Brent/PWCC interview on recent controversies

[Stonepony]

https://youtu.be/_f3k5VSqVt4

[Peter_Spaeth]

There's been some reaction already on one or maybe it was both of the other PWCC threads, so if you don't get many comments that's why.

[swarmee]

My thoughts:
1) (3 minutes in) He is confirming that his standards are not industry accepted and that the card industry needs to "mature" into accepting HIS definition of conservation. We see in the various responses to PWCC's posts on many message boards that very few people agree with him. He also claims that there are no grading company rules about what is/is not acceptable. This is a flat out lie, since PSA's grading page specifically lays out what they consider ungradeable alterations. He also fails to mention the importance of informing buyers of alterations/"conservations" that have occurred, something that is industry standard in many other collectible/investment fields.

2) (6:30 in) Tenets "are what we hold the grading company accountable for." "We will refine this to be in everbody's best interest." In the case of spooning out a crease, is it initially conserved because you can't spot it, but later becomes altered as it reappears? This is why nobody trusts what Brent has to say on this subject. PSA disagrees on removing pencil marks from a card; it's there in their list of alterations. He claims that his stance lines up with PSA's, but it's absolutely wrong.

3) As manufactured state: as long as it can't be detected, it isn't altered. Again, BS. If the intent is to hide flaws with an item, that is alteration. If it can't be detected by the grading companies, and they're claiming they can detect it, they need to come clean. Because more and more of these cards will end up getting reimbursed by their Grade Guarantee funds and continue to disgust their customers. Good alteration = Good conservation. No wonder he's such good friends with guys like Dick Towle. He's drank his solvent Kool-aid.

4) Take the 1951 Bowman Willie Mays RC that was recently found to have the embedded gum/wax stains on the reverse removed. If you didn't have the before picture, it's "conservation"; once you've been provided the before picture, is it now "alteration?" Or are you still going to call it conservation?

5) Take a shot every time he says "mature" or "asset". Let me know how drunk you are. At 9:45, he basically says that spooning out creases or pressing/flattening cards/corners IS CONSERVATION.

So there's my thoughts for the first 10 minutes. I'll keep watching.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Why on earth would you keep watching?

[swarmee]

[swarmee]

Wow, it took until 10:33 to hear "We're not a professional grading company."
"We have to accept the grading companies and their assessment of it." Just like the Green PMG Jordan, huh?

So yes, he clarifies that bad erasures are alterations, but good erasures are not.
"That's generally how people feel about it." I have not seen that to be the case with people who are willing to give their opinions on message boards, Leon's preference notwithstanding. Again, if the card is found with writing on the card after it is sold, it's now altered. If there was no evidence of the card with writing on it, it's conserved. Geesh.

"I have never seen the N-7 alteration applied to a single card in 20 years. So PSA has it; I've never seen it used, ever." He agrees that if there was evidence a stain was removed, it should be considered altered. So again, how does the 1951 Bowman Willie Mays apply? How about the alterations that reappear over time because of using solvents to remove stains from cards? "This language [PSA's standards] is 30 years old." How about the WWG DiMaggio that PSA decertified?

Interviewer is definitely giving Brent the home court advantage. Barely talks, lines up softballs.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If it ever came to it, Brent would not do well on cross-examination, IMO.

Personally, as much as I hate most forms of alteration, I really don't care about erasing a light pencil mark with a high quality eraser. There, I gave my opinion.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

How can you redefine a word? Conserve means prevent further damage. It in no way has EVER meant in any hobby, collectible field or dictionary - improving appearance for appearance's sake. Even cleaning an old master isn't solely to make it look better, the accumulated grime can destroy the painting.

[swarmee]

New information for once: "All the grading card companies have seen our Marketplace Tenets. They have read our stance on conservation vs. alteration. And all that was done in the weeks to months before us actually posting it." He doesn't say that any of them have ratified those or even given their opinions on it. Radio silence sure is saying something to me; not to him I guess.

1952 Mantle discussion (18 min): "I've only seen it [the before picture] once." "Before and after pictures are not evidence." Hah. WTTE of "Physical evidence has to be on the card, or first hand statement from the submitter has to occur in order to disclose the conservation." Well, this is not really true.

"Conservation is not something that has to be disclosed." They will not stop an auction if a card for sale shows "conservation" in a before picture. Just keep digging, Brent.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why on earth would you keep watching?

