PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[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]

The seller chose not to reveal a known material fact about the card's history. I can only assume part of the reason for not disclosing was concern that disclosure would affect the price. The rest is just spin and noise.

[Touch'EmAll]

Return: 30 days money back. Buyer pays return shipping.

Stated in listing. Curious to see if the card pops back up for sale in near future.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Return: 30 days money back. Buyer pays return shipping.

Stated in listing. Curious to see if the card pops back up for sale in near future.

probably with probstein

[BengoughingForAwhile]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Return: 30 days money back. Buyer pays return shipping.

Stated in listing. Curious to see if the card pops back up for sale in near future.

After another good "cleansing" it could end up in a PSA 8 holder next time!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The seller chose not to reveal a known material fact about the card's history. I can only assume part of the reason for not disclosing was concern that disclosure would affect the price. The rest is just spin and noise.

I know you can edit the listing, but can you edit the description? Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well could be), but I didn't think you could edit a description. i thought you could only add to the description. Even then, the changes don't appear in the description, they appear somewhere at the bottom of the page. If that's the case, look at the listing again. It's very "busy" with a lot of text. Do you think a bidder would have noticed it? I'm not arguing one way or the other, I am asking a legitimate question.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I know you can edit the listing, but can you edit the description? Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well could be), but I didn't think you could edit a description. i thought you could only add to the description. Even then, the changes don't appear in the description, they appear somewhere at the bottom of the page. If that's the case, look at the listing again. It's very "busy" with a lot of text. Do you think a bidder would have noticed it? I'm not arguing one way or the other, I am asking a legitimate question.

The seller knew the history at the start of the auction, so it's a moot point, but yes I think on a 50K card people likely would have read the description.

[botn]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I know you can edit the listing, but can you edit the description? Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well could be), but I didn't think you could edit a description. i thought you could only add to the description. Even then, the changes don't appear in the description, they appear somewhere at the bottom of the page. If that's the case, look at the listing again. It's very "busy" with a lot of text. Do you think a bidder would have noticed it? I'm not arguing one way or the other, I am asking a legitimate question.

You are correct and therefore because the seller cannot amend the listing like a self hosting auction house could, the proper thing to do would have been to end the listing and tell the consignor the item could be returned to him or sold in next month's auction. Fact is there was no incentive for the seller to do that.

And like the seller, PSA had no incentive to buy back the card or change the grade, assuming the card was actually provided to them for review. With or without a picture of the card in its previous condition, the card does not meet the criteria of a NM example. So even if there is no evidence it was cleaned, it is still over graded based on its presentation.

[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.

[orly57]

Mentioned for completeness. Just perfect. Thanks for the laugh JC. We don't want guys walking around with mislabled $50 cards, but a restored former sgc 50 cloaked in a psa 7 is perfectly acceptable.
I have always been an advocate of card soaking and restoration. I honestly don't mind it so long as the card grades. I think, as I have stated before, that as long as you aren't trimming or altering the card, there is nothing wrong with sprucing up the card to it's original appearance. But I do draw the line when it results in people losing 50k due to the fraud. I think Peter has a point when he says that if it isn't a big deal, they should disclose it.
PSA has probably been shown the photos. There is ZERO doubt that the card has been doctored and therefore should not receive a grade. They owe it to the card community to get it right, even if they have to write a check. And as fond as I am of Brent, I think that he was bound to his clients to mention it "for completeness."

[PhillipAbbott79]

There is a certain amount of liability. They can't just write a check without getting the card in return. Common sense. Another buyer would then have the same claim against them.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by orly57

Mentioned for completeness. Just perfect. Thanks for the laugh JC. We don't want guys walking around with mislabled $50 cards, but a restored former sgc 50 cloaked in a psa 7 is perfectly acceptable.
I have always been an advocate of card soaking and restoration. I honestly don't mind it so long as the card grades. I think, as I have stated before, that as long as you aren't trimming or altering the card, there is nothing wrong with sprucing up the card to it's original appearance. But I do draw the line when it results in people losing 50k due to the fraud. I think Peter has a point when he says that if it isn't a big deal, they should disclose it.
PSA has probably been shown the photos. There is ZERO doubt that the card has been doctored and therefore should not receive a grade. They owe it to the card community to get it right, even if they have to write a check. And as fond as I am of Brent, I think that he was bound to his clients to mention it "for completeness."

Excuse me, but I don't follow. You say you don't mind soaking and restoration as long as the card grades. Then you say this particular card should not grade. Which is it? Let me guess. As long as it's YOUR card and it grades, that's OK, but if it's somebody else's card and it grades and they make a lot of money from it, it's not OK. Did I get it right?

And, Peter, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question as to how Brent had prior knowledge of the card's history???

[Peter_Spaeth]

David, all I am going to say on the subject for now is that I have learned a great deal of information about this card and its history from reliable and corroborating sources. And I am comfortable saying what I said, or I would not have said it.

[orly57]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Excuse me, but I don't follow. You say you don't mind soaking and restoration as long as the card grades. Then you say this particular card should not grade. Which is it? Let me guess. As long as it's YOUR card and it grades, that's OK, but if it's somebody else's card and it grades and they make a lot of money from it, it's not OK. Did I get it right?

And, Peter, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question as to how Brent had prior knowledge of the card's history???

David, you seem very angry in your defense of card doctoring, or psa, or Pwcc, or whatever indefensible thing it is you are defending. I was clear that I don't mind buying a card I knew was soaked so long as it has a grade. I personally don't know how to soak cards, nor do I have the balls to try it. I said it doesnt bother me. But I draw the line when buyers aren't made aware by sellers WHO KNOW that the card was doctored. And yes, the amount matters! The fact that some guy now owns a 50k card that, thanks to this blog, will live in infamy, pisses me off. It is criminal. And if Brent didn't know before he listed the item, he most certainly knew BEFORE IT SOLD. Perhaps on the next blog post you can defend Pete Rose or the DH Rule.