Simply amazing - the doctored Cobb is back

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

My understanding is that SGC only viewed this card when it was in the GAI slab, not raw. Is this correct?

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

If you go up about 30 posts, Scott has one indicating that according to Greg, all three companies had an opportunity to view the card raw. That's one of the things that really concerns me about this whole deal.

Kenny

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

As I stated yesterday it is abundantly clear that you do not have my best interest and are not to be trusted; therefore I see no value in making the card available to you. Besides I am afraid the card might get mixed up with your next shipment to Dick Towle or Graphic Conservation Company and end up coming back to me in a VG-EX holder.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Elliot,

I submitted the card in the GAI holder to SGC. At some point SGC had to break the card out to place it in their holder. If at that time SGC saw something wrong with the card they never would have placed it in their holder. Appeasing me is not their obligation. If there was a true liability associated with the card why take that on for $10? The card could have been returned to me in an ungraded state. I have a close enough relationship with them that this would not have been an issue.

Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

I'm not trying to defend SGC here, but if they viewed it in the GAI slab, they might not have seen the alteration. In fact they might have been influenced by the fact that it was already graded. That's not to absolve them of culpability as they still should have closely examined the card, however it is an explanation as to why they would not have picked up the alteration. I would also assume that once a grader gives an Ok to the grade, it is left to somebody else to break the card out of the GAI slab and then entomb it in an SGC slab. Thus, an SGC grader would never have seen this card raw.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

edited

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

edited

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

Does the preferred second grader make his decision while the card is in its old holder and have the new holder waiting for it, or does he break it out, examine it raw, and then pick a new holder?

The second alternative is DEVOUTLY to be hoped for...

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

There are other alterations and flaws that may not be detected by viewing the card inside a holder, hence the reason cards are graded outside of protectos and lucite holders. All of the grading companies are aware their competitors make mistakes. I am sure they do not always rely solely on a viewing of the card inside of the holder in deciding to cross the card.

I take cards graded by PSA and SGC to GAI all of the time for cross over. Baker does not look at the card and say, "OK, PSA says this is a 7, I have no issue with it. Now it is a GAI 7." On many instances he says he needs to see the card out of the holder before issuing an opinion. I then assume the risk by giving the "ok" to break a card out that he might conclude is not worthy of the cross over.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

That is perhaps not an unusual state of affairs. Maybe Scott and I are drinking the same piss-poor beer. Nonetheless, to my way of thinking, the posts about this issue really raise some issues that as of yet remain unanswered, and they also seem to the posterchild for inconsistent statements. I don't know how to reconcile it all.

For example, I presume Adam was talking about one of my previous posts when he wrote:

Grading: I've been saying for a long time that a grader cannot be expected to pick up on a removal and that the services make mistakes. We all do. That's not the point. The real issues are whether the services add a value to the business and whether they stand behind their service. As to the former, I believe they do add value and are here to stay, and people who complain about the concept of grading per se need to face reality. As far as standing behind their services, I for one am glad to hear that SGC allegedly offered to stand behind its service. If that is true, it is heartening.

Wow. I agree that grading is probably here to stay, much as that entire concept makes me want to vomit. However, at least insofar as this thread is concerned, mistakes ARE the point. People send cards to be graded so that a mistake is not made. You just sued PSA's ass off for making a mistake, albeit one that was worse and more expensive. I was all in favor of that and was happy for both you and Dan that y'all won. And, as you are very well aware, that happened because PSA was negligent. Now you appear to have become a graded card apologist when it comes to a "mistake" made not by one, but by three, separate grading companies.

You and I are both plaintiff lawyers. If you had a client who thought they had cancer and therefore saw the top 3 oncologists in California, all of whom said that cancer wasn't present, I have to think that you'd look pretty hard at the failure to diagnose case if in fact your client had cancer (OK, maybe with that horrific MICRA law you wouldn't, but you get my drift). To some degree, that's analogous to what's going on here.

