Brent/PWCC interview on recent controversies
 

There's been some reaction already on one or maybe it was both of the other PWCC threads, so if you don't get many comments that's why.

My thoughts:
1) (3 minutes in) He is confirming that his standards are not industry accepted and that the card industry needs to "mature" into accepting HIS definition of conservation. We see in the various responses to PWCC's posts on many message boards that very few people agree with him. He also claims that there are no grading company rules about what is/is not acceptable. This is a flat out lie, since PSA's grading page specifically lays out what they consider ungradeable alterations. He also fails to mention the importance of informing buyers of alterations/"conservations" that have occurred, something that is industry standard in many other collectible/investment fields.

2) (6:30 in) Tenets "are what we hold the grading company accountable for." "We will refine this to be in everbody's best interest." In the case of spooning out a crease, is it initially conserved because you can't spot it, but later becomes altered as it reappears? This is why nobody trusts what Brent has to say on this subject. PSA disagrees on removing pencil marks from a card; it's there in their list of alterations. He claims that his stance lines up with PSA's, but it's absolutely wrong.

3) As manufactured state: as long as it can't be detected, it isn't altered. Again, BS. If the intent is to hide flaws with an item, that is alteration. If it can't be detected by the grading companies, and they're claiming they can detect it, they need to come clean. Because more and more of these cards will end up getting reimbursed by their Grade Guarantee funds and continue to disgust their customers. Good alteration = Good conservation. No wonder he's such good friends with guys like Dick Towle. He's drank his solvent Kool-aid.

4) Take the 1951 Bowman Willie Mays RC that was recently found to have the embedded gum/wax stains on the reverse removed. If you didn't have the before picture, it's "conservation"; once you've been provided the before picture, is it now "alteration?" Or are you still going to call it conservation?

5) Take a shot every time he says "mature" or "asset". Let me know how drunk you are. At 9:45, he basically says that spooning out creases or pressing/flattening cards/corners IS CONSERVATION.

So there's my thoughts for the first 10 minutes. I'll keep watching.

Why on earth would you keep watching? :confused:

It is fun watching a otherwise intelligent person go full short bus rider. It totally baffles me why Brent and Betsy keep making these amazingly stupid posts/videos that just make them look worse.:confused:

I wonder if those curtains are in brents house...or maybe one of the oy gavaults!

Wow, it took until 10:33 to hear "We're not a professional grading company."
"We have to accept the grading companies and their assessment of it." Just like the Green PMG Jordan, huh?

So yes, he clarifies that bad erasures are alterations, but good erasures are not.
"That's generally how people feel about it." I have not seen that to be the case with people who are willing to give their opinions on message boards, Leon's preference notwithstanding. Again, if the card is found with writing on the card after it is sold, it's now altered. If there was no evidence of the card with writing on it, it's conserved. Geesh.

"I have never seen the N-7 alteration applied to a single card in 20 years. So PSA has it; I've never seen it used, ever." He agrees that if there was evidence a stain was removed, it should be considered altered. So again, how does the 1951 Bowman Willie Mays apply? How about the alterations that reappear over time because of using solvents to remove stains from cards? "This language [PSA's standards] is 30 years old." How about the WWG DiMaggio that PSA decertified?

Interviewer is definitely giving Brent the home court advantage. Barely talks, lines up softballs.

If it ever came to it, Brent would not do well on cross-examination, IMO.

Personally, as much as I hate most forms of alteration, I really don't care about erasing a light pencil mark with a high quality eraser. There, I gave my opinion.

How can you redefine a word? Conserve means prevent further damage. It in no way has EVER meant in any hobby, collectible field or dictionary - improving appearance for appearance's sake. Even cleaning an old master isn't solely to make it look better, the accumulated grime can destroy the painting.

The same way he can call a baseball card an asset. Clueless. Apparently he needs to consult not only with better lawyers, but with a PR firm that can speak English.

Erasures are to me, one of those in between things. done properly, I don't see much problem, but do wish they were noted somehow. Done poorly, well, like anything done poorly it's a problem.

