that interpretation right?

Because to be honest that's not "complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value"...that's more so admitting possible wire fraud on public forum.

If that's the case then this is a way bigger issue for all involved then one cleaned card.
If the person doing this buys the card or has the intention of the buying the card they have 2 motives for bidding. One to win the card at a good price, two to protect their assets. Neither of these constitute doing anything wrong.

If I am not mistaken, he admitted both of these were his motives.

1952boyntoncollector 02-17-2017 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79 (Post 1632239)
Yes. As a lawyer I can understand why you are confused. As someone with average intelligence I understand the difference between them.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+synonym

"Nearly the same" means with slight differences. "Or" means it can't be both...well that is not true. At least in this context it is.

As being not a lawyer i can understand why you are confused. I try to respond to the message and not the person. Saying things like 'someone with average intelligence' (and implying i am lower) is not really on message or productive.

I dont think its righteous or fair to make comments like that if you are trying to make a point.

vintagetoppsguy 02-17-2017 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinD (Post 1632227)
Man, I didn't check the forum yesterday and all hell broke loose. I tried to get a handle on this massive back and forth and this stuck out to me.

I have trouble with this quoted post as this clearly says to me (and please correct me if I am misinterpreting) that you do shill your cards so they can reach the value you believe it should be at and even if you accidentally win them back and pay for it, it's a non-issue because it was not yours after providing it to the auction house.

Is that interpretation right?

Because to be honest that's not "complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value"...that's more so admitting possible wire fraud on public forum.

If that's the case then this is a way bigger issue for all involved then one cleaned card.
Yup, you nailed it. Forget the fact the he shills his own auctions. Forget the fact he has more bid retractions in his last 6 months than I've had in my 14 year history on eBay. Forget the fact of his $20 collector comment. Let's overlook all that and just focus on the witch hunt here.

Stonepony 02-17-2017 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinD (Post 1632227)
Man, I didn't check the forum yesterday and all hell broke loose. I tried to get a handle on this massive back and forth and this stuck out to me.

I have trouble with this quoted post as this clearly says to me (and please correct me if I am misinterpreting) that you do shill your cards so they can reach the value you believe it should be at and even if you accidentally win them back and pay for it, it's a non-issue because it was not yours after providing it to the auction house.

Is that interpretation right?

Because to be honest that's not "complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value"...that's more so admitting possible wire fraud on public forum.

If that's the case then this is a way bigger issue for all involved then one cleaned card.
Bingo!! Some very very troubling things surfaced in this thread. Many powerful questions need answered... Yet it's been diluted by a few who can't stop calling each other idiots over and over and over...

Cliff Bowman 02-17-2017 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1632228)
I suspect that you were, but it can be difficult to decipher your Delphic posts sometimes. :D
Being a $20 post war collecting non lawyer and non dentist that should know his place and not even look at the pre war forum, I will readily admit that I had to look up 'delphic'. Cool word.

1952boyntoncollector 02-17-2017 11:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman (Post 1632247)
Being a $20 post war collecting non lawyer and non dentist that should know his place and not even look at the pre war forum, I will readily admit that I had to look up 'delphic'. Cool word.
He could of used ambiguous or vague as well but Phillip would make note that they simply arent the same word as they are just 'nearly the same' Using those words would change the meaning totally.

botn 02-17-2017 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonepony (Post 1632246)
Bingo!! Some very very troubling things surfaced in this thread. Many powerful questions need answered... Yet it's been diluted by a few who can't stop calling each other idiots over and over and over...
Exactly. Jake and David are a distraction on this thread and managed to suck good people into arguments they will not win.

1952boyntoncollector 02-17-2017 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by botn (Post 1632249)
Exactly. Jake and David are a distraction on this thread and managed to suck good people into arguments they will not win.
I have not argued with you but you bring in my name. Its like the pot calling the kettle black. Of course its 'good people' that are name calling that are getting sucked into arguments.

rats60 02-17-2017 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1632245)
Yup, you nailed it. Forget the fact the he shills his own auctions. Forget the fact he has more bid retractions in his last 6 months than I've had in my 14 year history on eBay. Forget the fact of his $20 collector comment. Let's overlook all that and just focus on the witch hunt here.
Except he never said he bid on his own cards. He clearly said that the cards weren't his or in the case of the Dimaggio was his but sold and he was going to buy it back if it went cheap. There is nothing wrong with that.

