My exceptional PWCC pickup.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Would it be better if I spoke to a top NY criminal defense attorney?

Meh, random professional.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Goudey77

May I remind you that this vault is a multi million dollar investment by the company. Probably wise to do research before making assumptions and getting counsel from random professionals on the matter. Because the due diligence has absolutely been done by those with skin in the game.

You now have crossed the line, for me, to sounding like a company shill. I had given you the benefit of the doubt.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

You now have crossed the line, for me, to sounding like a company shill. I had given you the benefit of the doubt.

The posts from the guy criticizing the OP for how much he spent on a card crossed the line of what should be acceptable on this forum, in my opinion. The comment you quoted actually sounds accurate. I don't believe they would build the vault without looking into the legality and tax implications.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

There's a difference between "I don't believe" and "Because the due diligence has absolutely been done"

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

The posts from the guy criticizing the OP for how much he spent on a card crossed the line of what should be acceptable on this forum, in my opinion. The comment you quoted actually sounds accurate. I don't believe they would build the vault without looking into the legality and tax implications.

What about building a business without looking into the legality of conspiring to defraud people by knowingly selling altered cards?

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by calvindog

What about building a business without looking into the legality of conspiring to defraud people by knowingly selling altered cards?

Those are strong allegations that I haven't seen proof of. If you know something I'm unaware of I'd be interested to hear or see what it is.

And to Scott I don't think it's a stretch to assume due diligence was done.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I agree, I would assume so, but I don't KNOW.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Those are strong allegations that I haven't seen proof of. If you know something I'm unaware of I'd be interested to hear or see what it is.

And to Scott I don't think it's a stretch to assume due diligence was done.

Have you read all the threads on Blowout identifying specific altered cards, and PWCC's own statement here that they will now "cease" doing business with card doctors? What is the necessary implication of that statement?

Edited to add 93 more today
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1293843

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Have you read all the threads on Blowout identifying specific altered cards, and PWCC's own statement here that they will now "cease" doing business with card doctors? What is the necessary implication of that statement?

Edited to add 93 more today
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1293843

Not all, I don't go to blowout often. I didn't see any evidence that pwcc knowingly sold altered cards there though. I don't think refusing to accept consignments from known or suspected card doctors will change much.

Hey jack, send this card in to pwcc for me. They banned my name or address. Not a hard thing to get around.

[irv]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Not all, I don't go to blowout often. I didn't see any evidence that pwcc knowingly sold altered cards there though. I don't think refusing to accept consignments from known or suspected card doctors will change much.

Hey jack, send this card in to pwcc for me. They banned my name or address. Not a hard thing to get around.

Just posted from Brent himself. https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1290614

These threads continue to be appreciated and we are grateful for the research.

While the original subject of this thread, the '52 Mantle, is an example of how a card can, in our opinion, be conserved, there have been a number of cards identified on this thread that do fit the definition of alteration.

Thanks to these important efforts, I will say that the submitters of the items that have been identified as altered are prohibited from participating in the PWCC Marketplace moving forward based on the terms of our Marketplace Tenets. We are also working with the grading companies to address the issue according to our Tenets.

Please don't hesitate to contact me at betsy@pwccmarketplace.com with any specific questions or comments.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Not all, I don't go to blowout often. I didn't see any evidence that pwcc knowingly sold altered cards there though. I don't think refusing to accept consignments from known or suspected card doctors will change much.

Hey jack, send this card in to pwcc for me. They banned my name or address. Not a hard thing to get around.

Honestly, if you have blinders on, I am not wasting time talking to you Jesse. PWCC ADMITTED it. End of discussion. Have a nice day.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Honestly, if you have blinders on, I am not wasting time talking to you Jesse. PWCC ADMITTED it. End of discussion. Have a nice day.

That may be true, but I didn't see that post.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

That may be true, but I didn't see that post.

Then perhaps you should read what's out there before making pronouncements about the state of the evidence?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then perhaps you should read what's out there before making pronouncements about the state of the evidence?

Why? If you don't read it that means it never happened.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Why? If you don't read it that means it never happened.

Are you always this cynical?

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then perhaps you should read what's out there before making pronouncements about the state of the evidence?

I believe my only pronouncement was that I hadn't seen any evidence, not exactly a groundbreaking revelation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I believe my only pronouncement was that I hadn't seen any evidence, not exactly a groundbreaking revelation.

It implied that it was your assessment of the evidence we've all been discussing.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Are you always this cynical?

Occupational hazard.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It implied that it was your assessment of the evidence we've all been discussing.

What I've seen was a statement that the 52 Mantle appeared to have been altered based on before and after pictures posted on blowout. I saw no evidence they knew this card was altered before posting it. Or that whatever was done to that card even meets PSA's definition of alteration.

I don't remember the whole story with that 36 DiMaggio, but I do remember it didn't look good.

I am completely unaware if there is evidence that they knew of any other altered cards submitted in their auctions. I stated to Jeff that if he knew something I didn't, I'd like to see it. I still would.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

What I've seen was a statement that the 52 Mantle appeared to have been altered based on before and after pictures posted on blowout. I saw no evidence they knew this card was altered before posting it. Or that whatever was done to that card even meets PSA's definition of alteration.