This card was one of two I asked SGC about the grade a few years ago when they were at the local show. It seemed nicer than the average 40 to me.

What the guy there spotted pretty quickly was an erased number on the back.
I've owned the card at least since 1980, it was the first nice T206 I bought. Since then, I've moved it between pages, different holders etc probably 5-6 times, looked at it a fair amount, and never noticed the erasure.
SGC did, and apparently didn't consider it anything that would prevent a number grade. It just didn't get a higher number grade because of the erasure.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=26971

New information for once: "All the grading card companies have seen our Marketplace Tenets. They have read our stance on conservation vs. alteration. And all that was done in the weeks to months before us actually posting it." He doesn't say that any of them have ratified those or even given their opinions on it. Radio silence sure is saying something to me; not to him I guess.

1952 Mantle discussion (18 min): "I've only seen it [the before picture] once." "Before and after pictures are not evidence." Hah. WTTE of "Physical evidence has to be on the card, or first hand statement from the submitter has to occur in order to disclose the conservation." Well, this is not really true.

"Conservation is not something that has to be disclosed." They will not stop an auction if a card for sale shows "conservation" in a before picture. Just keep digging, Brent.

It's like the old joke of how do you know a lawyer is lying.

Man, people here used to defend him by the droves, where are they?

These are good reasons why I consider him a very slithering shady individual on the surface of things. I am no longer a customer, that's for sure. Let's see how he starts getting $$$$ back from conservators like Towle, Burge, Moser, Et al. :D I have clear picture of that happening. Those kids have been spinning 1's into 3's, 3's into 5's and 7's into 9's for a really long time together. They are thick as theives, IMHO. They do more flips over there that Nadia Comaneci

In fairness I have never heard that Dick trims cards. He has admitted to doing things I would personally consider unacceptable alteration, but I have never heard trimming.

Looks like 2 of the 1993 SP Jeters sold for a combined $173K may be trimmed. Even more money PSA is on the hook for.

I will edit my comment.

The Fake Jeters are to die laughing for...A long time in bed together...a long time. Great job tracing these fake cards sold for at least 100,000's of Thousands, that we know of. Probably Millions before this scam is completely uncovered.

:confused::confused::confused: What?! Did he really say that? I didn't get that far into the video.

ETA: So I guess all those autographed T206s that were shown with before and after pictures would still be good in his world then?

Right, as long as his clinic of doctors don't get caught by PSA, it would be considered Conserved.

Peter-Not sure why you have a problem with cards being called assets. An asset is defined as a useful or valuable thing. Certainly most cards have value and as such they can be considered assets. I understand that to some it is more palatable to spend money on assets than on cards, but at the end of the day it’s a distinction without a difference. There are things that Brent says that I disagree with, but I have no problem with this choice of words.

#1 Conservation is alteration
#2 He mentions the art and comic world, but I don't think he knows what is conservation. He's making up his own definition that doesn't exist in those worlds.
#3 Conservation is supposed to be disclosed at sale and should make it so a card can only graded as AUTH (according to standard PSA, SGC, Beckett rules).

Wow, one hour long video. Who has time to watch this entire thing?

It's indicative of a whole mindset that I don't like. I wouldn't say to you, Jay, nice asset, or Jay, could you post a scan of that asset. It's a generic term that sounds stupid in this context, IMO.

My only suggestion is to start buying at the smaller eBay companies like it use to be.

Before all of these big Sellers came along, there were rarely any controversies. You were able to get cards at decent prices and never had to worry about shilling.

These so called big companies think that they make all the rules around here. BS.

We can then get back to talking about baseball cards. I use to come to this Forum to learn about cards. Now all I hear about is the shadiness of the larger Sellers.

I ran out of patience about ten minutes in. What nonsense. Keep digging that hole, pal.

