Though not high end, the centering is perfectly acceptable for a 7. From PSA's website:

[ NM-7 ] Near Mint 7 shows a slight surface wear visible upon close inspection. There may be slight fraying on some corners. Picture focus may be slightly out-of-register. A minor printing blemish is acceptable. Slight wax staining is acceptable on the back of the card only. Most of the original gloss is retained. Centering must be approximately 70/30 to 75/25 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back.

The card, not pics, the card has to show evidence. And it has to show evidence of a whitener or a solution. Water is neither.

Come on, Peter. You've read my previous posts about PSA. I absolutely despise them. But they aren't wrong here. PSA's grading standards are right there in black and white and people are twisting it around.

Seems the card has been pulled...? woops, didn't realize it sold....still looks like a 7 to me :)

http://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?item=...ctions&_sop=16

.

It closed last night.

another posting at the same time (of my edit above,) thanks though... :)

I do not for a minute believe that card was cleaned using only water.

And the Wagner looks like an 8.

I think this is the only point worth mentioning here:

Take out the fact that it may have been chemically cleaned, and whether or not PSA should have caught it or not, and what the actual definition of altered is, or what the technical definition of a chemical is, there appears to be enough evidence to show that card is the same one (although you never know) and that something was done to the card(probably).

PWCC was alerted to the issue, and they chose not to present more information about the item which is extremely relevant and has a high impact on the selling price. They have passed on the responsibility to PSA as the only personal responsible for the grade given, and the transparency on the item for sale.

I would not go so far as to say it is dishonest. I would more accurately describe it as less then honorable and less than noble. More like doing the bare minimum. They at a minimum had an obligation to mention the light spots before, and after having a attention called to them. It is part of the description of the card, that can be subtle enough to not be noticed right away, therefore warranting mention.

The problem is, that this is not the first time this has occurred. With that said, I personally like a lot of the items that they sell, but when I see things like this I want to grab my laptop and smash it into pieces. It angers me to see things I would buy from a seller who I feel has a less than impeccably perfect intention, and someone else's interest at heart rather than my own, whether I planned on bidding on the item in question or not. I had no intention on bidding on this item, but I can not shake the anger it makes me feel when I reflect about items I did want, that commanded higher prices due to lack of updating the description to be an accurate reflection of the card when mentioned.

Ok, I am just waiting for the following now after this thread...

Board member decides to lash himself to the cross after buying a 50k card when well after the fact someone finds a previous photo that shows the card looking different.

He puts out an auction that states the following:

"I present to you a PSA 7 that has no visible proof of alteration and has been reviewed twice by PSA and found to have no proof of alteration. However, I have seen a prior iteration of this card that looks different and leads me to think it was cleaned. I do not know how it was cleaned, it could have been untoward. But...I feel I should reveal it was altered in some way whether the grading companies say it or not. Please take this theoretical alteration into account when bidding.

Also, please look at this prior photo of my card showing the change prior to my owning the card that I cannot explain fully, but has been cleared twice by PSA, but I am uncomfortable with."

and more shockingly does not get divorced after he explains this to his wife about how he lost 25K, lol.

PS: I am totally not trying to pick a fight, this just is a situation I am waiting for someone to live up to after this.

I don't see options of recourse here other than this. What case does someone have with PSA or even going back to the prior auction house. If you have no proof of alteration (this card had to be submitted raw if the change took place. The argument that it smells of chemicals or the paper stock was changed by chemicals seems null. This was examined raw.) other than photos, and no proof of how the alteration was done unnaturally to disprove the examiners opinion, you have no case.

The seller chose not to reveal a known material fact about the card's history. I can only assume part of the reason for not disclosing was concern that disclosure would affect the price. The rest is just spin and noise.

Returns...
 

Return: 30 days money back. Buyer pays return shipping.

Stated in listing. Curious to see if the card pops back up for sale in near future.

I know you can edit the listing, but can you edit the description? Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well could be), but I didn't think you could edit a description. i thought you could only add to the description. Even then, the changes don't appear in the description, they appear somewhere at the bottom of the page. If that's the case, look at the listing again. It's very "busy" with a lot of text. Do you think a bidder would have noticed it? I'm not arguing one way or the other, I am asking a legitimate question.

The seller knew the history at the start of the auction, so it's a moot point, but yes I think on a 50K card people likely would have read the description.

You are correct and therefore because the seller cannot amend the listing like a self hosting auction house could, the proper thing to do would have been to end the listing and tell the consignor the item could be returned to him or sold in next month's auction. Fact is there was no incentive for the seller to do that.

