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.