PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

By "documented", it means that I have records of when I bought it, how much I paid for it, who I bought it from, when I got it in my hands, etc. I'm not referring to having had "documented" the fact that the card was altered/manipulated. I've already stated in this thread that there would have been absolutely zero chance of my purchasing this card had he told me what he'd done to get it out of the SGC 50 and into the PSA 7. The documentation of this cards HISTORY, for me, now starts from the point that Brent won it in REA (yes, that is highly documented) to the point that it just sold BY HIM again to another unsuspecting high end collector. This thread started a few days after the auction started. Brent defended the card up until about day 3 of the auction and obviously knew the details as we've well established at this point that he won it, he cleaned it/had it cleaned, he holdered it and he sold it to me. He and who I will refer to as "the cleaner", were at that point, the only ones that knew that it was the same card. I'd have to go back and look at the early stages of this thread, but whoever put the fact that this card was the same card that REA sold as a 50 was the same one, was the one that let the cat out of the bag.

This certainly is an interesting development. That would explain why he defended it being a 7, and why he sent it back to PSA. It also explains why he has not made any statements on this thread. At all.

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

This certainly is an interesting development. That would explain why he defended it being a 7, and why he sent it back to PSA. It also explains why he has not made any statements on this thread. At all.

It was reholdered by me (reverse cert). No chance Brent sent this card back to PSA for "verification" when he was the one who had it put in the first PSA holder. John told me the same thing about Brent sending it to "Joe Orlando's personal attention" for verification.............needless to say, we both got a good laugh out of that one.

[Whodunit]

Stay tuned guys. As this all unfolds, piece by piece, I'll continuously oblige anyone who's paying attention with some new facts and "hard" evidence. I know that what has recently been let out sounds like a lot of damning information, but we haven't even begun to scratch the surface yet. "Tip of the iceberg" of one might say. There will be no speculation, and I'll listen to anyone who wants to counter anything that I have to say.

I'm the guy that a lot of people on this message board have complained about for quite a while (that little tidbit came from Brent telling me to be more careful how I bid b/c a lot of you guys were complaining about my bid history..........MUCH more on that later) of being a "disciple" or "shill bidder" for Brent, and while the fact is that I bid on many hundreds of thousands of dollars in cards in every auction, what I won, I paid for (S***N). I'm also the one that had the call letters A***T. As for the "50 retractions" that one guy on here referenced, EVERY ONE of those were in ONE of Brent's auction when I caught him lying to me. Looking back, I guess I should have packed up shop and moved on to another reputable seller and left him alone. As for what all I sold via Brent, how bout the 1916 Ruth M101-5 PSA 5 Ruth that set his ship in motion?

Some call it "shill bidding". Others call it "pushing/protecting". Regardless of what you call it, as long as you pay for what you win, and it wasn't yours to begin with, that's all it is............complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value. As someone with millions at stake in this hobby, I'm not going to let a card go a dime under its value which is the reason that I have so many duplicates of high end cards.

Did you see a sudden drop in Brent's monthly auctions/sales? Would that have been 4 months ago when I stopped sending him 50K cards b/c of the cannibalizing of high end cards by his incessantly running 3 Unitas 8's head to head, or 4 Clemente 8's side by side, or Koufax, etc.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Regardless of what you call it, as long as you pay for what you win, and it wasn't yours to begin with, that's all it is

I think in your scenerio the card was yours to begin with but was going to the highest bidder...i agree though, if you are going have to pay the 8%-14% on top of your bid to win back your own card, go for it.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I think in your scenerio the card was yours to begin with but was going to the highest bidder...i agree though, if you are going have to pay the 8%-14% on top of your bid to win back your own card, go for it.

It wasn't his at that point...it was John Perez's.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Some call it "shill bidding". Others call it "pushing/protecting". Regardless of what you call it, as long as you pay for what you win, and it wasn't yours to begin with, that's all it is............complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value. As someone with millions at stake in this hobby, I'm not going to let a card go a dime under its value which is the reason that I have so many duplicates of high end cards.

Man, I didn't check the forum yesterday and all hell broke loose. I tried to get a handle on this massive back and forth and this stuck out to me.

I have trouble with this quoted post as this clearly says to me (and please correct me if I am misinterpreting) that you do shill your cards so they can reach the value you believe it should be at and even if you accidentally win them back and pay for it, it's a non-issue because it was not yours after providing it to the auction house.

Is that interpretation right?

Because to be honest that's not "complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value"...that's more so admitting possible wire fraud on public forum.

