PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I would not call it a scam, its a legit graded psa 7 card.

It's fraud to sell an item without disclosing a known material fact. It's the same as lying. You're a lawyer, you know that. Are you seriously saying it's not material that the card came out of an SGC 50 and was worked on before being graded a 7 by PSA?

[Whodunit]

To further that argument Peter, regarding not disclosing material facts, make sure that he knows that we know who won it in REA, who cracked it, who graded it raw by PSA and who sold it to the "first" buyer (as a private sale). There have been 4 owners in a PSA holder: 1) the "person" who bought it from REA and worked on it, 2) the person he sold it to, 3) John Perez via Goldin Auctions and now 4) the winner of Brent's auction. I wouldn't put it past Brent to have won the card himself just to get that cert # off of the mkt. Quite frankly, I've got some pretty juicy texts, emails, spreadsheets,etc. from the "man himself" regarding this card. It will surely be fun to see some of his guys (I was one of them for a long time) come to his defense. If you noticed early on in this thread, he defended this card 3 days into the auction, monitors this board tirelessly (told me to stay away from it {the board}..........."I've got it handled"), yet slipped away like a thief in the night when facts start divulging about who actually had factual and material information about the card from the point of its coming out of REA. He left John hanging high and dry when the rubber hit the road.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

To further that argument Peter, regarding not disclosing material facts, make sure that he knows that we know who won it in REA, who cracked it, who graded it raw by PSA and who sold it to the "first" buyer (as a private sale). There have been 4 owners in a PSA holder: 1) the "person" who bought it from REA and worked on it, 2) the person he sold it to, 3) John Perez via Goldin Auctions and now 4) the winner of Brent's auction. I wouldn't put it past Brent to have won the card himself just to get that cert # off of the mkt. Quite frankly, I've got some pretty juicy texts, emails, spreadsheets,etc. from the "man himself" regarding this card. It will surely be fun to see some of his guys (I was one of them for a long time) come to his defense. If you noticed early on in this thread, he defended this card 3 days into the auction, monitors this board tirelessly (told me to stay away from it {the board}..........."I've got it handled"), yet slipped away like a thief in the night when facts start divulging about who actually had factual and material information about the card from the point of its coming out of REA. He left John hanging high and dry when the rubber hit the road.

Please share some of these facts and including the juicy texts, emails, spreadsheets, from whoever the man himself is.

You should also follow the forum rules and put your real name somewhere.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Please share some of these facts and including the juicy texts, emails, spreadsheets, from whoever the man himself is.

You should also follow the forum rules and put your real name somewhere.

He's referring to Brent.

[Whodunit]

My name is Cortney DeLorme. I'm not going to hide behind any computer screen. The "man himself" is Brent Huigens. Brent won it in REA. Brent sold the Dimaggio to me for 75K after the 2015 National. Is this how we play this game? Because I was the one that he sold the card to under false pretenses and have kept everything documented from day 1. Y'all wanna know who S***N is on ebay? ME.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

My name is Cortney DeLorme. I'm not going to hide behind any computer screen. The "man himself" is Brent Huigens. Brent won it in REA. Brent sold the Dimaggio to me for 75K after the 2015 National. Is this how we play this game? Because I was the one that he sold the card to under false pretenses and have kept everything documented from day 1. Y'all wanna know who S***N is on ebay? ME.

Now we are getting some where.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

My name is Cortney DeLorme. I'm not going to hide behind any computer screen. The "man himself" is Brent Huigens. Brent won it in REA. Brent sold the Dimaggio to me for 75K after the 2015 National. Is this how we play this game? Because I was the one that he sold the card to under false pretenses and have kept everything documented from day 1. Y'all wanna know who S***N is on ebay? ME.

So you were the one that consigned it to Goldin? If so, did you disclose it to Goldin?

[botn]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

So you were the one that consigned it to Goldin? If so, did you disclose it to Goldin?

When Mr. James is not arguing with people on the Net54 forum he can be found arguing with himself at home in the mirror.

Way to go David...

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by botn

When Mr. James is not arguing with people on the Net54 forum he can be found arguing with himself at home in the mirror.

Way to go David...

Not arguing with anybody. It was a fair question.

[Whodunit]

Yes, I consigned it to Goldin. As for my disclosure, no, the facts surrounding this card weren't disclosed in Goldin's Auction. The details of this holders history didn't come out until Brent listed the card for sale in this auction. I had no clue that it'd been doctored when I bought it, or never in a million years would have bought it and had no idea when I sold it. I was alerted to this thread by someone who thought I might be interested in what was going on. I sold this card via Ken along with a '55 Clemente PSA 9 and some other very big cards.

