This is the problem with grading...
 

I posted this over on the SGC boards, but I thought I would post it here as well. I know it's not pre-war, but the era of the cards makes no difference to the point of the story.

I don't know if anybody's been keeping up with this thread on the CU boards, but here it is in a nutshell. A consigner sends Probstein123 an Art Shell RC graded a PSA 8 and it appears to sell on eBay for $47. A week or so later, the SAME card is again on eBay by Probstein123, but this time the card is magically a PSA 10 and sells for $3150.02! :o

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1973-Topps-Fo...thw~~60_57.JPG http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1973-Topps-Fo...40w~~60_57.JPG

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1973-Topps-Fo...LLw~~60_57.JPG http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1973-Topps-Fo...21Q~~60_57.JPG

Another consigner sends Probstein123 a John Havlicek RC graded a PSA 7 and it appears to sell on eBay for $152.50. A week or so later, the SAME card is again on eBay by Probstein123, but this time the card is magically a PSA 8.5 and sells for $611. :o

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1969-Topps-20...b7!~~60_57.JPG http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1969-Topps-20...O(Q~~60_57.JPG
http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1969-Topps-20...BgQ~~60_57.JPG http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1969-Topps-20...MVw~~60_57.JPG

Here's the thread:
http://forums.collectors.com/message...02&STARTPAGE=1

I'm not really going to address the ethical issues. Everyone already knows PSA is in bed with it's top submitters. My problem is how can the SAME CARD sell for $47 one week on eBay and $3150 the next week on eBay? This represents everything that is wrong with grading and this hobby. No way should the SAME CARD sell for 67X what it previously sold for just because of someone else's opinion. It's the SAME freaking card! Besides, don't people look at what they're buying? No way should that card have ever graded a 10.

Shame on PSA!! What a truly UNETHICAL company!!!

Psa
 

Using this logic...my stockbroker is a crook for selling me Apple stock at 400 then it increases to 500 a week later? Same stock just different day. Congrats to the buyer for resubmitting the card.

Really good thread! That card should have never been graded a 10 though. Look at the spots on the back, especially over the word "strength" on the back. Kirk does bring a really valid point though. The buyer of the cards was intelligent because they realized they could be upgraded.

I can't wait to see where the commentary goes on this, it looks worthy of a DATELINE NBC story......... I'm puzzled at the quick turnaround, and two sales ... still confused on those logistics, but I'll go back and re-read, or follow the rest of the posts forthcoming....... read from a distance.

That's just it. There never was no "buyer." The cards never exchanged hands. Look at the auctions and look at the time lines.

Edited to add: Kirk, do you really think that Shell is a 10? If so, why wasn't it graded a 10 the first time then? Or did PSA have some incentive for it to be a 10 on the second submission?

Card
 

What if the seller was the submitter?

In addition to the obvious
 

There are obviously lots of questions here about Probstein's practices and PSA's practices ... but beyond those ... Why on earth would anyone pay $3150.02 for a 1973 Art Shell card!?!?!?!?!?

Who cares what the grade is!

Would you rather have that card than say a PSA 1 1952 Mantle? A T206 Ty Cobb or ... fill in the blank.

I mean there are literally thousands of cards I would pay more for than a 1973Art Shell - even in PSA 10 condition.

Grading is and will always be subjective, the list of variables is too high. Also "unethical" is not the word I would use here. Probstein says (and I believe him) that the original buyer re-submitted, got the bump, and then cosigned the cards again. Nothing wrong with that and people resubmit for bumps all the time with every major grading company. I am part of a hobby where someone will pay $3k for an Art Shell card, if I didn't expect things like this to happen I would be kidding myself.

The same "buyer" won both the Shell and Havlicek cards. Look at the bid history. Come on guys, you ignore the facts here.

First auction closed July 22. In all likelihood the buyer submitted the card in person at the National.