I went to his web site and he lists what he does for cards and the general charges. Nothing is noted about trimming but a list of other changes are notes

http://www.gonewiththestain.com/price-list.html

Posted so we can see what they do to cards and what the cost is

Rich

I remember when I use to get laughed at when I just spoke about PWCC's inconsistent, all over the map, shipping fees plus the price they charged for shipping. Looking back, all that seems so trivial now based on what has come to light but for me it was another sign of a less than professionally run business. Throw in a few questionable card sales and some stories I have read here about their shilling policies, etc, and I haven't looked back since other than to watch some of their auctions. I guess for some, it seems, they needed more than that but I'm sure they're regretting that decision now?

I noticed this vid was posted yesterday on my phone while I was at my trailer. I was hoping to watch it today on my home computer but when I realized it was over an hour long, just reading the comments here and below the vid was enough for me to realize it is nothing more than a damage control vid.

Same. When I joined the site and started collecting back in 2016, I was real happy to see these card forums actually existed.
As time went on I quickly learned how ugly this hobby was, and was really surprised, the ugliest parts of it came from those who were supposedly started to protect/endorse the hobby.:confused:
The things I've learned and seen in my short time here from PSA, PWCC and some auction houses, who are allowed to "up bid" their own auctions, made me quickly learn this is no longer kids stuff anymore.

The biggest eye opener's are from those who defend these places and scoff at those who question their business practices. I honestly don't understand, nor will ever understand, anyone who continues to do business with these places. It just boggles my mind. :confused:

[QUOTE=swarmee;1879322]New information for once: "All the grading card companies have seen our Marketplace Tenets. They have read our stance on conservation vs. alteration. And all that was done in the weeks to months before us actually posting it." He doesn't say that any of them have ratified those or even given their opinions on it. Radio silence sure is saying something to me; not to him I guess.

So maybe the TPG's have read his "Tenets." Sounds like he has the gall to consider himself "the authority" that his word shall be beholden as sportscard gospel and how "assets" should be sold.

Who gave him the title? Is he the new "Lord of Sportscards?" In my opinion he seems to have a high opinion of himself...:confused:

[QUOTE=chalupacollects;1879434]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swarmee (Post 1879322) New information for once: "All the grading card companies have seen our Marketplace Tenets. They have read our stance on conservation vs. alteration. And all that was done in the weeks to months before us actually posting it." He doesn't say that any of them have ratified those or even given their opinions on it. Radio silence sure is saying something to me; not to him I guess.

Lake Oswego has always been the center of the sports card universe.:rolleyes:

Watching the video
 

I don't think i have shaken my head so often and said you are full of shit more times in one hour in my entire life. I can not disagree more than i do with 99% of what he says. I had used them several times to sell for me. i don't think i will ever again. i just can't in good conscience despite the strong prices i received and the relatively quick payments. i am in this for the long haul and i don't think what he is trying to do is helpful for the hobby. I'll stick with REA and a couple other reputable sellers to consign with.

Most of you folks are a lot more patient than I am. I made it to the 8 minute mark before the steam was shooting out my ears, and I had to shut it down.

I listened to most of the rest of it at work this morning. I was glad he owned up to being a fence ("front" in his terms) for bad actors, but it seems he won't out anyone who confesses, apologizes, and reimburses those who were scammed. He believes all of these criminals are worthy of staying in the hobby as long as they promise not to do it again...

He says that he is working to identify "conservators" who he can point people to in order to improve the look of their cards, and anyone who thinks this is alteration just needs to "mature" like other markets. He didn't say if Dick Towle was on that list.

Things I do agree with that he said: the bad actor information needs to be freely shared between auction houses and grading companies so this doesn't become a case of "pass the trash." He referenced the plan that blowout member Superdan is working to catalog all these altered cards onto a website so that the info doesn't get lost to internet losses.

I disagree that the six to eight already outed by Blowout are redeemable in the hobby, and I would love for Brent to turn over his information on their consignments to law enforcement.

He's doing so many good things for the hobby, I don't understand what the problem is.

Lol
 

LOL.

The interview had me between laughing and yelling at the screen. I didn't get when he said nobody has accused them of wrongdoing. I think we both know someone who has.

Kind of like when he claimed noone had ever questioned his scans and I linked a post on CU where he had recently responded to just such a charge.

