Please see my post about how to try and export the entire conversation located here, post 482:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...53#post1631953

Leon, What's the longest post in Net54 history? What's the Guiness World Record??

Unreachable.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=145243

So, who bought the card? A hunch is the "new" owner of the card knows everyone who has owned this card and it wouldn't be a surprise if a previous owner won the card. It helps to have more than one public auction price of 50k on it (Goldin/PWCC).

This might be the next infamous card like the Trimmed Wagner. The more we talk about it, the more popular the card gets.

I'm wondering what is the most posts in one day?

+1

The images speak for themselves.

For atleast the 4th time....maybe the 12th he was asked to bid to a value that he was assured would again be outbid.

What story? There is a freaking screen shot of it. It is not a story that can't be corroborated. It is right there. Going commando. In it's glory. Plain as day.

Where is the confusion here?

This x infinity!

I'm still curious how that card received the grade it did? :confused:

That hasn't been talked about lately in this thread.

I'm a bit curious about that as well. It doesn't seem like 7 material, but I don't get paid the big bucks to make those decisions.

isn't this enough?

It is as much as 7 as this is a 2. People need to get over the grade. It isn't in the top 100000000 of problem grades I have seen.

http://luckeycards.com/bowman1951mantle.jpg

Right people...cuz PSA is totally innocent here...leave them alone!

Leaving aside whether it should have been graded at all, the grade is generous but not indefensible. There are lots of cards where the number grade is marginal but technically accurate.

Leon, what's your opinion on the disclosure issue, now that the facts have emerged?

I would disclose things I have done to a card as I have before. I have never sent any card off to be cleaned or conserved. I routinely use water, Q tip and a Mars Plastic eraser. Those are my tools of trade and the only ones I find personally acceptable. That Dimaggio doesn't look out of place in a 7 holder to me. And if if there is nothing to detect, minus the shadow left, I don't know how any sane person can fault a grader for not seeing something that can't be seen. Such idiotic comments ....but then again, we are a microcosm of society. Not much better or worse....

What do you think about the images of the text messages from Brent to Cortney?

So you agree PWCC withheld a material fact, given his prior involvement with and knowledge of the card's history?

No matter what the reasoning is if you ask someone to bid in your auction for any reason its shilling. No getting around that one. Im not surprised that a conversation finally came to light. With so many bidders/consigners/shillers involved its only a matter of time before one gets burned and seeks revenge.

I am not being interrogated here. Please get that straight...same with the previous question from the other member. I said I would disclose things I have had done to a card.

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;1632041]So you agree PWCC withheld a material fact, given his prior involvement with and knowledge of the card's history?[/QUOTE

Leon appeared to say that the card doesnt look out of place in a PSA 7, and PSA was not totally in the wrong for grading the card a 7 So that would mean that someone bought a legit PSA 7. Thats far from scam behavior. Someone bought a PSA 7 and received a PSA 7 as far as the scam side. As far as integrity and civil issues aside, this does not look criminal/scam if some people share those views.

PWCC may of withheld a material fact as well as you keep saying, and other sellers would of disclosed things but that does not change what i said above. Others may disagree but my position is supported as well. The shilling and colluding is another issue.

If you are referring to me, I am not trying to interrogate you. I am merely looking for you opinion. Do you think that Brent has done something wrong? Whether it is the request to bid issue, or not disclosing information about the card.

You comprehended my last statement well. Thank you.

I've been waiting on that invoice for quite a while so that I could pay it. Also, please have Brent explain why he's marked the items "paid" on ebay which therefor won't allow me to pay for them in any way other than gift or wire - which obviously isn't going to happen due to the circumstances. Betsy wants to talk about something she knows nothing about, and something that Brent is hiding from her, and has obviously decided not to pursue that avenue as I've asked several times via email and text for the invoice and now posted screenshots of it on here.

I dont understand the reasoning and significant behind what your point is about items 'paid' and what that means. Whats the impact again of having you be able to pay it on ebay. What is your contention why its marked paid. I agree it seems shady as i have never won anything on ebay and the seller mark it paid and deliver items (i assuming you got items ) to me before i paid for them.

You may of explained it before and you can repost it if you did.

Plus if you arent going to pay for it now which i imply based on your 'obviously isnt going to happen due to the circumstances' comment, then why does the invoice matter if you arent going to pay anyway

Perhaps you won items, and he never delivered them to you and he canceled the deal as well

There's a first.

So my understanding of this is you don't want to comment because your opinion of it is negative, and they are an advertiser? I am assuming this because you did not have an issue commenting about the cleaning of a card and that the card they sold should be a 7.

You have a multi year history of being an idiot on this board based on the posts I have read. At what point do you listen to what other people say about you, over and over again, and leave in pure shame?

I would never be able to show my face in public if everyone I knew through here thought I was a complete moron.

Good lord. Give it up.

This.

Aaaaahhhhhh that's what you think he's referring to? At this point it seems obvious that Courtney must have been involved in some shilly business. So when he shilled a item and won it under orders from "the higher ups" he was not expected to pay for the shilled items.

