PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Peter, you really don't follow your own advice though. Recently you posted a WTB for a '65 Mays in PSA 7.5 or 8. If it's not about the flip, then why only PSA and why only a 7.5 or 8? I have a gorgeous BVG 7 that I'll sell you that probably blows away any PSA 7 or 8. Are you willing to look at it, or are you resolved to only PSA 7.5 or 8?

David, I own cards in all of the major holders. I prefer PSA generally because for the most part their grading standards are similar to mine and on a $200 60s card I am not that worried about alteration particularly if the card doesn't set up any red flags. So I don't see that post as at all inconsistent with my ultimate buy the card philosophy.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David, I own cards in all of the major holders. I prefer PSA generally because for the most part their grading standards are similar to mine and on a $200 60s card I am not that worried about alteration particularly if the card doesn't set up any red flags. So I don't see that post as at all inconsistent with my ultimate buy the card philosophy.

When you post a WTB (and you've posted multiple the same way) requesting a specific TPG and/or a specific grade, you are buying the flip and not the card. Otherwise what difference would the TPG or grade even matter? Why not just post "WTB high grade '65 Mays"?

This started because of your sarcastic comment, "Who even cares what the card looks like? If PSA says it's a 7, then what difference does it make really?" Yet, you do the same thing with your WTBs. Maybe you don't see the hypocrisy in that. I'm pretty sure others do though.

[vintagetoppsguy]

The bottom line is this. PSA said it was a 7...twice now. I think most of us agree (and I've already said it too) it doesn't look like a 7. To most of us, it looks over graded. The PSA apologists can't blame this one on a "mechanical error". So what do you want to happen at this point? PSA is not going to change the grade. What good is b!tching about it doing? Let me ask again, what do you want to happen at this point???

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The bottom line is this. PSA said it was a 7...twice now. I think most of us agree (and I've already said it too) it doesn't look like a 7. To most of us, it looks over graded. The PSA apologists can't blame this one on a "mechanical error". So what do you want to happen at this point? PSA is not going to change the grade. What good is b!tching about it doing? Let me ask again, what do you want to happen at this point???

do we really know psa re-reviewed this card? seemed like a statement made to appease especially in light of no response from the AH?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

do we really know psa re-reviewed this card? seemed like a statement made to appease especially in light of no response from the AH?

Nope. Then again, do we really know Brent knew the card's history before the auction. That's what I find kind of funny about this whole thread - all the speculation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Nope. Then again, do we really know Brent knew the card's history before the auction. That's what I find kind of funny about this whole thread - all the speculation.

I am not speculating at all. You may choose not to believe me because I have chosen not to be specific about my sources of information, and as mentioned before I get the reaction some folks have to that, while others understand where I am coming from, but don't confuse that with speculation.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

...but don't confuse that with speculation.

Fair enough. Replace "speculstion" with "information that can't be corroborated"