PhillipAbbott79 02-17-2017 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by botn (Post 1632249)
Exactly. Jake and David are a distraction on this thread and managed to suck good people into arguments they will not win.
It is ok. I am honestly over it. I really didn't want to say anything at all to David, but my emotions got the best of me.

I just can't cater to the stupidity any longer. At least everyone else observes the same thing I am. That is enough for me.

rats60 02-17-2017 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinD (Post 1632227)
Man, I didn't check the forum yesterday and all hell broke loose. I tried to get a handle on this massive back and forth and this stuck out to me.

I have trouble with this quoted post as this clearly says to me (and please correct me if I am misinterpreting) that you do shill your cards so they can reach the value you believe it should be at and even if you accidentally win them back and pay for it, it's a non-issue because it was not yours after providing it to the auction house.

Is that interpretation right?

Because to be honest that's not "complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value"...that's more so admitting possible wire fraud on public forum.

If that's the case then this is a way bigger issue for all involved then one cleaned card.
Do you not understand what you quoted " it's not yours to begin with?" How are you shilling your cards when they are not yours, but are owned by someone else?

steve B 02-17-2017 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth (Post 1631692)
I understand that Steve. I just don't think it should be available because it is used to alter cards for the sole purpose to deceive someone to make extra $. I could give detailed instructions on how to counterfeit cards also but choose not to. I am sure you also know how easy that is.
That's true.

It's often a tough choice, the conservation process is pretty important in some hobbies. And parts of it are a major concern of places like the LOC. All that can be used for valid conservation or deceptively. There's also some bad advice out there about how to do stuff, which can do more harm than good. So most legitimate conservation places share the information.

Info about outright faking stuff is also out there, but as it should be, is harder to find. Making a really good fake would take some skill and some budget. Most fakers thankfully don't /won't /can't take the time to learn. Even the best stamp forgers didn't do a perfect job of it. (Although there are some that are scarily close, and maybe one that is almost perfect. I haven't seen an example that I know of, but have probably seen at least one of those without knowing it. It was only mentioned to me in passing by someone far more expert. ) Sperati and Fournier are the big names, and their fakes are occasionally worth more than the originals.

Steve B

DeanH3 02-17-2017 12:00 PM
[QUOTE=jmb;1632234]I guess none of those white spots are paper loss that was colored in ?

That caught my eye as well. Maybe they were tiny paper scraps adhered to the front? I dunno but curious indeed.

gnaz01 02-17-2017 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1632248)
He could of used.
Jake, this is driving me crazy, please stop!! And I am NOT the grammar police or anything like that, but to see an attorney with this bad grammar just kills me!! If it is a laziness issue then so be it, but the terminology is "could have" not "could of" for crying out loud!! :)

Jantz 02-17-2017 12:05 PM
Board Members,

In lieu of recent hobby events, I wish to assume the position as your hobby leader in ridding our wonderful hobby of diseases that currently plague it. Any questions or concerns you may have can be directed via PM to me by which, I will answer, if I choose to do so.










Typhoid Mary

vintagetoppsguy 02-17-2017 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1632252)
Except he never said he bid on his own cards. He clearly said that the cards weren't his or in the case of the Dimaggio was his but sold and he was going to buy it back if it went cheap. There is nothing wrong with that.
When he says, "Some call it "shill bidding". Others call it "pushing/protecting". Regardless of what you call it, as long as you pay for what you win, and it wasn't yours to begin with, that's all it is" he is implying that he bid on cards because he is being asked to do so or helping someone out. Otherwise, why even bring it up? Just because a card isn't yours doesn't mean you can't shill it. Right Peter? :D

vintagetoppsguy 02-17-2017 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by botn (Post 1632249)
Exactly. Jake and David are a distraction on this thread and managed to suck good people into arguments they will not win.
One thing is for certain, you will never need Viagra with that hard on you have for Brent. It's obvious from your posts (and Peter's and others) that some of you have had a hard on for Brent for a long time. Did you finally get him? :rolleyes:

steve B 02-17-2017 12:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whodunit (Post 1631810)
You, my $20 collector friend, obviously do not.
^

This is exactly the way to alienate pretty much everyone.

