...

[vintagetoppsguy]

Jim,

The first card had a mark erased and re-submitted to PSA for a higher grade. They should have detected that alteration. Stevie Wonder can see that erasure mark.

The second card has been trimmed to enhance the appearance.

If nothing else, PSA has the ability to determine who submitted those cards and ban them from ever submitting again.

[Jim F]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Jim,

The first card had a mark erased and re-submitted to PSA for a higher grade. They should have detected that alteration. Stevie Wonder can see that erasure mark.

The second card has been trimmed to enhance the appearance.

If nothing else, PSA has the ability to determine who submitted those cards and ban them from ever submitting again.

The card also looks trimmed in the 2 holder. I don't think that the cut changed, just the edges cleaned up.
The grade on the other card seems correct. It does have a scuff/erasure but sgc would grade it the same.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Jim F

It does have a scuff/erasure but sgc would grade it the same.

I don't belive that is true, but lets assume for a minute that it is. In that case, why wouldn't the "card doctor" send it back to SGC after being altered? After all, the last SGC 40 (3) sold for more than the last PSA 3. There is a reason it was sent to PSA instead of SGC.

[Jim F]

The reason people send cards to psa is because they sell for more and it doesn't matter what the last sgc 40 sold for.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Jim,

The first card had a mark erased and re-submitted to PSA for a higher grade. They should have detected that alteration. Stevie Wonder can see that erasure mark.

The second card has been trimmed to enhance the appearance.

If nothing else, PSA has the ability to determine who submitted those cards and ban them from ever submitting again.

Long, and some off topic, OT stuff below the line

I'm a bit ambivalent about the first card.

The pencil was an alteration to begin with, and the erasing wasn't that badly done. Maybe it's my monitor or something, but it's not that easy for me to make it out in the scans. Eventually I can spot the clean area where the pencil used to be mostly because I know where it was. There should be an indent which PSA should have caught, unless it was really that light and was removable along with a bit of the surface soiling.

The second card I have a bit more of a problem with. I don't think it's trimmed in the traditional sense, but it's obviously had some work done. The upper right corner seems to have had a bit sticking out from fraying that was removed to make the corner look better. The frayed edges on the back were either pressed flat so they were less obvious, or were removed. Pressing them back I think is questionable. If I had it ungraded I'd probably flatten them by hand and put it in the sleeve/toploader. A few years of storage would flatten them, just as a few years in bad storage created the fraying.

Cutting the frayed bits off is a bigger problem, and also should have been caught. And should have resulted in an "A" grade. But without knowing they were frayed that way, depending on how they were removed it might be very hard to tell it was recent, or simply additional wear appropriate to the new grade.

Both point out clearly what I see as the largest problem in grading.
The more expensive cards cost more, which is appropriate, but the time spent grading them is either the same or less than the time spent grading a common.

Another thing I find interesting is that the majority of people in the hobby probably wouldn't have any problem with the same stuff being done to a common. I suppose it's the money invloved, but that shouldn't matter.
------------------------------------
With other collectibles like stamps there's more cost for expensive stuff, and no set turnaround time. The easy ones are supposedly pretty quick. At the international show in DC in 06 they had a quick opinion available as a sort of antiques roadshow sort of thing. I brought a couple stamps I felt confident about but wanted some reassurance. One I thought was "good" the other good but altered to be a more expensive item. Those conclusions had taken me a couple weeks to reach. The expertiser reached the same conclusion in under a minute. The good one was good Slightly off center, perfs slightly oval as they should be - He said yes, it's that stamp and a nice one it really needs to be sent in for a full certificate. The other was a proof that had been perforated and gummed as I'd suspected. Too well centerd, wrong paper for the issued stamp and the wrong gum. Not worth a cert, and now a question of what I do with it. I'll probably eventually remove the faked perfs and gum and keep it as the proof that it is.

Both of those are "easy" to expertize. Other items take longer or need to be seen by certain experts which takes time (They actually mail some stuff to 3 or more people) It can take as much as 3 months, rarely longer. And sometimes the answer is "We decline to render an opinion" which you still pay for.

