Brent/PWCC interview on recent controversies

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by HolyGrail

I believe PWCC has been completely above board. I am a happy customer.

Look how much they've done for the industry through market research which landed them a huge story in The New York Times last year for heaven's sake. Who else in the industry can claim that?

Mastro

Doug Allen

John Rogers

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Mastro

Doug Allen

John Rogers

lol.....and what do these entities have in common??

[Republicaninmass]

Dont blame the people who committed mortgage fraud, blame the lenders for allowing it.


Dont blame the Madoff for the stock fraud, blame wall street for allowing it.


Dont blame "no so bright" Brent and the collusion of people around him. Blame PSA for allowing it.


With both items bought sold on his platform multiple times, the shilling and bid retractions from whomever, the "dont worry you'll get outbid" rumors, it seems the ring has been caught red handed. There wouldn't be concrete evidence, only conjecture, if the numbskulls hadn't used NUMBERED cards

I know PWCC and his jug band of investment advisors recommend not bidding on a certain card to investors, but would they reccomend some conservation to get a better grade?


I am as shocked as anyone these cards passed PSA. I would assume a new card would be trimmed, but these vintage ones are bitter pill.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Mastro

Doug Allen

John Rogers

At one point they were good for the hobby too, don't forget now.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by HolyGrail

This thread seems to be full of hearsay and innuendo. I was screwed royally before the advent of grading. Based on my 50 years in the hobby, I believe PWCC has been completely above board. I am a happy customer.

Look how much they've done for the industry through market research which landed them a huge story in The New York Times last year for heaven's sake. Who else in the industry can claim that?

And yes OldJudge is absolutely correct. Brent deserves credit for elevating cards to the status of assets, continuing a trend begun by Jefferson Burdick. If anyone on this site is giving away their cards, please let me know. More power to Brent.

Would that be the same Old Judge who disgustedly asked of Brent, who made this guy king, and posted he would never buy from him again?

[boneheadandrube]

Originally Posted by HolyGrail

This thread seems to be full of hearsay and innuendo. I was screwed royally before the advent of grading. Based on my 50 years in the hobby, I believe PWCC has been completely above board. I am a happy customer.

Look how much they've done for the industry through market research which landed them a huge story in The New York Times last year for heaven's sake. Who else in the industry can claim that?

And yes OldJudge is absolutely correct. Brent deserves credit for elevating cards to the status of assets, continuing a trend begun by Jefferson Burdick. If anyone on this site is giving away their cards, please let me know. More power to Brent.

Thank you for successfully trolling all of the Peters in this thread.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

Thank you for successfully trolling all of the Peters in this thread.

hahaha

[Leon]

If you look at what I highlighted it was the questioning of other things, not Brent or PWCC, which I was responding to. I am not going to get into those things in this thread although I will say I have never shilled a .99 cent postcard (or anything at all) of mine on ebay or anywhere else, ever .

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Maybe we should go over the lots/some facts/falsities one by one and debunk/prove as fact/fiction???? Seems to me most are facts!

[HolyGrail]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Show me where Jefferson Burdick talked about cards as assets. Comparing Brent to JB is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long long time!

In the book, Mint Condition, Burdick railed against the inflation of prices in vintage cards-- to 10 cents! But he did sell and trade them as assets because they were worth something and gave him pleasure.

Of course, no one is in a league with Burdick, or ever will be, but he wheeled and dealed to complete his collection, just never on today's level.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by HolyGrail

In the book, Mint Condition, Burdick railed against the inflation of prices in vintage cards-- to 10 cents! But he did sell and trade them as assets because they were worth something and gave him pleasure.

Of course, no one is in a league with Burdick, or ever will be, but he wheeled and dealed to complete his collection, just never on today's level.

i've read MINT CONDITION...I'm struggling to comprehend what you've stated regarding JB...has anything to do with the current debacle with PWCC/PSA, etc.

Additionally you are extrapolating a tad bit it saying that JB considered cards as "ASSETS" just because he liked them and valued them to a degree.

[ullmandds]

I like turkey sandwiches and I value them as good healthy sustenance...but I would not consider them assets?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Man, as a kid I did not realize I was trading assets with my friends. But I guess I was, as I enjoyed the cards. So I was part of the trend that led up to Brent too, and I want credit.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by HolyGrail

This thread seems to be full of hearsay and innuendo. I was screwed royally before the advent of grading. Based on my 50 years in the hobby, I believe PWCC has been completely above board. I am a happy customer.

