Backs.

Personally, I am not really sure what to think of all this?
One could use various scenarios to justify either case, but with that being said, I believe there are unwritten rules (Not that any rules really technically exist anyways, that I'm aware of?) within the hobby that say anything more than a water soaking, is a fake, forgery or altered card.:confused:

I do agree, this card is not a 7, considering those still visible marks on the card, but like a lot of things I have seen from PSA in my relatively short time here, is the fact, when you think you have this grading thing down pretty good, another wrench is thrown into the mix. :rolleyes:

Correct. IMO, disclosure is the problem here. This card should have an asterisk on it, just like Barry Bonds.

Peter,

Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe that the stains in the REA scan are more pronounced than they really are? Maybe it was the scanner settings? I'm not saying that the card hasn't been cleaned. It has. But I am saying that maybe the card wasn't that bad to begin with. Maybe it was the scanner? Let me give you an example. Below is a post card that I purchased from Sterling a few months back. I wanted the post card, I was willing to live with the heavy stains. However, when I got the card in hand, the stains were barely noticeable. The only thing I could think of was that maybe Lee's scanner settings made the stains appear worse than they really are. Later, I'll scan it with my own scanner and show you the difference. You'll swear it was cleaned. But I can tell you it's the honest truth that I didnt do anything to the card at all. So, when you say "the appearance has changed that much..." maybe it really hasn't changed all that much? Again, I'm not suggesting that it hasn't been cleaned. It has. But I am suggesting that maybe the stains weren't as bad as REA's scanner made them out to be. Then again, all that sounds too complicated. I guess its just easier to blame GWTS, PSA, PWCC and everybody else, right?


http://www.sterlingsportsauctions.co...7392a_med.jpeg
http://www.sterlingsportsauctions.co...7392b_med.jpeg

David, as I said before, I hope this involves water only. But I believe that is wishful thinking at this point, especially as this appears to be not a simple matter of a stain being removed, but widespread toning.

I have not said a word about PSA.

Some of you guys really need to get a life!
The card is in a PSA 7 Holder now, get over it. It's obvious some of you are the types that are still whining over the election.
Call Joe Orlando and take it up with him.
You've all certainly put my investment with this card at a high risk due to all this.
Thank you!
Yes I am the consignor of the card, I purchased it at Goldin Auction for what I thought was a very decent price.
I am a card flipper, I don't hold on to any card I own.
I consigned this card to hopefully make a few bucks. I did not have any knowledge of all the issues many of you have on this thread.
I watch you guys periodically, all you do is bitch about everything. Especially cards you can't have.
Please give this hobby a break!

.

That's not fair to John, he bought it out of Goldin where it was already PSA graded, not out of REA.

Thank you Peter!!

Heck, I even had the thing reholdered.
If you look at Goldins photo it is in an older holder with no reverse bar code.

1. PSA blew it with the grade. How could they not see different shades of color with whatever device they look at it through. It looks borderline for being off center. Plus, not putting any kind of qualifier on the card just screams out that a favor was done for whoever the consignor was.

2. PWCC, already set a precedent earlier last year when someone posted they had bought and won a PC796 Honus Wagner card which they advertised as being power erased and it was certified by SGC as authentic. The new buyer was unsure of it and PWCC allowed a return on it for full refund.

I imagine the future winner of the PWCC 36 DiMaggio won't even know about this thread. If they do, it wouldn't shock me if they would want to return it for full refund as PWCC has not updated their description about the card for full disclosure. I see Brent has acknowledged this now.

Orlando, too true, and perhaps typifies the eternal conflict between buyer and seller, particularly for an amazing card like the WWG JD RC. Where I get lost in the process is what differentiates what is thought of as harmless touch-ups and what becomes, gulp, restoration. I kinda always believed that if the cardboard remained undisturbed, no trimming, no corner restoration etc., then it was ok to sell as long as it was disclosed the card had been superficially improved. Of course, grading impacts all of that. Who knows?