I have nothing against collectors who can or will spend freely. A twinge of jealousy as you'd expect, but overall more of a "Hats off to you, both for making the sort of choices that led you to such prosperity and for having enough dedication to a hobby to create a really great collection" attitude.

Unless you use that to put down other collectors and project the attitude that you're better than them simply because you have money. Then you're just being a _ (fill in blank with whatever seems appropriate)

Steve B

botn 02-17-2017 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1632266)
One thing is for certain, you will never need Viagra with that hard on you have for Brent. It's obvious from your posts (and Peter's and others) that some of you have had a hard on for Brent for a long time. Did you finally get him? :rolleyes:
How could anyone get Brent when you have not managed to get off your knees for a second. Even Betsy is getting jealous.

rats60 02-17-2017 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1632264)
When he says, "Some call it "shill bidding". Others call it "pushing/protecting". Regardless of what you call it, as long as you pay for what you win, and it wasn't yours to begin with, that's all it is" he is implying that he bid on cards because he is being asked to do so or helping someone out. Otherwise, why even bring it up? Just because a card isn't yours doesn't mean you can't shill it. Right Peter? :D
Where did he say that he has bid on a card because he was asked to? Can you please quote that? I only see where he was asked to bid on a card and didn't.

How is it shilling if you are willing to buy the card? If you see a PSA 8 52 T Mantle at a small auction selling for 100 k when you know it's worth 500k, are you going to let someone get a steal and make 400k or are you going to bid, even if you don't really want the card, because you know you can flip it for a huge profit?

Whodunit 02-17-2017 12:46 PM
So, Betsy started out by posting that my "very large unpaid debt" was the reason (not necessarily the only reason) for my being blocked by them. I have provided documents showing where i asked PRIOR to posting for an invoice for that "debt" so that I could pay them. It has been brought up and referenced on this thread MANY times. Can anyone seem to figure out why ive asked, why some of you guys have asked, etc for an invoice to settle that debt but yet, while they keep posting and attacking my character, refuse to acknowledge the request of an invoice to settle a debt? It's pretty clear that all eyes within that company are on this thread with the fact that s(he) keeps posting about EVERYTHING ELSE. Could it still be that the only thing that they have on me is an unpaid item, that Brent marked as paid and wont let me pay it via any form other than a forced wire or paypal gift. Am I the only one noticing that she brought up the debt yesterday afternoon, has posted several times since, but refuses to acknowledge it now? Could it be that Brent is scared shitless of what Ill show you guys next?

glynparson 02-17-2017 12:54 PM
lol
 
Greg drops the mic! I am so glad I wasn't drinking something when i read this.

tschock 02-17-2017 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whodunit (Post 1632285)
So, Betsy started out by posting that my "very large unpaid debt" was the reason (not necessarily the only reason) for my being blocked by them. I have provided documents showing where i asked PRIOR to posting for an invoice for that "debt" so that I could pay them. It has been brought up and referenced on this thread MANY times. Can anyone seem to figure out why ive asked, why some of you guys have asked, etc for an invoice to settle that debt but yet, while they keep posting and attacking my character, refuse to acknowledge the request of an invoice to settle a debt? It's pretty clear that all eyes within that company are on this thread with the fact that s(he) keeps posting about EVERYTHING ELSE. Could it still be that the only thing that they have on me is an unpaid item, that Brent marked as paid and wont let me pay it via any form other than a forced wire or paypal gift. Am I the only one noticing that she brought up the debt yesterday afternoon, has posted several times since, but refuses to acknowledge it now? Could it be that Brent is scared shitless of what Ill show you guys next?
Out of my league, but something else I'd be concerned about. Wouldn't a $10K+ paypal Friends and Family 'gift' get flagged by the gubmint as well? With an invoice, there at least is a paper trail to an actual item.

GasHouseGang 02-17-2017 02:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whodunit (Post 1632095)
1) Brent marked the cards paid before my paying for them; I have not received the cards. If he cancelled the purchase due to a non-payment, why was I not blocked for being a non-paying bidder? Also, why did I wire him 250K the month prior for another agreement? All of this is simple, elementary logic.
You keep saying you have more to tell us about even bigger transactions. Is it related to the $250K you claim to have sent to Brent for "another agreement" the month before. That terminology certainly is a weird way to describe a baseball card transaction. Do you want to enlighten us?