Haven't seen you post in a while. Should we expect another Forbes puff piece that everything is hunk-dory? Have you read any of the threads on Blowout? And you still want to say that everything PWCC does/has done is above board? Is recommending buyers that they evade state sales tax by shipping their items to the vault above board? Is not revealing which consignors they're "blocking" from listing items? How about not providing the information about which PSA cert numbers they submitted themselves vs. which ones were submitted by others? What you see as "hearsay and innuendo" I see as fire. What is your definition of conservation? I'll wait while Brent tells it to you.

Maybe it's time to start your investigative journalism angle to try to win a press award, instead.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Haven't seen you post in a while. Should we expect another Forbes puff piece that everything is hunk-dory? Have you read any of the threads on Blowout? And you still want to say that everything PWCC does/has done is above board? Is recommending buyers that they evade state sales tax by shipping their items to the vault above board? Is not revealing which consignors they're "blocking" from listing items? How about not providing the information about which PSA cert numbers they submitted themselves vs. which ones were submitted by others? What you see as "hearsay and innuendo" I see as fire. What is your definition of conservation? I'll wait while Brent tells it to you.

Maybe it's time to start your investigative journalism angle to try to win a press award, instead.

"For the Good of the Hobby -- From Burdick to Brent"

[ajg]

George Costanza said it best. Never heard more double speak in my life.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ

[irv]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Haven't seen you post in a while. Should we expect another Forbes puff piece that everything is hunk-dory? Have you read any of the threads on Blowout? And you still want to say that everything PWCC does/has done is above board? Is recommending buyers that they evade state sales tax by shipping their items to the vault above board? Is not revealing which consignors they're "blocking" from listing items? How about not providing the information about which PSA cert numbers they submitted themselves vs. which ones were submitted by others? What you see as "hearsay and innuendo" I see as fire. What is your definition of conservation? I'll wait while Brent tells it to you.

Maybe it's time to start your investigative journalism angle to try to win a press award, instead.

Well said, John.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Haven't seen you post in a while. Should we expect another Forbes puff piece that everything is hunk-dory? Have you read any of the threads on Blowout? And you still want to say that everything PWCC does/has done is above board? Is recommending buyers that they evade state sales tax by shipping their items to the vault above board? Is not revealing which consignors they're "blocking" from listing items? How about not providing the information about which PSA cert numbers they submitted themselves vs. which ones were submitted by others? What you see as "hearsay and innuendo" I see as fire. What is your definition of conservation? I'll wait while Brent tells it to you.

Maybe it's time to start your investigative journalism angle to try to win a press award, instead.

Have you made these same demands from PSA? A list of the submitter(s) for the certs involved? A list of the employee(s) that graded those certs? What they plan on doing about all these cards? How about PSA contacting Brent for the buyers contact info so that PSA can contact them and offer to buy them back?

If you're going to make demands, just be fair about it and demand information from all parties involved.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Have you made these same demands from PSA? A list of the submitter(s) for the certs involved? A list of the employee(s) that graded those certs? What they plan on doing about all these cards? How about PSA contacting Brent for the buyers contact info so that PSA can contact them and offer to buy them back?

I have been corresponding by email with PSA President Sloan. Haven't received anything back in a while. Highly recommended he publicly address the situation. BGS hasn't responded either to the hundreds of cards submitted by all the people they invite to their annual Industry Day: Kevin Burge, the Sliheets, etc.
Heck, we know most of the names now (at least we know a bunch). Just confirming that those guys are defrauding both companies would be a start. But Brent's stance that these trimmers/alterers/conservers can redeem themselves by taking their lumps is humorous. I don't think any of these guys will crawl out from under their rocks.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by HolyGrail

This thread seems to be full of hearsay and innuendo. I was screwed royally before the advent of grading. Based on my 50 years in the hobby, I believe PWCC has been completely above board. I am a happy customer.

Look how much they've done for the industry through market research which landed them a huge story in The New York Times last year for heaven's sake. Who else in the industry can claim that?