Shill
The next question should be what did Courtney get for his excellent shilling skills?

That seems unnecessarily defensive, Leon. I was simply asking your opinion, as I didn't think you had stated one, and after all you are the moderator and a leading hobby voice.

I am glad you have your understanding of it.

Damn, you're stupid! The only multi year history here is the every other month witch hunt and bitching and complaining about PWCC. It's the same people over and over, like the OP of this thread. You're just too new (and stupid) to realize it.

From my perspective it's the same people over and over defending PWCC no matter what's presented to them. Spin, excuse, and deny.

And what's been presented, Peter? All I see is a text from Brent asking Cortney to quit playing games with the bidding in his auction? If PWCC did something wrong, lets find out. But, from what I can see, they haven't. That may change, who knows? But I don't see where they've done anything wrong at this point. All I hear from you and Cortney is that Brent knew the cards history before the auction and he was the one that cleaned it or had it cleaned. Prove that or be quiet!

I am not arguing any more with a guy with blinders on. He bought the card out of REA, submitted it raw to PSA, and then sold it to Cortney in the PSA holder. These are facts. He (or Betsy) posted several times last night and nowhere denied these basic facts, because they cannot. Really, David, you are putting yourself way out on a limb trying to deny the obvious.

If you really want to defend PWCC, why don't you argue that despite knowing the card's history it was OK not to disclose it? That would at least be a worthy discussion, perhaps.

Please read the entire comment before responding.
1) Brent marked the cards paid before my paying for them; I have not received the cards. If he cancelled the purchase due to a non-payment, why was I not blocked for being a non-paying bidder? Also, why did I wire him 250K the month prior for another agreement? All of this is simple, elementary logic.
2) I stated that since the cards were marked "paid", that ebay or paypal doesn't allow you to pay them "again". That being the case, the only method of payment that falls within the ebay/paypal buyer/seller protection guidelines is not available to me since he's marked them as already paid. My only option now is to pay via wire or paypal gift. THAT is what I said was not going to happen....paying him a disclosed amount with no accounting in place to document it.
3) Therefor, I have asked on multiple occasions for a PAYPAL INVOICE detailing what the $59,310 was for and STATED THAT IT would be paid immediately.

My guess is he knows I've got him by the balls here and wants to be able to throw rocks at me for this "unpaid debt" that they referenced. I owe them $59,310. I'm not disputing that. Get them to invoice me, and I'll screenshot a picture of the payment min's later.

Do I need to detail that any further b/c it seems pretty cut and dry to me? I can't pay what he marked paid b/c ebay won't let me. I'm not going to wire them when they're bashing me due to a "very large unpaid debt" even though he and I have worked off of wires for over 5 years. This particular case is a little different; wouldnt you agree? Again, I've asked for an invoice on multiple occasions and he refuses to send it to me. The last time I asked (2/8/17) was actually 2 min's after he said "you need to worry about what you owe us and not.....". In that screenshot, I asked again for an invoice and have yet to get one. I would absolutely love for Brent/Betsy to provide "proof" of something that can dispute ANY of what I've said or am saying. Again, I'm not going to put myself in a legal jam by saying things that aren't true about someone or a company. However, when I have the proof, and when you lie to me and piss me off bad enough, I will go to the ends of the earth to unearth the last thing on the planet that he wants you guys to see.

Again, if you're going to question me on something I've already stated, please at least make sure you've read the entire post and not simply skimmed through it.

I'm beginning to think that you and David are on the same team here and no matter what one says, you're going to try and find a way to spin it in another direction, or intentionally manipulate or overlook SHOWN FACTS.

If the latter is the case, STFU and quit responding to my posts.

If they're facts, prove them. How do we know it was Brent that bought it from REA? Once again, prove your statement, otherwise it's just speculation.

Welllllllll its a battle royale cage match fellas...who will come out on top...villain of the hobby or good guy.

The odds are certainly stacked in favor of the villains...can Bob Backlund pull this against all odds victory out??????

Don't look know but Vince McMahon has just been thrown into the cage!!!!!!!

Go away moron. We've stated (several people on here) that an ex REA employee has told several of us that Brent bought this card AND BRENT ADMITTED DIRECTLY TO ME VIA TEXT THAT HE WON THEM. iF YOUQUESTION THAT, SCROLL UP AND EDUCATE YOURSELF......I posted the screenshot and email. So, STFU and go away. Or is it possible for you not to troll waters that you're not smart enough to even wade across when it's 1/4" deep.

Or keep responding, it's simply much easier for me to ignore the clueless morons like yourself than to fight a futile battle with an uneducated moron. But, I do wonder, how many of my many millions in cards that Brent sold for me do you actually own?

We know because people who are in a position to know told me and told Cortney, and because Brent has been confronted with it and did not deny it. Indeed, I believe he explicitly admitted it to Cortney. Do you want an invoice? At some point David you are going to reach the end of that limb, if you are not already there.

What is your point? You have been using Ebay for how long and you don't know you that you get 3 best offers? You just yap for the sake of yapping.

