Depends on who you ask. Personally, I think post #85 sums it up well for me.

Yep post 85 is a gem. A flipper buys a altered card from a known shiller and is pissed that people think there is something wrong with that. The gall of some people is simply amazing.

yes post #85 sums it up! someone get Kevin the cliff notes!

Are you guys seriously still crying about this card?
The auction is over. It got about $7500 less than I expected, maybe this thread had something to do with it.
Yes I flip cards, is there anything wrong with that? I read some posts that are attempting to knock me because of this.

I do what I do, and you guys can worship your beat up t206 Walter Johnson's.

Guys, really there is a lot more to life than whining about what grade a card should be or whether washing a card should not allow to get a numerical grade.

I don't rely on grading or buy flips over cards and I see your point in this discussion completely.

I think it only matters in this circumstance due to PWCC's return policy:
"We at PWCC are not professional graders so we trust in the reputation and opinion of 3rd party professional graders. Professional grading is subjective and different 3rd party graders will often disagree over the grading on a single card. Such a disagreement is NOT a justifiable reason for a return with PWCC."

it also matters because if the card shows no signs of chemical cleaning and we are only going on assumption of wrongdoing it does not meet a burden of proof in my mind to start a coup. If you have insider knowledge of what took place could you reveal without sources the method you were told cleaned this card or if you were just told it was cleaned in an untoward way?

If proof exists that is concrete and physical that other than natural items were used, than I think it would weigh my opinion heavily.

I have an opinion of how this was done in my mind also, but I do not have proof of it and it would be impossible to prove unless the person who did it admitted fully. I am also in a quandary as to if I feel it is wrong as it is a common practice in other hobbies and does not involve direct contact with any chemical.

John,

For debate and opinion several have been defending the card in this thread as there is a great value to proof over innuendo.

I do tend to side in some ways to cleaning that does not damage or change the card structurally.

I also felt for you being saddled unknowingly with an albatross in this card as I believe you did not know the issues involved at purchase and was genuinely pleased you were able to move on. I am sorry you became the poster boy for this and I understand you are feeling personally attacked.

...but your replies are making it difficult.

Thanks Justin.
You are correct, this thread has frustrated me. I'm not attacking everyone, just about 4 people.

"We at PWCC are not professional graders..." yet they have no problem lending their opinion to a card- hence their HE ( high end) designation.

Thank you for editing the previous comment.

I am not defending it Dave, just quoting the language used. I agree with your statement and am not a fan of the silly HE designation.

So a 5k profit wasn't quite good enough, you wanted 12k? I see your point.

It really depends on what the card is washed with to many of us, me included, as far as how we feel about the card. BTW, in case you haven't checked this is a chat board and whining is allowed, please continue. :)

LOL......good one!

PS - I would LOVE a beat up Walter Johnson!! Play Ball preferably!!

The card owner is a professional flipper of +$10K cards. Undoubtly he knows the perils of this business. Alterations, shilling, cracking out, resubmissions, re-consigning, AH musical chairs; he's probably an expert at all of this.

Assuming he's made some monsterous returns during the "buying group" tour. "Only" making $5k puts him off the ledge? Sorry, don't buy it, and don't feel sorry for him.

sure is a lot of ass kissing and stone throwing at glass houses going on here.

The vintage card collectors of this board share potential examples of fraud to discuss which helps keep each other aware and knowledgeable of what might be going on.

You come along and demand we turn the other cheek so that you can make a bigger profit. You are attacking more than just the 4 people in this thread who spoke out & frustrated you.

I think most people would be upset if they thought they bought a Ferrari, and found out it really is a Pontiac Fiero kit car with a Ferrari body.

I personally don't have the money to find out. Even if I loved the card, finding out it was messed with would change my opinion of it immediately and I would never look at it the same way again.

It would take the joy right out of having it, caused by knowing I could have paid a fraction of the price and done the same thing to have the same card would make me feel(and likely everyone else) that they got ripped off(which is what it would be).

Is it just me, or does the PSA 7 look like the reverse text is bleeding a bit? I find the reverse text on the SGC 4 to be significantly sharper.

Could just be a slightly out of focus scan... or just me ;)

As a side note, this thread reaffirms my desire to stay in the low end of the hobby. Restoration/Soaking/Doctoring and tampered with slabs are far less likely to happen to sub $200 cards... I'll take and enjoy a lightly trimmed or altered "Authentic" grade card any day of the week over the same card with a numeric grade that costs 10x - 100x as much. Where there's big $$ involved, there's greed and fraud. Always has been and always will be.

I also appreciate the shared knowledge that comes with following this board. Thank you everyone.