I understand that mistakes can be made. However, I don't understand how each of the "big 3" graders can look at a card which EVERYONE here assumes to be altered and miss them. What are the odds of that occurring? And, as I've mentioned before, isn't it the self-professed job of all those god-like card graders to tell you what you have? Isn't it somewhat telling about the people who the cards are being sent to that it wasn't caught on 3 seperate occasions?

When all is said and done, I'm not sure where everything stands. The one thing I do know is that the "everyone makes mistakes" position is a complete crock of sh** when it comes to card grading. If people are going to pay them for the service, they should damn sure do it right.

Off my soapbox now. Gotta get beer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

the issue is that everyone here has ASSUMED this card is altered. Define altered? How can 3 grading companies be wrong if it is so obvious to those here? Maybe because of the people who post here I am the only one who has held the card in it's so called "altered" state. Maybe as I said, this card has not undergone anything nearly as extreme as what Warshaw JD, MD does to his cards. As I stated the card still has missing lettering on the reverse, noticeable creases and missing stock on the front. The back is still discolored and there are still caramel stains. The back even has the area that Scott described as a lift.

I am not an apologist for the grading companies but I also contend that nothing drastic had been done to the card. When I got the card back from SGC ungraded I sold it as altered because the issue was still fresh in my mind. The person I sold it to also thought the card was ok and therefore sent the card in for grading only to have it grade a 3rd time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

I didn't save a back scan from the 1st go round on this card. Greg, could you please post a back scan of this card in one of the slabs?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

I deleted all of the scans about 2 weeks ago. Figured I did not need them. I am sure that one of the many BOTN haters has that and more and can share the images with the board. It is interesting that nobody has posted the image of the card when it was in the SGC 40 holder.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

Greg's back to dancing, and he's not going to stop until we all tell him what a good boy we think he is. Are you ready to buy botnian logic?

Today he says this:

"...When I got the card back from SGC ungraded I sold it as altered because the issue was still fresh in my mind. The person I sold it to also thought the card was ok and therefore sent the card in for grading only to have it grade a 3rd time."

but on May 18, he said this:

From: "greg" <grays@botn.com>
> > >To: <Runscott@bellsouth.net>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:39 AM
> > >Subject: E95 Cobb...
> > >
> > > > I had sold the raw altered Cobb card for $200 to a guy who wanted a
>low grade Cobb. Told him it was altered. He decided to send the card to
>PSA and they graded it a 3.

So on May 18 he thought it was altered, but now he doesn't remember thinking that at all. That works well with his new logic: if three grading companies slabbed it, then the alterations simply never occured, therefore his own memory can be wiped clean as well. Botnian logic is tough to follow...I would recommend integrity as a simpler alternative.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

hmmm...don't tell me - your memory is coming back



SGC and raw Cobb


[edited to fix thread formatting]

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Had no idea that I was obligated to send you the full dialogue about the Cobb card when I sold it. The conversation went slightly longer than, "Here is an altered Cobb that I need $200 for."

Nice job touching up the SGC scan. Amazing that the GAI graded card the first card to grade) as provided by MW (has the chipping on the top surface). This can also be seen on the tiny scan of the card taken from Wayne's listing on ebay, the third time the card graded. Oddly Scott produces an enormous scan of the SGC version that does not have that. This card was graded after GAI and before PSA. Also his scan does not have some of the missing lettering on the reverse.


Editted to add:
Why did you change the scan Scott?

Editted again to remove an insult.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I took the scan you posted on ebay and super-imposed the front and back of my original scans.

But you might want to go back and edit your post Greg, because I'm sure someone other than me saved the SGC scans from your ebay listing. Didn't think of that, did you Greg?

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

you've been nailed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Scott

The initial scan you posted was completely recolored and in one of your edits you changed the photo. The scan that is up there now does appear the be the one I posted of the card in the SGC holder. And does represent the condition of the card as I last remember it.