And like the seller, PSA had no incentive to buy back the card or change the grade, assuming the card was actually provided to them for review. With or without a picture of the card in its previous condition, the card does not meet the criteria of a NM example. So even if there is no evidence it was cleaned, it is still over graded based on its presentation.

probably with probstein

After another good "cleansing" it could end up in a PSA 8 holder next time!

The consignor stated in Post #85 that "I did not have any knowledge of all the issues many of you have on this thread." If he didn't know about it, how could PWCC have known about it? Is someone lying?

I am sure John is telling the truth. The point I was making is not John's prior knowledge, it's PWCC's.

What makes you think PWCC had prior knowledge of the card's history?

"Mentioned only for completeness" on the 50.00 card, yet on the 50k card they chose now to remain silent even though PWCC knew. Now what would be really interesting is the new owner just learns of this and stumbles across this net54 thread. Then he returns the card for a full refund because PWCC did not disclose everything. Then the card becomes tainted for years to come. I used to think the same thing on the Gretzky Wagner card, but the people who buy a known altered card like that, must enjoy the publicity about it.

So, who was the mastermind who sent the card off to get worked on, then resubmitted to PSA for a huge bump? My hunch is it was someone who had pull with PSA to get them to have blinders on when grading and I'm sure he forgot to tell PSA the card used to be properly graded in a SGC holder. I feel bad for the owners of legit high grade Joe DiMaggio 1936 WW cards as they just got knocked off the podium. It's like the Olympics where it's a game between the drug users and the committee to detect drug use. Steroids in the 80s and Peds in the 2000s.

Mentioned for completeness. Just perfect. Thanks for the laugh JC. We don't want guys walking around with mislabled $50 cards, but a restored former sgc 50 cloaked in a psa 7 is perfectly acceptable.
I have always been an advocate of card soaking and restoration. I honestly don't mind it so long as the card grades. I think, as I have stated before, that as long as you aren't trimming or altering the card, there is nothing wrong with sprucing up the card to it's original appearance. But I do draw the line when it results in people losing 50k due to the fraud. I think Peter has a point when he says that if it isn't a big deal, they should disclose it.
PSA has probably been shown the photos. There is ZERO doubt that the card has been doctored and therefore should not receive a grade. They owe it to the card community to get it right, even if they have to write a check. And as fond as I am of Brent, I think that he was bound to his clients to mention it "for completeness."

There is a certain amount of liability. They can't just write a check without getting the card in return. Common sense. Another buyer would then have the same claim against them.

Double talk
 

Excuse me, but I don't follow. You say you don't mind soaking and restoration as long as the card grades. Then you say this particular card should not grade. Which is it? Let me guess. As long as it's YOUR card and it grades, that's OK, but if it's somebody else's card and it grades and they make a lot of money from it, it's not OK. Did I get it right?

And, Peter, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question as to how Brent had prior knowledge of the card's history???

David, all I am going to say on the subject for now is that I have learned a great deal of information about this card and its history from reliable and corroborating sources. And I am comfortable saying what I said, or I would not have said it.

Gotcha! Whoever cleaned the card (or had it cleaned) and submitted it to PSA probably called Brent up one day and said, "Your never going to believe this..." Makes sense to me.

I'm enjoying this thread and have a few observations.

We can assume with 100% certainty that ALL of the other AH's have sold altered cards, knowing the cards were alterted, and maybe even taken part in the altering. If you ask PWCC to disclose an alterted card, then you need to have a global standard for ALL AH's to disclose that information.

Why is PWCC constantly held to this higher standard of disclosure? Because they are the most transperant? They are the only AH where we can see the bidders and history. How about the other AH's show us the bidders before we throw the book at PWCC.

PWCC does not have to be the most honordable and ethical AH; they only have to be better than their competitors. And their competitors aren't anywhere near PWCC's moral compass.

Re-read this and pretend you are someone else.

It sounds like: "I have great sources of information no one else has and never will and I will not tell you what you want to know because I do not feel like it, and you should just trust me when I say, I know the truth."

You should have thrown in a "nanny nanny boo boo" at the end to augment the legitimacy of what you were saying in that post.

I believe it's more likely one of the following

Peter being told something in confidence and not being the sort of person to break that confidence.

Sometimes we all learn "stuff" and it's possible disclosing "stuff" could result in a lawsuit. Which would be expensive even if there was solid evidence the info was true. Without that- and getting some "stuff" in writing is not easy, it could become very expensive and/or time consuming. Not being stupid he decides to avoid an unprovable direct accusation.

Steve B

Does anyone else keep checking the February Pick-Ups thread in hopes of seeing someone post a '36 Goudey WWG DiMaggio PSA 7? That would be epic.

