Quite the contrary, Peter. I am only stating my thoughts just as you are stating yours. If I feel I am being asked questions in a manner that seems interrogatory, or in a pointed manner, I will state so. That is all. As for Greg, since he started this whole thread, which is fine, I just thought I would ask a question concerning the very thing he is talking about, which his ex-partner (who seemed like a nice guy to me, RIP) was doing as a normal hobby practice. I guess I don't understand your need to go after PWCC so vigorously either. It is as if you have a vendetta against them, whether you dismiss the claim or not. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Counselor.

Evasive is a good word. I asked for your opinion about whether or not PWCC did something wrong by not disclosing that they helped the cards appearance out and you won't give one. I can only presume because your opinions about it are financially contrary, right?

So Greg is bringing up all of these cards that got upgraded and asks me for comment but he has history of being involved and I have ZERO history.

Like i said, i dont think soaking cards is something thats ever disclosed (imagine all of those 1914 cracker jacks percentage of being soaked)

I wish i knew someone that was almost making 7 figures and driving a Bentley that was hobby card partner. I swim in much smaller waters. My friends in the hobby drive Pontiacs

Again, I dont think soaking is something that is disclosed as a regular business practice, I just find it interesting I am asked for comment about cards that have been upgraded in PWCC auctions which I have nothing to do with while the person asking has an obvious strong connection to the practice of upgrading cards according to Leon.

As to PWCC disclosing on the Dimaggio. I dont think it was scam behavior if the card was soaked (if cut and half and restored and tricked PSA thats a different story) but i think they lose credibility since they had direct knowledge of the history and did not disclose. Also if someone 'upgraded' the card and was selling it in a direct deal and said 'this card was previously not graded' and sold the card for 75k that would be actionable of course. I am not biased in support or against PWCC. I do think the buyer of a 50k card needs to do due dilligence as well and garners blame when a 5 minute google search would find a past sale of the exact card.

In addition if there was colluding as to shill bidding between any auction house and bidders there would be a direct actionable risk there as well.

Can you please provide the link?

It's been a while since I've posted in this thread, so here are my current thoughts:
1) The vast majority of people reading this thread probably think board member Dick Towle cleaned these cards, whether or not it's been stated in the thread. He is the most visible self-promoter of cleaning stains out of cards, and he claims to do it not to make them more valuable, but to allow people to enjoy their prized items more. The link I quoted about him being giddy about improving a 4 into a 7 seem to discount that premise.
2) There is definite egg on PWCC's face, and it's surprising to me that no one in hundreds of posts has even alluded to the fact that they used to promote California sales tax fraud and consignor's "hidden reserve" bidding on eBay when they started.
3) To the common man, both Brent and Cortney seem liable for different things, but as PWCC is a multimillion dollar company, they stand the greatest to lose. Their request to "take the high bid; it will get outbid" could be loose talk among friends, but I would think a jury would read it as direction to shill the auction and that they have another party willing to bid/push it higher.
4) I'm surprised the winner of the auction has not come on here or been identified. I'm wondering if PWCC will contact them directly and at least inform them of the thread and the likely decrease in value of this card in the future, and give the buyer the option to return the card. I realize this would hurt the consignor of the card, who is a member of this board.
5) I was glad that PWCC claimed to have the card re-inspected by PSA, but the timeline doesn't really add up unless they happened to do walk-through service and hand-delivered the card to PSA. Was the card given a new case and Cert number; if so, that would require the addition of a new set of scans uploaded to the auction. PSA claims that toning is not highly evaluated when scoring a card, unless it is uneven or causes an eyesore. I believe this card (if unaltered) could be a 7, since they are lenient on centering. Oddly enough, it probably couldn't be a 6.5. It could have also been knocked to a 7(MK) or a 5 due to the light stains on the back top.
6) As it currently stands, soaking a card in distilled water is an approved technique to clean up a card and a number grade should still be given to cards that have been soaked. However, cleaning with anything other than water is not accepted by the vast majority of the buyers of cards. I am not experienced enough in vintage cards to say whether or not this card was professionally cleaned with something other than water, but I can believe it. It still doesn't seem to be accepted for people to erase pencil marks from cards, despite the board host's doing it on his cards and having tacit approval from SGC (based on a previous thread, I believe). I believe PSA will still give erasure marks a (MK) designation if they detect erasures.