Edit to add Probstein's response from CU.

hi guys,
every major auction house , including memory lane, heritage , mile high , huggins and scott , etc.... opens their items for auction up for VIEWING....
during this VIEWING period both dealers and collectors review the inventory for sale and decide which items they wanna bid on...
( sometimes they bring this inventory to shows for people to review as well )
yes, these dealers and collectors look for cards/items that may bump or sets or lots that may have great break value for resale or items that may be undervalued or just items they wanna buy for their collections...

probstein123 functions like a major auction in this fashion and we have a large pool of dealers who look at items to bid upon....
probstein123 is not aware of which items they like, nor which items they bid upon....we are busy posting , shipping , and handling close to 10,000 auctions monthly.....
none of these dealers are probstein staff and they all conduct their bids apart from probstein123 knowledge....we don't micro-manage the process - just like the major auction houses....
people bid on items they like...probstein123 is managed by the guidelines set forth by ebay trust and safety and we don't bid on our own items....

if you are interested in setting up viewing of auctions with probstein123 like other dealers and collectors, please feel free to call me at 973 747 6304....

thanks
rick

Registry
 

The PSA Registry is a powerful drug and competition!

[QUOTE=SMPEP;1026658]There are obviously lots of questions here about Probstein's practices and PSA's practices ... but beyond those ... Why on earth would anyone pay $3150.02 for a 1973 Art Shell card!?!?!?!?!?

Oakland Raiders fans are crazy. Look at the stands during their next game!

Lots of cards get resubmitted, and some do get half grade bumps. Nothing unusual about that. But a full two grade bump to a perfect 10, when the card is clearly not a 10? That should cause some raised eyebrows.

Superb detective work
 

Both the Shell and the Havlicek were graded correctly the first time and blatantly overgraded the second time - in my opinion. If it only happened once I could maybe see this as another error like the Black Swamp PSA 10 Wagner. But twice by the same seller recently and a third time 14 months ago as shown below?

http://forums.collectors.com/message...67&STARTPAGE=1

What a disgrace! This warrants a public explanation by the management at PSA.

And the PSAphiles on the CU Board wonder why the majority of the people here scoffed at that those recent record prices for the PSA 10 HOF rookie cards from the 1950s.

PSA corruption? nah couldn't be - haha
 

If you are not PSA set registry concerned, the smart collector would never pay the HUGE premium for a PSA 10 grade.

I have had a few 10's in my time, and I was mostly disappointed about some aspect of the card - sold them fast.

A nicely centered PSA 8 with good color/focus/gloss and solid corners is as good as it gets to the naked eye.

It just sucks that corruption has leaked to grading companies (PSA in particular) - just as corruption has leaked into most facets of life.

A dealer friend I once knew at the dawning of the graded age once told me a PSA 10 is pure La La Land.

Go get 'em y'all PSA set registry folks. Not for me.

buy the card, not the holder, and this won't happen to you

edited to add: I do agree that grading needs to stick to more objective guidelines so that they are more consistent with grading so that a $50 card doesn't suddenly become a $3k card because the grader that day decided to bump a card two gades. But did the buyer purchase the card because he wanted the card inside, or cuz he wanted the perfect PSA 10 on the flip? I think we know the answer ...

this is the problem with postwar collecting, 8s turning into 10s w/o doing any work. with prewar you'd at least need an exacto knife or some chemical agent to turn a VG card into EX. at least make PSA earn their money postwar collectors...until then stay in the kiddie pool.

talking about goldin and mastro, ebay consignment is also a big scam going today. anonymous consignments, safety biddings, hidden reserves, bid retractions, shillings, artificially pumping up prices, cards that were supposedly sold being relisted the next week. unregulated in the ebay clustermess and a free for all.

I don't get it
 

Guess I still don't get it.

You want to spend $3k on a 1952 Mantle. Okay. The population of the card is pretty well known. There aren't too many floating around that are ungraded (and you're not buying those any ways because of authenticity questions). So you know this is pretty much the market rate barring something very unusual happening.

But a PSA 10 1973 Art Shell? Heck I have a NM set. Never bothered to grade a single card. Are mine 8s, 9s, 10s? I have no clue but given how many were printed, how many are sitting ungraded in boxes like mine, and how few have ever been graded, it's a very safe assumption there are many more 10s out there.

So why would you spend that much money on a card that could lose half (or more?) of its value if just 3 more 10s turn up out of the tens of thousands that were printed?

Guess I should go see if my Shell is a 10. Even if it's not, I can submitted with a picture of this 10 and make them justify giving me a lower grade.

