PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Leon

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.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=152038

Originally Posted by Leon

Aloha Dave. I politely disagree with your statements. I think very light pencil marks can be taken off with no remnants of vestiges of a mark being left. As a matter of fact they can be taken off and not be able to be seen under high magnification. This is a fact but we can debate it all we want to. I will agree that technically erasing is altering the card as something is coming off. It is an acceptable alteration to me and most others. BTW, I consider SGC, BVG and PSA to be reputable companies and none of them have seen marks taken off, even when specifically looking for them. I know the graders at 2 of those 3 companies very well and have spent countless hours with them asking these questions. I assume you have to?

Here is the quote I was remembering when the thread was linked in a different thread and my interpretation was that if you spent countless hours discussing erasing pencil marks with all three main graders (not just SGC), that that would bestow tacit approval on removing pencil marks with erasers. I realize they can't catch everything, but don't believe the majority of card buyers would value a card with an undetectable erasure the same as one that never had been written on in the first place, if they were given the choice. Kind of the same discussion we're having about the toning removal in this thread. There have also been times they've goofed (I think I remember seeing a Red Hearts Mantle linked that had writing on the card, and was not given a (MK) though it should have.

[Leon]

I only have my 20 yrs of experiences to go on.
And on those quotes, you're interpretation is not correct, as to what I said. As I said, they never gave tacit approval nor did I ask them if I could do it. As for discussing everything under the sun with graders, I try to

Originally Posted by swarmee

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=152038


Here is the quote I was remembering when the thread was linked in a different thread and my interpretation was that if you spent countless hours discussing erasing pencil marks with all three main graders (not just SGC), that that would bestow tacit approval on removing pencil marks with erasers. I realize they can't catch everything, but don't believe the majority of card buyers would value a card with an undetectable erasure the same as one that never had been written on in the first place, if they were given the choice. Kind of the same discussion we're having about the toning removal in this thread. There have also been times they've goofed (I think I remember seeing a Red Hearts Mantle linked that had writing on the card, and was not given a (MK) though it should have.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Leon

I only have my 20 yrs of experiences to go on. And on those, you're interpretation is not correct, as to what I said. As I said, they never gave tacit approval nor did I ask them if I could do it. As for discussing everything under the sun with graders, I try to

Thanks for the response; I'm glad the grading companies don't condone erasures that they can detect or recommend people erase off their cards for higher grades.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Leon

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....

I will also disagree. Five years ago it was a $6,000 card, right? Just because it went up after this thread started, doesn't mean it was due to the thread. I posit that it was due to the other bidders not knowing about this thread. And I don't believe this card is now given the mythical Honus Wagner provenance that since it's altered and now more famous, that it's worth more. That will only be proven/disproven once the card goes back on the market again and all the buyers know of it's murky history.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by swarmee

It's been a while since I've posted in this thread, so here are my current thoughts:

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.
.

4.
Spin.. The winner of the 36WW DiMaggio was instructed by Brent to win the card. This could be a close friend or family member. This is why Cortney was told to make higher bids as it wòuld better for the public to see multiple bidders on it. Brent knew Cortney would not win it for this reason. Since all hell broke out on this card during the auction (this Net54 thread) , I'm sure Brent wanted this card to disappear for many reasons for a long time.

Plus, the ending price worked out just about perfect for John the consignor of the card to PWCC where he broke even or up 1k from his purchase price from Goldin.

So, the perfect storm for Brent was this card returning to PWCC to be sold. Then, this thread started which educated Cortney whose lack of research of the card came to light. Cortney had a great mutual business relationship with Brent over 5 years and that all came to an end, as it's easy to read his bias to Brent.

It's safe to say this card won't be seen for many years to come and if it does I can't wait to see how the auction company discloses the murky history of it.

5.
Agreed, the timeline does not add up and there's was no visual evidence that this occurred. The card should have a qualifier on it with the numerical grade. I am disappointed that PWCC didn't add to their description about the history once this thread started, but we all know why now. I'm also surprised no one spotted this in the Goldin auction. I see PWCC uses the word "Completeness" on other cards to be accurate.

