PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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. Politicians do create the law. Not sure what i missed.

Yes. As a lawyer I can understand why you are confused. As someone with average intelligence I understand the difference between them.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+synonym

"Nearly the same" means with slight differences. "Or" means it can't be both...well that is not true. At least in this context it is.

[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.

[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.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

Yes. As a lawyer I can understand why you are confused. As someone with average intelligence I understand the difference between them.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define:+synonym

"Nearly the same" means with slight differences. "Or" means it can't be both...well that is not true. At least in this context it is.

As being not a lawyer i can understand why you are confused. I try to respond to the message and not the person. Saying things like 'someone with average intelligence' (and implying i am lower) is not really on message or productive.

I dont think its righteous or fair to make comments like that if you are trying to make a point.

[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.

[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...

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I suspect that you were, but it can be difficult to decipher your Delphic posts sometimes.

Being a $20 post war collecting non lawyer and non dentist that should know his place and not even look at the pre war forum, I will readily admit that I had to look up 'delphic'. Cool word.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Being a $20 post war collecting non lawyer and non dentist that should know his place and not even look at the pre war forum, I will readily admit that I had to look up 'delphic'. Cool word.

He could of used ambiguous or vague as well but Phillip would make note that they simply arent the same word as they are just 'nearly the same' Using those words would change the meaning totally.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I understand that Steve. I just don't think it should be available because it is used to alter cards for the sole purpose to deceive someone to make extra $. I could give detailed instructions on how to counterfeit cards also but choose not to. I am sure you also know how easy that is.

That's true.

It's often a tough choice, the conservation process is pretty important in some hobbies. And parts of it are a major concern of places like the LOC. All that can be used for valid conservation or deceptively. There's also some bad advice out there about how to do stuff, which can do more harm than good. So most legitimate conservation places share the information.

Info about outright faking stuff is also out there, but as it should be, is harder to find. Making a really good fake would take some skill and some budget. Most fakers thankfully don't /won't /can't take the time to learn. Even the best stamp forgers didn't do a perfect job of it. (Although there are some that are scarily close, and maybe one that is almost perfect. I haven't seen an example that I know of, but have probably seen at least one of those without knowing it. It was only mentioned to me in passing by someone far more expert. ) Sperati and Fournier are the big names, and their fakes are occasionally worth more than the originals.

Steve B

[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.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

He could of used.

Jake, this is driving me crazy, please stop!! And I am NOT the grammar police or anything like that, but to see an attorney with this bad grammar just kills me!! If it is a laziness issue then so be it, but the terminology is "could have" not "could of" for crying out loud!!

[Jantz]

Board Members,

In lieu of recent hobby events, I wish to assume the position as your hobby leader in ridding our wonderful hobby of diseases that currently plague it. Any questions or concerns you may have can be directed via PM to me by which, I will answer, if I choose to do so.










Typhoid Mary

[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?

[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?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

You, my $20 collector friend, obviously do not.

^

This is exactly the way to alienate pretty much everyone.

I have nothing against collectors who can or will spend freely. A twinge of jealousy as you'd expect, but overall more of a "Hats off to you, both for making the sort of choices that led you to such prosperity and for having enough dedication to a hobby to create a really great collection" attitude.

Unless you use that to put down other collectors and project the attitude that you're better than them simply because you have money. Then you're just being a _ (fill in blank with whatever seems appropriate)

Steve B

[botn]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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?

How could anyone get Brent when you have not managed to get off your knees for a second. Even Betsy is getting jealous.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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?

Where did he say that he has bid on a card because he was asked to? Can you please quote that? I only see where he was asked to bid on a card and didn't.

How is it shilling if you are willing to buy the card? If you see a PSA 8 52 T Mantle at a small auction selling for 100 k when you know it's worth 500k, are you going to let someone get a steal and make 400k or are you going to bid, even if you don't really want the card, because you know you can flip it for a huge profit?