6 to 8?? There have been dozens.

He is probably playing word games and defining accused to mean a formal charge by law enforcement.

Who on earth would resort to word play to communicate in their alternative universe?

Could such an individual also be a Scrabble Master, or perhaps be competent in solving cryptic crosswords.

You mean the investment community.

You're a bad person. First you rip Mastro and now Brent.

Glyn, I have always noticed you to be a staunch supporter of PSA grading so I am curious, in light of these recent developments here and on BO, if your good thoughts on PSA still remain?

I will admit, after reading some of your posts, you had me swaying back sometimes thinking maybe I was being too critical of them, but I can tell you with a 100% certainty now, I will never be swayed back based on what I have seen and learned on these 2 sites within the last couple weeks.

I listened to about 10 minutes of it. If I’m not someone who is already familiar with PWCC and the backstory there and issues that have already been brought up in this or other threads, what he’s saying doesn’t seem outlandish to me - but it also seems unnecessary. If we have no evidence on the card, then no “alteration” was done. Of course, if you get a card in with an erased pencil mark and you were not on hand to see the erasing being done, and it left no traces whatsoever on the card - even being viewed “30 different ways in 20 different lights and 10 different magnifications” or whatever it was he said - then no, you aren’t going to call that card “altered”. Not outing previous known card doctors that PWCC likely made a fortune with and things like that is outside the scope of what I can knowledgeably speak to. If I believe what I have read on Net54 and then listen to 10 mins of Brent, it seems like he is offering to address something that is not really the issue to whitewash a much larger problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

He has been accused of selling hundreds of doctored/altered cards in graded holders-- and, I don't know, but some have said knowingly selling cards from well known card doctors-- , and is now trying to explain that certain types of alterations are okay and not even alterations, they don't have to be disclosed to the buyer, and, essentially, that "if you can't tell that a doctored card hasn't been doctored, it isn't doctored,"-- which is reminiscent of the old steroid baseball era saying "it's not cheating if you don't get caught."

Am I a zealot who thinks using a pantyhose to remove a wax stain from the back of a card a mortal sin? No. Do I think a card that has had a pencil mark erased or wax stain removed can legitimately receive a 10? No. I assume the card may be deserving of a number grade, but no 10. Perfectly gradable 2s and 3s have varying damage including sometimes identified by the grader pencil, erasure and pen marks, but a legitimate 10 cannot be created or be the product of working on the card.

So doing something to the card isn't necessarily bad or unethical (I'm not saying it's wrong to remove a wax stain or pencil mark or have the card conserved), and in instances, the card may still be deserving of a number grade, but what has been done should be factored into the grade.

Exactly...Brent is trying to change "the rules" as to what's acceptable in the hobby to justify past indescretions.

Who the "F" is Brent to think he can just decide what should be acceptable?

BRENT IS NOT GOOD FOR THIS HOBBY!

"Some hayseed in Oswego Lake"

Since i was asked
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by glynparson View Post
I don't think i have shaken my head so often and said you are full of shit more times in one hour in my entire life. I can not disagree more than i do with 99% of what he says. I had used them several times to sell for me. i don't think i will ever again. i just can't in good conscience despite the strong prices i received and the relatively quick payments. i am in this for the long haul and i don't think what he is trying to do is helpful for the hobby. I'll stick with REA and a couple other reputable sellers to consign with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by glynparson View Post
LOL.

"The interview had me between laughing and yelling at the screen. I didn't get when he said nobody has accused them of wrongdoing. I think we both know someone who has.
Glyn, I have always noticed you to be a staunch supporter of PSA grading so I am curious, in light of these recent developments here and on BO, if your good thoughts on PSA still remain? "

"I will admit, after reading some of your posts, you had me swaying back sometimes thinking maybe I was being too critical of them, but I can tell you with a 100% certainty now, I will never be swayed back based on what I have seen and learned on these 2 sites within the last couple weeks."