And asking the same questions usually elicit the same responses. Not sure that is evasive. I have stated that if I had a card cleaned I would state it. I am not prepared to say it should be "the law". Sorry I can't give the answer you are looking for. You are welcome to keep trying though.

You don't find it a bit hypocritical that someone (Greg) started a thread about card doctoring was a (alleged) card doctor himself?

You can't make this stuff up.

Come on, Greg! Inquiring minds want to know. Have you ever cleaned or doctored a card with the intention of re-sell?

For expensive things people usually ask for chain of custody type of thing.

I know if i was looking at two 1914 Cracker Jacks PSA 7 for $4000 and one guy can show 7 past sales of the same card for the past 10 years and the other guy cant show me any past sales, i would value the one with history more.

If its an original owner or came from the original owner of the card that bought it as a kid etc, i would require more than their word.

3. I think you are wrong on this account. After speaking with an attorney just now (not about this particular thing) this question came up. Statement absolutely could have meant the bid would be so low someone else will beat you anyway....that comment is commonplace in the hobby.

4. Value of the card actually went up AFTER this thread started. This card is probably worth just about what the selling price has been, imo, stain or no stain. I could see the PWCC buyer asking for a return but that is it. And I think that this particular card, even with transparency of the stain, will be worth as much or more in the future. Others will disagree....

6. I have never had any "tacit' approval from SGC or anyone, anywhere to erase anything. If a mark is erased, and it can't be seen any longer AND there is no indention from it, NO grader can discount for it. So if that is a tacit approval, ok.

I have no vendetta against PWCC. I am simply expressing my opinion on one of their auctions. Many years ago a similar issue of dramatic but undisclosed "restoration" came up in the context of a Legendary auction, or maybe it was still Mastro, and I expressed the same opinion about the need for disclosure then. The difference was, Doug ended up disclosing it as a result of the Board's input. Obviously that did not happen here. It was some sort of Keeler cabinet.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=152038
Here is the quote I was remembering when the thread was linked in a different thread and my interpretation was that if you spent countless hours discussing erasing pencil marks with all three main graders (not just SGC), that that would bestow tacit approval on removing pencil marks with erasers. I realize they can't catch everything, but don't believe the majority of card buyers would value a card with an undetectable erasure the same as one that never had been written on in the first place, if they were given the choice. Kind of the same discussion we're having about the toning removal in this thread. There have also been times they've goofed (I think I remember seeing a Red Hearts Mantle linked that had writing on the card, and was not given a (MK) though it should have.

I will also disagree. Five years ago it was a $6,000 card, right? Just because it went up after this thread started, doesn't mean it was due to the thread. I posit that it was due to the other bidders not knowing about this thread. And I don't believe this card is now given the mythical Honus Wagner provenance that since it's altered and now more famous, that it's worth more. That will only be proven/disproven once the card goes back on the market again and all the buyers know of it's murky history.

I only have my 20 yrs of experiences to go on.
And on those quotes, you're interpretation is not correct, as to what I said. As I said, they never gave tacit approval nor did I ask them if I could do it. As for discussing everything under the sun with graders, I try to

Thanks for the response; I'm glad the grading companies don't condone erasures that they can detect or recommend people erase off their cards for higher grades.

So after 66 pages, where do we stand on this debate?

what debate? :) I will go out on a limb and say the same place we started LMAO....is it time for lunch?

.

We are all waiting on the entire conversation history.

4.
Spin.. The winner of the 36WW DiMaggio was instructed by Brent to win the card. This could be a close friend or family member. This is why Cortney was told to make higher bids as it wòuld better for the public to see multiple bidders on it. Brent knew Cortney would not win it for this reason. Since all hell broke out on this card during the auction (this Net54 thread) , I'm sure Brent wanted this card to disappear for many reasons for a long time.

