I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>There is no way to tell that this is the same card!<br><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/1911-D304-BRUNNERS-SAM-CRAWFORD-PSA-3_W0QQitemZ8768044297QQcategoryZ31718QQrdZ1QQcmdZV iewItem" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/1911-D304-BRUNNERS-SAM-CRAWFORD-PSA-3_W0QQitemZ8768044297QQcategoryZ31718QQrdZ1QQcmdZV iewItem</a>

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>Same card IMO

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>Dan,<br /><br />I added the text from the ebay item description. This is funny! By the way Dan, are you absolutely certain that these aren't the same cards? I mean look at it, one of the cards is in a PSA1 holder while the other is in a PSA3 holder... logical (Orlando) deduction dictates that they must be different cards! I guess logical reasoning doesn't even come into play here.<br /><br /><br />THIS CARD WAS SOLD PREVIOUSLY AND RETURNED. THE BUYER PROVIDED ME WITH AN IMAGE OF A CARD THAT LOOKS IDENTICAL TO THIS ONE AND THE CARD WAS IN A PSA 1 CASE. I HAVE INCLUDED AND IMAGE OF THE CARD. I TRIED TO GIVE THE CARD BACK TO PSA AND MR. ORLANDO, WHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF PSA, WROTE ME TO TELL ME THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO TELL IF THESE TWO CARDS ARE THE SAME. HE DID OFFER TO HAVE THE CARD REVIEWED BUT BASED ON THE EMAILS, I DID NOT THINK THERE WAS ANY POINT. YOU ARE BIDDING ON THE CARD IN A PSA 3 CASE AND THERE WILL BE NO RETURNS. PLEASE SEE SCAN FOR CONDITION. PLEASE SEND ME AN EMAIL IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. THANKS, BUD!

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>The seller states that the card in the PSA 1 holder is a scan that was sent to him.<br /><br />Clearly the card was busted out of that 1 holder and doctored ... the two significant scratches/marks on the front have been lightened somehow, and the borders look brighter (although some of the brightness might be due to the difference in the scans).<br /><br />The card was then resubmitted ... now residing in a PSA 3 holder.<br /><br />I think PSA can tell it's the same card, but what would it matter? If the card was busted out and resubmitted, and the 3 holder is the one PSA put it in, PSA has no further responsibility. <br /><br />Of course, this is just more evidence of the rampant alteration in the hobby, and how inept grading companies are at catching it.<br /><br />

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>joe</b><p>I sure can't tell because of the different types of holder. The one on the right looks loose or something.

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>well... if joe says you can't be sure than you can't be sure.<br /><br /><img src="http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/184793/2/istockphoto_184793_wise_monkeys.jpg">

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>scott ingold</b><p>Look at the marks on the right boarder. They are the same. No doubt in my mind.

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p> Call me stupid...ok call me confused. What is the seller saying? Why put the PSA 1 scan there? I'm confused as to what he is trying to relate to a buyer. You are buying a PSA 3 cards that was re holdered? Many cards go in for re grades. I am missing his point here. Please explain very slowly.....Joe<br><br>A scared man can't gamble and a jealous man can't work.

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>scott ingold</b><p>There also appear to be 2 small nicks across from his ankle on the right border. These don't show on the 3 nearly as much.

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>steve yawitz</b><p>I think he's saying that he sold the card as a PSA 3, but the buyer returned the card after learning that the card was once a PSA 1. The seller is now relisting the PSA 3 with an image of the card in its original slab in the listing (in an amazingly rare display of seller forthrightness, might I add). <br /><br />It looks as though the scratches might have been buffed a bit, but it's hard to say for sure because the scan of the card in its PSA 3 state isn't all that great. If the scratches were simply rubbed down a bit with a cloth, I can't say that bothers me all that much. <br /><br />And, really, the whole situation elicits nothing more than a shrug. For better or worse, cracking and resubmitting/crossing seems to be as much a part of the hobby as peanuts and Cracker Jack are to the game itself.<br />

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>I think what the seller is doing is actually being honest and disclosing the fact that this card once resided in a psa 1 holder. He doesnt state its been doctored, but he clearly is putting any buyer on notice that that may have occurred. As far as it being the same card, there is no question. not only are the lines/scratches or whatever they are in the identical location (of course in the 3 holder they have been doctored or somehow made to look better), every mark and/or stain is identical as well. If anyone actually believes that two cards can be this similar and not be the same card, Ive got some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell you. <br /><br />PS - my comment above is not directed toward Dan who I feel safe to assume was being sarcastic.

