PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From my perspective it's the same people over and over defending PWCC no matter what's presented to them.

And what's been presented, Peter? All I see is a text from Brent asking Cortney to quit playing games with the bidding in his auction? If PWCC did something wrong, lets find out. But, from what I can see, they haven't. That may change, who knows? But I don't see where they've done anything wrong at this point. All I hear from you and Cortney is that Brent knew the cards history before the auction and he was the one that cleaned it or had it cleaned. Prove that or be quiet!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

And what's been presented, Peter? All I see is a text from Brent asking Cortney to quit playing games with the bidding in his auction? If PWCC did something wrong, lets find out. But, from what I can see, they haven't. That may change, who knows? But I don't see where they've done anything wrong at this point. All I hear from you and Cortney is that Brent knew the cards history before the auction and he was the one that cleaned it or had it cleaned. Prove that or be quiet!

I am not arguing any more with a guy with blinders on. He bought the card out of REA, submitted it raw to PSA, and then sold it to Cortney in the PSA holder. These are facts. He (or Betsy) posted several times last night and nowhere denied these basic facts, because they cannot. Really, David, you are putting yourself way out on a limb trying to deny the obvious.

If you really want to defend PWCC, why don't you argue that despite knowing the card's history it was OK not to disclose it? That would at least be a worthy discussion, perhaps.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

He bought the card out of REA, submitted it raw to PSA, and then sold it to Cortney in the PSA holder. These are facts.

If they're facts, prove them. How do we know it was Brent that bought it from REA? Once again, prove your statement, otherwise it's just speculation.

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If they're facts, prove them. How do we know it was Brent that bought it from REA? Once again, prove your statement, otherwise it's just speculation.

Go away moron. We've stated (several people on here) that an ex REA employee has told several of us that Brent bought this card AND BRENT ADMITTED DIRECTLY TO ME VIA TEXT THAT HE WON THEM. iF YOUQUESTION THAT, SCROLL UP AND EDUCATE YOURSELF......I posted the screenshot and email. So, STFU and go away. Or is it possible for you not to troll waters that you're not smart enough to even wade across when it's 1/4" deep.

Or keep responding, it's simply much easier for me to ignore the clueless morons like yourself than to fight a futile battle with an uneducated moron. But, I do wonder, how many of my many millions in cards that Brent sold for me do you actually own?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

AND BRENT ADMITTED DIRECTLY TO ME VIA TEXT THAT HE WON THEM. iF YOUQUESTION THAT, SCROLL UP AND EDUCATE YOURSELF

Where's the text? What post? Perhaps I missed it?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If they're facts, prove them. How do we know it was Brent that bought it from REA? Once again, prove your statement, otherwise it's just speculation.

We know because people who are in a position to know told me and told Cortney, and because Brent has been confronted with it and did not deny it. Indeed, I believe he explicitly admitted it to Cortney. Do you want an invoice? At some point David you are going to reach the end of that limb, if you are not already there.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We know because people who are in a position to know told me and told Cortney

You're an attorney, Peter. Isn't that hearsay?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You're an attorney, Peter. Isn't that hearsay?

Sure, but if I were prosecuting this case I would have the invoice and the direct testimony of the source. So in effect I am vouching for what I could prove if I had the same abilities to secure evidence in an actual case. And anyhow Brent's failure to deny when confronted also might be independently admissible as an admission.

Are you saying, David, that you don't believe me? I guess you must not since you keep this up. Do you really think I am going to come on here and lie about what I was told, or about the reliability of the source?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Are you saying, David, that you don't believe me?

Peter, it's not that I don't believe you, it's that I believe you may have been given false information. You still have no hard evidence that Brent won the card at REA, other than what people have told you. Do you think that just because enough people tell you something that it's true?

On the other hand, Cortney has said (and these are direct quotes), "Brent won it in REA (yes, that is highly documented)" and "I'll continuously oblige anyone who's paying attention with some new facts and "hard" evidence."