Plus, the ending price worked out just about perfect for John the consignor of the card to PWCC where he broke even or up 1k from his purchase price from Goldin.

So, the perfect storm for Brent was this card returning to PWCC to be sold. Then, this thread started which educated Cortney whose lack of research of the card came to light. Cortney had a great mutual business relationship with Brent over 5 years and that all came to an end, as it's easy to read his bias to Brent.

It's safe to say this card won't be seen for many years to come and if it does I can't wait to see how the auction company discloses the murky history of it.

5.
Agreed, the timeline does not add up and there's was no visual evidence that this occurred. The card should have a qualifier on it with the numerical grade. I am disappointed that PWCC didn't add to their description about the history once this thread started, but we all know why now. I'm also surprised no one spotted this in the Goldin auction. I see PWCC uses the word "Completeness" on other cards to be accurate.

Bottom line is I like Brent and think they are professional and have a great team. I see the same pattern forming that happened to Doug Allen who I used to be close to. I think his success along with greed caught up to him and then being around the wrong type of people. Doug Allen/John Rogers..... Brent/Cortney. Best advice to everyone is just keep doing what got you there and pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered.

While there's a break in the action
 

Did anyone else happen to notice that Evan M.'s avatar is an 88 Topps Bo Jackson in a BVG 1? I found this hilarious and cool as hell and an otherwise shining light in a dumpster fire of a thread.

Note that I've heard from a reputable source that it was recently successfully crossed to a PSA 1, but there is no suspicion of any alterations. ;)

Just trying to add a bit of levity. Carry on.

It would not surprise me if someone "really" won the card. The whole world doesn't read this Board, there are folks out there who wouldn't care about the restoration, and the price was not that high for a PSA 7 WWG DiMaggio. Could it have gone for less than it otherwise would have, sure.

I'll post my last thought on this thread. It will go on and on, then slip off the front page and all will be swept under the rug and nothing will come of it. Maybe in a year or two, Peter will pull a quote from it while we are discussing something similarly atrocious. I remember a few months ago a thread started by a member where received a nice card back from PSA with a top corner practically folded over as it had been damaged after submission. He sent it back to them, they FIXED IT and sent it back reholdered as an "8". That thread lasted about 3 day and practically no one blinked. People....nothing is going to change.

+1000

"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."

David - I think that defending a price is when someone is willing to bid on the card and at the right price win that said card or cards if their bid holds up. I don't think any collector has a problem when people legitimately bid and win cards.

The issue that this thread has brought to light is one that most have speculated has been going on, had strong evidence has been going on, and some have posted on message boards the last few years about. People started noticing irregularities with bids back in April/May last year with certain cards that were increasing in price for no apparent reason at an exponential rate - Clemente rookies, Koufax rookies, Rose rookies, a few Ryan rookies... Same bidder was bidding up the 7's and 8's but only in certain auction and with a certain seller. Care to connect the dots and figure out the seller in quesion and the person who has stated they were bidding them up in this thread are where this happened.

Anyone could have looked at the auction results on VCP I figured the a***t bidder was clueless when it came to bidding on cards. Would bid 15-20 times on the same card rather than a snipe at the end costing themselves a lot of money and always losing out on the card and being the underbidder; however, the easy tip off was that the same bidder had over 50+ retractions with the same seller. This person was not clueless about how to bid they were just clueless that nobody had figured out who was doing it, what they were doing, and a bunch of people knew who it was and why they were doing it.

This week's events are a good thing for the hobby in the long run. Those who do business the right way will continue to do so, and they will see their sales increase, pick up new customers, and the hobby will go on. I have no issues buying from the people I deal with and will only buy even more from them exclusively.

