Everyone's favorite auction house

[rhettyeakley]

I also think the erasure on the Cobb would result in a grade lower than what it was graded and to be honest I would have preferred that it had been pulled but the fact that it was pointed out the day before the auction ended was a difficult situation to be put in. It was handled a bit clumsy perhaps but I have no doubt Al wouldn’t have had an issue if the winner had missed it and didn’t want to go through with the sale, this is based on his track record of being honest and wanting to do right so he gets the benefit of the doubt. This benefit of the doubt is not afforded to those that have been actively consorting with known card doctors and have seriously questionable morals due to an overwhelming mountain of evidence.

The graders missed the erasure, so did Al. It was a singular mistake and he tried his best to make it right. This whole thread is ridiculousness. Jesse has a strange vendetta and it is obvious, he is trying to condone his own past bad behavior with PWCC by pointing out something that in his mind made himself look better... most everybody saw right through it.

Enough about the sign already, after the cleaning it has much better eye appeal.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I also think the erasure on the Cobb would result in a grade lower than what it was graded and to be honest I would have preferred that it had been pulled but the fact that it was pointed out the day before the auction ended was a difficult situation to be put in. It was handled a bit clumsy perhaps but I have no doubt Al wouldn’t have had an issue if the winner had missed it and didn’t want to go through with the sale, this is based on his track record of being honest and wanting to do right so he gets the benefit of the doubt. This benefit of the doubt is not afforded to those that have been actively consorting with known card doctors and have seriously questionable morals due to an overwhelming mountain of evidence.

The graders missed the erasure, so did Al. It was a singular mistake and he tried his best to make it right. This whole thread is ridiculousness. Jesse has a strange vendetta and it is obvious, he is trying to condone his own past bad behavior with PWCC by pointing out something that in his mind made himself look better... most everybody saw right through it.

Enough about the sign already, after the cleaning it has much better eye appeal.

Very true. Discovering an error on the last day of an auction is very difficult to fix. It usually requires phone calls to the high bidder, under bidders and consignor. It very seldom is pleasant and based on everyone’s input and severity of the error a tough decision is made.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Enough about the sign already, after the cleaning it has much better eye appeal.

Except that I'm still interested in whether people think the result of the "cleaning" as it looks in the photos is reasonable or even possible, especially those who have a lot of experience collecting and/or dealing in metal items. Is this a common practice with those, and this a common result?

[Joe Hunter]

I don't think the sign could have undergone that degree of transformation using just water as the solvent.

[Republicaninmass]

Ok, can he really pull it the last day...no

BUT to play devil's advocate....

And I quote

"
Any graded card valued over $500 will be reviewed carefully by LOTG under magnification, along with halogen and long-wave ultraviolet lighting. *Should we discover any issues with which we are uncomfortable, the card will be resubmitted to the grading company for review or returned to the consignor at their request."


Edited
My first reaction


A bunch of feel good horseshit, you can see that's erased from the moon

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Joe Hunter

I don't think the sign could have undergone that degree of transformation using just water as the solvent.

Thanks, Joe, I tend to agree with you, but Al's consignor claims otherwise. Another question I have is this: if the transformation was accomplished purely with the removal of rust and oxidated(?) material, even if aided by chemicals or other means, would that still be acceptable as a method of "cleaning" that wouldn't need to be disclosed? In other words: no additions, no coverings, no restoration, just the removal of material original to the piece, deteriorated and otherwise. Is that OK?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Thanks, Joe, I tend to agree with you, but Al's consignor claims otherwise. Another question I have is this: if the transformation was accomplished purely with the removal of rust and oxidated(?) material, even if aided by chemicals or other means, would that still be acceptable as a method of "cleaning" that wouldn't need to be disclosed? In other words: no additions, no coverings, no restoration, just the removal of material original to the piece, deteriorated and otherwise. Is that OK?

Hank it seems to me that if something is OK, which it may well be, that's all the more reason TO disclose it; after all, what's the downside of letting potential bidders know something generally considered acceptable was done so they can make a fully informed decision?

Not specific to this case, but people always seem to trip over themselves trying to explain why a certain thing done to a card or other item is perfectly acceptable, yet they won't disclose it. And yes one can take this to an extreme silly hypothetical (nobody would disclose that they blew off a piece of dust and nobody would argue that they should) but that's not a helpful response.

PS nothing changes, we had the same discussion about the Keeler cabinet card in Mastro in 2004 or thereabouts.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

PS nothing changes, we had the same discussion about the Keeler cabinet card in Mastro in 2004 or thereabouts.