It is fun watching a otherwise intelligent person go full short bus rider. It totally baffles me why Brent and Betsy keep making these amazingly stupid posts/videos that just make them look worse.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by bnorth

It is fun watching a otherwise intelligent person go full short bus rider. It totally baffles me why Brent and Betsy keep making these amazingly stupid posts/videos that just make them look worse.

I wonder if those curtains are in brents house...or maybe one of the oy gavaults!

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by swarmee

My thoughts:
1) (3 minutes in) He is confirming that his standards are not industry accepted and that the card industry needs to "mature" into accepting HIS definition of conservation. We see in the various responses to PWCC's posts on many message boards that very few people agree with him. He also claims that there are no grading company rules about what is/is not acceptable. This is a flat out lie, since PSA's grading page specifically lays out what they consider ungradeable alterations. He also fails to mention the importance of informing buyers of alterations/"conservations" that have occurred, something that is industry standard in many other collectible/investment fields.

2) (6:30 in) Tenets "are what we hold the grading company accountable for." "We will refine this to be in everbody's best interest." In the case of spooning out a crease, is it initially conserved because you can't spot it, but later becomes altered as it reappears? This is why nobody trusts what Brent has to say on this subject. PSA disagrees on removing pencil marks from a card; it's there in their list of alterations. He claims that his stance lines up with PSA's, but it's absolutely wrong.

3) As manufactured state: as long as it can't be detected, it isn't altered. Again, BS. If the intent is to hide flaws with an item, that is alteration. If it can't be detected by the grading companies, and they're claiming they can detect it, they need to come clean. Because more and more of these cards will end up getting reimbursed by their Grade Guarantee funds and continue to disgust their customers. Good alteration = Good conservation. No wonder he's such good friends with guys like Dick Towle. He's drank his solvent Kool-aid.

4) Take the 1951 Bowman Willie Mays RC that was recently found to have the embedded gum/wax stains on the reverse removed. If you didn't have the before picture, it's "conservation"; once you've been provided the before picture, is it now "alteration?" Or are you still going to call it conservation?

5) Take a shot every time he says "mature" or "asset". Let me know how drunk you are. At 9:45, he basically says that spooning out creases or pressing/flattening cards/corners IS CONSERVATION.

So there's my thoughts for the first 10 minutes. I'll keep watching.

These are good reasons why I consider him a very slithering shady individual on the surface of things. I am no longer a customer, that's for sure. Let's see how he starts getting $$$$ back from conservators like Towle, Burge, Moser, Et al. I have clear picture of that happening. Those kids have been spinning 1's into 3's, 3's into 5's and 7's into 9's for a really long time together. They are thick as theives, IMHO. They do more flips over there that Nadia Comaneci

[Peter_Spaeth]

In fairness I have never heard that Dick trims cards. He has admitted to doing things I would personally consider unacceptable alteration, but I have never heard trimming.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In fairness I have never heard that Dick trims cards. He has admitted to doing things I would personally consider unacceptable alteration, but I have never heard trimming.

I will edit my comment.

The Fake Jeters are to die laughing for...A long time in bed together...a long time. Great job tracing these fake cards sold for at least 100,000's of Thousands, that we know of. Probably Millions before this scam is completely uncovered.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In fairness I have never heard that Dick trims cards. He has admitted to doing things I would personally consider unacceptable alteration, but I have never heard trimming.

I went to his web site and he lists what he does for cards and the general charges. Nothing is noted about trimming but a list of other changes are notes

http://www.gonewiththestain.com/price-list.html

Posted so we can see what they do to cards and what the cost is

Rich

[swarmee]

Looks like 2 of the 1993 SP Jeters sold for a combined $173K may be trimmed. Even more money PSA is on the hook for.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Looks like 2 of the 1993 SP Jeters sold for a combined $173K may be trimmed. Even more money PSA is on the hook for.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1294745

[jchcollins]

I listened to about 10 minutes of it. If I’m not someone who is already familiar with PWCC and the backstory there and issues that have already been brought up in this or other threads, what he’s saying doesn’t seem outlandish to me - but it also seems unnecessary. If we have no evidence on the card, then no “alteration” was done. Of course, if you get a card in with an erased pencil mark and you were not on hand to see the erasing being done, and it left no traces whatsoever on the card - even being viewed “30 different ways in 20 different lights and 10 different magnifications” or whatever it was he said - then no, you aren’t going to call that card “altered”. Not outing previous known card doctors that PWCC likely made a fortune with and things like that is outside the scope of what I can knowledgeably speak to. If I believe what I have read on Net54 and then listen to 10 mins of Brent, it seems like he is offering to address something that is not really the issue to whitewash a much larger problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[drcy]