David Maupin

sushihotwings 02-17-2017 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by botn (Post 1632271)
How could anyone get Brent when you have not managed to get off your knees for a second. Even Betsy is getting jealous.
You know what guys. This kind of loose talk is getting out of hand.You just crossed way over any kind of respectable line here.

David Lamont

Peter_Spaeth 02-17-2017 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1632266)
One thing is for certain, you will never need Viagra with that hard on you have for Brent. It's obvious from your posts (and Peter's and others) that some of you have had a hard on for Brent for a long time. Did you finally get him? :rolleyes:
I have no personal animosity towards Brent, in fact I email with him directly when issues arise, including about the DiMaggio card. Our exchanges are always perfectly polite, even if he sometimes disagrees with my analysis/perspective and understands that I may post my opinion. The ad hominem attacks, David, really don't advance things. They are usually the resort of someone who is losing an argument.

FirstYearCards 02-17-2017 02:59 PM
Only way to know you're losing an argument. You're still arguing.

Rookiemonster 02-17-2017 03:04 PM
1 Attachment(s)
So at this point it appears Greg jump head first in to the rabbit hole and pulled out some funky stuff. How many card have had this treatment over the years ? How many are in your collection?

JustinD 02-17-2017 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1632256)
Do you not understand what you quoted " it's not yours to begin with?" How are you shilling your cards when they are not yours, but are owned by someone else?
I was asking for clarity, I don't have it.

The statement in question brings to mind the talk of people possibly artificially inflating the prices in the market that was talked about all last summer.

where is the clarity on this statement:

"Some call it "shill bidding". Others call it "pushing/protecting". Regardless of what you call it, as long as you pay for what you win, and it wasn't yours to begin with, that's all it is............complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value. As someone with millions at stake in this hobby, I'm not going to let a card go a dime under its value which is the reason that I have so many duplicates of high end cards."

The last sentence certainly calls question. Were cards shilled or "pushed" to amounts that protected or built investment? Whether they are his or someone else's, was bidding manipulated to get top dollar? Was this done with his listings?

It was an open question.

We started with a thread of possibility of wrongdoing, my only gripe was that guilt was assumed without corroboration. This sounds like a bit of admittance to me and just wanted some background on who had the correct interpretation.

orly57 02-17-2017 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1632245)
Yup, you nailed it. Forget the fact the he shills his own auctions. Forget the fact he has more bid retractions in his last 6 months than I've had in my 14 year history on eBay. Forget the fact of his $20 collector comment. Let's overlook all that and just focus on the witch hunt here.
No one here thinks Cortney is particularly credible, or decent, or even likeable. But I will tell you what a prosecutor once told the jury after I had just finished decimating the government's dirt-bag informant on the stand: "criminals consort with criminals. I couldn't use the defendant's priest as a witness, because he doesn't traffick in cocaine with HIM!"

1952boyntoncollector 02-17-2017 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnaz01 (Post 1632259)
Jake, this is driving me crazy, please stop!! And I am NOT the grammar police or anything like that, but to see an attorney with this bad grammar just kills me!! If it is a laziness issue then so be it, but the terminology is "could have" not "could of" for crying out loud!! :)
Im hooked on phonics and it aint no fun. Seriously I havent posted since 7 hours ago and i see 35 or so posts and i still see a lot of back and forth.

Theres also comments about people being on their knees etc. I dont think the board needs my help to have people 'sucked in' to other conversations.

The name calling really should stop. Who cares if someone collects cards for 20 dollars or $1000 dollars, everyone has a right to their equal opinion.

Not sure why anyone wants to be a net54 bully... its cardboard afterall, sometimes its 75k cardboard, sometimes its free cardboard......just have fun in the hobby and we can all try to improve it.

Still waiting on those texts from Courtney though..

glynparson 02-18-2017 04:36 AM
You are entitled to your opinion
 
When did people get this idea that since you are entitled to your opinion it makes incorrect information correct. They are two different things. Opinions are not facts nor do they change them. So tired of hearing this stupid illogical statement everywhere I look these days.

jefferyepayne 02-18-2017 06:33 AM
Exhausting read!

