PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Gotcha! Whoever cleaned the card (or had it cleaned) and submitted it to PSA probably called Brent up one day and said, "Your never going to believe this..." Makes sense to me.

[Beastmode]

I'm enjoying this thread and have a few observations.

We can assume with 100% certainty that ALL of the other AH's have sold altered cards, knowing the cards were alterted, and maybe even taken part in the altering. If you ask PWCC to disclose an alterted card, then you need to have a global standard for ALL AH's to disclose that information.

Why is PWCC constantly held to this higher standard of disclosure? Because they are the most transperant? They are the only AH where we can see the bidders and history. How about the other AH's show us the bidders before we throw the book at PWCC.

PWCC does not have to be the most honordable and ethical AH; they only have to be better than their competitors. And their competitors aren't anywhere near PWCC's moral compass.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 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.

Re-read this and pretend you are someone else.

It sounds like: "I have great sources of information no one else has and never will and I will not tell you what you want to know because I do not feel like it, and you should just trust me when I say, I know the truth."

You should have thrown in a "nanny nanny boo boo" at the end to augment the legitimacy of what you were saying in that post.

[steve B]

I believe it's more likely one of the following

Peter being told something in confidence and not being the sort of person to break that confidence.

Sometimes we all learn "stuff" and it's possible disclosing "stuff" could result in a lawsuit. Which would be expensive even if there was solid evidence the info was true. Without that- and getting some "stuff" in writing is not easy, it could become very expensive and/or time consuming. Not being stupid he decides to avoid an unprovable direct accusation.

Steve B

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

Re-read this and pretend you are someone else.

It sounds like: "I have great sources of information no one else has and never will and I will not tell you what you want to know because I do not feel like it, and you should just trust me when I say, I know the truth."

You should have thrown in a "nanny nanny boo boo" at the end to augment the legitimacy of what you were saying in that post.

[mechanicalman]

Does anyone else keep checking the February Pick-Ups thread in hopes of seeing someone post a '36 Goudey WWG DiMaggio PSA 7? That would be epic.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Steve it's #1. I get that people don't like it, that it comes across as obnoxious. At the same time, I did not want to let stand the suggestion David made (understandably) that it may not have been practical for PWCC to disclose this having learned it for the first time mid-auction.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Steve it's #1. I get that people don't like it, that it comes across as obnoxious. At the same time, I did not want to let stand the suggestion David made (understandably) that it may not have been practical for PWCC to disclose this having learned it for the first time mid-auction.

I for one have no problem with it at all.

Steve B

[steve B]

I've very mixed feelings on this whole thing.

I think the original toning was from being next to acidic paper for some amount of time. Over more time that would damage the card, (Still might because it's not all gone) The process for removing that involves either a bleaching agent or a deacidifier.

Lots of good general info here
http://www.collectorsguide.com/fa/fa010.shtml

Any of that should be disclosed, and should be part of the items history which should be included in any transfer.

But it won't, because of the stigma attached to even appropriate conservation that all gets lumped under the heading of "alteration". That stigma affects value in out hobby, perhaps far more than in others.

So let me ask a different sort of question. The answer matters less than the thinking behind it, although I have a preferred answer.

If I had the card. And posted it here raw asking the question "I have this card that's got fairly mild damage from acid exposure that will only worsen over time eventually destroying it. It's a fairly important and valuable card, and I think it should be deacidified so that it will last another few generations. But I'm concerned about how that will affect the value. What should I do?"

---------------------------------






My preference is for doing the conservation. If it's done professionally there should be no damage, and aside from earlier pictures, no physical indication that it's been done. Without conservation, we as a hobby are essentially condemning some of the best items to a premature destruction.

TPG will probably NEVER be realistically able to work with conservation vs eventual damaging originality as long as they operate the way they have. And as long as genuine conservation is looked down on by the hobby in general.

Nearly every other hobby accepts disclosed conservation/restoration as long as it's done appropriately. Some hobbies ignore some conservation that's not disclosed. Coins- nearly every really bright looking uncirculated silver coin has been cleaned. Other Silver objects- basically have to be polished occasionally to remove tarnish. If it's not brown/black it's been cleaned. Maybe it's time for us to do the same.

And I don't buy the "It's a PSA 7 so it's A PSA 7 and nobody should question that" line. Grades should always be questioned if they seem off.

Steve Birmingham

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by steve B

If I had the card. And posted it here raw asking the question "I have this card that's got fairly mild damage from acid exposure that will only worsen over time eventually destroying it. It's a fairly important and valuable card, and I think it should be deacidified so that it will last another few generations. But I'm concerned about how that will affect the value. What should I do?"

I would say if you're that worried about it, you should sell it before doing any work on it. And I would say you're paranoid. Because life expectancy of baseball cards is longer than humans.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by steve B

I believe it's more likely one of the following

Peter being told something in confidence and not being the sort of person to break that confidence.

Sometimes we all learn "stuff" and it's possible disclosing "stuff" could result in a lawsuit. Which would be expensive even if there was solid evidence the info was true. Without that- and getting some "stuff" in writing is not easy, it could become very expensive and/or time consuming. Not being stupid he decides to avoid an unprovable direct accusation.

Steve B

Then why say anything at all? Just say nothing rather a really ambiguous statement that can never be corroborated? To satisfy the need of proving you are "in the know"? All you do is provoke more conversation that down a path that you promised against. You might as well just say it at that point. You already let the cat out of the bag if it is true and if not you just throw your reputation on the line.

[BeanTown]

I thought I read with an earlier post in this thread that Brent with PWCC was going to chime in on this?

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by steve B

I believe it's more likely one of the following

Peter being told something in confidence and not being the sort of person to break that confidence.

Sometimes we all learn "stuff" and it's possible disclosing "stuff" could result in a lawsuit. Which would be expensive even if there was solid evidence the info was true. Without that- and getting some "stuff" in writing is not easy, it could become very expensive and/or time consuming. Not being stupid he decides to avoid an unprovable direct accusation.

Steve B

+1, hit the nail right on the head. If Peter makes such a representation, having interacted with him, I would not hesitate to believe it. My other posts re this card have assumed that it was simply water-soaked, which I have no problem with. Other "reconditioning," such as building up corners, repairing paper loss, removing creases, and trimming and the like are obviously another matter entirely. They require transparency, and should obviously be disclosed.

Best to all,

Larry

[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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by orly57

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.

No anger on my part at all. I'm not the one on a witch hunt here. By your own admission, you're the one that's pissed. The situation doesn't piss me off. It pisses you off, so don't say that I seem angry.

And if you truly believe it's criminal, report Brent to eBay, law enforcement or whoever you need to in order to stop this criminal activity.

You need to go back and re-read post #85. John nailed it on the head with his post.