I also think that those who were ignorant enough to publicly out themselves and all of their dirty shenanigans will become no longer welcome in the hobby or lose business. Believe that happened a while back, and all the events of this week did was make it public and let the collecting community decide who they would not deal with going forward. Interesting part is all of the items being brought forth are going to be decided on with the help of some lawyers, maybe some federal bureaus looking into it... When you add the potential fraud, items being shipped across state lines, and the dollar amounts being discussed I think the delete button would have been a really good idea for some parties involved. They have now have made investigating this whole thing on both sides a whole lot easier. :D

WWG Joe
 

Just my little tidbit.

Guy please, don't act like because I made 1000 or so that I am satisfied.
I did not consign this card and put up a lot of money to purchase it, to make 1000. I wholeheartedly feel screwed by this thread. My estimate was this card was going to hit the 60k mark at a minimum.

Be that as it may, it is what it is.

What you are all neglecting here is the real culprit of this disaster.

PSA, We pay them handsomely for their service and judgement.
For the most part we trust their flips.

This board probably deserves a response from Joe Orlando as it relates to this card. PSA took at least two looks at The DiMaggio and one of the looks came after this thread started.

Many people have been accused and have had their personal character insulted, while PSA has skated clean here. Not fair!

John, I agree however this WON'T happen in 1000 years!!

I alluded to that in another post, (pg 51, #510) that there are 3 players here, not 2 but that was quickly dismissed.

Been looking at their grading service as well as a ton of other #7 cards and I still can't figure this one out? :confused:
http://www.psacard.com/resources/gra...andards/#cards
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=...&_skc=50&rt=nc

Mistakes happen, I get that, and maybe that's all there is to it, but I think I'll keep my suspicions for a while yet. ;)

Its a bit presumptive to think you were going to clear 10k on a card that you bought a short time ago and all of those experienced bidders opinion's in the auction you won the card are wrong. There could of been a good reason why you won the card at the price you did in those other bidders minds that also spend tons of money on high dollar cards as flippers. I do not think you were remotely 'wholeheartedly screwed' in making a $1000 on the card. There are a lot worst scenerios that would qualify. I wish my biggest buy/sell regret was only making $1000.

Also you did say earlier on this thread you were going to lose money or least there was a high risk on the card due to what was said on this thread and it turns out you did not so your predictions have not always been so accurate.

lol I could use a drink after reading this thread. I'm dizzy.

Can somelist all the high dollar PSA graded cards the should not have been put in a holder?

Mastero wangner

Pwcc DiMaggio

What else is out there ?

There was once a newspaper clipping of Nolan Ryan that someone cut out of a Sporting News and submitted as a card. Yes..you heard me right....A NEWSPAPER CLIPPING!!! Not sure the year of anything like that, but this person submitted three or so of them, they all got graded, and all brought big money. They included it into the master set.

May be quite a list.

Im telling you...that newspaper clipping takes the cake!! Maybe they should start grading that little vinyl record that has ball player images too!

I think it was mentioned in an earlier post that Brent gave the card to Joe Orlando to have special handling of the card. I think it's common sense that large customers of PSA have a direct line to Joe Orlando for special handling. The question is why would PSA turn a blind eye on accurately grading (yes I know subjective) on a high valued card and how many favors are being done on a yearly basis. I'm sure the the big boy submitters who get the special handling done from Joe are taking care of their personal cards or a special consignor.

Lets see the listing on the PSA registry.


Also as far as PSA having to do research when grading a card to see if the 'same' card had marks or whatever and perhaps cleaned. This is impractical unless they previously held the card in hand. They cant assume there was toning or other issues unless really see it. Scanners can show different things and what may look like a line on a card, may be on the holder etc..

Im sure auction houses are more flexible in disclosing flaws in certain cards from big consignors versus the everyday guy.

If you have a 1952 Topps Mantle PSA 8 and only with a microscope you maybe can detect a small small micro wrinkle. How many auction houses would disclose that? As Peter says, if its not material, why not disclose it? I think auction houses would say that only if its material, they will disclose it.

Now for other cards, dont you think with some consignors, auction houses will disclose (small timers like me) that small small wrinkle but for others they wont....thats how it goes..