And yes OldJudge is absolutely correct. Brent deserves credit for elevating cards to the status of assets, continuing a trend begun by Jefferson Burdick. If anyone on this site is giving away their cards, please let me know. More power to Brent.

David- Are you the person that writes the stories about cards on Forbes?

[groundskeeper]

Can someone explain this controversy very succinctly to me?

I have bought from PWCC before, but they don't grade cards, do they? Why is it so important what they think a card's grade is?

[bounce]

I have read essentially every post of every major thread, and I watched the entirety of the interview video. After having reviewed all of that, my question to anyone would be this:

Is there any doubt that both PWCC and the TPGs (PSA specifically at a minimum) are aware of at least SOME of the people who are suspected/accused of trimming cards?


I for one have absolutely NO DOUBT they know who these people are, several of which have well less than stellar hobby reputations going back a long time prior. I simply don't believe any reasonable person at this point could refute that both PWCC and PSA know exactly who many of these people are.

I also believe it is VIRTUALLY CERTAIN they actually knew these people well prior to the recent outbreak of threads questioning the unaltered state of many of these cards. Brent effectively said as much, without using names, in the video.

If you come to the conclusion that they did know, then it stands to reason that they certainly SHOULD HAVE known they were taking great risk to their brands and their services by associating with these people, whether via accepting their cards for grading or for consignment services.

As the TPGs have basically chosen silence to this point, there's really nothing to say about them other than lack of response and to this point perceived lack of action.

With PWCC, their responses in my view have three primary themes.

1) We don't think you really understand what alteration means, so we're going to tell you what it means (or, more realistically, what it doesn't mean).
2) If you can't see evidence of alteration on the card, then it must not really be altered.
3) We're mad we caught up in this, and TRUST US, we're going to make some people pay.

The problem with 1): There is HUGE diversity in opinion on what alteration means in this hobby. Brent speaks in the video of not wanting to pursue things that can't be done, so why is he unable to see this as one of those things? It is highly unlikely that all the TPGs are going to get together and form a consensus standard that is adopted hobby wide, right? Maybe not impossible, but not highly likely. I'm paraphrasing the video, but at one point he uses the phrase "...this is where I need people to think critically...". Probably not the best choice of phrase if you're trying to persuade people to your side of things.

The problem with 2): This is effectively saying they're "hiding behind the slab", i.e. if PSA slabbed it with a number, it must have met their standards, we're just the consignment house so don't be mad at us. This simply just doesn't work if you believe that they did indeed know who some of these people were and were accepting their submissions on consignment. They KNOWINGLY DEALT WITH THESE PEOPLE - PERIOD. Again paraphrasing, Brent said something to the effect of "...photos don't constitute evidence...". I respectfully disagree with Brent on that, and I imagine an extremely large percentage of the hobby does as well. Photos are actually some of the absolute best evidence there is, and photos are exactly the evidence that has shown the serial numbered cards have been trimmed and yet still made it in numbered slabs. According to Brent, if photos aren't evidence, then those cards aren't trimmed. No reasonable person could believe that, I don't believe for one second that HE believes that.

The problem with 3): PWCC has been mixed up in so many issues, from the Dimaggio "cleaning" to the retracted/shill bidding to the changing definition of altered to acting like we didn't really think these bad actors would do these bad things...

In basically every instance, PWCC had or still has a significant monetary interest in keeping things as they were, how they want it to be or to keep it quiet. They've been "reacting" to people calling these things out, not proactively looking to deal with them. They're promising to "make people pay", but they can't tell us who those people are. They can only tell that to the TPGs. THAT would certainly be a start, but that's not what transparency looks like. It's also NOT what leaders do.

Paraphrasing again, Brent says in the video he "can't revise auctions after they've started". He SHOULD KNOW that's not accurate, otherwise PWCC is literally the only seller on eBay who can't. You can ALWAYS add to the description up until the very near end of an auction (I don't know the specifics, might be 24 hours or something, I'm sure someone can look that up). It appears as a new "section" within the description with a date and time stamp. I believe he knows this, and has again said something that isn't true and is trying to make us believe he doesn't know it's not true. That erodes trust.

What they have contributed to leading is the push for cards specifically, but collectibles more generally, to be viewed as an "alternate asset class" for investment. Unfortunately, I think many people view that as "cheerleading".