I don't remember the whole story with that 36 DiMaggio, but I do remember it didn't look good.

I am completely unaware if there is evidence that they knew of any other altered cards submitted in their auctions. I stated to Jeff that if he knew something I didn't, I'd like to see it. I still would.

You’re an idiot

[Goudey77]

Originally Posted by Goudey77

I am a lifetime collector and have seen this hobby evolve the last 30+ years.
To me there is no better time to collect cards. Whether it be modern or vintage. The auction marketplace is as competitive as ever. Making the limited quantity of premium eye appeal cards very special.

I am convinced these opportunities do not come up very often. I finally got one of these premium PWCC cards for my T206 personal collection. Very happy and appreciative for the opportunity to own high eye appeal cards like this. In my opinion labels by PWCC are very worthy of what they state.

+1 for the other side of the spectrum.

Let's lighten the mood and reset this thread to it's original post.
Thanks.

[frankbmd]

Isn’t that what started it?

[Frank A]

This whole thread is crazy. They know what their doing to cards and they don't give a shit. Plain and simple. MONEY!!!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

What I've seen was a statement that the 52 Mantle appeared to have been altered based on before and after pictures posted on blowout. I saw no evidence they knew this card was altered before posting it. Or that whatever was done to that card even meets PSA's definition of alteration.

I don't remember the whole story with that 36 DiMaggio, but I do remember it didn't look good.

I am completely unaware if there is evidence that they knew of any other altered cards submitted in their auctions. I stated to Jeff that if he knew something I didn't, I'd like to see it. I still would.

If you read what everyone else has read, you would be aware. If you aren't going to, you shouldn't opine. If you have read and still think there is no evidence, I don't even know what to say at this point.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If you read what everyone else has read, you would be aware. If you aren't going to, you shouldn't opine. If you have read and still think there is no evidence, I don't even know what to say at this point.

Brent admitted the Mantle was worked on prior to it being sold by him. Now Jesse is claiming that Brent is lying?

[Peter_Spaeth]

PWCC has ceased working with card doctors. Uh, to stop something, you must have been doing it before.

[calvindog]

Either Brent or Gary is going to run to the Feds to cooperate against the other to save his own skin. Who will it be? I have a hunch.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Either Brent or Gary is going to run to the Feds to cooperate against the other to save his own skin. Who will it be? I have a hunch.

Poll?

[Fuddjcal]

How about you just simply open your eyes?

[irv]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Brent admitted the Mantle was worked on prior to it being sold by him. Now Jesse is claiming that Brent is lying?

Supposedly he spoke of the "alterations" on instagram but wouldn't update the auction to mention them?

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Brent admitted the Mantle was worked on prior to it being sold by him. Now Jesse is claiming that Brent is lying?

My reading of his statement was an acknowledgment that the card appears to have been worked on, but not to a degree that would qualify for an altered grade. I didn't see anything that would indicate he had knowledge the card was altered before the auction.

I did not go to law school like some of those commenting. But it seems to me you guys are making assumptions and accusations that even if very likely to be true haven't been proven to be true. And you're stating them as though they're facts.

If more evidence comes out tying pwcc to card doctors and showing they knowingly defrauded customers it may bring the company down. Or it could turn out there isn't any proof and this will all blow over. If I had to place a bet today, it would be on the latter. It will be interesting to see how it plays out though.

[Leon]

Jesse, great post.

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

My reading of his statement was an acknowledgment that the card appears to have been worked on, but not to a degree that would qualify for an altered grade. I didn't see anything that would indicate he had knowledge the card was altered before the auction.

I did not go to law school like some of those commenting. But it seems to me you guys are making assumptions and accusations that even if very likely to be true haven't been proven to be true. And you're stating them as though they're facts.

If more evidence comes out tying pwcc to card doctors and showing they knowingly defrauded customers it may bring the company down. Or it could turn out there isn't any proof and this will all blow over. If I had to place a bet today, it would be on the latter. It will be interesting to see how it plays out though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

My reading of his statement was an acknowledgment that the card appears to have been worked on, but not to a degree that would qualify for an altered grade. I didn't see anything that would indicate he had knowledge the card was altered before the auction.

I did not go to law school like some of those commenting. But it seems to me you guys are making assumptions and accusations that even if very likely to be true haven't been proven to be true. And you're stating them as though they're facts.

If more evidence comes out tying pwcc to card doctors and showing they knowingly defrauded customers it may bring the company down. Or it could turn out there isn't any proof and this will all blow over. If I had to place a bet today, it would be on the latter. It will be interesting to see how it plays out though.

Read what Jeff posted about evidence he has seen in the thread started by PWCC. Read what PWCC ITSELF said. Not about Mantle, about no longer affiliating with card doctors. My God, dude, take off the blinders.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Jesse, great post.

IMO you just don't want to acknowledge reality, Leon. Everyone else here, except Jesse and maybe Martin, sees it plain as day.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

IMO you just don't want to acknowledge reality, Leon. Everyone else here, except Jesse, David and maybe Martin, sees it plain as day.