...Even if I loved the card, finding out it was messed with would change my opinion of it immediately...

If it were a $100. card or a $50,000. card, I would take advantage of the return policy so fast it make your head spin. Certified, Delivery signature, insured, personal plane ride to return, whatever it takes - card is going back. Done. Then Brent can return it to the doctor or whatever.

Let's keep the facts straight, John Perez consigned this card to PWCC but he was not involved in the restoration, he purchased it as a PSA 7 from Goldin Auctions (to whom it had been consigned as a PSA 7 so no fault there either).

clarification
 

Thanks for the clarification on the ownership trail. So then Brent can't return it to the doctor - ok then like I said ... or whatever. But I would be returning it. Real fast.

I had not looked that closely but you might be right however all the resident board experts know without a doubt that only distilled water was used to turn the Joe D into a 7 and distilled water would not cause the text to bleed. :confused:

That's one of the ugliest cards I've ever seen. Looks like a mugshot with a Yankees cap on.

Does anyone know if Brent collects cards? Does he buy and sell?
Just curious

Show me one post where anybody said they know without a doubt that only distilled water was used. Just one post. Nobody can say that because nobody knows for certain.

Conversely, there are several posts where the resident board experts say there was more than just distilled waters used. I guess they were there and watched :rolleyes:

Or maybe they are experts on soaking cards and know what water only may remove.

yes...that!

Quite hideous indeed, although...
 

Still nicer than his 38' Goudey Heads Up, albeit not by much.

Ha! I love that set. There's no accounting for taste :)

People can make reasonable inferences based on detailed before and after scans as well as their experience and knowledge. One doesn't need eyewitness testimony.

Based on that experience and knowledge, what chemical(s) do you think were used?

Yes wouldn't that be awesome. A list of chemicals and maybe detailed info on how to use them. That way we could have more idiots altering cards.:rolleyes:

I would think -- and this has been reinforced by people much more knowledgeable than myself -- bleach or some sort of caustic agent. I posted the contents of an email I had received early in the thread to this effect. Maybe there are newer and better methods, but I am just really skeptical that water alone could bring about that change. I mean on the SGC 50 detailed scan I posted, look at the contrast between the protected areas on the right side and the rest of the card.

If you mean me on the prior, I just don't like to talk like I am a teenager throwing eggs at cars from the corner. I just see no point in it.

Absolutely.

I do not believe this was water and I have a theory, but no proof. The only issue I have with this thing is presenting theory as fact. If this was all presented as a talking point without the thread decending into stating it was unequivobly true a few posts in without anything but a photo, it would be more palatable.

Not being political, but as a reference, this is somewhat like switching between Breitbart and Huffington Post...the truth is likely in the middle.

If you search this forum, there are many threads about successful soaking with just water...and cards that were a lot worse than the Di Maggio. Here's one...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...highlight=Soak

Check out post #10. Not only does the paper and glue come off, the glue stains come out as well. Watch the video. You'll notice that after the paper is removed, there are still glue stains on the card. I'm guessing he soaked it long enough to remove the glue stains as well.

To my eye the issue with the DiMaggio was toning, not staining, and my understanding which could be wrong is that water alone will not remove extensive toning.

Maybe it is toning? There are ways to remove toning without even getting the card wet. Edited the details per Justin's request below, but he knows too.

This thread has some amazing results too...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...highlight=Soak

Posts 1, 35 and 38.

David, could you please remove the altering info so it is not used by random lurkers?

That info is better im'ed to Peter.

Thank you David.

Done. I just wanted to show there are ways to remove/reduce toning where no chemicals touch the card at all...which I'm of the opinion that it's not considered altering given that it doesn't change the card whatsoever.

Understood, I just wish to respect all opinions.

My thoughts as well. If I owned it I might say, "Here's my Dimag PSA 7". But I could never say, "Here's my Dimag PSA 7. Ain't it a beaut?".

Right but if was a PSA 4 Diimaggio you can say its an excellent example for the grade and a candidate for a bump.

There are many collectors i know that for their personal collection they would rather have a prime '6' than a low '7' and would trade straight up by giving the higher grade card for the lower grade card depending on the card or at least giving a great deal on paper

Wrong. Get your you's straight. I was commenting on Conor's remark (Hi Conor) that the image itself is a mugshot. Fugly foto no matter what the grade.

Wrong, I think my you's were straight (agree to disagree), and am going with the same comment even after your comment to my comment about your comment about the comment

There are are many collectors i know that for their personal collection they would rather have a prime '6' than a low fugly foto '7' and would trade straight up by giving the higher grade card for the lower grade card depending on the card or at least giving a great deal on paper

I tried to read this post twice, then headed for the Tylenol.