Steve it's #1. I get that people don't like it, that it comes across as obnoxious. At the same time, I did not want to let stand the suggestion David made (understandably) that it may not have been practical for PWCC to disclose this having learned it for the first time mid-auction.

I've very mixed feelings on this whole thing.

I think the original toning was from being next to acidic paper for some amount of time. Over more time that would damage the card, (Still might because it's not all gone) The process for removing that involves either a bleaching agent or a deacidifier.

Lots of good general info here
http://www.collectorsguide.com/fa/fa010.shtml

Any of that should be disclosed, and should be part of the items history which should be included in any transfer.

But it won't, because of the stigma attached to even appropriate conservation that all gets lumped under the heading of "alteration". That stigma affects value in out hobby, perhaps far more than in others.

So let me ask a different sort of question. The answer matters less than the thinking behind it, although I have a preferred answer.

If I had the card. And posted it here raw asking the question "I have this card that's got fairly mild damage from acid exposure that will only worsen over time eventually destroying it. It's a fairly important and valuable card, and I think it should be deacidified so that it will last another few generations. But I'm concerned about how that will affect the value. What should I do?"

---------------------------------






My preference is for doing the conservation. If it's done professionally there should be no damage, and aside from earlier pictures, no physical indication that it's been done. Without conservation, we as a hobby are essentially condemning some of the best items to a premature destruction.

TPG will probably NEVER be realistically able to work with conservation vs eventual damaging originality as long as they operate the way they have. And as long as genuine conservation is looked down on by the hobby in general.

Nearly every other hobby accepts disclosed conservation/restoration as long as it's done appropriately. Some hobbies ignore some conservation that's not disclosed. Coins- nearly every really bright looking uncirculated silver coin has been cleaned. Other Silver objects- basically have to be polished occasionally to remove tarnish. If it's not brown/black it's been cleaned. Maybe it's time for us to do the same.

And I don't buy the "It's a PSA 7 so it's A PSA 7 and nobody should question that" line. Grades should always be questioned if they seem off.

Steve Birmingham

I for one have no problem with it at all.

Steve B

The hobby doesn't have an issue with restoration though. Cards that have been restored (i.e. re-backed, re-colored, re-built, etc.) are given the grade of Authentic.

Just OT and to lighten the mood a bit....

How many here know Joe D's lifetime batting average? .... without checking of course! 😁

That's just it though. An uncirculated coin professionally cleaned is still graded as uncirculated. Old posters are routinely backed with linen, and not deacidifying and backing usually brings a lower price. Stamps with hinge remnants are if used totally fine if those are soaked off. Proper cleaning and preservation are not generally penalized in most hobbies. Possibly because some of the stuff can survive far more than old paper can. Possibly because they either outgrew or never developed the whole "my item is better than yours because some expert says so." attitude. Yeah, condition matters, but in time for some items that statement may become "I had the best surviving copy, and because of some competition I left it "original" and now it's pretty much ruined."

Steve B

.325 or something like that.

Winner!!

Thanks Peter.

I would say if you're that worried about it, you should sell it before doing any work on it. And I would say you're paranoid. Because life expectancy of baseball cards is longer than humans.

While I think grading kinda sucks...especially PSA...it seems that the times they are a changing. Perhaps the demand for some cards is just so great...combined with an apathy or lack of awareness of altered cards that are in slabs. Cards are now a commodity and the slab is all that matters!

Alterations have become acceptable in this beloved hobby just like lots of others!

Long live the fuc$ing slab!

David, you seem very angry in your defense of card doctoring, or psa, or Pwcc, or whatever indefensible thing it is you are defending. I was clear that I don't mind buying a card I knew was soaked so long as it has a grade. I personally don't know how to soak cards, nor do I have the balls to try it. I said it doesnt bother me. But I draw the line when buyers aren't made aware by sellers WHO KNOW that the card was doctored. And yes, the amount matters! The fact that some guy now owns a 50k card that, thanks to this blog, will live in infamy, pisses me off. It is criminal. And if Brent didn't know before he listed the item, he most certainly knew BEFORE IT SOLD. Perhaps on the next blog post you can defend Pete Rose or the DH Rule.

Then why say anything at all? Just say nothing rather a really ambiguous statement that can never be corroborated? To satisfy the need of proving you are "in the know"? All you do is provoke more conversation that down a path that you promised against. You might as well just say it at that point. You already let the cat out of the bag if it is true and if not you just throw your reputation on the line.

No anger on my part at all. I'm not the one on a witch hunt here. By your own admission, you're the one that's pissed. The situation doesn't piss me off. It pisses you off, so don't say that I seem angry.