Thus, I think most people have little to no faith that the "trust me" portion of the video actually means anything, as there really isn't sufficient substantive action and accountability historically to justify that trust.

[swarmee]

The gist:
PSA, Beckett, and PWCC are being used by a whole host of scammers that alter cards. These guys are trimming $100 cards to make them worth $500, $500 to be worth $3,000, and $5,000 to be worth $25,000. They have realized that PSA and Beckett (edit: originally had SGC here on accident) are unable to do the job they claim to: detect trimming and other alterations. Once the cards are in TPG holders, they are submitted through PWCC (and Probstein) so that you don't know which scammer's cards you're buying. That is the rub with a consignment service: the owner of a card is known only to the consignment house.

PSA has been silent on the matter. BGS has been silent on the matter. Both are exposed as grading companies, but PSA has the "Grade Guarantee" where they will pay someone who gets scammed the difference between the purchase price and the value of the altered card. In the past 6 months, a few guys on a different message board have started researching the internet to find original pictures of cards before slices of the cards were cut off or before creases were pressed out. These cards would therefore be liable to be returned to sender, because they don't deserve a number grade. Those same sleuths have figured out many of the scammers based on finding out which eBay accounts bought the cards, altered them, submitted them to PSA/BGS, and finally sold through Brent and Rick.

We're not talking small bills; we're talking fraud amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars exposed by just a few guys on a message board. And since Brent keeps talking/posting and asking for feedback for his ridiculous re-writing of what altered means, he keeps getting rightfully bashed.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by groundskeeper

Can someone explain this controversy very succinctly to me?

I have bought from PWCC before, but they don't grade cards, do they? Why is it so important what they think a card's grade is?

No. You can go back to post #1 and lose 10 hours of your life, just like the rest of us.

Kidding.

Not kidding.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by groundskeeper

Can someone explain this controversy very succinctly to me?

I have bought from PWCC before, but they don't grade cards, do they? Why is it so important what they think a card's grade is?

millenial?

[swarmee]

Yeah, you should read about 6-10 threads on Blowout forums as well with all the "evidence" showing before and after pictures.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by bounce

i have read essentially every post of every major thread, and i watched the entirety of the interview video. After having reviewed all of that, my question to anyone would be this:

is there any doubt that both pwcc and the tpgs (psa specifically at a minimum) are aware of at least some of the people who are suspected/accused of trimming cards?


i for one have absolutely no doubt they know who these people are, several of which have well less than stellar hobby reputations going back a long time prior. I simply don't believe any reasonable person at this point could refute that both pwcc and psa know exactly who many of these people are.

I also believe it is virtually certain they actually knew these people well prior to the recent outbreak of threads questioning the unaltered state of many of these cards. Brent effectively said as much, without using names, in the video.

If you come to the conclusion that they did know, then it stands to reason that they certainly should have known they were taking great risk to their brands and their services by associating with these people, whether via accepting their cards for grading or for consignment services.

As the tpgs have basically chosen silence to this point, there's really nothing to say about them other than lack of response and to this point perceived lack of action.

With pwcc, their responses in my view have three primary themes.

1) we don't think you really understand what alteration means, so we're going to tell you what it means (or, more realistically, what it doesn't mean).
2) if you can't see evidence of alteration on the card, then it must not really be altered.
3) we're mad we caught up in this, and trust us, we're going to make some people pay.

The problem with 1): There is huge diversity in opinion on what alteration means in this hobby. Brent speaks in the video of not wanting to pursue things that can't be done, so why is he unable to see this as one of those things? It is highly unlikely that all the tpgs are going to get together and form a consensus standard that is adopted hobby wide, right? Maybe not impossible, but not highly likely. I'm paraphrasing the video, but at one point he uses the phrase "...this is where i need people to think critically...". Probably not the best choice of phrase if you're trying to persuade people to your side of things.