I don't remember that discussion, I might not have been a member then. Is cleaning supposed to always be disclosed when it comes to cards, no matter what the extent or methods? And yes, a lot of it does seem to come down to a matter of degree, but if I was the consignor of the sign and all I did was wipe it down with water, I don't think I'd feel the need to disclose that fact. If you say why not, I could say because it might raise the question of what else I did to it, or make bidders wonder if the rust might come back, or any other reason I could cook up to think the price might be affected by me volunteering that information. I would answer why should I? I cleaned lots of stuff when I was a dealer, I don't think I ever mentioned it or told an auction house when I consigned it. That didn't seem relevant or important, and certainly not unethical.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's never easy to draw lines especially in the gray area, and yes it probably comes down to a case by case basis. I guess if I were to try to articulate a general rule, it would be along the lines of if something might matter to a non-trivial percentage of potential bidders, it should be disclosed. Of course there's a lot of play in that formulation too.

[2dueces]

You guys sound like a bunch of old ladies criticizing the way kids dress today. Don’t you have any thing better to do with your time beside bitch about grades, pencil marks and dirty signs. The OCD on this forum is strong. Last time I read such stupidity here was the 1000 post bitch session when SGC changed its flip header color. The movie Idocracy moves closer to reality here.

[Joe Hunter]

I’m a collector of vintage bobble heads. Disclosure of bobble head restoration is expected of a seller. It’s certainly not taboo to restore a bobble head; in fact, a professionally restored doll can bring probably 80-90 % of the same doll in unrestored condition. But, the buyer needs to know this, up front. I would say the same would apply to metal signs.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Joe Hunter

I’m a collector of vintage bobble heads. Disclosure of bobble head restoration is expected of a seller. It’s certainly not taboo to restore a bobble head; in fact, a professionally restored doll can bring probably 80-90 % of the same doll in unrestored condition. But, the buyer needs to know this, up front. I would say the same would apply to metal signs.

If someone spilled coke on a bobble head back in the day, and you wiped the brown stain off with a wet cloth, would you disclose the “restoration”? Seems a bit inconsequential...

With regard to metal signs, of course any restoration in the form in-Painting, reinforcements or touch-ups should be disclosed. This was water, and the minute he found out, Al personally reached out to each bidder directly, giving them the option to retract. Obviously none felt the need.

This thread reminds me of an annoying old commercial

[RedsFan1941]

people sure are twisting themselves into knots in this thread. fun to watch. the power of water and cotton balls. who knew?

[RedsFan1941]

Originally Posted by Joe Hunter

I don't think the sign could have undergone that degree of transformation using just water as the solvent.

i think most objective people would agree with you.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

i think most objective people would agree with you.

Are you guys really going to make me get some stuff from the garage and learn how to post videos?

[steve B]

Anyone selling commercially, especially an auction house has a challenge when it comes to this stuff.

We all want clear policies on altered stuff, but can't agree on what is an alteration.

Writing something that is clear and concise, and also takes into account the wide variety of alterations out there seems to me a nearly impossible task.
way back, some cards were often cut down to fit the pages available at the time. No attempt at fraud, as most at that time were worth maybe $2. People just wanted to put them in pages and enjoy them. (Tall T206s and e-90-1s especially)
Then there's the moser sort of trimming that gets hidden by having the card graded, and is obviously intentional fraud.

The erasure to me falls somewhere in the middle.
Is it an alteration? YES.
Is it non- obvious and hiding behind the slab? NO,
it's obvious that it was done, who would spend that sort of money on a card without taking a good look at it. (I suppose there are some blind collectors, good on them for giving it a go. It seems extra challenging)

Would it have been better if it was mentioned right at the start? YES. Does it make sense that someone might not feel the need to mention the obvious? YES.

To use the car analogy, if I'm selling a junker that is missing a door, I don't think it would really be necessary to point it out.

If you're buying fairly expensive cards based on no more than a casual glance.... 1 slow the _ down and look. 2 Where the heck are you when I'm selling? (Yeah, my stuff to sell is too cheap, but still... )

[bobfreedman]

Guys, I was the consignor and I cleaned it with distilled water ONLY. I actually took a picture of the process because I was so surprise how easily it came off. Here it is,

I know skeptics will always be skeptics but judge for yourself. This will be my one and only post about this as I feel that this board has a lynch mob mentality.

[calvindog]

Bob, do you provide the software to LOTG?

[frankbmd]

When can I bring my Honda over for a wash?