[Whodunit]

Go to the auction. Look at the date that it started. Look at when S***N bid on the card to buy it back b/c I'd lost 25K on the card and would have rather had it in my collection at that price than see it go somewhere else.

Now, look at the date that this thread started and when I STOPPED bidding. I had no interest in the card after finding out it'd been manipulated/altered. It becomes pretty clear when evidence of this cards past came out of hiding.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Yes, I consigned it to Goldin. As for my disclosure, no, the facts surrounding this card weren't disclosed in Goldin's Auction. The details of this holders history didn't come out until Brent listed the card for sale in this auction.

Ok, but you said earlier, "I was the one that he sold the card to under false pretenses and have kept everything documented from day 1." When you say you kept everything documented from Day 1, that makes it sound like you knew about it early on. Not trying to argue, but that is how it sounds.

[rats60]

He said he found out because of this thread.

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Yes, I consigned it to Goldin. As for my disclosure, no, the facts surrounding this card weren't disclosed in Goldin's Auction. The details of this holders history didn't come out until Brent listed the card for sale in this auction. I had no clue that it'd been doctored when I bought it, or never in a million years would have bought it and had no idea when I sold it. I was alerted to this thread by someone who thought I might be interested in what was going on. I sold this card via Ken along with a '55 Clemente PSA 9 and some other very big cards.

[Exhibitman]

This thread is like a written version of The View...or so I've been told.

We have got to come to terms with honest paper conservation in this hobby. The TPG miinions are no-talent ass-clowns when it comes to finding out what has been done by someone well versed in paper conservation techniques, and this focus on letting TPGs tell us what is what is just silly once you see what can be done without detection in terms of removal and cleaning, like the Joe D (assuming, of course, that there weren't harmful techniques and chemicals used). Properly performed conservation is accepted in every form of fine art and antiques involving paper, except baseball cards and comic books. Here are some insanely great examples of what can be done:

http://www.lapapergroup.com/before-after.html

and here is what they've done with baseball cards:

http://www.postermountain.com/form/p...formatted/5137

Look at the Johnny Unitas RC or the CJ Cobb midway down the page.

But it ain't cheap. Even a minimal project will run $200 with a good conservator.

As many have observed here, you can make dramatic changes with good old H2O. Look at this photo of Kid Kaplan I cleaned up with water and some photo cleaner:




And I'm just an amateur.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's fraud to sell an item without disclosing a known material fact. It's the same as lying. You're a lawyer, you know that. Are you seriously saying it's not material that the card came out of an SGC 50 and was worked on before being graded a 7 by PSA?

Well the card is not fake. So should the guy who buys the card after its sold 3 times as a psa7 have to take the card back even if didnt know it was an SGC 50. Becomes a slippery slope. Theres no 'should of known' issue.

People can buy the card not the holder as well. The card is a legit PSA 7 is all i am saying (doesnt PSA have some type of guarantee). Im sure you have bought a card that 20 years ago maybe it was in another holder 4 grades below, do you track down that guy if you find that out.

If we are just talking about the one guy that did the doctoring, what if its soaked? I havent seen any auction in history talk about a card being soaked. Thus, being soaked isnt a material fact which appears well established.


Not saying its a good thing, but saying its not a 'scam'

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Well the card is not fake. So should the guy who buys the card after its sold 3 times as a psa7 have to take the card back even if didnt know it was an SGC 50. Becomes a slippery slope.

People can buy the card not the holder as well. The card is a legit PSA 7 is all i am saying. Im sure you have bought a card that 20 years ago maybe it was in another holder 4 grades below, do you track down that guy if you find that out.

If we are just talking about the one guy that did the doctoring, what if its soaked? I havent seen any auction in history talk about a card being soaked. Thus, being soaked isnt a material fact which appears well established.


Not saying its a good thing, but saying its not a 'scam'

As I said previously, anything said in defense of not disclosing the card's history here is just spin and noise. The before and after scans speak for themselves. The difference is material. It might not matter to some, but it would matter greatly to others.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I said previously, anything said in defense of not disclosing the card's history here is just spin and noise. The before and after scans speak for themselves. The difference is material. It might not matter to some, but it would matter greatly to others.

The fact that it doesnt matter to some, and there can be a difference of opinion shows its not to the level of a scam. It could be the basis of civil issue , but scam implies criminal. There really isnt a difference of opinion as to real SCAMs.