The problem with 2): This is effectively saying they're "hiding behind the slab", i.e. If psa slabbed it with a number, it must have met their standards, we're just the consignment house so don't be mad at us. This simply just doesn't work if you believe that they did indeed know who some of these people were and were accepting their submissions on consignment. They knowingly dealt with these people - period. Again paraphrasing, brent said something to the effect of "...photos don't constitute evidence...". I respectfully disagree with brent on that, and i imagine an extremely large percentage of the hobby does as well. Photos are actually some of the absolute best evidence there is, and photos are exactly the evidence that has shown the serial numbered cards have been trimmed and yet still made it in numbered slabs. According to brent, if photos aren't evidence, then those cards aren't trimmed. No reasonable person could believe that, i don't believe for one second that he believes that.

The problem with 3): Pwcc has been mixed up in so many issues, from the dimaggio "cleaning" to the retracted/shill bidding to the changing definition of altered to acting like we didn't really think these bad actors would do these bad things...

In basically every instance, pwcc had or still has a significant monetary interest in keeping things as they were, how they want it to be or to keep it quiet. They've been "reacting" to people calling these things out, not proactively looking to deal with them. They're promising to "make people pay", but they can't tell us who those people are. They can only tell that to the tpgs. That would certainly be a start, but that's not what transparency looks like. It's also not what leaders do.

Paraphrasing again, brent says in the video he "can't revise auctions after they've started". He should know that's not accurate, otherwise pwcc is literally the only seller on ebay who can't. You can always add to the description up until the very near end of an auction (i don't know the specifics, might be 24 hours or something, i'm sure someone can look that up). It appears as a new "section" within the description with a date and time stamp. I believe he knows this, and has again said something that isn't true and is trying to make us believe he doesn't know it's not true. That erodes trust.

What they have contributed to leading is the push for cards specifically, but collectibles more generally, to be viewed as an "alternate asset class" for investment. Unfortunately, i think many people view that as "cheerleading".

Thus, i think most people have little to no faith that the "trust me" portion of the video actually means anything, as there really isn't sufficient substantive action and accountability historically to justify that trust.

exactly!

[Peter_Spaeth]

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Anyone who says before and after pictures are not evidence, I mean why even bother listening or trying to respond?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Yeah, you should read about 6-10 threads on Blowout forums as well with all the "evidence" showing before and after pictures.

Those aren't evidence, dude, just ask Brent.

[swarmee]

That's why I put it in air quotes....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

That's why I put it in air quotes....

Understood.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bounce

I have read essentially every post of every major thread, and I watched the entirety of the interview video. After having reviewed all of that, my question to anyone would be this:

Is there any doubt that both PWCC and the TPGs (PSA specifically at a minimum) are aware of at least SOME of the people who are suspected/accused of trimming cards?


I for one have absolutely NO DOUBT they know who these people are, several of which have well less than stellar hobby reputations going back a long time prior. I simply don't believe any reasonable person at this point could refute that both PWCC and PSA know exactly who many of these people are.

I also believe it is VIRTUALLY CERTAIN they actually knew these people well prior to the recent outbreak of threads questioning the unaltered state of many of these cards. Brent effectively said as much, without using names, in the video.

If you come to the conclusion that they did know, then it stands to reason that they certainly SHOULD HAVE known they were taking great risk to their brands and their services by associating with these people, whether via accepting their cards for grading or for consignment services.

As the TPGs have basically chosen silence to this point, there's really nothing to say about them other than lack of response and to this point perceived lack of action.

With PWCC, their responses in my view have three primary themes.

1) We don't think you really understand what alteration means, so we're going to tell you what it means (or, more realistically, what it doesn't mean).
2) If you can't see evidence of alteration on the card, then it must not really be altered.
3) We're mad we caught up in this, and TRUST US, we're going to make some people pay.

The problem with 1): There is HUGE diversity in opinion on what alteration means in this hobby. Brent speaks in the video of not wanting to pursue things that can't be done, so why is he unable to see this as one of those things? It is highly unlikely that all the TPGs are going to get together and form a consensus standard that is adopted hobby wide, right? Maybe not impossible, but not highly likely. I'm paraphrasing the video, but at one point he uses the phrase "...this is where I need people to think critically...". Probably not the best choice of phrase if you're trying to persuade people to your side of things.