Do, you think that PWCC should update their auction of this new information about the card? It seems common practice that other reputable auction houses do this as they learn of things that could affect the sale both good and bad.

If PWCC had prior knowledge that the card had been improved upon when consigned, then absolutely they should have disclosed such fact in their description. Good call.

Really? First, which auction houses are reputable? let's start there.

Disclosure
 

As mentioned earlier. I, as the buyer had no idea about this cards past. I purchased a PSA 7 and that's what the card is.
Cards get crossed all the time are all sellers supposed to disclose the former grade and or grading company that graded it?
eBay would be overloaded with disclosures if that we're the case.
Now I do understand the grade has jumped from a 4-7 but the principle is the same.
The bottom line here is regardless of its past it is now in a PSA 7 holder.
Last I checked PSA is also the premier grading company.
Furthermore, unlike all of you, I have experience purchasing this card, should I go cry to goldin about this?
In fact, even if goldin disclosed this issue, I still would have made my purchase.
What I got is what I purchased. Psa 7.

In a post Mastro world, every auction house should act in an integral manner (not saying they all do) and inform any and all information about cards consigned if they have all the facts disclosed beforehand I am not going to attempt to piggyback on this thread to start on the pros and cons of the various houses except to say I have my favorite, where I do some pretty serious consigning, and that is FTLG. They are pros. No BS. Let's just get the best we can in an ethical manner and make you some money.

Seems to be some messenger killing in this thread. OP made an observation, now there's a great discussion. The only whining I see is the folks that want to sweep this under the rug.

Seller of card already admitted he's a flipper, so I'm sure he knows the risk of buying and selling these types of cards. Comes with that territory, and one of the reasons I don't buy pre-war cards. I don't know enough about them nor what is or isn't acceptable as an alteration.

It's clear to me with the lack of review by PSA, it's buyer beware for these cards.

The current auction is almost break even for seller. He's smart enough to list with the best auction house in the business. And he's benefiting from the a-hole 3rd underbidder with 10 retractions who is string bidding.

This is the same response you will get 100 percent of the time.

This card will likely be won by one of pwcc's disciples and then auctioned off in a few more months at a lower price, but still at a very handsome profit. I see S***N is shilling it up. i think i've written about him in many previous posts...loves to shill those pwcc auctions.

This card has undoubtedly been doctored. I think more than just water, but i think this is besides the point. The stain is crystal clear even on the doctored version. If I sent that card in it would be a 4 or 5 at best. No way do I get that through to PSA and get a 7. Not in a thousand years. This stinks like you know what!

Everyone wants to talk up PWCC shills, but I got to tell you I think their last few auctions came in light on most of what I was looking at. When I look at VCP, I see a lot of things of theirs recently with weak prices. I consigned to them once and wont do it again. All they do is list on eBay and mumble " one of 150,000 things we are selling . . . worthy of consideration . . . " Hell I can do that without their help.


At least the real AHs make an effort to market something nice. Have stuff in auctions now and next month and in neither situation did I pay any commission. Brockleman right now. No seller's commission and they did a nice job writing my stuff up.

He has 24 bids on the item. Also 10 retractions.

Utter nonsense. 10 retractions. Oopps. I did it again.

Well said Peter. Can't agree more.

So, we have the consignor John Gomez a card flipper, and suspect bidding going with S***N with PWCC on ebay. PWCC is an advertiser of this board and says they will fight shill bidding. Plus PWCC has been made aware of the huge upgrade of grade on the flip after being cleaned by most likely a chemical as Peter said. However we have not seen PWCC make an updated description with new news that may affect the sale. Plus the consignor says no harm no foil and let the past be the past as he will ultimately benefit from the proceeds of this current sale.