And if you truly believe it's criminal, report Brent to eBay, law enforcement or whoever you need to in order to stop this criminal activity.

You need to go back and re-read post #85. John nailed it on the head with his post.

I thought I read with an earlier post in this thread that Brent with PWCC was going to chime in on this?

He is standing by post #85 apparently.

I think he kinda did in Post #57.

No he didn't. someone pasted a private message into the thread. Not sure if Brent knew it was going to be shared. i sure hope Sean asked Brent's permission to post that message.

I am pretty sure he doesn't need his permission. It looks like there was no privacy statement about intended recipients or sharing with others and it was a quote, not an actual copy.

Just a thought, but there are some in the camp of 'buy the card, not the holder'

However there is also a camp of 'buy the holder, not the card'

Thus, if its a legit PSA 7, wouldnt you agree that if somone was buying the holder, they care getting what they paid for?

People do sell the holder not the card which I have posted many times. Again, I made an earlier post about if there was a wrinkle that was pressed out and could come back again, I would think its dishonest for that not to be in the description. Thus, not saying i agree with what transpired with the card in this thread.

I am just saying that i believe there are people out there that just buy the holder. I know Peter will then say 'if it doesnt matter, why did the seller not disclose it' Well, i think to make everything uniform and you are in the business of selling holders, you wont go though the history of grading of a card with every card which would save a lot of time and headaches. If you miss some important history on one card for example, then you have to worry about a return, but if its just buyer beware on all cards and up to due dilligence of the buyer that makes it much easier for the seller.

Buyers who do their due dilligence wont pay as much for certain cards etc. Most sellers sell the holder and not the card. Thats why most ebay listings say 'no returns on graded cards'.

Now if this was a RAW card that was fixed up, then I submit any repair history MUST be disclosed.

Who even cares what the card looks like? If PSA says it's a 7, then what difference does it make really? Hell, the seller could just show an image of the flip. Trimmed, recolored, pressed, bleached, soaked, who cares, irrelevant, all trumped by the flip.

Peter it is nice to see you are coming around to the reality of card collecting.:D

Nothing to "FLIP" about ......... just ten of thousands of dollars lol .

.

Peter, you really don't follow your own advice though. Recently you posted a WTB for a '65 Mays in PSA 7.5 or 8. If it's not about the flip, then why only PSA and why only a 7.5 or 8? I have a gorgeous BVG 7 that I'll sell you that probably blows away any PSA 7 or 8. Are you willing to look at it, or are you resolved to only PSA 7.5 or 8?

My whole collection is in PSA with a minor amount under other another companies plastic. Grading certain cards can be very costly, so often times it is just easier to get it in your holder of choice from the start.

I really don't collect many graded cards, but I see your point. However, that still makes it all about the flip. So, my point is still valid. It's kind of hard to criticize somebody else for buying the flip when the one criticizing it does the same.

Jake made a very good point. The buyer probably really didn't care what the card looked like as long as the flip said PSA 7.

David, I own cards in all of the major holders. I prefer PSA generally because for the most part their grading standards are similar to mine and on a $200 60s card I am not that worried about alteration particularly if the card doesn't set up any red flags. So I don't see that post as at all inconsistent with my ultimate buy the card philosophy.

When you post a WTB (and you've posted multiple the same way) requesting a specific TPG and/or a specific grade, you are buying the flip and not the card. Otherwise what difference would the TPG or grade even matter? Why not just post "WTB high grade '65 Mays"?

This started because of your sarcastic comment, "Who even cares what the card looks like? If PSA says it's a 7, then what difference does it make really?" Yet, you do the same thing with your WTBs. Maybe you don't see the hypocrisy in that. I'm pretty sure others do though.

correct. for some who think the price of a card would be reflecting the lowest priced 7 but its a 7, they wont care at all what the card looks like as long as its a 7 and they are paying the cheapest possible price to get a 7 in their mind

The bottom line is this. PSA said it was a 7...twice now. I think most of us agree (and I've already said it too) it doesn't look like a 7. To most of us, it looks over graded. The PSA apologists can't blame this one on a "mechanical error". So what do you want to happen at this point? PSA is not going to change the grade. What good is b!tching about it doing? Let me ask again, what do you want to happen at this point???

do we really know psa re-reviewed this card? seemed like a statement made to appease especially in light of no response from the AH?

No. It actually doesn't. You are twisting my words without thinking about them to make what you said more valid.

It can easily be about the cards, but for the presentation. There are plenty of people on here that like SGC because of the way their card looks in the holder, regardless of what the "flip" says the grade is. Additionally, the grading standards are different. Requesting a grading company and a grade when looking to buy something is just as important as conveying an accurate description in a want to sell ad.