[Whodunit]

So, Betsy started out by posting that my "very large unpaid debt" was the reason (not necessarily the only reason) for my being blocked by them. I have provided documents showing where i asked PRIOR to posting for an invoice for that "debt" so that I could pay them. It has been brought up and referenced on this thread MANY times. Can anyone seem to figure out why ive asked, why some of you guys have asked, etc for an invoice to settle that debt but yet, while they keep posting and attacking my character, refuse to acknowledge the request of an invoice to settle a debt? It's pretty clear that all eyes within that company are on this thread with the fact that s(he) keeps posting about EVERYTHING ELSE. Could it still be that the only thing that they have on me is an unpaid item, that Brent marked as paid and wont let me pay it via any form other than a forced wire or paypal gift. Am I the only one noticing that she brought up the debt yesterday afternoon, has posted several times since, but refuses to acknowledge it now? Could it be that Brent is scared shitless of what Ill show you guys next?

[glynparson]

Greg drops the mic! I am so glad I wasn't drinking something when i read this.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

So, Betsy started out by posting that my "very large unpaid debt" was the reason (not necessarily the only reason) for my being blocked by them. I have provided documents showing where i asked PRIOR to posting for an invoice for that "debt" so that I could pay them. It has been brought up and referenced on this thread MANY times. Can anyone seem to figure out why ive asked, why some of you guys have asked, etc for an invoice to settle that debt but yet, while they keep posting and attacking my character, refuse to acknowledge the request of an invoice to settle a debt? It's pretty clear that all eyes within that company are on this thread with the fact that s(he) keeps posting about EVERYTHING ELSE. Could it still be that the only thing that they have on me is an unpaid item, that Brent marked as paid and wont let me pay it via any form other than a forced wire or paypal gift. Am I the only one noticing that she brought up the debt yesterday afternoon, has posted several times since, but refuses to acknowledge it now? Could it be that Brent is scared shitless of what Ill show you guys next?

Out of my league, but something else I'd be concerned about. Wouldn't a $10K+ paypal Friends and Family 'gift' get flagged by the gubmint as well? With an invoice, there at least is a paper trail to an actual item.

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

1) Brent marked the cards paid before my paying for them; I have not received the cards. If he cancelled the purchase due to a non-payment, why was I not blocked for being a non-paying bidder? Also, why did I wire him 250K the month prior for another agreement? All of this is simple, elementary logic.

You keep saying you have more to tell us about even bigger transactions. Is it related to the $250K you claim to have sent to Brent for "another agreement" the month before. That terminology certainly is a weird way to describe a baseball card transaction. Do you want to enlighten us?

David Maupin

[sushihotwings]

Originally Posted by botn

How could anyone get Brent when you have not managed to get off your knees for a second. Even Betsy is getting jealous.

You know what guys. This kind of loose talk is getting out of hand.You just crossed way over any kind of respectable line here.

David Lamont

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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?

I have no personal animosity towards Brent, in fact I email with him directly when issues arise, including about the DiMaggio card. Our exchanges are always perfectly polite, even if he sometimes disagrees with my analysis/perspective and understands that I may post my opinion. The ad hominem attacks, David, really don't advance things. They are usually the resort of someone who is losing an argument.

[FirstYearCards]

Only way to know you're losing an argument. You're still arguing.

[Rookiemonster]

So at this point it appears Greg jump head first in to the rabbit hole and pulled out some funky stuff. How many card have had this treatment over the years ? How many are in your collection?

[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.

[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!"

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by gnaz01

Jake, this is driving me crazy, please stop!! And I am NOT the grammar police or anything like that, but to see an attorney with this bad grammar just kills me!! If it is a laziness issue then so be it, but the terminology is "could have" not "could of" for crying out loud!!

Im hooked on phonics and it aint no fun. Seriously I havent posted since 7 hours ago and i see 35 or so posts and i still see a lot of back and forth.