Editted to remove an insult.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

You are right - I originally uploaded the wrong scan, of a totally different holdered SGC card. I edited that post as quickly as I could to add the correct scan. You, too are also still a pile.

See, we do agree on something?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Progress.

I see sublte differences in your scan and that of the card in the SGC holder. Your scans are larger and lighter than mine, which might account for some of the differences in appearance. I still see missing letters, chipping on the surface, creases, etc on the card in the SGC holder. If someone were going to recolor and add lettering wouldn't they go all of the way and not leave out certain obvious areas?

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

No, anyone could see this would never be a NM card, but I think it's not unlikely that someone sent this to a restorer just to see what work they were capable of producing - this was a perfect test case, given all it's problems. What that person then did with the card is anyone's guess. Is it likely that they just dropped it back in the market after seeing the results? Or instead that they then decided to give the work the final litmus test by sending it directly to a grading company?

I couldn't say, but the second scenario would be incredibly stupid.

So what is the future of this well-traveled card? Anyone's guess - when I thought it was buried in Greg's collection never to see daylight again, I promised not to bring up more controversy concerning it...but then it re-surfaces, PSA-slabbed, on ebay, for sell by a reputable dealer...I don't have that kind of self-control!

Worst-case scenario is it ends up dumped on the market and someone else gets one of the big 3 to re-slab it. That is a very likely scenario, but someone else can pursue that if it happens.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

Greg, now that the card is on its way back to you, can/will you share with us what you plan on doing with it?

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

you think it might be getting better so you stick your tongue in there again to probe and you find out otherwise.

Kenny Cole: Actually, I'm primarily a real estate and construction guy so the med mal reference goes right over my head. In real estate, the rule is that the seller must disclose any material fact which might adversely impact on the value of the property. In my mind, the rather checkered history of the card is a material fact worthy of disclosure because it would tend to adversely impact the decision of a buyer to purchase the card, as it did with Wayne. It is not equivalent to a failure to diagnose because it is a non-disclosure of a known fact rather than a non-detection error.

PSA: Their error in Dan's case was not grading, it was losing the card. I made it clear that I have no comments as to their grading practices as a result of the case; it was not part of the issue. Now, considering their history of grading fakes (Ruth rookie) and altered cards (my card; an OJ with the ad trimmed off was in the November 2002 Lipset auction and offered as an example of a PSA error), I don't happen to like their service itself, but that has nothing to do with Dan's case.

Greg: after reading your post yesterday, I went home and consigned the two altered cards to the trash bin where they sleep today with the fishes. I hope you do the same with the Cobb.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

It was a nice card before, and it looks even better now. I would make a display for it, creating a back-drop using high quality prints of it in each of its three holders.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Scott your e-mail reply to me was this:

<grays@botn.com>; Tue, 18 May 2004 08:28:20 -0400
Message-ID: <000701c43cd3$9bf42010$6501a8c0@Forresthome>
From: "Scott Forrest" <Runscott@bellsouth.net>
To: "greg" <grays@botn.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20040517213727.02a16c30@mail67.pair.co m>
Subject: Re: E95 Cobb...
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 08:28:22 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2739.300

Greg,

Thanks for sharing this - yes, please send a picture. I am taking a LONG
break from the board, so I won't stir up any more controversy about it.

Scott

----- Original Message -----
From: "greg" <grays@botn.com>
To: <Runscott@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:39 AM
Subject: E95 Cobb...


> I had sold the raw altered Cobb card for $200 to a guy who wanted a low
> grade Cobb. Told him it was altered. He decided to send the card to PSA
> and they graded it a 3. He is sending me a picture of it. Want me to
> forward it on to you?

So your promise not to fuel the fire was made well after you knew the card was not buried in my collection.

Adam,
I am wondering why you have not addressed those questions posed to you by PASJD. Your basis for disclosure does not seem to hold here since it is only this board who claims the card was altered. How many of you have passed the grading test that PSA, GAI and SGC impose on their graders? If anything I have a claim against all of you for damaging the value of my property and undoing my sale.