OK, so oblige me. Where's this "highly documented" "hard evidence" that Brent bought it at REA? He said he has a screen shot. Either I'm overlooking it (and if I am please point me to it) or he hasn't posted it.

[Peeonduke]

Hi all,
I was made aware of this thread last night so I decided to join and throw in my 2 cents because I've had many dealings with Brent on higher dollar cards. A few here probably know me from the CU message board hey day, but that's neither here nor there.

I've consigned a decent amount of high dollar cards ($5k-$30k) to Brent over the years and have bid on stuff as well. I've never been asked to bid anything up, and I would've absolutely declined had I been. I've always found his customer service to be above and beyond what I've received from almost every auction house I've dealt with (pretty much all of the major ones). In my years of dealing with Brent and his crew, I've never had the sense that any impropriety has occurred. In fact, a few years ago there was a several thousand dollar proof card I consigned to him where Brent was made aware during the auction that it was not quite exactly what was represented; nothing nefarious, but it was information pertinent to the card that we both agree should be disclosed. Brent notified me that he felt it was the right thing to do once the auction ended to notify the winning bidder of the new info and give him the option to pass on the card which I agreed was fair. The bidder declined to pay which was understandable, so we relisted it in the next auction and disclosed what we had learned and it sold for around 40% of what it did the first time. This was a clear case of where it would've been very easy to not say a word, let the 1st guy pay and book a nice win. Brent chose to be proactive and do what he felt was right, which I respected and agreed with even though it cost me several grand and him several hundred.

I didn't come here to speak about the DiMaggio tirefire because I'm not involved and it seems there are already enough hot takes. I agree that the request for Cortney to bump up his bid is not a good look and probably something Brent regrets doing. All I can say is that I've done enough high-end business with Brent (not to the level that Cortney has, but definitely significant) to make an informed decision about his character and intentions with regard to the hobby. I've never done business with Cortney so I can't speak intelligently about his character, but from a distance it appears as if he feels doing a good amount of business with somebody gives him the right to treat them poorly; like a regular at a high-end restaurant treating the waitstaff like crap. The "$20 collector" line in post #405 says a lot about who he is in my eyes. I do sympathize with him with regards to the DiMaggio- if Brent had knowledge that the card had been soaked/toned/whatever, that should have been disclosed before making the private sale. My guess is that if Cortney treated people in a more respectful manner, this whole deal would've gone down differently.

Anyway, I know I'm a newbie here and my opinion will be taken with a grain of salt which is fine. But after reading all of the posts piling on Brent, I felt the need to speak up on his behalf based on my experience.

Lee

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Peeonduke

Hi all,
I was made aware of this thread last night so I decided to join and throw in my 2 cents because I've had many dealings with Brent on higher dollar cards. A few here probably know me from the CU message board hey day, but that's neither here nor there.

I've consigned a decent amount of high dollar cards ($5k-$30k) to Brent over the years and have bid on stuff as well. I've never been asked to bid anything up, and I would've absolutely declined had I been. I've always found his customer service to be above and beyond what I've received from almost every auction house I've dealt with (pretty much all of the major ones). In my years of dealing with Brent and his crew, I've never had the sense that any impropriety has occurred. In fact, a few years ago there was a several thousand dollar proof card I consigned to him where Brent was made aware during the auction that it was not quite exactly what was represented; nothing nefarious, but it was information pertinent to the card that we both agree should be disclosed. Brent notified me that he felt it was the right thing to do once the auction ended to notify the winning bidder of the new info and give him the option to pass on the card which I agreed was fair. The bidder declined to pay which was understandable, so we relisted it in the next auction and disclosed what we had learned and it sold for around 40% of what it did the first time. This was a clear case of where it would've been very easy to not say a word, let the 1st guy pay and book a nice win. Brent chose to be proactive and do what he felt was right, which I respected and agreed with even though it cost me several grand and him several hundred.