The problem with 2): This is effectively saying they're "hiding behind the slab", i.e. if PSA slabbed it with a number, it must have met their standards, we're just the consignment house so don't be mad at us. This simply just doesn't work if you believe that they did indeed know who some of these people were and were accepting their submissions on consignment. They KNOWINGLY DEALT WITH THESE PEOPLE - PERIOD. Again paraphrasing, Brent said something to the effect of "...photos don't constitute evidence...". I respectfully disagree with Brent on that, and I imagine an extremely large percentage of the hobby does as well. Photos are actually some of the absolute best evidence there is, and photos are exactly the evidence that has shown the serial numbered cards have been trimmed and yet still made it in numbered slabs. According to Brent, if photos aren't evidence, then those cards aren't trimmed. No reasonable person could believe that, I don't believe for one second that HE believes that.

The problem with 3): PWCC has been mixed up in so many issues, from the Dimaggio "cleaning" to the retracted/shill bidding to the changing definition of altered to acting like we didn't really think these bad actors would do these bad things...

In basically every instance, PWCC had or still has a significant monetary interest in keeping things as they were, how they want it to be or to keep it quiet. They've been "reacting" to people calling these things out, not proactively looking to deal with them. They're promising to "make people pay", but they can't tell us who those people are. They can only tell that to the TPGs. THAT would certainly be a start, but that's not what transparency looks like. It's also NOT what leaders do.

Paraphrasing again, Brent says in the video he "can't revise auctions after they've started". He SHOULD KNOW that's not accurate, otherwise PWCC is literally the only seller on eBay who can't. You can ALWAYS add to the description up until the very near end of an auction (I don't know the specifics, might be 24 hours or something, I'm sure someone can look that up). It appears as a new "section" within the description with a date and time stamp. I believe he knows this, and has again said something that isn't true and is trying to make us believe he doesn't know it's not true. That erodes trust.

What they have contributed to leading is the push for cards specifically, but collectibles more generally, to be viewed as an "alternate asset class" for investment. Unfortunately, I think many people view that as "cheerleading".

Thus, I think most people have little to no faith that the "trust me" portion of the video actually means anything, as there really isn't sufficient substantive action and accountability historically to justify that trust.

On the vintage side, and presumably modern too, the identities of the major card doctors are well-known. These guys more or less operate in the open and every major dealer, collector, and grading service knows exactly who they are. And so does law enforcement. It's a fair question to ask, so how the f--- do they keep doing what they do? I know some pieces of the answer but not all, and I just hope, as I've said, that the grading companies aren't being paid to be complicit.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Anyone who says before and after pictures are not evidence, I mean why even bother listening or trying to respond?

He gets a pass as he’s doing a lot of good things for the hobby. Like submitting raw, altered cards to PSA for Gary Moser. Cards that were bought by Moser in PWCC auctions and cracked out and altered. Then given back to Brent, raw, who submitted them to PSA under his own name and sold the altered, newly-slabbed card in his auctions for Moser.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

He gets a pass as he’s doing a lot of good things for the hobby. Like submitting raw, altered cards to PSA for Gary Moser. Cards that were bought by Moser in PWCC auctions and cracked out and altered. Then given back to Brent, raw, who submitted them to PSA under his own name and sold the altered, newly-slabbed card in his auctions for Moser.

Win win, sounds like.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

David- Are you the person that writes the stories about cards on Forbes?

I'm still waiting for an answer,

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

I'm still waiting for an answer,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidse.../#480c93a99783

compare to name in his post

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by calvindog

He gets a pass as he’s doing a lot of good things for the hobby. Like submitting raw, altered cards to PSA for Gary Moser. Cards that were bought by Moser in PWCC auctions and cracked out and altered. Then given back to Brent, raw, who submitted them to PSA under his own name and sold the altered, newly-slabbed card in his auctions for Moser.

That sounds like an incredibly profitable proposition.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

He gets a pass as he’s doing a lot of good things for the hobby. Like submitting raw, altered cards to PSA for Gary Moser. Cards that were bought by Moser in PWCC auctions and cracked out and altered. Then given back to Brent, raw, who submitted them to PSA under his own name and sold the altered, newly-slabbed card in his auctions for Moser.

With stickers too?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by calvindog

He gets a pass as he’s doing a lot of good things for the hobby. Like submitting raw, altered cards to PSA for Gary Moser. Cards that were bought by Moser in PWCC auctions and cracked out and altered. Then given back to Brent, raw, who submitted them to PSA under his own name and sold the altered, newly-slabbed card in his auctions for Moser.

