PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[orly57]

Um...this is from the psa web site for when a card is "ungradeable." N-5 and N-7 seem pretty clear here.

[ullmandds]

looks like the seller will clear a little over a grand...congrats!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

looks like the seller will clear a little over a grand...congrats!

But the first seller probably cleared 50 or more.

[VintageBen]

sold for $6600 in spring of 2015 as a 4.

sold for $46800 as a 7.

Just sold for $52351 as a 7. PWCC made over $4k on the sale.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by VintageBen

sold for $6600 in spring of 2015 as a 4.

sold for $46800 as a 7.

Just sold for $52351 as a 7. PWCC made over $4k on the sale.

I believe it sold in between REA and Goldin for a lot more than that.

[VintageBen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I believe it sold in between REA and Goldin for a lot more than that.

Wow!!!! Instead of flipping homes, you can flip baseball cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by orly57

Um...this is from the psa web site for when a card is "ungradeable." N-5 and N-7 seem pretty clear here.

Maybe the before and after scans were not "evidence"?

[orly57]

This is true. Looks like they would require mitochondrial DNA of known card doctors to be lifted from the card and analyzed by Dr. Henry Lee.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by orly57

Um...this is from the psa web site for when a card is "ungradeable." N-5 and N-7 seem pretty clear here.

N-5 Altered Stock - This term is used when the paper stock is altered in one or more of the following ways: Stretching and trimming, recoloring and restoring, trimming and recoloring, restoring and trimming, crease or wrinkle is pressed out, or gloss is enhanced.

How do you know the paper stock was altered? You've seen the card in hand?

N-7 Evidence of Cleaning - When a whitener is used to whiten borders or a solution is used to remove wax, candy, gum or tobacco stains.

The key word there is evidence. The card has to show evidence. I would assume that means something you can feel or smell. And the before and after pictures are not evidence because I'm sure the graders didn't have the luxury of seeing the before pic like we did.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

N-5 Altered Stock - This term is used when the paper stock is altered in one or more of the following ways: Stretching and trimming, recoloring and restoring, trimming and recoloring, restoring and trimming, crease or wrinkle is pressed out, or gloss is enhanced.

How do you know the paper stock was altered? You've seen the card in hand?

N-7 Evidence of Cleaning - When a whitener is used to whiten borders or a solution is used to remove wax, candy, gum or tobacco stains.

The key word there is evidence. The card has to show evidence. I would assume that means something you can feel or smell. And the before and after pictures are not evidence because I'm sure the graders didn't have the luxury of seeing the before pic like we did.

PWCC easily could have provided such pics if it was genuinely interested in ensuring the appropriateness of the grade when it sent it back in. For all we know, it did.

[dplath]

Though not high end, the centering is perfectly acceptable for a 7. From PSA's website:

[ NM-7 ] Near Mint 7 shows a slight surface wear visible upon close inspection. There may be slight fraying on some corners. Picture focus may be slightly out-of-register. A minor printing blemish is acceptable. Slight wax staining is acceptable on the back of the card only. Most of the original gloss is retained. Centering must be approximately 70/30 to 75/25 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

PWCC easily could have provided such pics if it was genuinely interested in ensuring the appropriateness of the grade when it sent it back in. For all we know, it did.

The card, not pics, the card has to show evidence. And it has to show evidence of a whitener or a solution. Water is neither.

Come on, Peter. You've read my previous posts about PSA. I absolutely despise them. But they aren't wrong here. PSA's grading standards are right there in black and white and people are twisting it around.

[Leon]

Seems the card has been pulled...? woops, didn't realize it sold....still looks like a 7 to me

http://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?item=...ctions&_sop=16

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Seems the card has been pulled...?

http://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?item=...ctions&_sop=16

.

It closed last night.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It closed last night.

another posting at the same time (of my edit above,) thanks though...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Seems the card has been pulled...? woops, didn't realize it sold....still looks like a 7 to me

http://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?item=...ctions&_sop=16

.

And the Wagner looks like an 8.

[JustinD]

Ok, I am just waiting for the following now after this thread...

Board member decides to lash himself to the cross after buying a 50k card when well after the fact someone finds a previous photo that shows the card looking different.