Id also like to hear from any member on this board that consigned a card and noticed that an auction house listed your card but failed to disclose some flaw. How many of you contacted the auction house to tell them about the flaw and to be sure to put it in the description. Afterall, if its not that big of a deal, why not disclose it...

You can research it yourself. I'm busy. Here's the card (cough cough).

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1966-The-Spo...-/201012634337

Right Robert I remember those now ! I thought becket was grading cuts for a while though . But maybe if we can put a list together of all the "know" major grading errors it will hold more weight then " hey look at this card psa" ( whiny little girl voice must be used with the last quotations).

Then we could even put a gross before and after price of theses errors.



Disclaimer:
All puns intended at all times

Jake please, if you don't think this thread cost my final sale at least $7500 you are really freakin crazy!

Blowout link
 

Noting good about this thread just sharing it because someone asked . http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/v...n-pickups.html

It was not Dick to the best of my information.

The Plank that Doug had rebacked. Probably countless others. PSA 6 Doyle altered to look like the impossible rarity that apparently was submitted in a stack of commons.

John forgive me but I am confused a bit. During the auction weren't you vigorously defending the grade? Now you say PSA is the culprit?

LOL

Another forum even hates him:

"What one of the JPs went to jail? The thread on Net54 would also be a lot better if the 2 idiots(David James and Jake Lieberman) never posted in it. "

http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/v...pickups-2.html

That has to go down in history some where.

Peter,
First off, when you got 50k on the line and a thread pops up while your card is in auction you will do whatever you can to protect yourself.

That being said, I've read you guys
Attack Pwcc, Cortney and anyone else with an opinion.
Not saying you specifically but the board as a whole.

What got my attention is PSA has been skating clean throughout this thread.
They graded the card, whether it's accurate or not. This card has gained a lot of attention and I believe PSA owes this board a statement.
I'm not a grader and while the card was in my possession I never questioned it.
But if a blame is going to be made , I think you all should start with the grading company.

That is me. I am itradeerrors on BO. I posted the same in this thread. I truly believe David just posts to argue for no reason and I honestly still have no idea what Jake even posts about most times.

Right ! Good ones plus all the others Greg uncovered which I'm sure there must be more of .

John I too would like to understand PSA's rationale for grading the card, particularly as they presumably knew what had been done to it when Brent sent it back to them (assuming he did). But Joe is too smart for that, he is not going to post here about anything controversial, and why should he given PSA's amazing success despite a number of controversies.

I've seen countless high end cards I thought were trimmed, but none with any particular notoriety.

Peter, Sadly, I tend to agree with you.
PSA knows about the card and pretty sure they know about this thread.
While we probably would only get a canned statement, official recognition from PSA is warranted.

Feelings were hurt because of this card and from what I've read enemies made.
i know I've acted defensive due to such a large investment on the line and I'm sorry for being a bit of a jerk.

Joe Orlando if you read this, we would all like to hear your point of view with this card.
I really think we deserve to hear what you have to say.

It's a virtual certainty PSA knew about the thread. They have in my opinion chosen a business model of relative lack of communication and transparency, including poofing every controversial thread that comes up on CU, but obviously they have made the judgment that that's the best way to run their business, and their success validates that.

Oh. Ok.

John your right . Like I said if we could put a comprehensive list together of major cards that's psa has made errors on. Then maybe if they see this list it might be a reality check for them. What would they do if every single one of sent this list with a complaint to them?

Money talks. Numbers talk. They are hugely popular and have nothing to gain really by posting other than giving us an explanation (which I would love to hear). I still think they would "ignore" it until it affects their bottom line.

These made it to the market but eventually were taken off.
http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=27012#more-27012

Wow ! Great read peter . So you can get PSAs attention. I'm not saying that they really give a šhït. I think it would bring more attention to what's going on either way.


Psa Favoritism grades for bigger fish :
It seems real to me . But if it is, you would think someone by would have said hey I send in psa 5s and get 7s back almost all the time! Right ? And if this is a real thing then why not have that entity send in your cards for you ? For a cost of course.