Its shady for sure i agree. Again for all we know the card was soaked etc, and soaking is NEVER disclosed and many in the hobby do not think that is a material fact. There are cards as well that get 'bumped. for psa 5 to psa 8 with no changes to the card. Maybe the person getting the bump has connections, but again to me its nota material that it was a psa 5, as long as its a legit psa 8 when purchased.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

The fact that it doesnt matter to some, and there can be a difference of opinion shows its not to the level of a scam. It could be the basis of civil issue , but scam implies criminal. There really isnt a difference of opinion as to real SCAMs.

Its shady for sure i agree. Again for all we know the card was soaked etc, and soaking is NEVER disclosed and many in the hobby do not think that is a material fact. There are cards as well that get 'bumped. for psa 5 to psa 8 with no changes to the card. Maybe the person getting the bump has connections, but again to me its nota material that it was a psa 5, as long as its a legit psa 8 when purchased.

is a scam a legal term of art? News to me. It's fraud. Period. Ask yourself why, if it didn't matter, he didn't just disclose it?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

is a scam a legal term of art? News to me. It's fraud. Period. Ask yourself why, if it didn't matter, he didn't just disclose it?

Thats always your fallback argument on everything but thats the the industry standard. I dont see every fault put on a card. It may not matter there is a micro spec on a card (that cant be seen in the picture ) as well to a seller but maybe to one buyer out there it could matter. Thus, just knowing someone may bid less if they knew something isnt enough to prove a scam.

Im sure you have sold card on net54 and not disclosed things. Maybe its because you dont think they were material, however, as you say 'ask yourself, if it didnt matter, why not disclose it'

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I for one appreciate you posting about this. Could you please post a timeline of ownership and card grade during their ownership to the best of your knowledge? Thank you!

Originally Posted by Whodunit

I don't know who consigned it to REA, but I know who won it in REA. So, a timeline prior to "final value" in their auction, I can't even begin to speculate on. From the time that it sold in REA to date though, I can FAR MORE than speculate.

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Thats always your fallback argument on everything but thats the the industry standard. I dont see every fault put on a card. It may not matter there is a micro spec on a card (that cant be seen in the picture ) as well to a seller but maybe to one buyer out there it could matter. Thus, just knowing someone may bid less if they knew something isnt enough to prove a scam.

Im sure you have sold card on net54 and not disclosed things. Maybe its because you dont think they were material, however, as you say 'ask yourself, if it didnt matter, why not disclose it'

I was the buyer that Brent sold the card to. He bought the card as an SGC 50. He doctored it. He sold it to me as a PSA 7 WITHOUT DISCLOSING MATERIAL FACTS that HE KNEW would have affected my decision. So, with that argument, tell me how Peter is wrong? I paid 75K for a card that I wouldn't have paid 5K for had the truth been DISCLOSED.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's fraud to sell an item without disclosing a known material fact. It's the same as lying. You're a lawyer, you know that. Are you seriously saying it's not material that the card came out of an SGC 50 and was worked on before being graded a 7 by PSA?

Peter, as I mentioned in post 277 and 281, there are ways of removing toning without any chemicals, water or anything else even touching the card. In fact, some museums use this process. I think "fraud" is a matter of interpretation. If I buy a card that is a PSA 7ST because of a wax stain on the front surface, crack the card, clean the wax with nylon and then re-submit it to PSA, is that fraud? Not sure where you really draw the line?

All that said, I can understand a buyer wanting to know the card's history, but I really don't think it's fraud. Can you show me one case where a person has ever been convicted of removing a stain or toning or whatever from a card?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Peter, as I mentioned in post 277 and 281, there are ways of removing toning without any chemicals, water or anything else even touching the card. In fact, some museums use this process. I think "fraud" is a matter of interpretation. If I buy a card that is a PSA 7ST because of a wax stain on the front surface, crack the card, clean the wax with nylon and then re-submit it to PSA, is that fraud? Not sure where you really draw the line?

All that said, I can understand a buyer wanting to know the card's history, but I really don't think it's fraud. Can you show me one case where a person has ever been convicted of removing a stain or toning or whatever from a card?

Right, its a slippery slope....if i sell a card i now got to research its history...

the card was sold as a PSA 7 card....ant the card is a PSA 7 card....thats far from a scam.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Right, its a slippery slope....if i sell a card i now got to research its history...

the card was sold as a PSA 7 card....ant the card is a PSA 7 card....thats far from a scam.

Noise and spin.