Theres also comments about people being on their knees etc. I dont think the board needs my help to have people 'sucked in' to other conversations.

The name calling really should stop. Who cares if someone collects cards for 20 dollars or $1000 dollars, everyone has a right to their equal opinion.

Not sure why anyone wants to be a net54 bully... its cardboard afterall, sometimes its 75k cardboard, sometimes its free cardboard......just have fun in the hobby and we can all try to improve it.

Still waiting on those texts from Courtney though..

[glynparson]

When did people get this idea that since you are entitled to your opinion it makes incorrect information correct. They are two different things. Opinions are not facts nor do they change them. So tired of hearing this stupid illogical statement everywhere I look these days.

[jefferyepayne]

Exhausting read!

A giant step forward in cleaning up our hobby would happen if:

1. Dealers would stop accepting bids from anyone with multiple retractions in the past 6 months. If PWCC is sooo worried about the hobby, let's see their policy move much more aggressively to this position. Setting a cutoff at 10, 20, or 30 retractions before banning a bidder is an insincere effort. I understand there are RARE occasions when a bid needs to be retracted but if that's happening more than one a year, I'm not buying it's legit.

2. Bidders would stop bidding on any lot where someone with multiple retractions has bid. This helps nudge dealers to move toward #1. Also, let's be honest. You should be doing this already (I do!), as its very likely these bidders are shills and you're just costing yourself $$$$$ when you put up with this. I personally don't have money to burn.

I know it takes restraint and intestinal fortitude to do these types of things but the alternative is much worse. Sorry, but stuff does not trump all ...

jeff

[iowadoc77]

Great words Jeff! (Hey Jeff, hope all is well)
I have retracted a bid before. I confess. But I contacted the seller because I bid on a card I already had out of impulse and realized I already had it. The seller was gracious and understood. I have a hard time imagining that volume of retractions unless there are shenanigans at work.

[PhillipAbbott79]

This thread needs the entire conversation exchange going all of the way back to 2012 from Courtney.

[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.

[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]

Leon, you seem awfully sensitive and defensive (uncharacteristically) on this thread. Earlier I simply asked you what your opinion was on the disclosure question and you responded that you refuse to be interrogated, or words to that effect. Greg simply points out another example of a before and after of what appears to be the same card that received a significantly higher grade and you attack him personally not to mention a guy (Adam) who died tragically many years ago. I suppose you may well attack me now, but I don't get it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Leon, you seem awfully sensitive and defensive (uncharacteristically) on this thread. Earlier I simply asked you what your opinion was on the disclosure question and you respond that you refuse to be interrogated, or words to that effect. Greg simply points out another example of a before and after of what appears to be the same card that received a significantly higher grade and you attack him personally not to mention a guy (Adam) who died tragically many years ago. I suppose you may well attack me now, but I don't get it.

Quite the contrary, Peter. I am only stating my thoughts just as you are stating yours. If I feel I am being asked questions in a manner that seems interrogatory, or in a pointed manner, I will state so. That is all. As for Greg, since he started this whole thread, which is fine, I just thought I would ask a question concerning the very thing he is talking about, which his ex-partner (who seemed like a nice guy to me, RIP) was doing as a normal hobby practice. I guess I don't understand your need to go after PWCC so vigorously either. It is as if you have a vendetta against them, whether you dismiss the claim or not. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Counselor.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Leon

Quite the contrary, Peter. I am only stating my thoughts just as you are stating yours. If I feel I am being asked questions in a manner that seems interrogatory, or in a pointed manner, I will state so. That is all. As for Greg, since he started this whole thread, which is fine, I just thought I would ask a question concerning the very thing he is talking about, which his ex-partner (who seemed like a nice guy to me, RIP) was doing as a normal hobby practice. I guess I don't understand your need to go after PWCC so vigorously either. It is as if you have a vendetta against them, whether you dismiss the claim or not. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Counselor.

