PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[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.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

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.

I understand, but you were personally involved in this case and your opinion is baised (doesnt mean you could be absolutely right)

Just saying that you agreeing with Peter doesnt support Peter's argument due to bias..

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I understand, but you were personally involved in this case and your opinion is baised (doesnt mean you could be absolutely right)

Just saying that you agreeing with Peter doesnt support Peter's argument due to bias..

What on earth are you talking about? What better proof of materiality than from the very guy who bought the card not knowing the information?

[PhillipAbbott79]

This whole chain of events casts a major shadow over the ever so holy bid retraction thread.

"My name is Betsy Huigens; Brent and I own PWCC Auctions. Our company has always considered the integrity of our auctions to be our number one priority. We take a proactive approach towards monitoring bidders and taken action when appropriate. The purpose of this post is to announce the next phase of policing. I’ve historically monitored and managed our comments on the message boards (like this one), so I know how important auction integrity is to the collecting community. It gives me great personal satisfaction to take the next step in ensuring our venue is the most trusted and honest marketplace in the world."

"As such, it is our strong belief that in due time, problematic behavior will become a thing of the past. We encourage other eBay sellers to take a similar stance and aid us in supporting the integrity of the eBay platform.Again, the integrity of our auctions is our number one priority. We ask that the collecting community on this board and others assist PWCC in identifying concerning bid behavior on any of our auctions. Please notify PWCC of any suspicious behavior by sending an email to bidmonitoring@pwccauctions.com. I can be reached at betsy@pwccauctions.com if you have any questions, comments, or suggestions. We thank everyone for their commitment to the hobby"

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I understand, but you were personally involved in this case and your opinion is baised (doesnt mean you could be absolutely right)

Just saying that you agreeing with Peter doesnt support Peter's argument due to bias..

That makes about as much sense as pissing in the wind. My response was in regards to not being told that the card was doctored. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that hell yes, my opinion is biased. I said that in a previous statement. I also said that had the information about the cards history BEEN DISCLOSED, I wouldn't have paid 5K for it. That is a material fact considering Brent knew for a fact that if he'd told me that the card was doctored I'd have had zero interest in it. Considering the nature of our past relationship, the fact that I was by far his biggest consignor for 5+ years, and how many times we talked about bad sheep in the hobby and what they do to cards to get them in certain holders, to say that withholding that particular tidbit of information was negligible is akin to saying that the Pope is Baptist.
'