PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Altering a raw card and getting it graded is the same thing. How is that not obvious? Your logic would say that if I trim a card and get it past PSA, that's fine too. "If a card earns a grade it earns a grade."

Carry on with the spin and defense. Apparently Brent and Betsy are not posting any more so they need good proxies.

Now its you doing the spin. I never said anything about trimming the card, noone said the Dimaggio was altered that way.

What about soaking a card. If you soak a card at a yard sale for $5 and you get the card graded a 7 and sell it for $5000. I dont think anyone would complain. But if you bought the card as a SGC 4, and there is a auction sale of the card and now you soak the card and get a PSA 7 and make $5000 people will have a problem with that. At least more people would have a problem with that second example then the first, but to me they are the same level.

Many on this board think soaking a card isnt scam behavior. Please refrain from adding extra things to fake make a point. I also do not think its ok to buy a card thats ripped in half then put it together. Thats also not what happened with the Dimaggio. I can fake make a point as well and say a card was altered because somebody removed dust. No need to make up extreme fact patterns.

I also concur with you that at this point that it does appear Brent knew the history of the card when it was listed at PWCC.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

What about soaking a card. If you soak a card at a yard sale for $5 and you get the card graded a 7 and sell it for $5000. I dont think anyone would complain.

If they know about it, they likely would. Which is exactly the point of this thread. Disclosure.

How after hundreds of posts is that not perfectly crystal clear? It doesn't matter if you think that, it is wrong or right. It is wrong to not disclose it. It has proven to affect value.

It is that simple. The rest is people attempting to win the argument with their point of view, and items presented are irrelevant to the facts that 'lack of disclosure brings less profit'.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

If they know about it, they likely would. Which is exactly the point of this thread. Disclosure.

How after hundreds of posts is that not perfectly crystal clear.

Thats not industry standard. How many cards that have sold at auction do you think were soaked previously. What percentage of those card are disclosed? Zero?

If a wrinkle/paperloss/crease is not disclosed thats different because thats industry standard.

Peope dont show what the card looked like when they bought it raw after its graded and people may not show what a card looked like in a different holder when they bought the card.

I do not have any expectation as a buyer at an auction that they would disclose if a card was soaked previously, would you? if i was buying a 50k card i know i would check past sales. for the Dimaggio it was not hard to track down the exact card being sold previously. Now if you couldnt find any prior sales in 5 minutes with google, maybe that would be a better argument, but thats not the case here. 5 minutes of due diligence and the buyer is fully informed.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Thats not industry standard. How many cards that have sold at auction do you think were soaked previously. What percentage of those card are disclosed? Zero?

If a wrinkle/paperloss/crease is not disclosed thats different because thats industry standard.

Peope dont show what the card looked like when they bought it raw after its graded and people may not show what a card looked like in a different holder when they bought the card.

You can't take history and justify righteousness with it. Insert another quarter.

REA's disclosure and PSA's label of restoration are righteous and noble. PWCCs cleaning/doctoring or whatever you want to call it, without disclosure is not. Tomorrow there may be yet another thing new that has not been discovered yet, that nets money that is less than pure and perfectly ethical. Does that mean that because its not industry standard it is OK? Of course not. Things take time to become standard. Scams take time to be discovered.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

You can't take history and justify righteousness with it. Insert another quarter.

REA's disclosure and PSA's label of restoration are righteous and noble. PWCCs cleaning/doctoring or whatever you want to call it, without disclosure is not. Tomorrow there may be yet another thing new that has not been discovered yet, that nets money that is less than pure and perfectly ethical. Does that mean that because its not industry standard it is OK? Of course not.

Actually you can. Thats actually a valid legal defense. It doesnt mean they win but it shows its far from scam behavior. Experts can be hired to argue those points for both ways. People lose tons of money and time pursuing cases in which maybe in 10 years they could of been right. Tell them dont worry it will take time for there to be a new standard even though they have now lost everything.

Again, when you buy anything at an auction house, do you expect them to disclose if a card was soaked prior to submission? You will say no.

Do you expect an auction house to disclose if a card is micro wrinkled that you may not be able to see from a photo? You will say yes.

You also didnt comment that its common practice to do due dillgence on a 50k card. A 5 minute google search would of resolved that. I dont buy a used card at a dealership and rely on the dealer to tell me everything about the car. There is an industry standard.

