The "auction" (for lack of a better word) is over. Look at what happened.

[GoudeyGum]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

This particular card is stunning for its grade.

Is it possible that this isn't true when the card is seen in person? Whenever I purchase a card from scans that "is stunning for its grade", when it arrives in the mail, I always say "Oh, well that explains it". In other words, maybe there is a wrinkle or something that isn't showing in the scans. This could also be a simple explanation this card's churn in the market. Just a thought. I have no pony in the pwcc debate. Even if the card is as clean as it is in the scan, I don't like the chunk missing from the upper left corner, and would not have paid a premium for the grade. You'll find another.

[CW]

...

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

LOL did you really think you had a chance to win it?

Well, based on where it was at with under an hour to go ($950), and knowing I'd decided to go up to $1,100, I thought I had at least a chance. When I saw what it was doing in the last minute before close, it flew right by my max, so it wasn't even worth trying.

Originally Posted by glchen

Bill, there may be nothing wrong at all. It is simply that when you compare items via VCP, it is better to compare apples to apples rather than apples to oranges. That is, just compare exact items to exact items so that there is no confusion. I am far, far from a T206 expert as I don't even collect the set. However, I believe some of the factory numbers for the backs are rarer for some of backs. It may have absolutely no relevance in this case. However, it's still better to show all of the information so that the reader can make their own judgments in this situation.

You're right, Gary, there are various Piedmont and Sweet Caporal Backs that are comparatively more rare than others. But I examined the card in question, which was Sweet Cap 150 subjects, factory 30. According to T206resource.com's back scarcity ranking, that was #34 out of 39 total backs. It's a very common back that would command virtually no premium.

Originally Posted by GoudeyGum

Is it possible that this isn't true when the card is seen in person? Whenever I purchase a card from scans that "is stunning for its grade", when it arrives in the mail, I always say "Oh, well that explains it". In other words, maybe there is a wrinkle or something that isn't showing in the scans. This could also be a simple explanation this card's churn in the market. Just a thought. I have no pony in the pwcc debate. Even if the card is as clean as it is in the scan, I don't like the chunk missing from the upper left corner, and would not have paid a premium for the grade. You'll find another.

I took the scan into Photoshop, and inverted it, then zoomed in to 300%. There are no visible wrinkles or creases. They would show up very easily as white lines. I then examined it without invesrion, changing the brightness and contrast both looking for any colorization that would hide flaws. I also played with the curves. I didn't find anything out of the norm.

As for the chunk missing in the upper left corner, I was ok with it. The corners, more than anything, lowered the overall grade, especially after my examination. But I was ok with that. The card, overall, presents beautifully. The centering is not perfect, but pretty darned close to it. And, there were no blemishes on the card's surface whatsoever. I thought it was a beautiful card, and even though it was PWCC auctioning it off, I considered going after it.

Originally Posted by CW

I had to bite my tongue when I saw this thread posted, as I had an aggressive snipe set for this card earlier today. I was the underbidder in one of the previous sales (the $1421.66 one).

For the record, I emailed Brent both in the first auction and also prior to this one to confirm that this card has absolutely no creases or wrinkles. That can be a key factor to me and my bidding strategy, as this card had everything going for it (other than the corner wear). So, Bill, you obviously have a good eye!

Needless to say, after reading this thread and hearing the opinions of several members for whom I have much respect, I also backed off. Granted, I still placed a bid, because it's a sweet card regardless of it being PWCC, but I reduced it enough to where I didn't even show up in the bidding history, and I would've been thrilled to win it at my snipe.

After seeing the feedback of the #1 and #2 bidders, I very glad I saw this thread and backed off.

Thank you, Chuck. I've worked hard to develop a pretty good eye. I know I'm never going to be able to afford some of the higher graded cards, so if I can find a card with a relatively minor flaw that doesn't subtract from the card's overall visual appeal, I'll go after it so long as it's financially prudent.