I didn't come here to speak about the DiMaggio tirefire because I'm not involved and it seems there are already enough hot takes. I agree that the request for Cortney to bump up his bid is not a good look and probably something Brent regrets doing. All I can say is that I've done enough high-end business with Brent (not to the level that Cortney has, but definitely significant) to make an informed decision about his character and intentions with regard to the hobby. I've never done business with Cortney so I can't speak intelligently about his character, but from a distance it appears as if he feels doing a good amount of business with somebody gives him the right to treat them poorly; like a regular at a high-end restaurant treating the waitstaff like crap. The "$20 collector" line in post #405 says a lot about who he is in my eyes. I do sympathize with him with regards to the DiMaggio- if Brent had knowledge that the card had been soaked/toned/whatever, that should have been disclosed before making the private sale. My guess is that if Cortney treated people in a more respectful manner, this whole deal would've gone down differently.

Anyway, I know I'm a newbie here and my opinion will be taken with a grain of salt which is fine. But after reading all of the posts piling on Brent, I felt the need to speak up on his behalf based on my experience.

Lee

I am sure he had no issues with disclosing that your card had an issue with it. The problem here is, it was his card, and he was the one who had it cleaned. See how they are not even close in comparison?

[Peeonduke]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

I am sure he had no issues with disclosing that your card had an issue with it. The problem here is, it was his card, and he was the one who had it cleaned. See how they are not even close in comparison?

I was not comparing my situation to the DiMaggio, they are clearly two entirely different things. I was just trying to shed light as to why I trust Brent's intentions as it relates to the hobby and give an example of why I feel this way. I feel he made some questionable calls with regard to the DiMaggio situation and stated as much in my post. But I also believe this situation is the exception rather than the rule.

[ullmandds]

Welllllllll its a battle royale cage match fellas...who will come out on top...villain of the hobby or good guy.

The odds are certainly stacked in favor of the villains...can Bob Backlund pull this against all odds victory out??????

[ullmandds]

Don't look know but Vince McMahon has just been thrown into the cage!!!!!!!

[bounce]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

And what's been presented, Peter? All I see is a text from Brent asking Cortney to quit playing games with the bidding in his auction? If PWCC did something wrong, lets find out. But, from what I can see, they haven't. That may change, who knows? But I don't see where they've done anything wrong at this point. All I hear from you and Cortney is that Brent knew the cards history before the auction and he was the one that cleaned it or had it cleaned. Prove that or be quiet!

Couple questions/issues I think are at the heart of this.

1) I think it's pretty well established that PWCC was at least in some way involved with the purchase of the card from REA, which was prior to any "changes". They were then involved with the subsequent sale of the card after those "changes", so I think it logically follows that they knew the "changes" had been made. I don't think it really matters whether they were "owners" or "brokers" from the standpoint of responsibility for the changes, they had knowledge of it.

They were then involved a 2nd time in the sale of the "changed" card, and it seems pretty clear that in neither instance did they disclose or point out that "changes" had been made. I'm not trying to make a sweeping all encompassing judgment of disclosure requirements here, but I think we can all agree in this specific example the "changes" are pretty "significant" and would be considered "material" information to many collectors.

I think a lot of people view that lack of disclosure as at least mildly dishonest, or maybe a better phrase is misleading through ommission? In either description, there's absolutely a question of "intention" is there not?


2) I don't view "string bids" (whether you take the lead or not) made at what is well less than the expected ending price of an auction to be shilling, but I also recognize that may not necessarily be the majority view - however I do think that distinction is pretty relevant to forming an opinion around the text message asking Courtney to "take the lead".

I think I tend to agree that the overall context of the text discussion is relatively harmless, except for the part where it goes to being "outbid". This is where views on string bids separate opinions. PWCC seems to "know" that the bids will go higher, and if so then why would the string bid matter whether taking the lead or not? I know folks will say it "looks bad" and PWCC even implies that understanding in the texts, but again these sorts of bids at well less than final sale price ultimately are irrelevant to the final sale price. Sure it bumps "activity", but it doesn't ultimately affect the price.