Phillip Abbott, you are a true d!ckhead

John, did those left side marks/stains look as visible in hand as they do in the scans?

I, personally, would be a little more forgiving and less suspicious of the TPG if they are very hard to see, but I can't imagine that with the technology they have and likely use.

I still haven't been able find a PSA 7 card that comes remotely close to looking like this one, not even an older slabbed one? :confused:

This is where we stand:

Those that didn't do business with PWCC before and are verbally harpooning Brent and PWCC on this thread; Net effect; none

Those that enjoy PWCC's low fees, e-bay platform, wide breath of consignments and industry leading eyeballs, will continue to use PWCC; Net effect; none

Those on the fence must make a decision; who is the most moral and ethical Auction House to consign my cards? or, who is going to get the most money for my consignment?

What about buyers? I have, embarrassingly, spoke highly of them in the past, but I don't think I'll be visiting them anytime soon, even though I am a very low end, $20 dollar buyer mostly.

LOL, So were you also lucky enough to also receive a profanity laced PM from David?

Fair question, as I am mostly a buyer also. Truth be told, I've bought 90% of my cards on PWCC. Over the last 6 years, close to 2,000 cards, all from 70-77 and all PSA 9's (except for a few 71 8's; and this doesn't include the high end raw sets I bought 3-5 years ago before they started breaking them up)

Until you can show me another auction house that has their hands clean and has the quantity and quality that I look for, then I'll stick with PWCC. And if I can't snipe, I essentially stay away.

PWCC will be at the National. I recommend if anyone has an issue with them, ask for Brent, look him in the eye, and ask away. It's easy to tell someone to F-off or make accusations on a forum (others besides Irv). Face to face, little different.

I will be at the National this year also, my first one in 30? years, and would love to meet some of you whether we disagree or not. You can find me at the $20 card bins.

Originally Posted by bnorth View Post
That is me. I am itradeerrors on BO. I posted the same in this thread. I truly believe David just posts to argue for no reason and I honestly still have no idea what Jake even posts about most times.
Oh. Ok.

Phillip: Not sure why you keep bringing me up. You mentioned me for some reason being brought up on another board but it was from a poster here. I guess if another poster here says something on another board about me you will post it here as well. Still not sure why you are so interested in posting information like that but whatever floats your boat but you are bringing up off topic things in this thread.

So you would rather have someone buy the card without knowing the prior sale. People look at net54 everyday. It is forseeable that someone would post the prior sale on that card during the auction.

You just seem to be complaining for the wrong reason. I dont think anyone on the board besides you will say it was bad that Greg brought up the prior sale. I guess you wish he brought it up AFTER the auction? The winner could of returned the card and asked for a refund if went for 60k.

So if the thread started after the sale the net effect may of been the same. I guess you wanted something to post that past sale AFTER the potential refund period expired.

I get why you are upset in general but dont understand why you are upset at the timing of the information of the thread and you did Make a Thousand dollars and the buyer may have been fully informed as well and wont ask for a refund. I just think you are mad at the wrong people.

Also again, i guess i am crazy because i still dont think the card goes for 7500 more than what you paid for it a short time ago and nobody else bothered to bid higher than you and give up a 'sure $5000'

Uh? Where did that come from? I am disappointed with a lot of things in this thread, but telling someone to F-off to their face isn't something that has even crossed my mind at this point.

I have had nothing but good luck with pwcc, and like I said, spoke highly of them prior, but I personally hate to read things like this in any type of scenario, so, like I said earlier, I think I'll avoid/stay away from them, or at least for a while, or until everything comes out in the wash, if it ever does?

Lately, I have had pretty good luck purchasing cards cheaper and not having to pay a $15 dollar shipping fee, which works out to about $20, give or take, to get it up here.

Curious, is the $15 what you guys pay state side as well?