What makes you think Brent is submitting on behalf of Moser and it's not Moser himself submitting? If this has already been discussed, then I overlooked it.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

I'm still waiting for an answer,

Yes it is.

[ullmandds]

mom was right...birds of a feather...

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidse.../#480c93a99783

compare to name in his post

For someone who's been in the hobby for 50 years, according to him, I wonder what his motives are?

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Show me where Jefferson Burdick talked about cards as assets. Comparing Brent to JB is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long long time!

comparing him to Mastro is more parallel. He has been in bed with edward scissorhands for a long long time and PSA is complicit in his crimes, IMHO.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by bounce

i have read essentially every post of every major thread, and i watched the entirety of the interview video. After having reviewed all of that, my question to anyone would be this:

is there any doubt that both pwcc and the tpgs (psa specifically at a minimum) are aware of at least some of the people who are suspected/accused of trimming cards?


i for one have absolutely no doubt they know who these people are, several of which have well less than stellar hobby reputations going back a long time prior. I simply don't believe any reasonable person at this point could refute that both pwcc and psa know exactly who many of these people are.

I also believe it is virtually certain they actually knew these people well prior to the recent outbreak of threads questioning the unaltered state of many of these cards. Brent effectively said as much, without using names, in the video.

If you come to the conclusion that they did know, then it stands to reason that they certainly should have known they were taking great risk to their brands and their services by associating with these people, whether via accepting their cards for grading or for consignment services.

As the tpgs have basically chosen silence to this point, there's really nothing to say about them other than lack of response and to this point perceived lack of action.

With pwcc, their responses in my view have three primary themes.

1) we don't think you really understand what alteration means, so we're going to tell you what it means (or, more realistically, what it doesn't mean).
2) if you can't see evidence of alteration on the card, then it must not really be altered.
3) we're mad we caught up in this, and trust us, we're going to make some people pay.

The problem with 1): There is huge diversity in opinion on what alteration means in this hobby. Brent speaks in the video of not wanting to pursue things that can't be done, so why is he unable to see this as one of those things? It is highly unlikely that all the tpgs are going to get together and form a consensus standard that is adopted hobby wide, right? Maybe not impossible, but not highly likely. I'm paraphrasing the video, but at one point he uses the phrase "...this is where i need people to think critically...". Probably not the best choice of phrase if you're trying to persuade people to your side of things.

The problem with 2): This is effectively saying they're "hiding behind the slab", i.e. If psa slabbed it with a number, it must have met their standards, we're just the consignment house so don't be mad at us. This simply just doesn't work if you believe that they did indeed know who some of these people were and were accepting their submissions on consignment. They knowingly dealt with these people - period. Again paraphrasing, brent said something to the effect of "...photos don't constitute evidence...". I respectfully disagree with brent on that, and i imagine an extremely large percentage of the hobby does as well. Photos are actually some of the absolute best evidence there is, and photos are exactly the evidence that has shown the serial numbered cards have been trimmed and yet still made it in numbered slabs. According to brent, if photos aren't evidence, then those cards aren't trimmed. No reasonable person could believe that, i don't believe for one second that he believes that.

The problem with 3): Pwcc has been mixed up in so many issues, from the dimaggio "cleaning" to the retracted/shill bidding to the changing definition of altered to acting like we didn't really think these bad actors would do these bad things...

In basically every instance, pwcc had or still has a significant monetary interest in keeping things as they were, how they want it to be or to keep it quiet. They've been "reacting" to people calling these things out, not proactively looking to deal with them. They're promising to "make people pay", but they can't tell us who those people are. They can only tell that to the tpgs. That would certainly be a start, but that's not what transparency looks like. It's also not what leaders do.

Paraphrasing again, brent says in the video he "can't revise auctions after they've started". He should know that's not accurate, otherwise pwcc is literally the only seller on ebay who can't. You can always add to the description up until the very near end of an auction (i don't know the specifics, might be 24 hours or something, i'm sure someone can look that up). It appears as a new "section" within the description with a date and time stamp. I believe he knows this, and has again said something that isn't true and is trying to make us believe he doesn't know it's not true. That erodes trust.

What they have contributed to leading is the push for cards specifically, but collectibles more generally, to be viewed as an "alternate asset class" for investment. Unfortunately, i think many people view that as "cheerleading".