However, I acknowledge that if you fall in the camp that string bids are really a form of shilling, then the "you will get outbid" statement becomes at least somewhat concerning doesn't it?


3) I've thought a lot about what the correct designation for this card is, and I'm not able to come to a conclusion that a PSA 7 is in any way accurate. My logic is as follows. At some point, the original card "toned" except in areas on the right side that almost look like it was "clipped" or "taped", whatever prevented those areas for also toning. Somehow, the card was returned closer to it's original presentation. So from that standpoint, I don't think "altered" is the right assessment, because the toned card wasn't really in its original condition. However, removing of the toning (whether water or chemical) ultimately "restored" the card closer to the original condition and to me that is the accurate grading of the card - it's been RESTORED.

I should add that I don't believe it's always possible to know a card has been "restored", and for now I think we're giving the grader the benefit of the doubt. Although, a close inspection of the pictures here still indicate the "shadow" areas of the "clip/tape", and I probably fall in the camp that for a card at this value level that should have been identified, which I believe would have led to better understanding of its history and ultimately would have landed it in a different holder.

[KMayUSA6060]

Well, I am officially out of popcorn, and this thread has run its course.

1 very quick comment.

Shame on EVERYONE involved with this incident. Disgraceful members of the hobby. I don't care how much money anybody has or spends on the hobby. The content of one's wallet does not determine the content of one's character.

Sincerely,

A $20 collector who is happy in life

[ugaskidawg]

Originally Posted by bounce

3) I've thought a lot about what the correct designation for this card is, and I'm not able to come to a conclusion that a PSA 7 is in any way accurate. My logic is as follows. At some point, the original card "toned" except in areas on the right side that almost look like it was "clipped" or "taped", whatever prevented those areas for also toning. Somehow, the card was returned closer to it's original presentation. So from that standpoint, I don't think "altered" is the right assessment, because the toned card wasn't really in its original condition. However, removing of the toning (whether water or chemical) ultimately "restored" the card closer to the original condition and to me that is the accurate grading of the card - it's been RESTORED.

I should add that I don't believe it's always possible to know a card has been "restored", and for now I think we're giving the grader the benefit of the doubt. Although, a close inspection of the pictures here still indicate the "shadow" areas of the "clip/tape", and I probably fall in the camp that for a card at this value level that should have been identified, which I believe would have led to better understanding of its history and ultimately would have landed it in a different holder.

This is murky water IMO. Not that your view is correct or not correct, I'm in no position to say. IMO, I think a lot of this is coming down to the idea of disclosure. Someone way back in this thread said something about when art is restored, people know that it has been restored. They talked about some people pay more for original paint that has been restored on a classic car, versus one that has been repainted.

This card, which is a beauty of a card has been restored, altered, adjusted, tampered with, or whatever verb you want to used. Where is the cutoff point where it should not be identified as "altered" by PSA? This is being discussed throughout multiple online forums and offline circles right now because of this whole situation. I fully agree that coloring in corners on a 71, trimming edges/corners, etc. need to be identified as "altered." Those cards should never be purchased at a premium. Does flattening a card constitute going over the line, does removing wax stains constitute going over the line, does de-toning an old card constitute going over the line. Some are fine that this card is a 7, but knowing what it looked like before the restoration of it, clouds that I think.

With all this said, I'll reiterate something a previous member posted...this card is going down as a major card now and we (and all parties involved - whatever that involvement might be) have given it provenance...like the McNall-Gretzky Wagner. This card now has a story.

[mark evans]

I'm glad I don't have serious money to invest in cards. Seems like significant likelihood of stress and disappointment.

On another front, to beat a real old dead horse, it seems like this incident, as well as other hobby issues, might best be dealt with by some form of quasi-independent regulatory authority. Funded presumably by dealers, it could, for example, address what sort of card 'treatments' are acceptable, how each should be graded, and what disclosures to potential buyers need be made.