"High grade" is subjective. PSA 7.5 is way less subjective. It happens to be the easiest way to put a range on what you are looking for with respect to quality. Would you prefer that everyone type out: I want a card with no less than 40/60 centering left to right, 80/20 top to bottom, clean registration, medium white boarders, no paper loss, somewhat centered on the back, good registration, strong corners?

What constitutes a strong corner, how can you explain the difference between a 6 corner and a 7 corner to someone in a buy thread? I bet if you look at a 6 and a 7 you know what it looks like though, right? You can say all of that with just a simple "PSA 7.5"

How am I twisting your words when my comment was directed at Peter? :confused:

Duh! :rolleyes: But my point is, when you're looking for a certain card in a certain TPG case with a certain grade, then you're buying the flip and not the cards.

Nope. Then again, do we really know Brent knew the card's history before the auction. That's what I find kind of funny about this whole thread - all the speculation.

And I will say again, no, no it doesn't mean that and for above, you quoted me in post 215 when you made the comment.

You win. I'm not going to argue on something so petty.

Highest graded example (last time I checked) by PSA of a truly iconic player and card. IMHO, this is the direction the hobby will definitely be headed in (and only 27 or so total graded by PSA). Rare and significant in the best condition available! This assumes that the card was merely water-soaked, as I agree that other more intensive card-altering procedures require transparency.

May your collecting bring you immense joy,

Larry

+1 there. Now if only my (ungraded) ExMt R312 DiMag rookie would only follow suit (and PSA hasn't graded too many more of those)!

Highest regards,

Larry

+1. Hard to debate that point, plus, IMO, restoration is coming (but I do believe it should be transparent if we're talking about building up corners and restoring paper loss).

Best wishes,

Larry

+1, hit the nail right on the head. If Peter makes such a representation, having interacted with him, I would not hesitate to believe it. My other posts re this card have assumed that it was simply water-soaked, which I have no problem with. Other "reconditioning," such as building up corners, repairing paper loss, removing creases, and trimming and the like are obviously another matter entirely. They require transparency, and should obviously be disclosed.

Best to all,

Larry

.325--without checking!

Nice mood lightener,

Larry

Personally I have seen nice cards in BVG that I won't touch. I don't trust them on vintage and a lot of big collectors and dealers don't either. That is why you don't see them sell very often nor for high prices. Plus, if you collect PSA cards only that would negate wanting any SGC or BVG holders. It is also deflecting away from the real issue with this card in question which is the reason for 23 pages of discussion.

Bingo! This is the point I was trying to make. Maybe I didn't explain myself well. Peter, made a comment (in bold below) trying to be sarcastic that it's in a PSA holder and that's all that matters. Well, maybe the buyer only collects PSA and really doesn't care about the card as long as the grade isn't too far off. But I just find it a little hypocritical to blame the buyer if that was his only justification for buying the card when he (Peter) requests to buy only PSA cards himself (not considering BVG, SGC, etc). But like i said, it's not worth arguing about.

Who even cares what the card looks like? If PSA says it's a 7, then what difference does it make really?

You are not necessarily buying the holder if you are looking at the card and not just buying the first card that comes along. I may want a card in a certain grade, but I am still going to look at the card. If I don't like the looks of it or if I think it is overgraded, I won't buy it.

You really don't care what the card looks like? That seems silly to me. I care what my cards look like. If I was in the market for this card and I saw a centered 6/6.5, I would buy it over this card.

I would think there is a very small % of buyers buying cards regardless of how they look...only for the grade...especially cards like this one. Registry set collectors...may be a different story.

The "market" seems to be correcting itself regarding buying the card not the holder...some lower graded cards...especially if nicely centered are selling for more than their higher graded counterpart...even in PSA holders.

Does PSA suck...YES! Do some people buy the holder not the card...yes...but I think most are atleast looking at the cards and making decisions that they can live with.

I am pretty sure he does not know what he is talking about and is just typing words.

Honestly, half of what was said is moronic. No offense.

Are ya sure about that?

What's moronic is not complying with board rules. Put your name in your post. And if Phillip Abbott is your real name, put it in there anyway . No offense.

I am not speculating at all. You may choose not to believe me because I have chosen not to be specific about my sources of information, and as mentioned before I get the reaction some folks have to that, while others understand where I am coming from, but don't confuse that with speculation.

Fair enough. Replace "speculstion" with "information that can't be corroborated"

So what is everyone's opinion on this situation? Without having to go back thru 100's of posts....Thanks