I think they make mistakes. I think all of them make mistakes. i still think their senior graders are very good at what they do. They obviously aren't perfect it is just that some of these doctors are damn good. These rough cuts they are doing now are downright scary. I am still a psa guy I don't think they are flawless I never did. I am more angry at what the card doctors have done. I am hopeful PSA will ban the doctors from submitting as it is not good for anyone. ANd i hope Brent does what he says in the video, but i hope he also notes all "conservation" he knows occurs not just what he determines is visible on the card but what he knows and or what is visible should be noted.

I disagree to some extent. I believe, and people who know much more than I do I think can confirm, that if you look hard enough you can always find evidence certainly of stain removal with solvents, and crease and wrinkle removal. So his self serving proclamation is wrong. It could well be altered even if in ordinary circumstances you might not know it. That makes it skilled alteration, not an absence of alteration.

If this BS is good for the hobby, well you can have the hobby.

You have to look at this Mikan RC listing:

https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1982758

"They simply don't come looking like this."

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...e/Lumbergh.png

substitute george mikan rookie card with loch ness monster!

Look at the right border. It's really wavy. You can tell more from the back view, but you can see it from the front as well.

Agreed, but it looks like a long wave, more of a tsunami, if that's part of the hobby lexicon. I'd give it a Tsunami Sticker.

Lower right corner? First thing I noticed. Is the other edge wavy too and just obscured by the slat, not sure. Doesn't look like a rough cut in any event. Older grade too. But hey, as we all know, PWCC would probably get the same price just showing the flip.

I thought you might still answer this way? Your lack of acknowledging them in these PWCC threads lead me to believe that you'd still defend them.

The thing is, your reply is the same as it has always been, that some make mistakes.
I'm not trying to convert you to change your view but have you been following the Blow Out threads?

In my opinion, it is practically conclusive now that something fishy/nefarious is going on with them based on what I have seen that gets passed and assigned a numerical grade.

My opinion, like I stated earlier, was wishy washy once upon a time based on what you stated about them but with these recent PSA slabs that are being shown in just these past couple weeks alone, it is enough for me to cement my opinion.

It is clear, to me at least, based on what I have seen that I can no longer accept that these cards were simple mistakes made by the graders. I could accept the odd one here or there but there are far way too many of them now to even consider that.

I am still not convinced, Dale. In the context of how many cards they grade it's still a very low percentage of mistakes, and the BO guys have the benefit of before and after scans which makes it easy. These doctors, especially the one who can recreate factory edges, are really talented.

Card from VT find back in 2014.....
 

Here are some 1948 Bowmans that have NEVER been touched, bleached, trimmed or anything.......I'm not making an opinion on the Mikan, I just know where these 1948s came from so you can make your own comparisons.
They came from an original family's collection of 1948 low numbers. This is how real untouched 1948 Bowmans looks like. I still feel they are under graded but I'm biased as they are mine! :) You can also see how they almost fully fill the gaskets with barely no room to spare.
Just for comparison only!
Thanks! Mike

Attachment 353782

Attachment 353783

Attachment 353784

We're not talking about common cards that are being doctored and turned into low pop commons worth a lot of money. If that were the case, and the doctor screws up or the card fails to grade, then it wouldn't be much of a financial loss for the doctor. Here's my point. We're talking about cards that are still worth a lot of money even before they're doctored. How sure does the doctor have to be that the cards will grade? Seems like a bold move and takes a lot of confidence...unless he's already guaranteed it will grade numerically. Heck, many collectors are afraid they'll damage a card, just by cracking and re-submiting. So how big a balls does it take for these doctors to buy the card, crack it out, doctor it and re-grade it? Too many risks involved...unless they know for sure it will grade.

I just wonder what kind of kickbacks the graders are getting? A set price per card? A percentage of the profit?

They play a numbers game, David, if enough get through, and they know from experience, they make money. You're wildly speculating at this point. I am not saying you are definitely wrong, but you have no idea either.