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Guys, I was the consignor and I cleaned it with distilled water ONLY. I actually took a picture of the process because I was so surprise how easily it came off. Here it is,

I know skeptics will always be skeptics but judge for yourself. This will be my one and only post about this as I feel that this board has a lynch mob mentality.

Thanks for coming in, I hope you can understand a certain amount of skepticism here considering the dramatic results of your efforts both in appearance and auction results, not to mention the recent controversies on the card side. By drawing attention to the potential in both respects, I think this episode will be helpful to a number of people and has value for that reason. There have been a number of Net54 threads that turned ugly and personal, no doubt, a risk our esteemed admin has policed admirably, in my opinion, but ascribing a "lynch mob mentality" to the entire board is ridiculous, and I don't think many of us would be here if that was the case. In fact, I don't think that kind of board would be around very long. Having said that, as in other areas of my life, when I jump in here I put on my big boy pants and am ready to go toe to toe with whatever comes forth. As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

[RedsFan1941]

bob should change his user name to Anne Sullivan.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Guys, I was the consignor and I cleaned it with distilled water ONLY. I actually took a picture of the process because I was so surprise how easily it came off. Here it is,

I know skeptics will always be skeptics but judge for yourself. This will be my one and only post about this as I feel that this board has a lynch mob mentality.

I've used the same method (distilled water and cotton swabs) to wipe a bunch of crud off a 19th century cabinet. I took before and after pictures of the cabinet that show the crud removed from the picture. It was night and day and I really didn't consider it altering because the only thing done was the removal of dirt and grime with distilled water. I have no intention of selling the cabinet, however IF I do, I'll have no problem fully disclosing this (with the before and after pictures and the dirty cotton swabs).

[Snapolit1]

What's with the cotton swabs anyway. I'd be afraid remnants of cotton would adhere to the metal and be hard to get off. I'd opt for an extremely soft rag of some sort.

In event, a simple google search of "how a clean rust off an old metal sign" reveals a plethora of ways to remove rust from an old metal sign. If cotton and water does the trick there's an awful lot of antique folks out there who are wasting time with vinegar and other substances.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Fred

I've used the same method (distilled water and cotton swabs) to wipe a bunch of crud off a 19th century cabinet. I took before and after pictures of the cabinet that show the crud removed from the picture. It was night and day and I really didn't consider it altering because the only thing done was the removal of dirt and grime with distilled water. I have no intention of selling the cabinet, however IF I do, I'll have no problem fully disclosing this (with the before and after pictures and the dirty cotton swabs).

Shame on you Fred. One more infraction like this and you will have to turn in you Old Judge Club membership card and the secret decoder ring.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I also think the erasure on the Cobb would result in a grade lower than what it was graded and to be honest I would have preferred that it had been pulled but the fact that it was pointed out the day before the auction ended was a difficult situation to be put in. It was handled a bit clumsy perhaps but I have no doubt Al wouldn’t have had an issue if the winner had missed it and didn’t want to go through with the sale, this is based on his track record of being honest and wanting to do right so he gets the benefit of the doubt. This benefit of the doubt is not afforded to those that have been actively consorting with known card doctors and have seriously questionable morals due to an overwhelming mountain of evidence.

The graders missed the erasure, so did Al. It was a singular mistake and he tried his best to make it right. This whole thread is ridiculousness. Jesse has a strange vendetta and it is obvious, he is trying to condone his own past bad behavior with PWCC by pointing out something that in his mind made himself look better... most everybody saw right through it.

Enough about the sign already, after the cleaning it has much better eye appeal.

Believe it or not (I'm sure most of you won't) I have no grudge or vendetta against Al or LOTG. I've never met the man. I've bid on a few of their auctions but never won anything. We may have had a brief conversation when I first signed up for LOTG, I honestly Don't remember. I've gotten into it with some guy who I believe used to work with him in a few threads. I think his screen name is Bicem. Something like that.

The other LOTG threads I've spoken up in just started with me sharing my opinion on the issue. These threads are always so one sided in their favor that I find it quite ridiculous. If I have any grudge or bias, it's with the attitude on this board that they can do no wrong, and not with the AH or owner personally. I do remember one in particular when I wrote a sarcastic prediction that something would be really messed up in an upcoming auction, which would be followed by several posts about how it's no big deal because Al's such a great guy. Both came true.

I did not go looking for these issues. Someone mentioned them to me, and I was initially not going to say anything because I knew how it would look given the timing and similarity between the alterations on the E95 Cobb and my T3 Cobb. I'm also aware of the perception that I'm out to get Al, and that this would only add fuel to that fire. I almost didn't start this thread because of this.