He has been accused of selling hundreds of doctored/altered cards in graded holders-- and, I don't know, but some have said knowingly selling cards from well known card doctors-- , and is now trying to explain that certain types of alterations are okay and not even alterations, they don't have to be disclosed to the buyer, and, essentially, that "if you can't tell that a doctored card hasn't been doctored, it isn't doctored,"-- which is reminiscent of the old steroid baseball era saying "it's not cheating if you don't get caught."

Am I a zealot who thinks using a pantyhose to remove a wax stain from the back of a card a mortal sin? No. Do I think a card that has had a pencil mark erased or wax stain removed can legitimately receive a 10? No. I assume the card may be deserving of a number grade, but no 10. Perfectly gradable 2s and 3s have varying damage including sometimes identified by the grader pencil, erasure and pen marks, but a legitimate 10 cannot be created or be the product of working on the card.

So doing something to the card isn't necessarily bad or unethical (I'm not saying it's wrong to remove a wax stain or pencil mark or have the card conserved), and in instances, the card may still be deserving of a number grade, but what has been done should be factored into the grade.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by drcy

He has been accused of selling hundreds of doctored/altered cards in graded holders-- and, I don't know, but some have said knowingly selling cards from well known card doctors-- , and is now trying to explain that certain types of alterations are okay and not even alterations, they don't have to be disclosed to the buyer, and, essentially, that "if you can't tell that a doctored card hasn't been doctored, it isn't doctored,"-- which is reminiscent of the old steroid baseball era saying "it's not cheating if you don't get caught."

Am I a zealot who thinks using a pantyhose to remove a wax stain from the back of a card a mortal sin? No.

Exactly...Brent is trying to change "the rules" as to what's acceptable in the hobby to justify past indescretions.

Who the "F" is Brent to think he can just decide what should be acceptable?

BRENT IS NOT GOOD FOR THIS HOBBY!

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Exactly...Brent is trying to change "the rules" as to what's acceptable in the hobby to justify past indescretions.

Who the "F" is Brent to think he can just decide what should be acceptable?

BRENT IS NOT GOOD FOR THIS HOBBY!

"Some hayseed in Oswego Lake"

[glynparson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by glynparson View Post
I don't think i have shaken my head so often and said you are full of shit more times in one hour in my entire life. I can not disagree more than i do with 99% of what he says. I had used them several times to sell for me. i don't think i will ever again. i just can't in good conscience despite the strong prices i received and the relatively quick payments. i am in this for the long haul and i don't think what he is trying to do is helpful for the hobby. I'll stick with REA and a couple other reputable sellers to consign with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by glynparson View Post
LOL.

"The interview had me between laughing and yelling at the screen. I didn't get when he said nobody has accused them of wrongdoing. I think we both know someone who has.
Glyn, I have always noticed you to be a staunch supporter of PSA grading so I am curious, in light of these recent developments here and on BO, if your good thoughts on PSA still remain? "

"I will admit, after reading some of your posts, you had me swaying back sometimes thinking maybe I was being too critical of them, but I can tell you with a 100% certainty now, I will never be swayed back based on what I have seen and learned on these 2 sites within the last couple weeks."





I think they make mistakes. I think all of them make mistakes. i still think their senior graders are very good at what they do. They obviously aren't perfect it is just that some of these doctors are damn good. These rough cuts they are doing now are downright scary. I am still a psa guy I don't think they are flawless I never did. I am more angry at what the card doctors have done. I am hopeful PSA will ban the doctors from submitting as it is not good for anyone. ANd i hope Brent does what he says in the video, but i hope he also notes all "conservation" he knows occurs not just what he determines is visible on the card but what he knows and or what is visible should be noted.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I listened to about 10 minutes of it. If I’m not someone who is already familiar with PWCC and the backstory there and issues that have already been brought up in this or other threads, what he’s saying doesn’t seem outlandish to me - but it also seems unnecessary. If we have no evidence on the card, then no “alteration” was done. Of course, if you get a card in with an erased pencil mark and you were not on hand to see the erasing being done, and it left no traces whatsoever on the card - even being viewed “30 different ways in 20 different lights and 10 different magnifications” or whatever it was he said - then no, you aren’t going to call that card “altered”. Not outing previous known card doctors that PWCC likely made a fortune with and things like that is outside the scope of what I can knowledgeably speak to. If I believe what I have read on Net54 and then listen to 10 mins of Brent, it seems like he is offering to address something that is not really the issue to whitewash a much larger problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I disagree to some extent. I believe, and people who know much more than I do I think can confirm, that if you look hard enough you can always find evidence certainly of stain removal with solvents, and crease and wrinkle removal. So his self serving proclamation is wrong. It could well be altered even if in ordinary circumstances you might not know it. That makes it skilled alteration, not an absence of alteration.