Evasive is a good word. I asked for your opinion about whether or not PWCC did something wrong by not disclosing that they helped the cards appearance out and you won't give one. I can only presume because your opinions about it are financially contrary, right?

[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.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

I have read back and I don't see any details on the disciples and organized shilling. Just that you said it was going on . I see this topic has made its way to Blowout already to .

Can you please provide the link?

[swarmee]

It's been a while since I've posted in this thread, so here are my current thoughts:
1) The vast majority of people reading this thread probably think board member Dick Towle cleaned these cards, whether or not it's been stated in the thread. He is the most visible self-promoter of cleaning stains out of cards, and he claims to do it not to make them more valuable, but to allow people to enjoy their prized items more. The link I quoted about him being giddy about improving a 4 into a 7 seem to discount that premise.
2) There is definite egg on PWCC's face, and it's surprising to me that no one in hundreds of posts has even alluded to the fact that they used to promote California sales tax fraud and consignor's "hidden reserve" bidding on eBay when they started.
3) To the common man, both Brent and Cortney seem liable for different things, but as PWCC is a multimillion dollar company, they stand the greatest to lose. Their request to "take the high bid; it will get outbid" could be loose talk among friends, but I would think a jury would read it as direction to shill the auction and that they have another party willing to bid/push it higher.
4) I'm surprised the winner of the auction has not come on here or been identified. I'm wondering if PWCC will contact them directly and at least inform them of the thread and the likely decrease in value of this card in the future, and give the buyer the option to return the card. I realize this would hurt the consignor of the card, who is a member of this board.
5) I was glad that PWCC claimed to have the card re-inspected by PSA, but the timeline doesn't really add up unless they happened to do walk-through service and hand-delivered the card to PSA. Was the card given a new case and Cert number; if so, that would require the addition of a new set of scans uploaded to the auction. PSA claims that toning is not highly evaluated when scoring a card, unless it is uneven or causes an eyesore. I believe this card (if unaltered) could be a 7, since they are lenient on centering. Oddly enough, it probably couldn't be a 6.5. It could have also been knocked to a 7(MK) or a 5 due to the light stains on the back top.
6) As it currently stands, soaking a card in distilled water is an approved technique to clean up a card and a number grade should still be given to cards that have been soaked. However, cleaning with anything other than water is not accepted by the vast majority of the buyers of cards. I am not experienced enough in vintage cards to say whether or not this card was professionally cleaned with something other than water, but I can believe it. It still doesn't seem to be accepted for people to erase pencil marks from cards, despite the board host's doing it on his cards and having tacit approval from SGC (based on a previous thread, I believe). I believe PSA will still give erasure marks a (MK) designation if they detect erasures.

[Leon]

And asking the same questions usually elicit the same responses. Not sure that is evasive. I have stated that if I had a card cleaned I would state it. I am not prepared to say it should be "the law". Sorry I can't give the answer you are looking for. You are welcome to keep trying though.

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

Evasive is a good word. I asked for your opinion about whether or not PWCC did something wrong by not disclosing that they helped the cards appearance out and you won't give one. I can only presume because your opinions about it are financially contrary, right?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Greg simply points out another example of a before and after of what appears to be the same card that received a significantly higher grade and you attack him personally not to mention a guy (Adam) who died tragically many years ago.

You don't find it a bit hypocritical that someone (Greg) started a thread about card doctoring was a (alleged) card doctor himself?

You can't make this stuff up.

Come on, Greg! Inquiring minds want to know. Have you ever cleaned or doctored a card with the intention of re-sell?

[1952boyntoncollector]

For expensive things people usually ask for chain of custody type of thing.

I know if i was looking at two 1914 Cracker Jacks PSA 7 for $4000 and one guy can show 7 past sales of the same card for the past 10 years and the other guy cant show me any past sales, i would value the one with history more.

If its an original owner or came from the original owner of the card that bought it as a kid etc, i would require more than their word.