The point is that they take a long time, but make a very serious effort to get it right. And with a very few very complex items, they may actually rescind the certificate if the item is proven "bad" later. I'm not sure how they handle that financially, those types of items are usually WAY out of my league, and it hardly ever happens. It's probably handled quietly and by insurance. There are a few organizations that keep those bad items as reference examples. Once they know a cancel is fake they can compare and condemn any matching examples. But that's also done carefully.

Steve B

[vintagetoppsguy]

The winner of both cards was eBay username "gpark73". You can tell by researching the feedback (it's a little difficult because he doesn't like to leave feedback, but it can be done). He doctored both cards and re-submitted them to PSA for higher grades to consign them to Probstein. Does anybody know this individual? He needs to be stopped.

If Probstein has any balls at all, he needs to come on here and out this consignor by name as a card doctor!!!

[ullmandds]

nice investigative work David...it seems Probstein is becoming a clearing house for altered/suspect cards?

[MEDuell]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The winner of both cards was eBay username "gpark73". You can tell by researching the feedback (it's a little difficult because he doesn't like to leave feedback, but it can be done). He doctored both cards and re-submitted them to PSA for higher grades to consign them to Probstein. Does anybody know this individual? He needs to be stopped.

If Probstein has any balls at all, he needs to come on here and out this consignor by name as a card doctor!!!

gpark73 bought the PSA 2 Gehrig from me, so I have his name and PO BOX. Is it a violation of eBay rules if I give his name? I have previously been made aware of what was going on by the guy that bought the regraded PSA 3.5, and I was made aware of the thread here today. It's a shame the card has been doctored because I thought the color was really great on it the way it was. I always viewed it as undergraded given some comps from the same era, but I am disappointed the guy that bought it from me ruined it.

[vintagetoppsguy]

There is also another thread on the main board where he shilled his own auctions. By all means, please give up the name of this card doctor / shill bidder.

[D.P.Johnson]

Originally Posted by MEDuell

gpark73 bought the PSA 2 Gehrig from me, so I have his name and PO BOX. Is it a violation of eBay rules if I give his name? I have previously been made aware of what was going on by the guy that bought the regraded PSA 3.5, and I was made aware of the thread here today. It's a shame the card has been doctored because I thought the color was really great on it the way it was. I always viewed it as undergraded given some comps from the same era, but I am disappointed the guy that bought it from me ruined it.

Thanks for taking the time to join the discussion. As VintageToppsGuy mentioned, this isn't the only time gpark73 has been caught altering cards and/or shill bidding. It would be nice to know exactly who is doing this...

[Leon]

Originally Posted by MEDuell

gpark73 bought the PSA 2 Gehrig from me, so I have his name and PO BOX. Is it a violation of eBay rules if I give his name? I have previously been made aware of what was going on by the guy that bought the regraded PSA 3.5, and I was made aware of the thread here today. It's a shame the card has been doctored because I thought the color was really great on it the way it was. I always viewed it as undergraded given some comps from the same era, but I am disappointed the guy that bought it from me ruined it.

This isn't ebay. This is Net54baseball. You can certainly provide a name here however, if you do your name will have to be in your post. If you read the rules it explains it. If you have any questions please PM me.....best regards

[vintagetoppsguy]

That won't be necessary, I'll post his name. It's Joseph M Pankiewicz. This makes Probstein a liar and proves his involvement. That's not an allegation, I have proof.

I can't take credit for this information, it was passed along to me from someone else. If he wants to speak up, he can.

I would love to hear Rick's explanation.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

That won't be necessary, I'll post his name. It's Joseph M Pankiewicz. This makes Probstein a liar and proves his involvement. That's not an allegation, I have proof.

I can't take credit for this information, it was passed along to me from someone else. If he wants to speak up, he can.

I would love to hear Rick's explanation.

Forgive me if it is in one of these threads (and I will go back and look if it is) but can you provide the proof here? This is the first I have heard of PROOF of Rick's involvement and I have been one that didn't think he is/was, except for maybe not being diligent enough a few times.

[ullmandds]

Hmmm...it seems he likes to boast about ebay sales prices on his facebook page as well.