One thing though. In the future, if you or any other board member suspects that I'm about to bid on a card that you've already placed a bid on, please message me. I will not knowingly bid against my fellow board members. I've already dropped out on one card when this happened. God willing, I've got a lot of life ahead of me, so there will be other opportunities to get what I want.

This is all a learning experience for me. I know I'm better off looking for what I want here, or looking for other sellers on Ebay. Lesson learned.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by GoudeyGum

Is it possible that this isn't true when the card is seen in person? Whenever I purchase a card from scans that "is stunning for its grade", when it arrives in the mail, I always say "Oh, well that explains it". In other words, maybe there is a wrinkle or something that isn't showing in the scans. This could also be a simple explanation this card's churn in the market. Just a thought. I have no pony in the pwcc debate. Even if the card is as clean as it is in the scan, I don't like the chunk missing from the upper left corner, and would not have paid a premium for the grade. You'll find another.

All cards look better with those super bright scans.

[GregMitch34]

Well, I won a top-graded card tonight at PWCC for less than two-thirds what I expected to pay. I guess the shill bidders were on a bathroom break...or just too many cards closing about the same time to bid up all of them...

[1880nonsports]

FWIW I sold a nice SGC 50 late 2012 for 850.00. It was among the last couple of cards I sold - if not the last one (although it might have been the Matty........) that I parted with when bowing to the monster maybe 1/2 way through.
It's easy to suggest price-minipulation and much harder to prove it. The numbers reflected in past sales prices regardless of the venue one chooses to assess them are only as good as the factual information that goes into making them - these calculations are inherently flawed based on how the TPG's monitor the actual populations of each card (including crossing and resubmitting) and how actual sale prices are often obfuscated by BIN's, or not accurately reflecting private sales, best offers and other BS including shilling and dishonesty. A couple of companies have been mentioned here by name as at the very least not taking responsibility for monitoring their auctions and allowing for an over abundance of bidders with more retractions than what I imagine is the aggregate total of retractions by our total community in their lifetimes.
As evidenced from the 9 pages of history on card target - they're out there and the patient collector is rewarded more often then not.........

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

It's easy to suggest price-minipulation and much harder to prove it.

Why is it always the PWCC and Probstein auctions which have bidding histories littered with 0 and low feedback bidders, bidders with huge amounts of retractions and bidders who bid almost totally with just that seller's auctions? Why does that never happen in my auctions? Oh and why is it that PWCC auctions always have scans which are so bright that surely some darn setting must have been mistakenly made on their scanner?

[Mikehealer]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Why is it always the PWCC and Probstein auctions which have bidding histories littered with 0 and low feedback bidders, bidders with huge amounts of retractions and bidders who bid almost totally with just that seller's auctions? Why does that never happen in my auctions? Oh and why is it that PWCC auctions always have scans which are so bright that surely some darn setting must have been mistakenly made on their scanner?

I'm sure it's just a coincidence!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Why is it always the PWCC and Probstein auctions which have bidding histories littered with 0 and low feedback bidders, bidders with huge amounts of retractions and bidders who bid almost totally with just that seller's auctions? Why does that never happen in my auctions? Oh and why is it that PWCC auctions always have scans which are so bright that surely some darn setting must have been mistakenly made on their scanner?

How cool would it be to hit the trifecta -- an "improved" card, made to look even better by an overly-bright scan, shilled up to a world record price?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Why is it always the PWCC and Probstein auctions which have bidding histories littered with 0 and low feedback bidders, bidders with huge amounts of retractions and bidders who bid almost totally with just that seller's auctions? Why does that never happen in my auctions? Oh and why is it that PWCC auctions always have scans which are so bright that surely some darn setting must have been mistakenly made on their scanner?

I blame society

[jhs5120]

Why are we blaming PWCC? To me, it looks like a bidder who previously was banned by Brent made a quick account and shilled.. How is this Brent's fault?

On a side note I sold a card that went for $40 and has a VCP around $120 last night. There are a lot of good deals through PWCC.... if you can find auctions that aren't shilled.