Ok Jake, you don't think this thread hurt the card at least 7500 bucks?
Cmon, seriously ?!? I don't care if I get banned from this site, as you can tell from my measly 67 posts in 4 years I don't live on this site like you.
So go F yourself!, better yet have Greg do it for you. Loser! Get a life you spend way too much time arguing nonsense on this message board!

LOL. Of course we can't know with certainty unless someone comes forward and so attests, but I agree with John it is certainly very plausible that there are folks who read or heard about this thread and didn't bid, or bid less. It's just common sense. I don't know why certain people on this thread want to fight different aspects of the obvious.

I second Johns response. This ridiculous post definitely put a damper on the card for bs. Frankly who gives a sht whether a card was any grade before. I think someone should pay restitution to John for hurting auction.

Obviously it COULD have hurt his auction, but I gotta say, while, if I were in his shoes, I would be pissed as well for a lot of reasons, at a lot of people, I doubt it hurt it by $7500. (diagram THAT sentence grammar police!) I mean really what % of the buying public for a card in this echelon do we really think N54 represents? We already have proof that people shelling out big bucks don't necessarily do any research on the card before they pull the trigger. So a non-member very likely never stumbled across this debacle.

Seriously though I'd love to hear estimates on a %. We may collectively be a big fish in a small pond, but I'm guessing we're a smaller fish in a bigger pond than you might think.

All that said I still feel for him as, unless I missed something, he was an innocent bystander who got slammed by circumstance.

Now if he would just apologize for the douchey $20 collector comment...

Greg dont you think you should compensate John for interfering with his auction whether privately or with PWCC for that matter?

If I owned a card like that and you messed with it on me we would be having a different conversation. And I am sure others on here would be same way. You should have waited until it ended. Curious to here your thoughts...

I understand completely how anyone reading this thread would have been dissuaded to bid on this card. This was bad PR. Nothing good came to the consignor from the thread.

What I don't understand is the presumption that the card would have appreciated 30% in the course of five months had this thread not existed. I'm not even trying to be confrontational, but can someone please explain what economic forces are at play to drive a card from $47k in Oct to the expected $60k+ in Feb? Are eBay buyers that much more deep pocketed than the ones shopping Goldin? Perhaps it's because I'm not a flipper, but what am I missing here?

Thought this was supposed to be a community that looked out for each other's common interests? I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that Greg should have kept his mouth shut until someone bought the card without knowledge of its history.

You seem to be able to walk in John's shoes for a mile, try on the moccasins of the buyer who may have unknowingly spent a small fortune on the card. Do we just keep passing the buck until the game of musical DiMaggio is over and someone is left holding the bag?

I am usually on the same page as Ed but I disagree with him here. As there was no question these were the same card, I think it was appropriate to call the matter to the attention of the community because it was potentially highly relevant information. Had Greg been speculating, or just offering a personal opinion about the card, I would feel differently. Sure, it sucked for John, but the information presented was undisputed and factual and the greater good justified it, in my opinion.

We are all entitled to opinions but the consignor John had nothing to do with any of this so potentially he could have suffered financially. That is not right.

So the issue is that half of us think its ok to remove stains and the other half not. Face the facts or not it is accepted in the hobby. By auction houses, grading companies and individuals. And if some people cant see it, they should move on.

So IMO Brent or whoever owned card is in no way required to state he cracked out a card, took tape off and resubmitted. There are hundreds of cards in pop reports that are still listed and no longer in grade.

John

This thread was started on 2-3 with the auction ending on 2-7. Four days that action could have been taken.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the card in this auction was your property. Why didn't you pull the card?

No matter who is at fault here, you were the last link in the chain and could have done something.

Jantz

So, it's wrong for Greg to potentially cost an innocent consignor but what about the potential winner that he might have saved? I feel for John in this situation but seems like he might have some recourse with PWCC. The more times this card is sold it seems it would be more difficult to be made right by the original parties involved in the cleaning of the card.

It would really suck to pay for a PSA 7 and 5 years from now those stains start to reappear.