Thus, i think most people have little to no faith that the "trust me" portion of the video actually means anything, as there really isn't sufficient substantive action and accountability historically to justify that trust.

exactimundo

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by calvindog

He gets a pass as he’s doing a lot of good things for the hobby. Like submitting raw, altered cards to PSA for Gary Moser. Cards that were bought by Moser in PWCC auctions and cracked out and altered. Then given back to Brent, raw, who submitted them to PSA under his own name and sold the altered, newly-slabbed card in his auctions for Moser.

Brent Mastro is a very slimy individual, that much is PROVEN already IMHO. He does nothing he says he's gonna do and that my friends speaks volumes about his Integrity. HE HAS ZERO and is a ZERO

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Have you made these same demands from PSA? A list of the submitter(s) for the certs involved? A list of the employee(s) that graded those certs? What they plan on doing about all these cards? How about PSA contacting Brent for the buyers contact info so that PSA can contact them and offer to buy them back?

If you're going to make demands, just be fair about it and demand information from all parties involved.

Because PSA aint sharing squat and neither is Brent Mastro. Hopefully, law enforcement will make them both comply but that is very unlikely.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Haven't seen you post in a while. Should we expect another Forbes puff piece that everything is hunk-dory? Have you read any of the threads on Blowout? And you still want to say that everything PWCC does/has done is above board? Is recommending buyers that they evade state sales tax by shipping their items to the vault above board? Is not revealing which consignors they're "blocking" from listing items? How about not providing the information about which PSA cert numbers they submitted themselves vs. which ones were submitted by others? What you see as "hearsay and innuendo" I see as fire. What is your definition of conservation? I'll wait while Brent tells it to you.

Maybe it's time to start your investigative journalism angle to try to win a press award, instead.

You must be kidding Swarm, Investigative journalism doesn't exist anymore. Otherwise, the forbes guy would do the research the guys at BO are doing and write something that would ultimately help the hobby instead of flooding the market with trimmed cards and fluffy asset stories, giving Brent Mastro the verbal bj. No, that would take too much effort.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

True, but PSA wasn't financially responsible for the slabs from Mexico, but they're on the hook big time for all these doctored cards.

a client of mine had their personal care products (branded perfume) counterfeited and they were made by the DTSC (perfume was flammable) to pay for the destruction of 2- truckloads of counterfeit goods as it had "THEIR NAME ON IT". Only cost them 70K to get rid of the criminals product. PSA should be held to the same standard.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I said this elsewhere but I think it bears repeating here:

Originally Posted by Goudey77 View Post
To rely on internet sources to flag altered cards is not good for our hobby. It causes drama, unnecessary bad publicity, conspiracy theories etc etc. It needs to be done at a collective industry level. My only solution is getting TPG’s to step up their game. Follow what CGC does.

I feel it's very NECESSARY bad publicity.

My problem in general with your scenario of evolution is that it's evolving only after people got caught gaming the system. In other words it's not a "natural" evolution of standards but rather backing and filling to account for deeds already accomplished. You can't do something and then when called out claim you were just trying to evolve the hobby. Forget the hubris for a minute. If you honestly thought that you were the one to lead the hobby to a new paradigm you'd announce it BEFORE you ever started profiting from it.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I said this elsewhere but I think it bears repeating here:

Originally Posted by Goudey77 View Post
To rely on internet sources to flag altered cards is not good for our hobby. It causes drama, unnecessary bad publicity, conspiracy theories etc etc. It needs to be done at a collective industry level. My only solution is getting TPG’s to step up their game. Follow what CGC does.

I feel it's very NECESSARY bad publicity.

My problem in general with your scenario of evolution is that it's evolving only after people got caught gaming the system. In other words it's not a "natural" evolution of standards but rather backing and filling to account for deeds already accomplished. You can't do something and then when called out claim you were just trying to evolve the hobby. Forget the hubris for a minute. If you honestly thought that you were the one to lead the hobby to a new paradigm you'd announce it BEFORE you ever started profiting from it.

Agreed. And who was foolish enough to do it on modern cards that are already numbered from the manufacturer?? While these guys are talented and have been making money hand over fist for quite some time, they sure blew it on that minor (but huge) detail.