[Leon]

3. I think you are wrong on this account. After speaking with an attorney just now (not about this particular thing) this question came up. Statement absolutely could have meant the bid would be so low someone else will beat you anyway....that comment is commonplace in the hobby.

4. Value of the card actually went up AFTER this thread started. This card is probably worth just about what the selling price has been, imo, stain or no stain. I could see the PWCC buyer asking for a return but that is it. And I think that this particular card, even with transparency of the stain, will be worth as much or more in the future. Others will disagree....

6. I have never had any "tacit' approval from SGC or anyone, anywhere to erase anything. If a mark is erased, and it can't be seen any longer AND there is no indention from it, NO grader can discount for it. So if that is a tacit approval, ok.

Originally Posted by swarmee

It's been a while since I've posted in this thread, so here are my current thoughts:
1) The vast majority of people reading this thread probably think board member Dick Towle cleaned these cards, whether or not it's been stated in the thread. He is the most visible self-promoter of cleaning stains out of cards, and he claims to do it not to make them more valuable, but to allow people to enjoy their prized items more. The link I quoted about him being giddy about improving a 4 into a 7 seem to discount that premise.
2) There is definite egg on PWCC's face, and it's surprising to me that no one in hundreds of posts has even alluded to the fact that they used to promote California sales tax fraud and consignor's "hidden reserve" bidding on eBay when they started.
3) To the common man, both Brent and Cortney seem liable for different things, but as PWCC is a multimillion dollar company, they stand the greatest to lose. Their request to "take the high bid; it will get outbid" could be loose talk among friends, but I would think a jury would read it as direction to shill the auction and that they have another party willing to bid/push it higher.
4) I'm surprised the winner of the auction has not come on here or been identified. I'm wondering if PWCC will contact them directly and at least inform them of the thread and the likely decrease in value of this card in the future, and give the buyer the option to return the card. I realize this would hurt the consignor of the card, who is a member of this board.
5) I was glad that PWCC claimed to have the card re-inspected by PSA, but the timeline doesn't really add up unless they happened to do walk-through service and hand-delivered the card to PSA. Was the card given a new case and Cert number; if so, that would require the addition of a new set of scans uploaded to the auction. PSA claims that toning is not highly evaluated when scoring a card, unless it is uneven or causes an eyesore. I believe this card (if unaltered) could be a 7, since they are lenient on centering. Oddly enough, it probably couldn't be a 6.5. It could have also been knocked to a 7(MK) or a 5 due to the light stains on the back top.
6) As it currently stands, soaking a card in distilled water is an approved technique to clean up a card and a number grade should still be given to cards that have been soaked. However, cleaning with anything other than water is not accepted by the vast majority of the buyers of cards. I am not experienced enough in vintage cards to say whether or not this card was professionally cleaned with something other than water, but I can believe it. It still doesn't seem to be accepted for people to erase pencil marks from cards, despite the board host's doing it on his cards and having tacit approval from SGC (based on a previous thread, I believe). I believe PSA will still give erasure marks a (MK) designation if they detect erasures.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Quite the contrary, Peter. I am only stating my thoughts just as you are stating yours. If I feel I am being asked questions in a manner that seems interrogatory, or in a pointed manner, I will state so. That is all. As for Greg, since he started this whole thread, which is fine, I just thought I would ask a question concerning the very thing he is talking about, which his ex-partner (who seemed like a nice guy to me, RIP) was doing as a normal hobby practice. I guess I don't understand your need to go after PWCC so vigorously either. It is as if you have a vendetta against them, whether you dismiss the claim or not. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Counselor.

I have no vendetta against PWCC. I am simply expressing my opinion on one of their auctions. Many years ago a similar issue of dramatic but undisclosed "restoration" came up in the context of a Legendary auction, or maybe it was still Mastro, and I expressed the same opinion about the need for disclosure then. The difference was, Doug ended up disclosing it as a result of the Board's input. Obviously that did not happen here. It was some sort of Keeler cabinet.