Bottom line is I like Brent and think they are professional and have a great team. I see the same pattern forming that happened to Doug Allen who I used to be close to. I think his success along with greed caught up to him and then being around the wrong type of people. Doug Allen/John Rogers..... Brent/Cortney. Best advice to everyone is just keep doing what got you there and pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

4.
Spin.. The winner of the 36WW DiMaggio was instructed by Brent to win the card. This could be a close friend or family member. This is why Cortney was told to make higher bids as it wòuld better for the public to see multiple bidders on it. Brent knew Cortney would not win it for this reason. Since all hell broke out on this card during the auction (this Net54 thread) , I'm sure Brent wanted this card to disappear for many reasons for a long time.


It's safe to say this card won't be seen for many years to come and if it does I can't wait to see how the auction company discloses the murky history of it.

It would not surprise me if someone "really" won the card. The whole world doesn't read this Board, there are folks out there who wouldn't care about the restoration, and the price was not that high for a PSA 7 WWG DiMaggio. Could it have gone for less than it otherwise would have, sure.

[Stonepony]

I'll post my last thought on this thread. It will go on and on, then slip off the front page and all will be swept under the rug and nothing will come of it. Maybe in a year or two, Peter will pull a quote from it while we are discussing something similarly atrocious. I remember a few months ago a thread started by a member where received a nice card back from PSA with a top corner practically folded over as it had been damaged after submission. He sent it back to them, they FIXED IT and sent it back reholdered as an "8". That thread lasted about 3 day and practically no one blinked. People....nothing is going to change.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by stonepony

people....nothing is going to change.

+1000

[aloondilana]

Just my little tidbit.

Guy please, don't act like because I made 1000 or so that I am satisfied.
I did not consign this card and put up a lot of money to purchase it, to make 1000. I wholeheartedly feel screwed by this thread. My estimate was this card was going to hit the 60k mark at a minimum.

Be that as it may, it is what it is.

What you are all neglecting here is the real culprit of this disaster.

PSA, We pay them handsomely for their service and judgement.
For the most part we trust their flips.

This board probably deserves a response from Joe Orlando as it relates to this card. PSA took at least two looks at The DiMaggio and one of the looks came after this thread started.

Many people have been accused and have had their personal character insulted, while PSA has skated clean here. Not fair!

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

This board probably deserves a response from Joe Orlando as it relates to this card.

John, I agree however this WON'T happen in 1000 years!!

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

Just my little tidbit.

Guy please, don't act like because I made 1000 or so that I am satisfied.
I did not consign this card and put up a lot of money to purchase it, to make 1000. I wholeheartedly feel screwed by this thread. My estimate was this card was going to hit the 60k mark at a minimum.

r!

Its a bit presumptive to think you were going to clear 10k on a card that you bought a short time ago and all of those experienced bidders opinion's in the auction you won the card are wrong. There could of been a good reason why you won the card at the price you did in those other bidders minds that also spend tons of money on high dollar cards as flippers. I do not think you were remotely 'wholeheartedly screwed' in making a $1000 on the card. There are a lot worst scenerios that would qualify. I wish my biggest buy/sell regret was only making $1000.

Also you did say earlier on this thread you were going to lose money or least there was a high risk on the card due to what was said on this thread and it turns out you did not so your predictions have not always been so accurate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

Just my little tidbit.

Guy please, don't act like because I made 1000 or so that I am satisfied.
I did not consign this card and put up a lot of money to purchase it, to make 1000. I wholeheartedly feel screwed by this thread. My estimate was this card was going to hit the 60k mark at a minimum.

Be that as it may, it is what it is.

What you are all neglecting here is the real culprit of this disaster.

PSA, We pay them handsomely for their service and judgement.
For the most part we trust their flips.

This board probably deserves a response from Joe Orlando as it relates to this card. PSA took at least two looks at The DiMaggio and one of the looks came after this thread started.

Many people have been accused and have had their personal character insulted, while PSA has skated clean here. Not fair!

John forgive me but I am confused a bit. During the auction weren't you vigorously defending the grade? Now you say PSA is the culprit?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

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.

It was not Dick to the best of my information.

[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.

[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?