I'll be watching to see how PWCC handles this now which I hope they do the right thing for full transparency. not to mention do they cancel bids and block bidders which look to be shilling or doing something to affect the auction like doing a bunch of retractions. I know I've been nailed in PWCC in the past with three bidders all magically retracting their bids and next thing you know I won!!!! I was upset but I followed through with the auction payment but alerted them to what happened and to their credit they gave me the choice of not paying or paying.

No one should shill bid....

Shill bidding
 

Guys please give it a break!
Bad enough this thread may perhaps sabotage my very expensive investment,
Please lose the shill bidding insinuations.
S***n is also bidding on several high priced cards. I know for a fact he outbid me on the 38 playball DiMaggio PSA 8 and the Psa 8 53 topps mantle.
As someone said earlier on one of these posts that they have been watching his bidding patterns as well. It's not my business what he bids on or not, maybe he has tons of money who knows.
I can't control who bids on my cards, I have a couple other higher end cards on this auction and I can assure you s***n has not bid on any of them.

Please.... I am completely innocent here. I am going to take a good financial hit due to this thread.
Please don't make it worse.

Btw... My name is John Perez not Gomez

I would have Brent's team spell check their listings better. On this high value piece, the following words are all spelled wrong:
"imensly"
"it's" used incorrectly
"diversifcation"
"beyong"

It's not a blog post, guys.

for fans of distilled water
 

Some detailed pics that were provided to me comparing the 50 to the 7 (7 scans are from the Goldin auction).

That ID has been called out many times before. No reason to believe John has anything to do with it.

My bad and sorry John for getting your last name wrong. I've been studying up for my fantasy baseball draft and have been looking at hundreds of names today. Agree it's out of your control on who bids on your stuff and wish you lots of success as my hunch is your card will do really well.

So would this be possible?
1) Buyer wins card.
2) Buyer requests PSA review card, sending photos of the previous version(s) of the card.
3) PSA now determines it's Altered with a value of $8K or whatever.
4) PSA has to pay out the balance of the card sale price.
5) Buyer ends up with card in a PSA Auth-Altered flip and the difference in his pocket.

You forgot:
6) Cracks it out of altered slab, resubmits it and gets a 7 again, then resells it for huge profit.

Hey Peter and John,

I deleted it immediately--it must have been roughly the same time you copied me--as I didn't want to get into anything with anyone. I'm glad I did now that I see he bought the card as is.

If you file a claim the insurance company takes the card.

My 2 cents:

I can kind of see the point that the card is overgraded at a 7 since the toning and centering suggest it is lower (maybe a 5 or 6? Not sure).

But I don't think you can fault PSA for not catching the cleaning. When they get a card to grade the only thing they should be looking at is the card itself because that is an easily identifiable objective standard to go by. Assuming the card itself displayed no signs of cleaning, then as far as I am concerned they weren't negligent in failing to catch it.

If you change the standard of grading to include background research on the specific card, (such as going through old auction listings) you start introducing more subjective elements to the process that are going to be impossible for them to meet in most cases. OK, its kind of easy with this Dimaggio card since it is low population and the outlines of the toning make it pretty easy to match, but most cases involving cleaning aren't going to fit that profile. What if it is a higher pop card of high value (52 Mantle or something) and the match between the card in question and some random previous card with a flaw that seems to have disappeared is less obvious. Its really unclear how you would define a satisfactory level of in-depth background research for the grading company to undertake before reaching a grade - do they have to look through all previous 52 Mantle auctions to satisfy it? Its just creates uncertainty for the grader and the people buying graded cards if the criteria for grading is left a bit vague like that.

I am a tad shocked that anyone thinks this is an anomaly.

In 2008 Dick stated he had done on the conservative side 15 to 18k cards that all (tried) passed grading. It's now been 9 more years of steady work to at least double that up. ( I am not saying this was Dick, there are plenty of people that can do something like this and get it graded. He is just a good example because he is the most open about his business.)

http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.com/nerattowle/

This is a well known aspect of the hobby to big money buyers or they are grossly misinformed. Anyone with a decent collection likely has a few items that passed through that shop at some time. That has to be at least (on the very low side) 40k cards that were worth the trip to add to a profit. In my mind, likely 85% of higher grade 52 Micks have already made that trip.