If this BS is good for the hobby, well you can have the hobby.

[Exhibitman]

You have to look at this Mikan RC listing:

https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1982758

"They simply don't come looking like this."

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

You have to look at this Mikan RC listing:

https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1982758

"They simply don't come looking like this."

substitute george mikan rookie card with loch ness monster!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

You have to look at this Mikan RC listing

Look at the right border. It's really wavy. You can tell more from the back view, but you can see it from the front as well.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Look at the right border. It's really wavy. You can tell more from the back view, but you can see it from the front as well.

Agreed, but it looks like a long wave, more of a tsunami, if that's part of the hobby lexicon. I'd give it a Tsunami Sticker.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Look at the right border. It's really wavy. You can tell more from the back view, but you can see it from the front as well.

Lower right corner? First thing I noticed. Is the other edge wavy too and just obscured by the slat, not sure. Doesn't look like a rough cut in any event. Older grade too. But hey, as we all know, PWCC would probably get the same price just showing the flip.

[irv]

Originally Posted by irv

Glyn, I have always noticed you to be a staunch supporter of PSA grading so I am curious, in light of these recent developments here and on BO, if your good thoughts on PSA still remain?

I will admit, after reading some of your posts, you had me swaying back sometimes thinking maybe I was being too critical of them, but I can tell you with a 100% certainty now, I will never be swayed back based on what I have seen and learned on these 2 sites within the last couple weeks.

Originally Posted by glynparson

Quote:
I think they make mistakes. I think all of them make mistakes. i still think their senior graders are very good at what they do. They obviously aren't perfect it is just that some of these doctors are damn good. These rough cuts they are doing now are downright scary. I am still a psa guy I don't think they are flawless I never did. I am more angry at what the card doctors have done. I am hopeful PSA will ban the doctors from submitting as it is not good for anyone. ANd i hope Brent does what he says in the video, but i hope he also notes all "conservation" he knows occurs not just what he determines is visible on the card but what he knows and or what is visible should be noted.

I thought you might still answer this way? Your lack of acknowledging them in these PWCC threads lead me to believe that you'd still defend them.

The thing is, your reply is the same as it has always been, that some make mistakes.
I'm not trying to convert you to change your view but have you been following the Blow Out threads?

In my opinion, it is practically conclusive now that something fishy/nefarious is going on with them based on what I have seen that gets passed and assigned a numerical grade.

My opinion, like I stated earlier, was wishy washy once upon a time based on what you stated about them but with these recent PSA slabs that are being shown in just these past couple weeks alone, it is enough for me to cement my opinion.

It is clear, to me at least, based on what I have seen that I can no longer accept that these cards were simple mistakes made by the graders. I could accept the odd one here or there but there are far way too many of them now to even consider that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am still not convinced, Dale. In the context of how many cards they grade it's still a very low percentage of mistakes, and the BO guys have the benefit of before and after scans which makes it easy. These doctors, especially the one who can recreate factory edges, are really talented.

[vthobby]

Here are some 1948 Bowmans that have NEVER been touched, bleached, trimmed or anything.......I'm not making an opinion on the Mikan, I just know where these 1948s came from so you can make your own comparisons.
They came from an original family's collection of 1948 low numbers. This is how real untouched 1948 Bowmans looks like. I still feel they are under graded but I'm biased as they are mine! You can also see how they almost fully fill the gaskets with barely no room to spare.
Just for comparison only!
Thanks! Mike

002.jpg

005.jpg

003.jpg

[vintagewhitesox]

This is going to be exhibit A in the Criminal complaint and search warrant. It's almost like he's trying to define away the term fraud.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

You have to look at this Mikan RC listing:

https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1982758

"They simply don't come looking like this."

delete