David, I have to say that I somewhat agree with you. I have seen over the years, Sellers with extremely high end T206s get grades that boggled the mind. I dont want to mention names, but two of them have represented hundreds of high end T206s on Ebay. I'm talking 8's and 9's that weren't even close to being right. To me, this seems like something that could easily be corrupted with graders and crooked owners. Afterall, the margin between higher end grades can be very marginal unless you really look at these cards on a regular basis...One of these Sellers recently sold a ton of 8's that just weren't close to the grade IMO....I'm sure it also happens in other series of cards as well....

Oh c'mon, David know better than any of us. He knows not a single card is ever rejected, and every grader is "shady". The doctors put a little smiley face on the package so the grader knows which box to grab from the thousands that come in every day. Then the grader lists them as commons so they dont trigger a higher service level and no other senior grader will look at them.

And the cash is sewn into a secret compartment in the box.

I just put a Ben Franklin in each Card Saver since they are all in on it.

Paying double
 

Then you are a sucker. I hear the going rate is only a Grant.

Just put in a signed blank check to see who is correct.:D

Well, no matter how hard I look, I don't see anywhere on the PSA website where they indicate that they will get it right unless the card has been altered by very good card doctors so it slips by them. Up to now, I sort of thought that getting it right was part of what PSA sold. Very clearly, that is not always the case.

I frankly have no idea how many mistakes they make on high-grade cards, where accuracy would seem to be rather important given the prices they now command, but just the number shown so far is more than sufficient to cause me concern. As I have previously said, trust is what PSA purportedly sells. I no longer trust PSA to get it right. The claim that it might be a "low percentage" of cards (thus far) is rather less important to me than the fact that a large percentage of those shown thus far are selling for a lot of money. That's not good.

I know they grade a pile of cards, Peter, but even before this latest scandal, I seen far too many questionable grades and other things that made me put up a red flag.
With this latest scandal and all that I have seen on BO concerning this, I can no longer say to myself, these are just mistakes and mistakes happen.

I know people have a pile of money wrapped up in PSA graded cards so I understand those that don't want to accept something peculiar is going on with PSA but, imo, the evidence is glaring something is.

The junior graders are not competent and they're under tremendous time pressure. The card doctors are very skilled. Nothing would shock me, of course, but I think that's the explanation.

seems like hats made of tin foil would be big sellers on the BST.

I hope that is the case but my gut tells me it isn't. :confused:

Come on, Peter. In your profession, do they give the really big cases to the junior attorneys? I work for an oil and gas engineering company. We don't give the hard stuff to junior engineers.

At PSA, wouldn't it raise a red flag by whoever is processsing an order if there was a 52 Mantle in the submission? Wouldn't someone say, "We better get one of our senior graders on this?"

If so, that's a piss-poor explanation IMO.

David it's a fair point, one I've considered, but part of the equation is the work is very good and in some cases may make it past the senior graders too. I am not insisting I am right, just skeptical there is out and out corruption here.

Agreed, I don't mean to defend it, just trying to find an explanation short of corruption.

At this point, PSA has to be aware of all this and realize they could be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars. So why haven't they addressed it?

Like his responses or not, at least Brent addresses the problems.

Does anyone besides me think this would be a good time to go short on CLCT stock? :D

No. It's been discussed here some of the reasons why not. Forget which thread.

I just sent an email back to Steve Sloan and Betsy asking the same thing. This scandal is not blowing over.

Unless I am missing something, look at how this newly discovered Ted Williams card resides in its PSA case. (Pg53)

Is it too much to expect anyone at PSA "should" clearly see it is not as wide as it should be? :confused:
Take a look at the "look and See" cards that were posted earlier in the thread below. There are many others going further back as well that makes me just shake my head in disbelief how these types of mistakes are allowed to continue.
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showth...290614&page=53

Because the people at PSA are not morons like Brent and Betsy. It baffles me how 2 otherwise intelligent people are too stupid to shut the BLEEP up.

Just look at any other of the latest greatest scandals. When the guilty person(s) was completely silent the scandal went away very quickly. The Mastro fiasco is a perfect example of this.

It will just like all the others. I would be surprised if this lasts another 2 weeks and baffled beyond belief if it is still going in a month.