Brent Huigens - PWCC. Do you really want to keep this game up? I'm ready boss.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by Bliggity

That is the funniest I've seen in a while!!



Spring 2015: Sold in REA as an SGC 50 for $6600 to Brent (according to Betsy from PWCC "for an unnamed client" - a request to confirm the unnamed client has no ownership interest in PWCC has not been responded to)

Question - Has anyone on here had any dialogue with Brent about purchasing cards for them from other AH's? Is this a service he offers or something he has done for anyone?

August 2015: Sold privately by Brent to Courtney as a PSA 7 for $75k (Betsy from PWCC states that this was on behalf of another client (it has not been clarified how the card made it from alleged client 1 to alleged client 2), Courtney the buyer states that Brent represented the card was owned by him personally). It was between the Robert Edward purchase and the Courtney purchase that the card was altered and jumped from an SGC 50 to a PSA 7.

Speculation - Brent had the card altered and submitted to PSA (the submission is fact) and at this point Brent is +$68,400 (less shipping, alteration and grading fees)


Oct 2016: Consigned by Courtney to Goldin and won by John Perez for $46,800

Courtney -$28,200
Brent - +$68,400

Feb 2017: Consigned by John to Brent and sold to unknown buyer for $52,300 (after which according to Betsy from PWCC - buyer returns card to PWCC who is "taking the loss" on the card)

Courtney -$28,200
Brent +$16,100 ($68,400 - $52,300)
John +1,300.


Speculation:

The "loss" on the last sale still leaves Brent +$16,100 from the original sale to Courtney. The card conveniently for PWCC - "disappears". If PWCC is truly innocent, it only makes sense that they go to PSA looking for reimbursement of the sale price - as PSA missed the alteration and $52,300 is A LOT of money........unless PSA would be able to come back and prove that in fact PWCC did or contracted for the alteration - giving them a solid argument not to pay. By not pursuing it, PWCC conveniently avoids this potentially more visible and costly public relations nightmare. I think PWCC has created a story about the "unnamed clients", believing it allows them "plausible deniability". PWCC tries to spin it that they are "doing the right thing" by taking the card back and refunding it's latest purchaser, when it actually conveniently leaves the card in their hands, Brent +$16,100 and Courtney out $28,200 (leaving him starting this thread and understandably upset).

Would be really curious to hear PSA weigh in on the conversation. Unfortunately, I presume PWCC is one of their best customers and they have a vested interest in finding a way to cover their own ass while protecting PWCC.



This situation raises a number of questions:

1) Is it illegal to alter a card, make no representation about it and let a grading company grade do the talking? What if it is ungraded? Some have suggested "removing what is not supposed to be there is okay" - curious to hear opinions - where is the line? soaking to get rid of paper or scrap book residue? removing tape? removing stains? removing creases? whitening? trimming? Coloring? replacing missing pieces? Does it make a difference if the card is $50 or $50,000?

2) I like the idea of doing something similar to what CGC does - a separate color label with details of alteration (these comic books sell for less than unaltered books in the same grade) - Clearly the grading companies have a harder time detecting alteration? - or just choose to ignore it?


2) If PSA's policy is it will not grade cards it determines are altered, then like many have raised, why is the Gretzky Wagner still in the PSA population?