John has done nothing wrong on his side other than buying a card from a flipper.

I am also not saying anything untoward happened to this card as it is unproven to this point. I am speaking as a whole to those that think grading is some infallible knight of honor...it simply is not.

Interesting quote in that article: "What they do with the card after that, I have no idea. But then again, if a card is already graded from a “4” to a “7,” that really tells the story."

If you ask me, they should be scanning every card and using some sort of fingerprinting like technology do comparisons. Suggesting a manual search is ridiculous, but implementing technology to do the analysis is not. It will help them understand when they have a new to market card or a resubmission which would have some solid impacts to the way things are now.

That seems like a lot of work for one off things like this. I know that altering happens all the time but I'd also venture to guess an overwhelming majority of altered cards are found to be altered.

I will agree on trimming, but not stain removal.

I fall on the same belief as Leon has referenced. Do I assume the worst on everything or if I cannot tell, nor anyone else, do I care? Honestly, not really.

Yes It is nice to turn a blind eye, but I instead just hold the belief that many if not more than 51% of high grade vintage cards have had a tad of assistance. As an art collector that has used a restorer to remove dry-matted prints, if it improves it I am happier with the end product. Personally, and I may be in the minority, I don't see stain, glue or tape removal in the same light as trimming or paper rebuilding.

I have never used a card restorer, but if I have a couple that have seen one (and I would not doubt that I have at some time logically), then oh well. This is the result of years of focus on condition. It's a foreseeable byproduct of the grading obsession.

"Removing" vs. "Adding"

removing = good

adding = bad

Unless you're removing some of the edges of the card...

There are two issues here. One, is the restoration considered acceptable. Two, should the restoration be disclosed.

Generally, I think that if the restoration involves chemicals that change the card's fibers, or that possibility cannot reasonably be ruled out, it is unacceptable. I think the add/remove distinction is too simplistic, it depends what is being removed and how.

More importantly, I think that if the restoration dramatically improves the card's grade (such as here), it should be disclosed whether or not it's generally considered acceptable. I would want to know if the card I was buying had been restored appreciably. And notwithstanding a third party grade, it seems to me wrong to conceal it.

Before those two issues, there is another issue to be considered. Is it really 'restoration' to begin with?

If I take a card that has wax residue on the front and remove it with nylon, is that restoration? After all, it's removing something that wasn't there when the card was printed and restoring it back to it's previous state.

Personally I don't see that as the issue. There is no question about restoration's place in the hobby. A card that has been restored or altered from its original state is designated as either "Altered" or plainly "Authentic". There is no room for a grade when it comes to an altered card. I don't consider soaking to be an alteration or restoration but if you remove a stain from a card I think you've altered it, particularly when you haven't really removed it, you've just made it harder to see. The same would go for smoothing out a crease or erasing pencil marks.

Do you not see the irony in your post, you used the word "restoring" to describe something you say is not restoration. LOL. But no I would not consider that objectionable.

Peter, that word was used intentionally. I was trying to be humorous. I was trying to show you that just because you remove something that shouldn't have been there in the first place doesn't make it restoration. Wax removal generally isn't considered restoration in our hobby. Neither is soaking.

So Peter, do you think PWCC should disclose this and update their listing since they know it's been worked on and the grade has been massively improved from a 4 to a 7. I would think the winning bidder would have a great case to return the card if they found out later about the history of the card. Not doing a full disclosure of the known history of the card isn't the best approach IMO.

I think if a full disclosure was done, it could still have a chance to fetch some high bucks.