And I'll happily sell it for $2,500 if the underbidder wants a "bargain."

Cheers,
Patrick

I believe we can all agree on this. Money and greed is causing some sellers and some TPG's to pollute our hobby that we know and love.

I don't see any problem with what went down on ebay. Someone got the card re-graded, and someone was dumb enough to pay 3K+ for a 73 art shell.

Sure, PSA shouldn't have graded that card a 10. But still... as far as I see it, this is the buyer's problem. Gotta be smarter than that.

I don't think there is anything unethical or dishonest about probstein re-auctioning the card after it was regraded.

I think both of those cards were undergraded by PSA the first time. The Art Shell is a MINT 9 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I don't know about a 10, but 10's from PSA have always seemed like kind of a joke to me anyway. With the spots on the back, probably should not have gotten a 10. But absolutely no way is it an 8. Same thing with the Havlicek - it's an easy 8, and I have no problem with the 8.5.

I have submitted a lot of cards to PSA in my day, and if anything, I have always felt that they are much more likely to undergrade than overgrade. I don't like PSA any more than most on this board, but to me it's not so much an issue of overgrading as it is undergrading. Maybe it's true that some of their big customers get better grades - I don't know. But, if I were grading these two cards, I would have given the Shell a 9 and the Havlicek an 8 based on how they look in the scans.

I agree that paying thousands (or even hundreds) for a 1973 Art Shell card in any grade is insanity. Unfortunately, that is what this hobby has become for better or worse.

I guess the other side of that issue is that back in the days before grading, people would pay too much for a VG/EX card that some old time dealer said was NM, or an EX/MT card that some guy said was MINT, etc. At least the third party grading has eliminated a lot of that type of nonsense which was basically standard practice back in the day. Overall, I think that 80-90% of the graded material from PSA and SGC is pretty fairly graded and sells for a fair price.

You're not looking at the big picture. The cards never exchanged hands. Look at the time frame. It doesn't add up. The 'buyer" didn't have time to pay for the purchase, wait for it to be delivered, crack and re-submit the card and send it back to Probstein for consignment.

Also, look at the bid history for each card. The same "buyer" won both the Shell and Havlicek cards. Are you telling me that "buyer" was lucky enough to get significant bumps on both cards? Heck, I should have that buyer re-submit some of mine.

Be reasonable.

Edited to add: I don't believe for a minute the cards ever exchanged hands. But, even if they did, you're missing the part where the "buyer" (Pang21) bid on his own auction when he consigned it back to Probstein. Isn't that shilling? And you don't have a problem with that? Look at the bid history. I think some of you guys are just making random comments w/o looking at everything.

It was noted on the CU board that the "buyer" was a noted dealer from the same area as Probstein and probably was able to pick his winnings up in person. Much in the same manner he was allowed to view the lots in person. So the buyer won cards from a local seller a week and a half before the National which also happened to be close and feature on site grading. Yes, the time frame seems very tight, but it is not obviously impossible nor blatantly fraudulent. There is also no record of how many cards the "buyer" purchased and resubmitted without the bump.


Edit: Yes the buyer seems to have shilled his auctions. But as long as eBay censors the bid history that is going to happen.

The card was likely regraded at the National and then consigned back to Probstein who was set up there.

You nailed him on this one. The winner of the "8" bid $250 on the "10":
http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=110909530402

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=140819406508

There's an even bigger problem here....who the hell pays $3150.02 for a 1973 Art Shell let alone $47. :)

He's no Ozzie Smith, that's for sure.

First let me say that i've bid on and won many auctions from Rick and never once felt like any funny business was going on. As far as the turnaround times, if the winner is at a show that Ricks at and PSA is there too, then the trunaround is possible. Only Rick could confirm this but i'm sure he owes some sort of privacy to his buyers and consigners. If the buyer has a good track record for upgrades, then they can afford to travel the country and do this sort of thing full time. One important thing to remember, nobody is forcing the final buyer to pay crazy money for a PSA 10 grade except their need of that 10 on the label. I agree that some cards don't deserve the upgrade but there are others that do. Plain and simple, buy the card and not the holder. Me personally, I'm more than happy with a nicely centered PSA 8 any day over a 10.

And I too was thinking the $47 itself was blown money!!