He puts out an auction that states the following:

"I present to you a PSA 7 that has no visible proof of alteration and has been reviewed twice by PSA and found to have no proof of alteration. However, I have seen a prior iteration of this card that looks different and leads me to think it was cleaned. I do not know how it was cleaned, it could have been untoward. But...I feel I should reveal it was altered in some way whether the grading companies say it or not. Please take this theoretical alteration into account when bidding.

Also, please look at this prior photo of my card showing the change prior to my owning the card that I cannot explain fully, but has been cleared twice by PSA, but I am uncomfortable with."

and more shockingly does not get divorced after he explains this to his wife about how he lost 25K, lol.

PS: I am totally not trying to pick a fight, this just is a situation I am waiting for someone to live up to after this.

I don't see options of recourse here other than this. What case does someone have with PSA or even going back to the prior auction house. If you have no proof of alteration (this card had to be submitted raw if the change took place. The argument that it smells of chemicals or the paper stock was changed by chemicals seems null. This was examined raw.) other than photos, and no proof of how the alteration was done unnaturally to disprove the examiners opinion, you have no case.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The card, not pics, the card has to show evidence. And it has to show evidence of a whitener or a solution. Water is neither.

Come on, Peter. You've read my previous posts about PSA. I absolutely despise them. But they aren't wrong here. PSA's grading standards are right there in black and white and people are twisting it around.

I do not for a minute believe that card was cleaned using only water.

[PhillipAbbott79]

I think this is the only point worth mentioning here:

Take out the fact that it may have been chemically cleaned, and whether or not PSA should have caught it or not, and what the actual definition of altered is, or what the technical definition of a chemical is, there appears to be enough evidence to show that card is the same one (although you never know) and that something was done to the card(probably).

PWCC was alerted to the issue, and they chose not to present more information about the item which is extremely relevant and has a high impact on the selling price. They have passed on the responsibility to PSA as the only personal responsible for the grade given, and the transparency on the item for sale.

I would not go so far as to say it is dishonest. I would more accurately describe it as less then honorable and less than noble. More like doing the bare minimum. They at a minimum had an obligation to mention the light spots before, and after having a attention called to them. It is part of the description of the card, that can be subtle enough to not be noticed right away, therefore warranting mention.

The problem is, that this is not the first time this has occurred. With that said, I personally like a lot of the items that they sell, but when I see things like this I want to grab my laptop and smash it into pieces. It angers me to see things I would buy from a seller who I feel has a less than impeccably perfect intention, and someone else's interest at heart rather than my own, whether I planned on bidding on the item in question or not. I had no intention on bidding on this item, but I can not shake the anger it makes me feel when I reflect about items I did want, that commanded higher prices due to lack of updating the description to be an accurate reflection of the card when mentioned.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

I think this is the only point worth mentioning here:

Take out the fact that it may have been chemically cleaned.

PWCC was alerted to the issue, and

The problem is, that this is not the first time this has occurred. With that said, I personally like a lot of the items that they sell, but when I see things like this I want to grab my laptop and smash it into pieces. It angers me to see things I would buy from a seller who I feel has a less than impeccably perfect intention, and someone else's interest at heart rather than my own, whether I planned on bidding on the item in question or not. I had no intention on bidding on this item, but I can not shake the anger it makes me feel when I reflect about items I did want, that commanded higher prices due to lack of updating the description to be an accurate reflection of the card when mentioned.

"Mentioned only for completeness" on the 50.00 card, yet on the 50k card they chose now to remain silent even though PWCC knew. Now what would be really interesting is the new owner just learns of this and stumbles across this net54 thread. Then he returns the card for a full refund because PWCC did not disclose everything. Then the card becomes tainted for years to come. I used to think the same thing on the Gretzky Wagner card, but the people who buy a known altered card like that, must enjoy the publicity about it.

So, who was the mastermind who sent the card off to get worked on, then resubmitted to PSA for a huge bump? My hunch is it was someone who had pull with PSA to get them to have blinders on when grading and I'm sure he forgot to tell PSA the card used to be properly graded in a SGC holder. I feel bad for the owners of legit high grade Joe DiMaggio 1936 WW cards as they just got knocked off the podium. It's like the Olympics where it's a game between the drug users and the committee to detect drug use. Steroids in the 80s and Peds in the 2000s.