Yes, in my opinion PWCC should disclose the card's history. It's a known material fact and it's deceptive not to disclose it, even though PSA has graded it -- in my opinion. To me, that does not cleanse (pun intended) the history which is independently relevant. I understand fully why PWCC would not WANT to disclose it -- fear of depressing price, angering the consignor, and making PSA potentially look bad -- but sellers who don't disclose usually have sound business reasons that don't persuade me.

To be clear, I don't think a card's grading history always needs to be disclosed. If someone did nothing to a card and bumped it from an 8 to a 9, I would not deem that to be material. But if substantial work is done on a card (even if considered acceptable) resulting in a 3 grade bump, to me that's a no brainer for materiality.

I think it would super tough if near impossible to try and police the history of whether a card had been worked on for every card in an SGC or PSA holder at PWCC. If you're buying a slabbed card you're buying into the expertise of PSA/SGC to be the experts to authenticate and find alteration. If the card has a number and not designated altered then if I'm PWCC I'd feel good to go to market and sell. If PSA/SGC made a mistake then it's on them to rectify.

Update from consignor
 

To All:
This issue has been acted upon.
Last night PWCC overnighted this WWG DiMaggio to PSA for inspection.
I just got word from PWCC that this card has been deemed a valid PSA 7 from PSA.
These concerns and this thread have been taken very seriously, as this auction was facing cancellation.
Regardless of what ever this cards past is, it has been determined that it is a qualified PSA 7.
Thank you,
John Perez

thank god...I feel so much better now! Has this "factoid" been added to the auction description?

Not sure.
I'm sure Brent or a representative from PWCC will address this board shortly.

I am not surprised that PSA stood behind its grade. I would have been quite surprised if it had not. As a buyer, I would still want to know that the card started out as a 4 and was cleaned. PSA's opinion does not, for me, preclude the relevance of other information about history.

By some people's reasoning, I could trim a card, get it past PSA (it happens), and not be obligated to disclose I trimmed it because all I am selling is PSA's opinion. I don't buy it.

Thanks for the heads up, I will get my hip waders out.

Very good to send the card in for review. Glad it came back accurate for you.

totally

id surmise if the gretzky wagner were sent in for similar review...the outcome would be the same too?

Normally PSA from what others have told me just kill a cross over card that comes from their rival competitor in SGC. Even if a card deserves a higher grade from an SGC holder, PSA normally never gives it as it makes PSA look like they grade cards more liberal. Ive heard you are way better off to crack it out and submit it raw to PSA if doing a cross over. Can anyone think of PSA giving an SGC card a 3 grade bump???? I still find it strange that they regraded the card and seeing a stain they didn't give it a qualifier.

I think you're making the wrong assumption, BeanTown. The premise of this thread had been that the SGC 50/4 was cracked out, then soaked (with or without additives) and then resubmitted raw to PSA.

PWCC just sent me an email touting the DiMaggio card.

The single finest PSA assessed copy in the hobby. A truly special investment piece which represents arguably the most important true rookie card issues during the 1930s. A world class investment piece, worthy of the finest collection.

Wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to amend the official description.

Third party grading sure provides a lot of cover. The cleaning to me is a material fact and should be disclosed - of course I am looking at this from the vantage point of a buyer. This thread and others like it are very enlightening.

The technology is available to determine if a card has been chemically altered. Whomever provides that service is going to make the "natural" cards go 5x overnight.

If I had a natural PSA 7 that was unaltered, i would not be happy about this scenario.

If I owned, and I don't, lots of high dollar pre-war cards that were unaltered, i would start asking for an "N" in the flip.

So if psa is shown proof that a card was doctored, they will still not label it "altered?" Then what the hell gets an altered? Only trimmed cards?

Sounds like PSA doesn't consider a cleaned card as altered as long as thre are no signs of cleaning - nothing you can see, smell or feel. I tend to agree.

Um...this is from the psa web site for when a card is "ungradeable." N-5 and N-7 seem pretty clear here.

looks like the seller will clear a little over a grand...congrats!