I am not sure what the future holds for this card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

I thought you were lying.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

it really sounds like you were relying on everyone else keeping mum while you did whatever it took to pawn off that Cobb...on someone who doesn't normally read this board.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe P.

Greg's e-mail to Scott:

----- Original Message -----
From: "greg" <grays@botn.com>
To: <Runscott@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:39 AM
Subject: E95 Cobb...

> "I had sold the raw altered Cobb card for $200 to a guy who wanted a low
> grade Cobb. Told him it was altered. He decided to send the card to PSA
> and they graded it a 3."
*
*
*
Greg, that's your e-mail to Scott.
Your words.
And on May 18 2004 you knew the card was ALTERED.

Your feeble and lame attempt to try to smoke screen the readers of this board, borders on the supernatural.
It's almost insulting to anyone that reads this board, and that includes the 1980's & 1970's newbies.

Greg, you held back on the known facts when you sold the card to Wayne.
The fact that you're desperately feebly trying to use the combined errors of your 3 fallen hero's, makes your plea even more embarrassing.

In my eyes, your misdeeds are not what I want in my hobby.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

that there are no FRONTS which have NECESSARILY been altered.(It seems to me that when I looked at this thread much earlier, alteration to the front was apparent...oh well.)If the back presented a few posts back is the same card as the fronts, it has obviously been altered, based on the back next to it. It is obviously the same back, because of the odd-shaped stain and some nearly identical partially destroyed letters.

Why make such obviuous changes to the back, while making only very subtle (to say the least) changes to the front?

Is a puzzlement...

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Are these the questions from PASJD you were referring to:
"have you sold cards which you "improved" (to use a neutral term) by the methods described in that posting; and if so, did you disclose that you had done so?"
"Also, I suppose it would be interesting to know in light of the subject matter of the thread whether any cards "improved" by this method were slabbed by the grading services."

As stated above, I've never sold the cards I'd played with. There were only 2. I have sold 2 cards that I suspected had been played with by others, but I did so with a disclosure of my suspicions, and took a bath financially as a result.

As stated above and as referenced in VCBC #30, SGC and PSA both slabbed cards which had removals performed (1 by each service).

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Please take more information out of context. As stated a few posts above I used the word "altered" in a one sentence summary in my e-mail to Scott about a conversation that took place between me and my buyer. Had I know that I was going on trial I certainly would have videotaped the entire transaction.

You are almost too unreasonable to even address so I will not comment on some of your other inanities.

Scott,

"only one problem your logic Greg October 12 2004, 3:00 PM
I thought you were lying."
Well, again you thought wrong and drew yet another conclusion without any foundation.

"but by constantly bringing that up October 12 2004, 4:23 PM
it really sounds like you were relying on everyone else keeping mum while you did whatever it took to pawn off that Cobb...on someone who doesn't normally read this board."
Again you draw a conclusion without having any first hand knowledge of what took place with my customer. Even after being notified by me that a sale took place.

Whether or not the card was altered, I sold it as such and based on the price paid it was bought with full knowledge of the accompanying story. I understand that $200 or even $750 is a great deal of money to you so I can understand from your POV why you might think that I would attempt to deceive someone for such incredible wealth. You got the wrong guy though.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

OK I just wanted to make sure we weren't getting into a Clintonesque semantic quibble (depends on what the meaning of "is" is) about the meaning of "altered"; the juxtaposition of your statement that you had not sold an "altered" card and the link to your previous posting suggesting (my interpretation anyhow) that you viewed crease removal as different from other forms of restoration is what led me to ask the questions. As you pointed out in your earlier comment about "right to life," the words one uses to frame an issue often dictate the result. (On that particular one I would suggest to you that a "woman's right to choose" is equally misleading, but that is not for this forum I guess.) Personally I would view crease removal in the same category as trimming and corner restoration, particularly because as a practical matter the crease might come back (I have seen it happen to a PSA 8 card); I am not quite sure how I feel about some other "improvements."

