PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[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]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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.

Now it's the buyer's fault. Cortney should have figured it out for himself. Yes indeed. I deceived you, but it was your fault because you should have figured out I was deceiving you.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Now it's the buyer's fault. Cortney should have figured it out for himself. Yes indeed.

For once we agree on something. Personal responsibility is not a bad thing. No reason to buy Title insurance when you buy a house. Just take it how it is, it cant be the buyers fault when buying anything.

[botn]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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.

Well I know what you prove with each of your posts so I will not even bother responding to your "content".

[Peter_Spaeth]

Looked better with the stains, Greg.

[Rookiemonster]

Who sold that card Greg ?

Ps your awesome

[botn]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

Who sold that card Greg ?

Ps your awesome

All of the cards in the recreated submission, that graded, were tied to PWCC, except for the 33 Foxx.

[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.

[botn]

Here is the D304 Cobb before it was cleaned up. The corners look a bit tighter too but I suppose that is ok to all the spinners.

[DeanH3]

[QUOTE=jmb;1632234]I guess none of those white spots are paper loss that was colored in ?

That caught my eye as well. Maybe they were tiny paper scraps adhered to the front? I dunno but curious indeed.

[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.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Leon

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.

So Greg is bringing up all of these cards that got upgraded and asks me for comment but he has history of being involved and I have ZERO history.

Like i said, i dont think soaking cards is something thats ever disclosed (imagine all of those 1914 cracker jacks percentage of being soaked)

I wish i knew someone that was almost making 7 figures and driving a Bentley that was hobby card partner. I swim in much smaller waters. My friends in the hobby drive Pontiacs

Again, I dont think soaking is something that is disclosed as a regular business practice, I just find it interesting I am asked for comment about cards that have been upgraded in PWCC auctions which I have nothing to do with while the person asking has an obvious strong connection to the practice of upgrading cards according to Leon.

As to PWCC disclosing on the Dimaggio. I dont think it was scam behavior if the card was soaked (if cut and half and restored and tricked PSA thats a different story) but i think they lose credibility since they had direct knowledge of the history and did not disclose. Also if someone 'upgraded' the card and was selling it in a direct deal and said 'this card was previously not graded' and sold the card for 75k that would be actionable of course. I am not biased in support or against PWCC. I do think the buyer of a 50k card needs to do due dilligence as well and garners blame when a 5 minute google search would find a past sale of the exact card.

In addition if there was colluding as to shill bidding between any auction house and bidders there would be a direct actionable risk there as well.

[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

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Not 100% they're the same card. I also see what looks like writing in his armpit area of his left arm (our right) on the before.

[jcc6252]

Good catch, I did not see that writing. It appears on the after, also, possibly less so?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't think that's the same card, if it is the upper right corner got more rounded. Also the bottom border is smaller on the newer one, although it could be the slat is making it appear so.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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.

Philip may not be a lawyer (or maybe he is) but as one who is, I must say I am impressed with the cogency and simple logic of his arguments here.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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.

Correct. You could not pay me to become a lawyer.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. You just said "If you think politicians are righteous then really nothing more to be said."

Did I say that any where? Did I infer that...anywhere? You just shit a bunch of stuff out your word hole into a post.

I also never said the word fair. Fair and righteous are different. There you go straying from what I said to make your point more valid and correct.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

Correct. You could not pay me to become a lawyer.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. You just said "If you think politicians are righteous then really nothing more to be said."

Did I say that any where? Did I infer that...anywhere? You just shit a bunch of stuff out your word hole into a post.

I also never said the word fair. Fair and righteous are different. There you go straying from what I said to make your point more valid and correct.

You said "The law will attempt to defend righteousness, but being lawful at all times isn't always righteous"


To many fair and righteous is not different and are easily confused with each other.

Actually on dictionary.com they say

Synonyms
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
3. good, honest, fair, right.


So you agree politicians are not righteous but the law will attempt to defend the righteous.