I was going to add some more 'comment to the comment' to the post perhaps 7 or 8 more but then you would of needed more than just Tylenol :cool:

Is that "7 or 8" PSA, SGC or BVG?:)

Good points. On a side note, unfortunately return polices don't mean to much on ebay these days. Sadly, the buyer will always "win" if the seller accepts returns. Good old ebay. :/

Lastly, I would feel sick if I had bought this card knowing the history. We're all different but, I would be upset.

Well if you are buying a card for 20k+ I would expect the buyer to do some research..its not like that past sale when the card was an SGC was 10 years ago. Its Buyer beware.

So, did we ever decide who was behind the scam here? Who won it in REA....who cracked it.....who washed it....who submitted to psa......who THAT ONE PERSON sold the card to.

...

I think it was colonel mustard did it with the candle stick in the 3rd floor bathroom .

I would not call it a scam, its a legit graded psa 7 card.

So, you don't think that buying an SGC 50 in REA, cracking it, cleaning it and then submitting raw to PSA is a scam? You also don't think that selling (as being the same person) a card privately for 75K without revealing such information (disclosure) is a problem? Now, as someone with more than a 3rd grade education, I find that hard to believe.

It's fraud to sell an item without disclosing a known material fact. It's the same as lying. You're a lawyer, you know that. Are you seriously saying it's not material that the card came out of an SGC 50 and was worked on before being graded a 7 by PSA?

point is some like to out auctions such as these...point out evidence that proves foulplay is occurring...we all squawk about it for a spell...auction house owner comes on the board with a declaration stating everything is on the up and up...in this case even the brash consigner states his case...the auction ends and we all move on.

this hobby is full of crooks...littered with them...way more crooks than honest joes in this hobby. some have paid a price but the majority continue to flourish here there and everywhere.

To further that argument Peter, regarding not disclosing material facts, make sure that he knows that we know who won it in REA, who cracked it, who graded it raw by PSA and who sold it to the "first" buyer (as a private sale). There have been 4 owners in a PSA holder: 1) the "person" who bought it from REA and worked on it, 2) the person he sold it to, 3) John Perez via Goldin Auctions and now 4) the winner of Brent's auction. I wouldn't put it past Brent to have won the card himself just to get that cert # off of the mkt. Quite frankly, I've got some pretty juicy texts, emails, spreadsheets,etc. from the "man himself" regarding this card. It will surely be fun to see some of his guys (I was one of them for a long time) come to his defense. If you noticed early on in this thread, he defended this card 3 days into the auction, monitors this board tirelessly (told me to stay away from it {the board}..........."I've got it handled"), yet slipped away like a thief in the night when facts start divulging about who actually had factual and material information about the card from the point of its coming out of REA. He left John hanging high and dry when the rubber hit the road.

Please share some of these facts and including the juicy texts, emails, spreadsheets, from whoever the man himself is.

You should also follow the forum rules and put your real name somewhere.

So, are you the person who bought the card, the person you are wondering about in your above posts, or someone who somehow got caught in the middle of this? You joined under user name "Whodunit" right in the middle of the Scooby Doo mystery. That is not suspicious in the least.

He's referring to Brent.

My name is Cortney DeLorme. I'm not going to hide behind any computer screen. The "man himself" is Brent Huigens. Brent won it in REA. Brent sold the Dimaggio to me for 75K after the 2015 National. Is this how we play this game? Because I was the one that he sold the card to under false pretenses and have kept everything documented from day 1. Y'all wanna know who S***N is on ebay? ME.

This thread is like a written version of The View...or so I've been told.

We have got to come to terms with honest paper conservation in this hobby. The TPG miinions are no-talent ass-clowns when it comes to finding out what has been done by someone well versed in paper conservation techniques, and this focus on letting TPGs tell us what is what is just silly once you see what can be done without detection in terms of removal and cleaning, like the Joe D (assuming, of course, that there weren't harmful techniques and chemicals used). Properly performed conservation is accepted in every form of fine art and antiques involving paper, except baseball cards and comic books. Here are some insanely great examples of what can be done:

http://www.lapapergroup.com/before-after.html

and here is what they've done with baseball cards:

http://www.postermountain.com/form/p...formatted/5137

Look at the Johnny Unitas RC or the CJ Cobb midway down the page.

But it ain't cheap. Even a minimal project will run $200 with a good conservator.

As many have observed here, you can make dramatic changes with good old H2O. Look at this photo of Kid Kaplan I cleaned up with water and some photo cleaner:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...lan_%20Kid.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...1925%20NEA.jpg

And I'm just an amateur.