I still do not see where Greg is saving anyone money but tampering with an existing auction. Nothing more to it. I am all about honesty and integrity in this hobby which is why I will refrain commenting on others in this post.

The card is in a PSA 7 holder graded by PSA. And I do not see anything wrong with that nor did PSA see anything when grading. There are many cards out there that have had stains etc removed. Would others like it if some of us start digging into some cards that are posted on this board. Lets put it this way there would be a lot of problems if so. There are plenty of scans and high end cards on this board that have been tampered with or changed holders.

This is much different then what people like Battlefield are doing to the public by artificially changing scans to sell a card.

The real question that some of you super sleuths should be asking is who comes up with a $75k price tag on a card in a fictitiously inflated market.

Ed this was not tape that was removed. The light areas were where the card had been protected by some sort of mount. The REST of the card was toned heavily, and that toning was removed, likely by a chemical. That may not affect your view, but that is what happened.

Hopefully Ed, we can discuss and possibly even disagree without devolving into name calling unlike some other people in this thread. Seems like you're the kind of guy who can do that.

There's an inherent flaw in your logic. If people feel that a PSA 7 is a PSA 7 is a PSA 7 then the back story on the card isn't going to matter to them. So in essence it's a self-correcting issue. If the back story bothers you, then you wanted to know, and Greg did the community a service. If you feel the grade absolutely clears any concerns about the card, which you imply (and there are many who agree with that sentiment, just ask the owner of the Diamondbacks.) then the back story doesn't matter and so Greg's post didn't matter.

Funny you should mention that Scott. Last night I thought how ironic it would be if the owner of the sliced & diced Wagner also bought this 36 WWG DiMaggio.

One question I have for anyone on the board. When did PSA become the almighty authority in this hobby?

Just because PSA says it's a 7 does not mean it is a 7. They gave nothing more than an opinion, which they were paid to do.

Scott: You and I and many others agree to this. The truth is the defense for outing the card. If someone said something untruthful about a past sale which hurt the value thats a different story.

What if the card sold to a Net54 member who doesnt 'live on the board' and had not checked awhile. Then after the sale the card was 'outed' dont you think that buyer would of wanted their money back. I disagree with anyone who thinks it was wrong to out the card during the auction.

Also name calling from John is pretty ridiculous given the post I wrote he is responding too. Several posters agree that a $7500 expected profit was not realistic. Some posters say that the prior sale would not of impacted their bidding as well. In any event, it was just an opinion that many agree with and not sure why there would be insults to that. You have admitted on this thread 'that you have been a bit of a jerk'.

I hope the person that bought the card knew about the cards history if he didnt live on the board/site. Also i have made several posts there that i dont believe the card was sold as a fraud. Peter has been arguing with me when I have said a PSA 7 was sold and PSA 7 was purchased, so its not like i have an agenda against the sale.

I also notice that the board doesnt need my help when there is lively discussion (720 posts and counting) Peter has said when you are losing an argument you tend to curse and say profanities. ]


In any event, I do think the post by John was uncalled for and he said he doesnt care if he is banned...but im sure he is sorry for his behavior and wants to post more here..


This was my post and his post responding for reference:

So[B][B] you would rather have someone buy the card without knowing the prior sale. People look at net54 everyday. It is forseeable that someone would post the prior sale on that card during the auction.

You just seem to be complaining for the wrong reason. I dont think anyone on the board besides you will say it was bad that Greg brought up the prior sale. I guess you wish he brought it up AFTER the auction? The winner could of returned the card and asked for a refund if went for 60k.

So if the thread started after the sale the net effect may of been the same. I guess you wanted something to post that past sale AFTER the potential refund period expired.
I get why you are upset in general but dont understand why you are upset at the timing of the information of the thread and you did Make a Thousand dollars and the buyer may have been fully informed as well and wont ask for a refund. I just think you are mad at the wrong people.
Also again, i guess i am crazy because i still dont think the card goes for 7500 more than what you paid for it a short time ago and nobody else bothered to bid higher than you and give up a 'sure $5000'