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob L

Man, am I glad I don't collect cards. Seems like a lot less controversy with other baseball memorablia.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

edited

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

There also appears to be some border discoloration and distinctive staining that has been removed from the card. This does not appear to be a difference that can be accounted for due to individual image quality.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

Rob-

Well then what in the hell are you doing here?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob L

Lurking. I love reading this stuff.

[Archive]

Posted By: Aaron

Hey, MW, can you teach me how to do that with my computer? (With the circles and stuff.) I'm not very techno-savvy and am pretty much just able to get e-mail and surf the net.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

edited

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

<edited

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

Borders are considerably whitened....

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

MW is right in my opinion, the corruption and uncertainty surrounding autographs and game-used jerseys and game-used bats and the like makes baseball cards look tame by comparison. I mean think about it, how does anyone KNOW if Babe Ruth signed a baseball being presented for sale 70 years later?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Contrast is lightened but you are working with images of the graded examples that are significantly smaller than the ungraded version.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

gouges to the left of the bigger gouge that has been about half removed; and the borders are considerably whitened. I think we're takng size into account...

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe P.

Greg speaks:

"Joe P,
Please take more information out of context. As stated a few posts above I used the word "altered" in a one sentence summary in my e-mail to Scott about a conversation that took place between me and my buyer."
*
*
*
What out of context?
Your words.

Who sent the e-mail to Scott?

Wayne?
Me?
Scott to Scott?

Who was talking about an ALTERED card in May 2004?

Wayne?
Me?

It was you Greg you.
You knowingly dumped the card on Wayne in July 2004.
In that particular department, the road map points to you.
You weren't just wrong, you were wrong LOUD.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

You dropped the "Scott drinks beer" thing from your defense for a few posts and started going after the "Scott doesn't have money" angle.

I guess if you kept working those two things, you could possibly build a case for me drinking more beer than you, or for you being wealthy compared to me - but neither would make you right about the Cobb...or make you any taller.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Scott
No need to be so bitter. You have already taken this too personally. Dude you are one angry MFer. Well you might be taller than me for the few minutes a day you are not hunched over drunk or lying in your own mess.

Joe P
You exemplify the oxymoron of military intelligence. I never made excuses for selling the card to Wayne. I gave you my reason and it is one that I still stand behind.

Julie,
Stop flip-flopping. You are still looking at a scan that is significantly smaller and a card that was not scanned with the surface directly on the scanner bed. Also who said those lines are gouges? Scott?--a guy who has been gunning for me at every chance. I do not recall off hand if those white marks are still on the card or have been reduced but in my conversation with Wayne yesterday he said the card looked very similar to Scott's scan. I did not ask for an analysis on a point-by point flaw, as the card will be in my hands in a few days.

It seems that you are all in agreement that you are more qualified to grade a card by a scan than all of the graders at the top 3 grading services can do with the actual card in hand. Well I commend you and apologize for second guessing your abilities. It would then reason that none of you directly or indirectly pay for grading of your cards and would likely not pay premiums for cards that have been graded.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

blah blah blah

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

John,

You have been a former customer for a while now (2+ years?) but it is ok with me if you want to attribute it to this episode. Maybe you knew in advance that I was a bad seed in the hobby.

I was going to be sending out Christmas cards this year. The card layout was going to feature the E95 Cobb wearing a Santa hat (with Scott in the background sucking down spiked eggnog). So that I know exactly how many to print can I get a head count of those who want to remain on my mailing list?

Editted to add:
John,

I went back to look at when we last did business and it seems we never did business. Since I cannot lose something I never had I have to place you in a new category, "Former Customers With No Prior Transactions." I hope you understand. And believe me it is just as prestigious to be in this category.