PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are two issues here. One, is the restoration considered acceptable. Two, should the restoration be disclosed

More importantly, I think that if the restoration dramatically improves the card's grade (such as here), it should be disclosed whether or not it's generally considered acceptable. I would want to know if the card I was buying had been restored appreciably. And notwithstanding a third party grade, it seems to me wrong to conceal it.

So Peter, do you think PWCC should disclose this and update their listing since they know it's been worked on and the grade has been massively improved from a 4 to a 7. I would think the winning bidder would have a great case to return the card if they found out later about the history of the card. Not doing a full disclosure of the known history of the card isn't the best approach IMO.

I think if a full disclosure was done, it could still have a chance to fetch some high bucks.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

So Peter, do you think PWCC should disclose this and update their listing since they know it's been worked on and the grade has been massively improved from a 4 to a 7. I would think the winning bidder would have a great case to return the card if they found out later about the history of the card. Not doing a full disclosure of the known history of the card isn't the best approach IMO.

I think if a full disclosure was done, it could still have a chance to fetch some high bucks.

Yes, in my opinion PWCC should disclose the card's history. It's a known material fact and it's deceptive not to disclose it, even though PSA has graded it -- in my opinion. To me, that does not cleanse (pun intended) the history which is independently relevant. I understand fully why PWCC would not WANT to disclose it -- fear of depressing price, angering the consignor, and making PSA potentially look bad -- but sellers who don't disclose usually have sound business reasons that don't persuade me.

To be clear, I don't think a card's grading history always needs to be disclosed. If someone did nothing to a card and bumped it from an 8 to a 9, I would not deem that to be material. But if substantial work is done on a card (even if considered acceptable) resulting in a 3 grade bump, to me that's a no brainer for materiality.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

I think it would super tough if near impossible to try and police the history of whether a card had been worked on for every card in an SGC or PSA holder at PWCC. If you're buying a slabbed card you're buying into the expertise of PSA/SGC to be the experts to authenticate and find alteration. If the card has a number and not designated altered then if I'm PWCC I'd feel good to go to market and sell. If PSA/SGC made a mistake then it's on them to rectify.

[aloondilana]

To All:
This issue has been acted upon.
Last night PWCC overnighted this WWG DiMaggio to PSA for inspection.
I just got word from PWCC that this card has been deemed a valid PSA 7 from PSA.
These concerns and this thread have been taken very seriously, as this auction was facing cancellation.
Regardless of what ever this cards past is, it has been determined that it is a qualified PSA 7.
Thank you,
John Perez

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

To All:
This issue has been acted upon.
Last night PWCC overnighted this WWG DiMaggio to PSA for inspection.
I just got word from PWCC that this card has been deemed a valid PSA 7 from PSA.
These concerns and this thread have been taken very seriously, as this auction was facing cancellation.
Regardless of what ever this cards past is, it has been determined that it is a qualified PSA 7.
Thank you,
John Perez

thank god...I feel so much better now! Has this "factoid" been added to the auction description?

[aloondilana]

Not sure.
I'm sure Brent or a representative from PWCC will address this board shortly.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

Not sure.
I'm sure Brent or a representative from PWCC will address this board shortly.

Thanks for the heads up, I will get my hip waders out.

[swarmee]

Very good to send the card in for review. Glad it came back accurate for you.

[BeanTown]

Normally PSA from what others have told me just kill a cross over card that comes from their rival competitor in SGC. Even if a card deserves a higher grade from an SGC holder, PSA normally never gives it as it makes PSA look like they grade cards more liberal. Ive heard you are way better off to crack it out and submit it raw to PSA if doing a cross over. Can anyone think of PSA giving an SGC card a 3 grade bump???? I still find it strange that they regraded the card and seeing a stain they didn't give it a qualifier.

[swarmee]

I think you're making the wrong assumption, BeanTown. The premise of this thread had been that the SGC 50/4 was cracked out, then soaked (with or without additives) and then resubmitted raw to PSA.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

To All:
This issue has been acted upon.
Last night PWCC overnighted this WWG DiMaggio to PSA for inspection.
I just got word from PWCC that this card has been deemed a valid PSA 7 from PSA.
These concerns and this thread have been taken very seriously, as this auction was facing cancellation.
Regardless of what ever this cards past is, it has been determined that it is a qualified PSA 7.
Thank you,
John Perez

I am not surprised that PSA stood behind its grade. I would have been quite surprised if it had not. As a buyer, I would still want to know that the card started out as a 4 and was cleaned. PSA's opinion does not, for me, preclude the relevance of other information about history.

By some people's reasoning, I could trim a card, get it past PSA (it happens), and not be obligated to disclose I trimmed it because all I am selling is PSA's opinion. I don't buy it.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am not surprised that PSA stood behind its grade. I would have been quite surprised if it had not. As a buyer, I would still want to know that the card started out as a 4 and was cleaned.

totally

[ullmandds]

id surmise if the gretzky wagner were sent in for similar review...the outcome would be the same too?