I am not trying to condone or justify how I handled the T3 situation. I did my best and don't really care if you or anyone else approves.

I knew if I didn't point out these two items, no one else around here would. I felt they were worth discussing. I think it's beyond ridiculous that they put out a statement acting like they're above the current controversy and would instantly pull any altered card, only to do the opposite in the next auction. If they hadn't put out the statement, I would have no issue with the disclosure on the Cobb, other that the ridiculous justification for the decision based on the alternation not being done with the intent to deceive.

That statement in the Cobb disclosure is what pushed it over the edge for me, and what drew the PWCC comparison in my mind. Maybe the rest of you disagree. PWCC was crushed on the forums for making up the conservation definition as a distinction from other alterations. I personally believe he's right, there is a difference between cards that have been conserved, vs more egregious alterations, and that the hobby will eventually accept that definition. But that isn't relevant to this discussion.

This is copied from the LOTG disclosure:

"While our policy is to withdraw items that are discovered to be altered, in this case we believe the alteration is visible enough that it is debatable whether or not it was done deceptively."

I think that is a bunch of BS. The alteration is visible because someone did a poor job, just like on the T3 Cobb. Whoever it was that did the alteration was most likely trying to deceive either the next buyer or grader, but failed in their attempt to remove whatever was there without a trace.

I haven't seen anyone else even mention this, so perhaps I'm the only one who cares. But I have a hard time believing anyone could think a stain or mark wasn't removed from the Cobb deceptively. There should be no debate.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Believe it or not (I'm sure most of you won't) I have no grudge or vendetta against Al or LOTG. I've never met the man. I've bid on a few of their auctions but never won anything. We may have had a brief conversation when I first signed up for LOTG, I honestly Don't remember. I've gotten into it with some guy who I believe used to work with him in a few threads. I think his screen name is Bicem. Something like that.

The other LOTG threads I've spoken up in just started with me sharing my opinion on the issue. These threads are always so one sided in their favor that I find it quite ridiculous. If I have any grudge or bias, it's with the attitude on this board that they can do no wrong, and not with the AH or owner personally. I do remember one in particular when I wrote a sarcastic prediction that something would be really messed up in an upcoming auction, which would be followed by several posts about how it's no big deal because Al's such a great guy. Both came true.

I did not go looking for these issues. Someone mentioned them to me, and I was initially not going to say anything because I knew how it would look given the timing and similarity between the alterations on the E95 Cobb and my T3 Cobb. I'm also aware of the perception that I'm out to get Al, and that this would only add fuel to that fire. I almost didn't start this thread because of this.

I am not trying to condone or justify how I handled the T3 situation. I did my best and don't really care if you or anyone else approves.

I knew if I didn't point out these two items, no one else around here would. I felt they were worth discussing. I think it's beyond ridiculous that they put out a statement acting like they're above the current controversy and would instantly pull any altered card, only to do the opposite in the next auction. If they hadn't put out the statement, I would have no issue with the disclosure on the Cobb, other that the ridiculous justification for the decision based on the alternation not being done with the intent to deceive.

That statement in the Cobb disclosure is what pushed it over the edge for me, and what drew the PWCC comparison in my mind. Maybe the rest of you disagree. PWCC was crushed on the forums for making up the conservation definition as a distinction from other alterations. I personally believe he's right, there is a difference between cards that have been conserved, vs more egregious alterations, and that the hobby will eventually accept that definition. But that isn't relevant to this discussion.

This is copied from the LOTG disclosure:

"While our policy is to withdraw items that are discovered to be altered, in this case we believe the alteration is visible enough that it is debatable whether or not it was done deceptively."

I think that is a bunch of BS. The alteration is visible because someone did a poor job, just like on the T3 Cobb. Whoever it was that did the alteration was most likely trying to deceive either the next buyer or grader, but failed in their attempt to remove whatever was there without a trace.

I haven't seen anyone else even mention this, so perhaps I'm the only one who cares. But I have a hard time believing anyone could think a stain or mark wasn't removed from the Cobb deceptively. There should be no debate.

My understanding is that some people here are upset with PWCC's statement on conserving because they don't disclose what was done to the card. LOTG has disclosed issues with items. If conserving is ok as you believe, then why isn't it disclosed when the items are sold?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Can we please stop using PWCC's misleading terminology? Conservation is work done to preserve an item against further degradation. Even if you think what Brent does to cards is OK (and don't get me started), it isn't conservation, it's at best restoration -- work done to improve the appearance. Words matter.