There you go again, not listening. Re-read the posts that people have quoted you on, then followed it up with the same comments about you.
I was reading one this morning, where you, just like the people you complain about are in the PWCC thread talking it up. No surprise.

CySemour: http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...&postcount=211
Whodunit: Countless. Putting them all here is pointless.
Peter_Speath: I am not arguing any more with a guy with blinders on.

Besides the fact that I have been praised for calling you a moron from different people:
PM 1: I am sick of David and his contrarian approach. He loves to argue and spew shit for the sake of seeing his posts.
PM 2: David James will never learn; been watching him spew his garbage for years on this board.

A simple search of your username and the word idiot, returns 500 hits. 5 HUNDRED hits.

I have read countless amounts of these in my short time here as you suggest. Imagine how many more I can compile as I go? As I find them, I will keep
adding them to the list for you.

You're an attorney, Peter. Isn't that hearsay?

Idiot!

Where's the text? What post? Perhaps I missed it?

Yea. We agree with you. That was my point.

Couple questions/issues I think are at the heart of this.

1) I think it's pretty well established that PWCC was at least in some way involved with the purchase of the card from REA, which was prior to any "changes". They were then involved with the subsequent sale of the card after those "changes", so I think it logically follows that they knew the "changes" had been made. I don't think it really matters whether they were "owners" or "brokers" from the standpoint of responsibility for the changes, they had knowledge of it.

They were then involved a 2nd time in the sale of the "changed" card, and it seems pretty clear that in neither instance did they disclose or point out that "changes" had been made. I'm not trying to make a sweeping all encompassing judgment of disclosure requirements here, but I think we can all agree in this specific example the "changes" are pretty "significant" and would be considered "material" information to many collectors.

I think a lot of people view that lack of disclosure as at least mildly dishonest, or maybe a better phrase is misleading through ommission? In either description, there's absolutely a question of "intention" is there not?


2) I don't view "string bids" (whether you take the lead or not) made at what is well less than the expected ending price of an auction to be shilling, but I also recognize that may not necessarily be the majority view - however I do think that distinction is pretty relevant to forming an opinion around the text message asking Courtney to "take the lead".

I think I tend to agree that the overall context of the text discussion is relatively harmless, except for the part where it goes to being "outbid". This is where views on string bids separate opinions. PWCC seems to "know" that the bids will go higher, and if so then why would the string bid matter whether taking the lead or not? I know folks will say it "looks bad" and PWCC even implies that understanding in the texts, but again these sorts of bids at well less than final sale price ultimately are irrelevant to the final sale price. Sure it bumps "activity", but it doesn't ultimately affect the price.

However, I acknowledge that if you fall in the camp that string bids are really a form of shilling, then the "you will get outbid" statement becomes at least somewhat concerning doesn't it?


3) I've thought a lot about what the correct designation for this card is, and I'm not able to come to a conclusion that a PSA 7 is in any way accurate. My logic is as follows. At some point, the original card "toned" except in areas on the right side that almost look like it was "clipped" or "taped", whatever prevented those areas for also toning. Somehow, the card was returned closer to it's original presentation. So from that standpoint, I don't think "altered" is the right assessment, because the toned card wasn't really in its original condition. However, removing of the toning (whether water or chemical) ultimately "restored" the card closer to the original condition and to me that is the accurate grading of the card - it's been RESTORED.

I should add that I don't believe it's always possible to know a card has been "restored", and for now I think we're giving the grader the benefit of the doubt. Although, a close inspection of the pictures here still indicate the "shadow" areas of the "clip/tape", and I probably fall in the camp that for a card at this value level that should have been identified, which I believe would have led to better understanding of its history and ultimately would have landed it in a different holder.

Well, I am officially out of popcorn, and this thread has run its course.

1 very quick comment.

Shame on EVERYONE involved with this incident. Disgraceful members of the hobby. I don't care how much money anybody has or spends on the hobby. The content of one's wallet does not determine the content of one's character.

Sincerely,

A $20 collector who is happy in life

This is murky water IMO. Not that your view is correct or not correct, I'm in no position to say. IMO, I think a lot of this is coming down to the idea of disclosure. Someone way back in this thread said something about when art is restored, people know that it has been restored. They talked about some people pay more for original paint that has been restored on a classic car, versus one that has been repainted.

This card, which is a beauty of a card has been restored, altered, adjusted, tampered with, or whatever verb you want to used. Where is the cutoff point where it should not be identified as "altered" by PSA? This is being discussed throughout multiple online forums and offline circles right now because of this whole situation. I fully agree that coloring in corners on a 71, trimming edges/corners, etc. need to be identified as "altered." Those cards should never be purchased at a premium. Does flattening a card constitute going over the line, does removing wax stains constitute going over the line, does de-toning an old card constitute going over the line. Some are fine that this card is a 7, but knowing what it looked like before the restoration of it, clouds that I think.

With all this said, I'll reiterate something a previous member posted...this card is going down as a major card now and we (and all parties involved - whatever that involvement might be) have given it provenance...like the McNall-Gretzky Wagner. This card now has a story.