Look at the bidders from $250 up. All the bid percentages are way high with Rick. Then again he could have a strong following:confused:

This is why buying 10's is a fool's business. There's just a hair's difference between the top grades, yet thousands of dollars. If the grader misses just one tiny thing, it's what you have here. Obviously, with that print dot on the back, no way that Shell card deserves a 10. The original 8 was probably the right grade.

I have won several auctions with Rick, he does probably indeed have a good following, because you know for sure you are going to get that item, and Rick will do whatever he can to make it a perfect transaction.

I thought "pank21" was an account set up by Probstein. That's just where the clues led me. After all, there were 2 cards won by the same buyer, both cards were re-submitted to PSA and received significant bumps and both cards were once again sold by Probstein. I was wrong and my apologies to Rick.

Pank21 is Joseph M Pankiewicz and from what I understand a former grader at SGC and he also worked for Mastro and Heritage. I do know that he did shill his own auctions and that tells me everything I need to know about him.

It still amazes me how he got the bumps??? Maybe he "knows" one of the graders at PSA??? I think Joe O. needs to take a look at the grader of those two cards.

.

I hate to disillusion people, but buying cards and resubmitting them is an extremely common practice. Given the arbitrariness of grading, lots of cards go up when resubmitted, particularly when cracked out. I know countless stories of cards that have made multiple trips to grading before being "maximized." Maybe Rick is friends with Pank21 and alerted him that he had a couple of cards that he thought were undergraded. Nothing wrong with that.

My much bigger worry is the 5 to 8 scenario, where work is done on the cards in the interim. Certain people just LOVE to buy ex to ex mt centered cards!!!

Peter, you are correct that resubmitting is a common practice, but no way that Shell card should have ever received a 10. It's not even close. The registration is horrible. Go back to the first page and look at the scans. The white numbers on his jersey are out of focus and you can also tell around his calf area. Not to mention the large fisheye and staining on the back.

Even SGC employees choose PSA. Haha

This is all very terrible. I'm glad I don't collect high grade crap.

I agree there is no way in hell that card is a 10.

Actually it would be a conflict of interest if he submitted them to SGC.

Maybe the buyer already has all of those cards

So PSA made a mistake. It happens all the time. Look at the PSA 10 1993 SP Jeter now on ebay and tell me what you see wrong.

I doubt probsteins story...ALOT !!

Surely you can't be serious? That was a backroom favor by some grader at PSA. As I said before, Joe O Needs to investigate this. Read that PSA thread. It's been updated. They keep finding more cards - same buyer, same seller and a bump every time.

OK, everything is just dandy here. Please continue.

What other cards, I can't follow the CU thread but it seemed to me they were still talking about the Shell and Havlicek only.

So your conspiracy theory is that PSA is motivated to give an improper grade to an SGC employee? Why?

I just read the PSA thread, but I didn't see any mentions of additional cards found with the "same buyer, same seller and a bump in grade" - how many more have been uncovered beyond the original two, and which cards? I looked through Probstein's completed auctions, but came up empty there also. Thanks.

This PSA 8 sold by Probstein and winning bidder was Pank21:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ht_1230wt_1165

Magically re-appears as a PSA 9 again being sold by Probstein:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1955-Red-Man...ht_1129wt_1165

What a lucky submitter :rolleyes:

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1955-Red-Man-...uT!~~60_57.JPG
http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1955-Red-Man-...Nww~~60_57.JPG

So since you retracted your original accusation, what's your new theory?

Pank21 (Joseph Pankiewicz) was a former grader at SGC. That much I know. He probably knows other graders that work for PSA and he's able to get bumps as backroom favors. I also know he shill his own auctions. Probstein may or may not be aware of what's going on.

Given what we know to be true, what's your theory?

It is irresponsible to suggest on the basis of three cards, only one of which is worth any serious money, that PSA is handing out bumps as backroom favors. He probably buys lots of cards he thinks are undergraded, as do lots of people. It's a common practice. So one one of them, PSA overgraded it, the other two grades don't look that far off to me. How do you know he didn't crack them out and resubmit, which is what lots of guys are out there doing? I am not buying your conspiracy theories on the basis of three cards. Way too speculative for me.