If that's the case then this is a way bigger issue for all involved then one cleaned card.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Man, I didn't check the forum yesterday and all hell broke loose. I tried to get a handle on this massive back and forth and this stuck out to me.

I have trouble with this quoted post as this clearly says to me (and please correct me if I am misinterpreting) that you do shill your cards so they can reach the value you believe it should be at and even if you accidentally win them back and pay for it, it's a non-issue because it was not yours after providing it to the auction house.

Is that interpretation right?

Because to be honest that's not "complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value"...that's more so admitting possible wire fraud on public forum.

If that's the case then this is a way bigger issue for all involved then one cleaned card.

If the person doing this buys the card or has the intention of the buying the card they have 2 motives for bidding. One to win the card at a good price, two to protect their assets. Neither of these constitute doing anything wrong.

If I am not mistaken, he admitted both of these were his motives.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Man, I didn't check the forum yesterday and all hell broke loose. I tried to get a handle on this massive back and forth and this stuck out to me.

I have trouble with this quoted post as this clearly says to me (and please correct me if I am misinterpreting) that you do shill your cards so they can reach the value you believe it should be at and even if you accidentally win them back and pay for it, it's a non-issue because it was not yours after providing it to the auction house.

Is that interpretation right?

Because to be honest that's not "complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value"...that's more so admitting possible wire fraud on public forum.

If that's the case then this is a way bigger issue for all involved then one cleaned card.

Yup, you nailed it. Forget the fact the he shills his own auctions. Forget the fact he has more bid retractions in his last 6 months than I've had in my 14 year history on eBay. Forget the fact of his $20 collector comment. Let's overlook all that and just focus on the witch hunt here.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Yup, you nailed it. Forget the fact the he shills his own auctions. Forget the fact he has more bid retractions in his last 6 months than I've had in my 14 year history on eBay. Forget the fact of his $20 collector comment. Let's overlook all that and just focus on the witch hunt here.

Except he never said he bid on his own cards. He clearly said that the cards weren't his or in the case of the Dimaggio was his but sold and he was going to buy it back if it went cheap. There is nothing wrong with that.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by rats60

Except he never said he bid on his own cards. He clearly said that the cards weren't his or in the case of the Dimaggio was his but sold and he was going to buy it back if it went cheap. There is nothing wrong with that.

When he says, "Some call it "shill bidding". Others call it "pushing/protecting". Regardless of what you call it, as long as you pay for what you win, and it wasn't yours to begin with, that's all it is" he is implying that he bid on cards because he is being asked to do so or helping someone out. Otherwise, why even bring it up? Just because a card isn't yours doesn't mean you can't shill it. Right Peter?

[orly57]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Yup, you nailed it. Forget the fact the he shills his own auctions. Forget the fact he has more bid retractions in his last 6 months than I've had in my 14 year history on eBay. Forget the fact of his $20 collector comment. Let's overlook all that and just focus on the witch hunt here.

No one here thinks Cortney is particularly credible, or decent, or even likeable. But I will tell you what a prosecutor once told the jury after I had just finished decimating the government's dirt-bag informant on the stand: "criminals consort with criminals. I couldn't use the defendant's priest as a witness, because he doesn't traffick in cocaine with HIM!"

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Man, I didn't check the forum yesterday and all hell broke loose. I tried to get a handle on this massive back and forth and this stuck out to me.

I have trouble with this quoted post as this clearly says to me (and please correct me if I am misinterpreting) that you do shill your cards so they can reach the value you believe it should be at and even if you accidentally win them back and pay for it, it's a non-issue because it was not yours after providing it to the auction house.

Is that interpretation right?

Because to be honest that's not "complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value"...that's more so admitting possible wire fraud on public forum.

If that's the case then this is a way bigger issue for all involved then one cleaned card.

Bingo!! Some very very troubling things surfaced in this thread. Many powerful questions need answered... Yet it's been diluted by a few who can't stop calling each other idiots over and over and over...

[botn]

Originally Posted by Stonepony

Bingo!! Some very very troubling things surfaced in this thread. Many powerful questions need answered... Yet it's been diluted by a few who can't stop calling each other idiots over and over and over...

Exactly. Jake and David are a distraction on this thread and managed to suck good people into arguments they will not win.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by botn

Exactly. Jake and David are a distraction on this thread and managed to suck good people into arguments they will not win.

I have not argued with you but you bring in my name. Its like the pot calling the kettle black. Of course its 'good people' that are name calling that are getting sucked into arguments.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by botn

Exactly. Jake and David are a distraction on this thread and managed to suck good people into arguments they will not win.