Now we are getting some where.

So you were the one that consigned it to Goldin? If so, did you disclose it to Goldin?

When Mr. James is not arguing with people on the Net54 forum he can be found arguing with himself at home in the mirror.

Way to go David...

Well the card is not fake. So should the guy who buys the card after its sold 3 times as a psa7 have to take the card back even if didnt know it was an SGC 50. Becomes a slippery slope. Theres no 'should of known' issue.

People can buy the card not the holder as well. The card is a legit PSA 7 is all i am saying (doesnt PSA have some type of guarantee). Im sure you have bought a card that 20 years ago maybe it was in another holder 4 grades below, do you track down that guy if you find that out.

If we are just talking about the one guy that did the doctoring, what if its soaked? I havent seen any auction in history talk about a card being soaked. Thus, being soaked isnt a material fact which appears well established.


Not saying its a good thing, but saying its not a 'scam'

Yes, I consigned it to Goldin. As for my disclosure, no, the facts surrounding this card weren't disclosed in Goldin's Auction. The details of this holders history didn't come out until Brent listed the card for sale in this auction. I had no clue that it'd been doctored when I bought it, or never in a million years would have bought it and had no idea when I sold it. I was alerted to this thread by someone who thought I might be interested in what was going on. I sold this card via Ken along with a '55 Clemente PSA 9 and some other very big cards.

As I said previously, anything said in defense of not disclosing the card's history here is just spin and noise. The before and after scans speak for themselves. The difference is material. It might not matter to some, but it would matter greatly to others.

Not arguing with anybody. It was a fair question.

Go to the auction. Look at the date that it started. Look at when S***N bid on the card to buy it back b/c I'd lost 25K on the card and would have rather had it in my collection at that price than see it go somewhere else.

Now, look at the date that this thread started and when I STOPPED bidding. I had no interest in the card after finding out it'd been manipulated/altered. It becomes pretty clear when evidence of this cards past came out of hiding.

Ok, but you said earlier, "I was the one that he sold the card to under false pretenses and have kept everything documented from day 1." When you say you kept everything documented from Day 1, that makes it sound like you knew about it early on. Not trying to argue, but that is how it sounds.

The fact that it doesnt matter to some, and there can be a difference of opinion shows its not to the level of a scam. It could be the basis of civil issue , but scam implies criminal. There really isnt a difference of opinion as to real SCAMs.

Its shady for sure i agree. Again for all we know the card was soaked etc, and soaking is NEVER disclosed and many in the hobby do not think that is a material fact. There are cards as well that get 'bumped. for psa 5 to psa 8 with no changes to the card. Maybe the person getting the bump has connections, but again to me its nota material that it was a psa 5, as long as its a legit psa 8 when purchased.

is a scam a legal term of art? News to me. It's fraud. Period. Ask yourself why, if it didn't matter, he didn't just disclose it?

double post.

I for one appreciate you posting about this. Could you please post a timeline of ownership and card grade during their ownership to the best of your knowledge? Thank you!

By "documented", it means that I have records of when I bought it, how much I paid for it, who I bought it from, when I got it in my hands, etc. I'm not referring to having had "documented" the fact that the card was altered/manipulated. I've already stated in this thread that there would have been absolutely zero chance of my purchasing this card had he told me what he'd done to get it out of the SGC 50 and into the PSA 7. The documentation of this cards HISTORY, for me, now starts from the point that Brent won it in REA (yes, that is highly documented) to the point that it just sold BY HIM again to another unsuspecting high end collector. This thread started a few days after the auction started. Brent defended the card up until about day 3 of the auction and obviously knew the details as we've well established at this point that he won it, he cleaned it/had it cleaned, he holdered it and he sold it to me. He and who I will refer to as "the cleaner", were at that point, the only ones that knew that it was the same card. I'd have to go back and look at the early stages of this thread, but whoever put the fact that this card was the same card that REA sold as a 50 was the same one, was the one that let the cat out of the bag.

Thats always your fallback argument on everything but thats the the industry standard. I dont see every fault put on a card. It may not matter there is a micro spec on a card (that cant be seen in the picture ) as well to a seller but maybe to one buyer out there it could matter. Thus, just knowing someone may bid less if they knew something isnt enough to prove a scam.

Im sure you have sold card on net54 and not disclosed things. Maybe its because you dont think they were material, however, as you say 'ask yourself, if it didnt matter, why not disclose it'

I don't know who consigned it to REA, but I know who won it in REA. So, a timeline prior to "final value" in their auction, I can't even begin to speculate on. From the time that it sold in REA to date though, I can FAR MORE than speculate.