[4815162342]

For the sake of TPG fairness, I present these without comment.

From "SGC's Response" 11/30/2006: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=83096

... When it comes to restoration of cards, we break the issue down into three categories. The first category includes things like erasing light pencil marks, wax/gum removal, corner flattening, album/glue removal, and wrinkle removal. These are examples of procedures that, if done carefully and properly, are unfortunately undetectable. When done properly, cards that have undergone these procedures can find there way into SGC holders, because as I mentioned, there is no way to detect that it has been done. Often these procedures are done improperly, they leave telltale signs that we consider to be evidence of tampering, and we reject the cards. ...

From "June Pickups" 6/3/2012: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=1000251

My June pickup was my May pickup but with a better grade. Got this in the REA auction & took it to SGC Fri. They popped it out for me & I removed the slight pencil on the back with a Mars eraser(thanks Leon!). They then regraded it and it went from a SGC 20 to a SGC 40!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Daryl,

What do you mean by "For the sake of TPG fairness"? You seem to infer that SGC looks the other way on cetain alterations. That's not how I interrpreted their statement at all. They're simply saying that some alterations are undetectable. In that case, what can they (or PSA for that matter) do?

The first card with the erased pencil mark is very easily detectible and no doubt would be rejected by SGC (at least for a number grade). Likewise, PSA shouldn't have given it a number grade either.

If that's not what you meant, please explain the "For the sake of TPG fairness..." part of your comment. I don't get the fairness part.

[glchen]

David,

What I believe Daryl is saying is that for the second situation, a card was brought to SGC with a mark on it, cracked open at their site, and then it was re-graded by SGC when they confirmed that the mark was now undetectable. SGC knew that the card once had a pencil mark on it. For PSA's case, you can argue that PSA would've been blind to not have seen that mark, but it is still possible that they could have missed it. However, SGC knew that a mark was once there on a card.

BTW, I'm not trying to fault SGC on this (especially because I currently have a submission with them right now) as I believe there is some debate in the community whether it is okay to erase light pencil marks. Some say it's no big deal to erase them. Others disagree. There are similar disagreements on whether it's okay to soak a card although I believe most people say it's okay.

BTW, for that second card that the OP pointed out, again I'm no expert in rebuilding corners, but is it possible that person simply soaked the card and then pressed it? It may even have just been pressing with a stack of books. However, this situation may be dicier since over time, those creases may slowly come back.

I also just wanted to add that I don't it was the OP's intention to have another SGC vs PSA argument (although it's possible, I guess). It's really great that he pointed out these cards so that in the future, people can watch for them, and make the decision for themselves on whether they would still want them based on their history.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by glchen

What I believe Daryl is saying is that for the second situation, a card was brought to SGC with a mark on it, cracked open at their site, and then it was re-graded by SGC when they confirmed that the mark was now undetectable. SGC knew that the card once had a pencil mark on it. For PSA's case, you can argue that PSA would've been blind to not have seen that mark, but it is still possible that they could have missed it. However, SGC knew that a mark was once there on a card.

I missed that part. If it's true, shame on SGC.

[Leon]

If any company can't see an erased mark, or indention left, whether they knew it was there (before) or not, I don't think they should count off for it. If there was a little piece of dirt on the card, and it got wiped off, they wouldn't ding for that either. As long as there is no mark or indention leftover, it was never there....but then again, I am not as technical (anal) as some.

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by glchen

David,

What I believe Daryl is saying is that for the second situation, a card was brought to SGC with a mark on it, cracked open at their site, and then it was re-graded by SGC when they confirmed that the mark was now undetectable. SGC knew that the card once had a pencil mark on it. For PSA's case, you can argue that PSA would've been blind to not have seen that mark, but it is still possible that they could have missed it. However, SGC knew that a mark was once there on a card.

BTW, I'm not trying to fault SGC on this (especially because I currently have a submission with them right now) as I believe there is some debate in the community whether it is okay to erase light pencil marks. Some say it's no big deal to erase them. Others disagree. There are similar disagreements on whether it's okay to soak a card although I believe most people say it's okay.