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p> Thank you guys..I was lost, more than usual. I don't think I would care if it was re holdered, but its a nice gesture by the seller.<br><br>A scared man can't gamble and a jealous man can't work.

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>tbob</b><p>Yes, I think the seller is being up front but also he probably doesn't want to go through the same hassle of selling the card and having another buyer return it along with a scan of the PSA 1.

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>I'm still dumbfounded about how the card got a VG 3, regardless of the doctoring????<br /><br />Obviously the same card and, unless the scan quality differs significantly, it's been "tailored".

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Edited by request.

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Maybe it was simply dropped in a bathtub or walked in the rain?

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>Brian McQueen</b><p>I was the buyer in the original auction. Bud Ackerman was gracious enough to allow the return even though Joe Orlando screwed him over in this case. The dealer who sold him the card also refused to take it back. Bud was honest though and took the card back even though he knew he'd probably end up being the one stuck with it. <br /><br />There is no doubt that the card is the same. I know a little more about the history of this card as well. Yes, the card was indeed broken out of its "1" slab and restored. Those cuts, which appear to be little more than scratches in the scan of the card in the "3" holder, are actually exacto-knife slices that carry to the back of the card. Bud was honest in his listing and even displayed the picture of the card before the restoration was done.<br /><br />To this day, I'm still not sure how this card managed to get a "3" the second time around....

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>Damian</b><p>that the card was simply busted out and sent in for regrade because someone felt it was undergraded. Yes, it could have been altered, but I think it is more likely just a regrade. Who would bust out a card, alter it and then send it back in knowing the chances of it getting graded are slim? Yeah, there probably are people who would try it and with some success. I guess what I am saying is that what matters as much as anything (within a grade give or take) when submitting cards is what grader you get and what mood they are in. I have disagreed with grades I have received before and resubmitted. Some came back the same, some lower and some higher. I can say I never got a bump of two grades though. Just my two cents.<br /><br />Damian

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Yes I must state that I in no way am attacking Bud Ackerman. I agree with B, the Bud is being very honest and is taking the hit after PSA let him down. Edited by request.

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Damian, do you not see any differences in the 2 cards condition?? Look at the scratches? Someone would do this because it would increase the value. Just a reslab??? Maybe it is my eyes but I see alot smaller scrtaches in the PSA 3. Dan.

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Someone rightfully asked "How did it still get a 3?" Well, it depends who submitted it. Remember the T206 Hunt's Plank?

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>Can't tell from the scans at any rate, as scan contrast can be tinkered with. The previous buyer doesn't describe how the card was altered in his post and can't view the back for the exacto knife damage, if any and how that could be changed.

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>ok, lets say the card isn't altered. WHERE IS THE CONSISTENCY IN GRADING??????????? A 1 to a 3? That is PATHETIC!

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>BcDaniels</b><p>The Baker E-90 you bid on is trimmed! retract your bid!!!<br /><br />

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>Martin Neal</b><p>Hi,<br /><br /> I am not trying to defend anyone, but aren't you innocent until proven guilty? If I were Joe Orlando, I would certainly want to see the card in person before I offered an opinion or refund. Nowhere does the seller state that he even sent a scan in to PSA.<br /> Secondly, what is the responsibility of a grading company? Are there supposed to be able to pick out every possible restoration scenario? We all know that as of now, not one of them is able to do this. Maybe PSA should offer a super grading service that will put a card through a number of sensitive tests to determine if there has been any alteration. I don't think they could do this for ten bucks a card.

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>anonymousdave</b><p>..or maybe PSA should get the heck out of the vintage card grading business. <br /><br /><br />edited: once for spelling and once for flames

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>Martin - <br /><br />The problem is not that PSA didnt catch the alterations the second time the card was graded (ok, well, that is a problem since the basis behind the service is their ability to authenticate cards) but that PSA did nothing about it after being confronted with the evidence. It is clear from the listing that Orlando was provided scans of both cards. He said he couldnt determine that they were the same card and did nothing. I guarantee you that had this been an SGC graded card and they failed to catch the alteration, upon being presented the evidence of the mistake, they would have bought the card from the owner and taken it out of circulation - I say this because specific instances when they have done so have been discussed on this board many times.

I agree with Joe Orlando here
 

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>I agree with Josh. It seems that PSA has fallen to large corporate mentality with resolving customer disputes. Although they still seem to do a decent job with most things, their follow-through isn't up to SGC or even GAI standards.