Before anyone suggests self-interest here, while I at one time would have enjoyed getting involved in such an effort, at this point my interest is purely academic -- getting too old for a job.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bounce

Couple questions/issues I think are at the heart of this.

1) I think it's pretty well established that PWCC was at least in some way involved with the purchase of the card from REA, which was prior to any "changes". They were then involved with the subsequent sale of the card after those "changes", so I think it logically follows that they knew the "changes" had been made. I don't think it really matters whether they were "owners" or "brokers" from the standpoint of responsibility for the changes, they had knowledge of it.

They were then involved a 2nd time in the sale of the "changed" card, and it seems pretty clear that in neither instance did they disclose or point out that "changes" had been made. I'm not trying to make a sweeping all encompassing judgment of disclosure requirements here, but I think we can all agree in this specific example the "changes" are pretty "significant" and would be considered "material" information to many collectors.

I think a lot of people view that lack of disclosure as at least mildly dishonest, or maybe a better phrase is misleading through ommission? In either description, there's absolutely a question of "intention" is there not?


2) I don't view "string bids" (whether you take the lead or not) made at what is well less than the expected ending price of an auction to be shilling, but I also recognize that may not necessarily be the majority view - however I do think that distinction is pretty relevant to forming an opinion around the text message asking Courtney to "take the lead".

I think I tend to agree that the overall context of the text discussion is relatively harmless, except for the part where it goes to being "outbid". This is where views on string bids separate opinions. PWCC seems to "know" that the bids will go higher, and if so then why would the string bid matter whether taking the lead or not? I know folks will say it "looks bad" and PWCC even implies that understanding in the texts, but again these sorts of bids at well less than final sale price ultimately are irrelevant to the final sale price. Sure it bumps "activity", but it doesn't ultimately affect the price.

However, I acknowledge that if you fall in the camp that string bids are really a form of shilling, then the "you will get outbid" statement becomes at least somewhat concerning doesn't it?


3) I've thought a lot about what the correct designation for this card is, and I'm not able to come to a conclusion that a PSA 7 is in any way accurate. My logic is as follows. At some point, the original card "toned" except in areas on the right side that almost look like it was "clipped" or "taped", whatever prevented those areas for also toning. Somehow, the card was returned closer to it's original presentation. So from that standpoint, I don't think "altered" is the right assessment, because the toned card wasn't really in its original condition. However, removing of the toning (whether water or chemical) ultimately "restored" the card closer to the original condition and to me that is the accurate grading of the card - it's been RESTORED.

I should add that I don't believe it's always possible to know a card has been "restored", and for now I think we're giving the grader the benefit of the doubt. Although, a close inspection of the pictures here still indicate the "shadow" areas of the "clip/tape", and I probably fall in the camp that for a card at this value level that should have been identified, which I believe would have led to better understanding of its history and ultimately would have landed it in a different holder.

This is a great post. I think "restored" might well be an appropriate designation and then people can decide for themselves how it affects their assessment of the value. I wouldn't even mind if a number grade was given too, to indicate the grader's assessment of the present appearance. In the meantime, all we can rely on is the seller's full and candid disclosure, which was not (in my opinion) forthcoming here.

[sterlingfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This is a great post. I think "restored" might well be an appropriate designation and then people can decide for themselves how it affects their assessment of the value. I wouldn't even mind if a number grade was given too, to indicate the grader's assessment of the present appearance. In the meantime, all we can rely on is the seller's full and candid disclosure, which was not (in my opinion) forthcoming here.

I personally like how CGC graded comic books can have a "restored" grade with a number indicating the grader's assessment of its current appearance. My only concern with that is if a process was used that could enhance the item's degradation over time much quicker than normal.

In any case, with the PSA grading system the way it is currently, I feel the DiMaggio would be much better suited in a PSA "Authentic Altered" holder than a "7".