But the first seller probably cleared 50 or more.

sold for $6600 in spring of 2015 as a 4.

sold for $46800 as a 7.

Just sold for $52351 as a 7. PWCC made over $4k on the sale.

I believe it sold in between REA and Goldin for a lot more than that.

Maybe the before and after scans were not "evidence"?

This is true. Looks like they would require mitochondrial DNA of known card doctors to be lifted from the card and analyzed by Dr. Henry Lee.

I wonder if PSA was made aware of the doctoring when the card was sent in for review?
James

Wow!!!! Instead of flipping homes, you can flip baseball cards.

I agree, plus there are some restorations like smoothing out wrinkles that a year or so later the wrinkle comes back on the card and even though you have a PSA '5' or whatever, one with a wrinkle would lower the value of that '5' so some of the high '4's for example. As a buyer i would want to know about that issue.

Man this thread has it all. People come on here making claims of card doctoring just because the card goes from SGC 4 with stains to a PSA 7 without them.

Now it is about some bidder on eBay (s***n)and he only has 10 retractions - not like the one guy back in the summer (a***t)who had 50+ retractions on several key rookie cards over a 3-4 month time period. Just because he bid this card up with 20+bids from $30k-43k within a few hours. Why would anyone be concerned?

I would be suspicious if the seller had come on here defending the practice of this bidder almost as if he knows him. You guys are just taking all of the fun out of hobby. :D

Sounds more like PSA doesn't want to admit to a mistake and write a check.

I would for surely want to know if a card I was buying at this price point was restored. Though, we're all different and I respect that. Now, if a low-end card I needed for a set was soaked in water to remove dirt, I wouldn't mind that at all. Though, I've seen cards soaked for dirt removal. I don't see how the tape markings were removed without chemicals. Which is not allowed by 3rd party grading companies. I thought the grading companies smelled the cards to detect chemicals? I recall in the book Mint Condition that being said. Again, I would think, if someone used a chemical you would be able to easily smell it but who knows?

I do feel the card should be disclosed as being restored. Dirt removal would be fine by me but, not tape markings/residue. For example, when you're buying a original classic collectible car, they typical stat if the car has been restored. Restored classic cars sell for less. I know it's a different hobby but, I'm just giving an example.

It's a nice looking card but, I just don't see how it got a 7 with the centering and faded "markings", which are clear as day. PSA would never admit they were wrong about a card of this price point. By them admitting they might have been wrong, would result in them not being credible. In their line of business credibility is number one. No way in a colds day in hell they'd admit it.

To the gentlemen that was flipping the card, even though I don't "flip" cards, I'm glad you made your money back. Though, I was taken back when you said this thread was costing you money on your "investment". A high dollar card like this was restored, I'm sure a buyer would want to know. :)

Lastly, this is why having cards graded by a 3rd party company is so subjective. Way too much faith is put into these companies. Maybe someday this section of the hobby will be regulated somehow. For me, I'll just stick to my 401k, real estate, for investing purposes and continue to collect cards for the enjoyment which it was intended for, a fun hobby! :)

Nick

N-5 Altered Stock - This term is used when the paper stock is altered in one or more of the following ways: Stretching and trimming, recoloring and restoring, trimming and recoloring, restoring and trimming, crease or wrinkle is pressed out, or gloss is enhanced.

How do you know the paper stock was altered? You've seen the card in hand?

N-7 Evidence of Cleaning - When a whitener is used to whiten borders or a solution is used to remove wax, candy, gum or tobacco stains.

The key word there is evidence. The card has to show evidence. I would assume that means something you can feel or smell. And the before and after pictures are not evidence because I'm sure the graders didn't have the luxury of seeing the before pic like we did.

PWCC easily could have provided such pics if it was genuinely interested in ensuring the appropriateness of the grade when it sent it back in. For all we know, it did.