BTW, for that second card that the OP pointed out, again I'm no expert in rebuilding corners, but is it possible that person simply soaked the card and then pressed it? It may even have just been pressing with a stack of books. However, this situation may be dicier since over time, those creases may slowly come back.

I also just wanted to add that I don't it was the OP's intention to have another SGC vs PSA argument (although it's possible, I guess). It's really great that he pointed out these cards so that in the future, people can watch for them, and make the decision for themselves on whether they would still want them based on their history.

Im trying to follow and probably missing something...But if the card was originally graded at SGC with pencil mark, then " cracked open at their site" and regraded...how did the mark get erased if it was encapsulated? Or, if it resubmitted raw, after erased...how could they know it was a card they had previously graded? Sure I missed something, but thanks

[teetwoohsix]

The problem with erasing pencil marks becomes a problem when a TPG doesn't grade the card appropriately. Here is a PSA 4 with the the number 134, once written in pencil, craftily erased from the upper right back. My scan is crap to begin with, but even on a better scan I did not see it. I only noticed it when it was in hand, and I bought it from a very legit seller who I trust and I don't even think he saw it. I didn't make it an issue to the seller, I just kept the card. But, if I were to ever sell the card, knowing it is there, I have to disclose this and take a loss because technically it should not be graded a 4.

So, I paid the price for a PSA 4 HOF'er. In my opinion, the TPG should have caught this and not slabbed it as a 4. Had I (or the seller) known it had pencil erased from the back, I would not have paid the price of a 4; and I doubt the seller wouldn't have asked 4 money for the card.

It only becomes a problem in situations like the one I presented above...it's no big deal if you erase pencil marks on cards you plan to keep in your collection-but it's an issue if a TPG gives it a higher grade than it deserves,it makes it's way into the buying/selling/trading market, and some unsuspecting buyer pays for something that is deceiving (unintentional or intentional).

If I could see it in hand, what is the graders excuse?

Sincerely, Clayton

~edit to add, the "134" is next to the last "s" of the "150 Subjects".

[conor912]

How many times have you been to a postcard show or a used bookstore where the seller has written the price in pencil right on the item? It's a non-issue for most all other paper collectibles and somehow with baseball cards it became this massive felony and subsequent witch hunt for those erasing them. Not only do I buy cards with pencil on them, I seek them out then erase them. Sure I do so with the intention of keeping and not selling, but that's the worst double standard I've ever heard. Even if I keep everything until I die, at some point my collection will be on the market again, including....gasp....cards with erased pencil. If that makes me a card doctor, then whatever.

The second card is way dicier, IMO. I often look at the edge wear:corner wear ratio and those edges are way too clean to have beat up corners like those. A couple corners even look rebuilt to me. That said, there are plenty of collectors out there, on this board included, who believe a card is worthless until its graded and then once it is, TPGs can do no wrong.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by conor912

Even if I keep everything until I die, at some point my collection will be on the market again, including....gasp....cards with erased pencil. If that makes me a card doctor, then whatever.

You miss the point. It's all about intent. In your situation, you're not trying to deceive anyone, while the person that altered these cards is/was. If you still don't understand, I don't know how to explain it any other way.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You miss the point. It's all about intent. In your situation, you're not trying to deceive anyone, while the person that altered these cards is/was. If you still don't understand, I don't know how to explain it any other way.

So if i die and my wife (who knows nothing about cards) sells my collection to, say, you....and you detect the erased pencil on a card, you're going to say to yourself "Oh, it's ok. It wasn't erased with the intention of deceiving me so I'm fine with it?" No, you're going to (hopefully gently) explain to my wife that you believe the card is altered and that you'd like a refund.

Believe me, I understand perfectly, but I respectfully disagree with you, which is fine. We all have a stance and I'm just stating mine.

[cammb]

I have no problem with a pencil mark being erased. Some consider this an alteration. I look at it as something not originally on the card as removed.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If nothing else, PSA has the ability to determine who submitted those cards and ban them from ever submitting again.

Oh really, and who would expect PSA to do that.
That is what an ethical company would do.