It is ok. I am honestly over it. I really didn't want to say anything at all to David, but my emotions got the best of me.

I just can't cater to the stupidity any longer. At least everyone else observes the same thing I am. That is enough for me.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by botn

Exactly. Jake and David are a distraction on this thread and managed to suck good people into arguments they will not win.

One thing is for certain, you will never need Viagra with that hard on you have for Brent. It's obvious from your posts (and Peter's and others) that some of you have had a hard on for Brent for a long time. Did you finally get him?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Man, I didn't check the forum yesterday and all hell broke loose. I tried to get a handle on this massive back and forth and this stuck out to me.

I have trouble with this quoted post as this clearly says to me (and please correct me if I am misinterpreting) that you do shill your cards so they can reach the value you believe it should be at and even if you accidentally win them back and pay for it, it's a non-issue because it was not yours after providing it to the auction house.

Is that interpretation right?

Because to be honest that's not "complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value"...that's more so admitting possible wire fraud on public forum.

If that's the case then this is a way bigger issue for all involved then one cleaned card.

Do you not understand what you quoted " it's not yours to begin with?" How are you shilling your cards when they are not yours, but are owned by someone else?

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by rats60

Do you not understand what you quoted " it's not yours to begin with?" How are you shilling your cards when they are not yours, but are owned by someone else?

I was asking for clarity, I don't have it.

The statement in question brings to mind the talk of people possibly artificially inflating the prices in the market that was talked about all last summer.

where is the clarity on this statement:

"Some call it "shill bidding". Others call it "pushing/protecting". Regardless of what you call it, as long as you pay for what you win, and it wasn't yours to begin with, that's all it is............complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value. As someone with millions at stake in this hobby, I'm not going to let a card go a dime under its value which is the reason that I have so many duplicates of high end cards."

The last sentence certainly calls question. Were cards shilled or "pushed" to amounts that protected or built investment? Whether they are his or someone else's, was bidding manipulated to get top dollar? Was this done with his listings?

It was an open question.

We started with a thread of possibility of wrongdoing, my only gripe was that guilt was assumed without corroboration. This sounds like a bit of admittance to me and just wanted some background on who had the correct interpretation.

[bounce]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I was asking for clarity, I don't have it.

"Some call it "shill bidding". Others call it "pushing/protecting". Regardless of what you call it, as long as you pay for what you win, and it wasn't yours to begin with, that's all it is............complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value. As someone with millions at stake in this hobby, I'm not going to let a card go a dime under its value which is the reason that I have so many duplicates of high end cards."

The last sentence certainly calls question. Were cards shilled or "pushed" to amounts that protected or built investment? Whether they are his or someone else's, was bidding manipulated to get top dollar? Was this done with his listings?

It was an open question.

We started with a thread of possibility of wrongdoing, my only gripe was that guilt was assumed without corroboration. This sounds like a bit of admittance to me and just wanted some background on who had the correct interpretation.

I think this was the sequence. Courtney bought the card from PWCC at the 2015 (or 2016, can't remember?) National in it's PSA 7 form, and subsequently consigned it to Goldin where it sold to someone else in Sept/Oct 2016, at a loss to Courtney. That buyer subsequently consigned it to PWCC and Courtney started bidding again as the price had not surpassed the Goldin sale price. He didn't own the card when it was consigned back to PWCC, but was bidding to potentially win it back.

As far as "defending" prices, I will give a personal example as I think this is what he probably means. There are about 8-10 cards that I currently or have previously owned, and any time another one is put for auction I almost always drop in a "minimum" bid which effectively sets a "floor" for that card generically. If no one outbids me at that level, I'm happy to own another copy but I don't necessarily expect to win every time I put in a bid. However, I certainly do stand ready to pay should I win.

I expect most people would describe that as "defending" certain price levels of cards, but I wouldn't expect that to be considered negative. However, if a group of collectors got together and were to engage in this sort of "defensive" bidding with the cards just changing hands between the group, I can certainly see how that would be viewed differently.

To be clear, I am not part of the "buyers group", as far as I know!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

It was reholdered by me (reverse cert). No chance Brent sent this card back to PSA for "verification" when he was the one who had it put in the first PSA holder. John told me the same thing about Brent sending it to "Joe Orlando's personal attention" for verification.............needless to say, we both got a good laugh out of that one.

If he did send it back it was a pretty low-risk proposition. I think he might well have.

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If he did send it back it was a pretty low-risk proposition. I think he might well have.

I have no way of knowing if he sent it in for "verification" after John bought it, but considering the source and who originally had it graded in raw form........100% agree......LOW (NO) risk.