As an analogy, I may have caused your auto accident, but if you are only injured because you did not wear a seatbelt, you are to blame.

[botn]

Here is the 15 CJ Jackson before it was cleaned. Come on David and Jake, you guys try to find the other 9 on the list and let's all have fun.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by botn

Here is the 15 CJ Jackson before it was cleaned. Come on David and Jake, you guys try to find the other 9 on the list and let's all have fun.

Took you like 5 minutes to find it. I bet when you buy a card you will know the history of it. Looks like that card was soaked and not ripped in half and no razor was involved. I bet a tidy profit was made. The buyer of the card may of known about the alteration as well. Not sure what you are proving except that soaking is commonplace and never disclosed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Looked better with the stains, Greg.

[jmb]

Originally Posted by botn

Here is the 15 CJ Jackson before it was cleaned. Come on David and Jake, you guys try to find the other 9 on the list and let's all have fun.

I guess none of those white spots are paper loss that was colored in ?

What a way to make money. Lather, rinse, repeat.
And, it's not illegal like counterfeiting.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by botn

Here is the 15 CJ Jackson before it was cleaned. Come on David and Jake, you guys try to find the other 9 on the list and let's all have fun.

Did you doctor that one? I am sure you will be happy to tell us about your days as a partner of a card doctor, no? I will never forget the phone call when your partner called me, I answered the phone to "Hello Leon, I am a card doctor".....remember that Greg? He went onto carefully explain to me how the guys on the board don't know doctoring and exactly what was being done. He said he was making almost 7 figures and driving a Bentley. First time I met him was with you at the National.

[jcc6252]

Originally Posted by botn

Here is the 15 CJ Jackson before it was cleaned. Come on David and Jake, you guys try to find the other 9 on the list and let's all have fun.

Here's the Nagurski before the faint check mark (top and center above the "T" in "STARS") on the back disappeared, followed by card scans as it looked in the PWCC sale.
Based on your recreated submission, is it fair to assume the submission came from PWCC, and PWCC doctored many of these beforehand?

PSA 4(MK): Heritage Auctions 05/14/2015 Sold for: $3,824.00
PSA 3.5: PWCC 10/18/2015 Sold for: $4616.00

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Actually you can. Thats actually a valid legal defense. It doesnt mean they win but it shows its far from scam behavior. Experts can be hired to argue those points for both ways. People lose tons of money and time pursuing cases in which maybe in 10 years they could of been right. Tell them dont worry it will take time for there to be a new standard even though they have now lost everything.

Again, when you buy anything at an auction house, do you expect them to disclose if a card was soaked prior to submission? You will say no.

Do you expect an auction house to disclose if a card is micro wrinkled that you may not be able to see from a photo? You will say yes.

You also didnt comment that its common practice to do due dillgence on a 50k card. A 5 minute google search would of resolved that. I dont buy a used card at a dealership and rely on the dealer to tell me everything about the car. There is an industry standard.

As an analogy, I may have caused your auto accident, but if you are only injured because you did not wear a seatbelt, you are to blame.

The law will attempt to defend righteousness, but being lawful at all times isn't always righteous. My guess is you are a lawyer, so I completely understand why you may be blind to that fact. I believe relevant facts about items should be disclosed. It is good for both the seller and buyer to eliminate confusion on items by providing clear communication about the items state. If their pictures are not clear enough to disclose what can be found out by holding an item in your hand.

We both know that "As an analogy, I may have caused your auto accident, but if you are only injured because you did not wear a seatbelt, you are to blame." is a moronic statement and is an flawed analogy. If I am liable for your injuries I may argue that if you had worn your belt your injuries would have been a lot less severe. Wearing your seat belt is the law, much like not doing whatever caused the accident makes me liable.

You can stop playing word games. That only works in the court on stupid people.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

The law will attempt to defend righteousness, but being lawful isn't always righteous. My guess is you are a lawyer, so I completely understand why you may be blind to that fact.

Im guessing you arent a lawyer when looking at your legal arguments and also think the law is about being fair. There is politics in the law. Politicians create law. Judges gets voted in and politicians pick judges as well. If you think politicians are righteous then really nothing more to be said.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

...items presented are irrelevant to the facts that 'lack of disclosure brings less profit'.

I believe that full disclosure typically brings less profit.

Still, it's the ethical (and legal, if I'm not mistaken) thing to do.