A giant step forward in cleaning up our hobby would happen if:

1. Dealers would stop accepting bids from anyone with multiple retractions in the past 6 months. If PWCC is sooo worried about the hobby, let's see their policy move much more aggressively to this position. Setting a cutoff at 10, 20, or 30 retractions before banning a bidder is an insincere effort. I understand there are RARE occasions when a bid needs to be retracted but if that's happening more than one a year, I'm not buying it's legit.

2. Bidders would stop bidding on any lot where someone with multiple retractions has bid. This helps nudge dealers to move toward #1. Also, let's be honest. You should be doing this already (I do!), as its very likely these bidders are shills and you're just costing yourself $$$$$ when you put up with this. I personally don't have money to burn.

I know it takes restraint and intestinal fortitude to do these types of things but the alternative is much worse. Sorry, but stuff does not trump all ...

jeff

iowadoc77 02-18-2017 06:51 AM
Words
 
Great words Jeff! (Hey Jeff, hope all is well)
I have retracted a bid before. I confess. But I contacted the seller because I bid on a card I already had out of impulse and realized I already had it. The seller was gracious and understood. I have a hard time imagining that volume of retractions unless there are shenanigans at work.

PhillipAbbott79 02-18-2017 07:23 AM
This thread needs the entire conversation exchange going all of the way back to 2012 from Courtney.

Leon 02-18-2017 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by botn (Post 1632206)
Here is the 15 CJ Jackson before it was cleaned. Come on David and Jake, you guys try to find the other 9 on the list and let's all have fun.
Did you doctor that one? I am sure you will be happy to tell us about your days as a partner of a card doctor, no? I will never forget the phone call when your partner called me, I answered the phone to "Hello Leon, I am a card doctor".....remember that Greg? He went onto carefully explain to me how the guys on the board don't know doctoring and exactly what was being done. He said he was making almost 7 figures and driving a Bentley. First time I met him was with you at the National.

bounce 02-18-2017 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinD (Post 1632342)
I was asking for clarity, I don't have it.

"Some call it "shill bidding". Others call it "pushing/protecting". Regardless of what you call it, as long as you pay for what you win, and it wasn't yours to begin with, that's all it is............complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value. As someone with millions at stake in this hobby, I'm not going to let a card go a dime under its value which is the reason that I have so many duplicates of high end cards."

The last sentence certainly calls question. Were cards shilled or "pushed" to amounts that protected or built investment? Whether they are his or someone else's, was bidding manipulated to get top dollar? Was this done with his listings?

It was an open question.

We started with a thread of possibility of wrongdoing, my only gripe was that guilt was assumed without corroboration. This sounds like a bit of admittance to me and just wanted some background on who had the correct interpretation.
I think this was the sequence. Courtney bought the card from PWCC at the 2015 (or 2016, can't remember?) National in it's PSA 7 form, and subsequently consigned it to Goldin where it sold to someone else in Sept/Oct 2016, at a loss to Courtney. That buyer subsequently consigned it to PWCC and Courtney started bidding again as the price had not surpassed the Goldin sale price. He didn't own the card when it was consigned back to PWCC, but was bidding to potentially win it back.

As far as "defending" prices, I will give a personal example as I think this is what he probably means. There are about 8-10 cards that I currently or have previously owned, and any time another one is put for auction I almost always drop in a "minimum" bid which effectively sets a "floor" for that card generically. If no one outbids me at that level, I'm happy to own another copy but I don't necessarily expect to win every time I put in a bid. However, I certainly do stand ready to pay should I win.

I expect most people would describe that as "defending" certain price levels of cards, but I wouldn't expect that to be considered negative. However, if a group of collectors got together and were to engage in this sort of "defensive" bidding with the cards just changing hands between the group, I can certainly see how that would be viewed differently.

To be clear, I am not part of the "buyers group", as far as I know! :D

Peter_Spaeth 02-18-2017 08:26 AM
Leon, you seem awfully sensitive and defensive (uncharacteristically) on this thread. Earlier I simply asked you what your opinion was on the disclosure question and you responded that you refuse to be interrogated, or words to that effect. Greg simply points out another example of a before and after of what appears to be the same card that received a significantly higher grade and you attack him personally not to mention a guy (Adam) who died tragically many years ago. I suppose you may well attack me now, but I don't get it.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:41 AM.
Page 8 of 10 « First 67 8 910
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page