As a $20 collector and a relatively new board member, though, my opinion is next to worthless.

[Rookiemonster]

Didn't know how sensitive some grow men could be. I might be considered a 10 dollar collector to many in the hobby. I really don't care what it's called or how someone feels about my collecting budget or anything for that matter.

Next PWCC nice stance but with a name like pre-war card collector you would think that your damage control would be more direct then a I'm not talking about this anymore. Considering this extremely damaging info on the biggest pre war card site.

Those are the two questions you feel compelled to respond to? Not that fact that you knew before hand that card was purchased by your company and the altered and resold? Well as it's stands and not expecting any more responses from you. I could tell you my 10 dollar or 20 won't be going towards your company.

I mean you also have the texts so let's see them from Brent. If it's just some angry guy blow him out the water and fix your name . Or if you can't ! Just walk away......

[Peter_Spaeth]

Post 409, David.

Though not part of our regular service offering, PWCC has had cards graded on behalf of our clients, usually at major shows, which are then consigned to our auctions. In rarer cases, we have also purchased cards on behalf of consignors with whom we manage a credit. This is largely consistent with every other auction house in the country.

Enough of this.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Post 409, David.

Though not part of our regular service offering, PWCC has had cards graded on behalf of our clients, usually at major shows, which are then consigned to our auctions. In rarer cases, we have also purchased cards on behalf of consignors with whom we manage a credit. This is largely consistent with every other auction house in the country.

Enough of this.

Post 456 Peter:

Brent says that whoever removed the toning from the card did the hobby a favor. While that's his opinion, it sounds to me like from the tone of the text somebody else did it and he's not sure who it was.

[Brent Huigens]

There are two questions that warrant our response, which I will address here.

I ask you to take a step back and consider what is going on here. We have a unstable person who feels unfounded anger toward our company and who has been prohibited from participating in most major auction venues come on a message board and share personal communication between himself and Brent. People with his demonstrated lack of integrity should not have a respected voice on these boards. Those hoping to get evidence of impropriety will be disappointed. We have earned the business of folks who would otherwise not bid on eBay simply because we have blocked Cortney DeLorme.

It might seem hard to believe to our few skeptics, but asking Cortney to take the place as the high bidder was done to avoid us having to cancel his bids which would have affected the integrity of the auction. We certainly would have preferred he never bid at all on this card. His sequential bids were damaging to the auction atmosphere, yet we couldn't cancel the bids because it was not technically outside our policy. By him becoming the high bidder, it lessened the impropriety of his sequential bidding per our policy. There was nothing conniving about us stating that he would be outbid; our claim was simply based on assumptions about the perceived value of the card and the overall price expectations.

With due respect to those who wish to continue contributing to this thread, this will be our last post.

Betsy Huigens

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Brent Huigens

There are two questions that warrant our response, which I will address here.

I ask you to take a step back and consider what is going on here. We have a unstable person who feels unfounded anger toward our company and who has been prohibited from participating in most major auction venues come on a message board and share personal communication between himself and Brent. People with his demonstrated lack of integrity should not have a respected voice on these boards. Those hoping to get evidence of impropriety will be disappointed. We have earned the business of folks who would otherwise not bid on eBay simply because we have blocked Cortney DeLorme.

It might seem hard to believe to our few skeptics, but asking Cortney to take the place as the high bidder was done to avoid us having to cancel his bids which would have affected the integrity of the auction. We certainly would have preferred he never bid at all on this card. His sequential bids were damaging to the auction atmosphere, yet we couldn't cancel the bids because it was not technically outside our policy. By him becoming the high bidder, it lessened the impropriety of his sequential bidding per our policy. There was nothing conniving about us stating that he would be outbid; our claim was simply based on assumptions about the perceived value of the card and the overall price expectations.

With due respect to those who wish to continue contributing to this thread, this will be our last post.

Betsy Huigens

I love how you still can't just say what was done to the card and why you did not mention it.