Throw my name in there too, Peter. I, too, have yet to see any evidence that Brent knew any cards were altered prior to going to auction.

From the Alteration vs. Conservation Defined thread: "you are innocent until proven guilty." Wouldn't that same statement apply to Brent too, or am I way off here?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Throw my name in there too, Peter. I, too, have yet to see any evidence that Brent knew any cards were altered prior to going to auction.

From the Alteration vs. Conservation Defined thread: "you are innocent until proven guilty." Wouldn't that same statement apply to Brent too, or am I way off here?

You make a worthy addition David. My apologies for not including you.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Throw my name in there too, Peter. I, too, have yet to see any evidence that Brent knew any cards were altered prior to going to auction.

From the Alteration vs. Conservation Defined thread: "you are innocent until proven guilty." Wouldn't that same statement apply to Brent too, or am I way off here?

You're a smart guy David. If I tell the world that from now on I won't rob any more banks, what does that convey about my past?

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're a smart guy David. If I tell the world that from now on I won't rob any more banks, what does that convey about my past?

A more relevant analogy would be what if a bank said they'd stop accepting deposits from money launderers, drug dealers, etc. Maybe they knew where the money was coming from, maybe they suspected but didn't ask any questions, or maybe they had no idea. But enough people on the banking forums were complaining, so they put out a statement saying they will work to prevent such deposits in the future.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

A more relevant analogy would be what if a bank said they'd stop accepting deposits from money launderers, drug dealers, etc. Maybe they knew where the money was coming from, maybe they suspected but didn't ask any questions, or maybe they had no idea. But enough people on the banking forums were complaining, so they put out a statement saying they will work to prevent such deposits in the future.

Uh huh. So how does the bank know who to stop accepting deposits from in your example unless it knows they're money launderers and drug dealers? And why did it ever take their deposits? Anyhow, read Jeff's post about evidence he has seen.

PS read the words. It doesn't say suspected, it says proven track record. "PWCC will officially cease working with any individual who has a proven track record of consistently hurting trust in the marketplace, the brand of PWCC, or the reputations of the grading companies upon which our market is based."

PPS if they're clean, why not release the identity of all the cards from such people they have sold in the past, instead of leaving it to the collectors to figure it out.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Uh huh. So how does the bank know who to stop accepting deposits from in your example unless it knows they're money launderers and drug dealers? And why did it ever take their deposits? Anyhow, read Jeff's post about evidence he has seen.

PS read the words. It doesn't say suspected, it says proven track record . "PWCC will officially cease working with any individual who has a proven track record of consistently hurting trust in the marketplace, the brand of PWCC, or the reputations of the grading companies upon which our market is based."

Well some of these guys are suspected drug dealers or money launderers. So they haven't been convicted of anything. And accepting their deposits isn't a crime. What legal justification is there for the bank to turn away their deposit? What if a drug dealer's grandmother gives him 100 bucks for his birthday? Can he deposit that check but not the drug money? How do you determine which is which?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Well some of these guys are suspected drug dealers or money launderers. So they haven't been convicted of anything. And accepting their deposits isn't a crime. What legal justification is there for the bank to turn away their deposit? What if a drug dealer's grandmother gives him 100 bucks for his birthday? Can he deposit that check but not the drug money? How do you determine which is which?

I honestly don't follow the relevance of all this. Does a private company PWCC need a legal justification to turn away a consignment? I thought we were discussing the import of their decision to do just that with people they say have a proven track record. Unless that language was a BS smokescreen and they actually aren't stopping doing business with anyone because the track record hasn't been proven? Interesting angle, I hadn't considered that. But, I wouldn't put it past them I suppose.

[calvindog]

The Net 54 grand jury is neck and neck here. I wonder what will happen?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

The Net 54 grand jury is neck and neck here. I wonder what will happen?

Can you serve on a grand jury if you have a conflict?

[Goudey77]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Can you serve on a grand jury if you have a conflict?

No he cannot. Jefferey read too much fake news

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I honestly don't follow the relevance of all this. Does a private company PWCC need a legal justification to turn away a consignment? I thought we were discussing the import of their decision to do just that with people they say have a proven track record. Unless that language was a BS smokescreen and they actually aren't stopping doing business with anyone because the track record hasn't been proven? Interesting angle, I hadn't considered that. But, I wouldn't put it past them I suppose.

I'm not a lawyer, but what if they turn away a consignment and that person alleges discrimination? What if they were falsely accused of being a card doctor by an ex business partner determined to see them fail? Who is responsible for putting names on this can't submit list? Is there an appeal process? In theory it sounds great. Just don't accept submissions from known card doctors. In practice I don't think it's that simple.

[Goudey77]

I think this is all a conspiracy to crap on my exceptional card that I was able to pick up. This conspiracy goes years back and Is too elaborate. I don’t buy anything anyone is saying.

[JollyElm]

But who here is Lee J. Cobb and who is Henry Fonda??

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Goudey77

No he cannot. Jefferey read too much fake news

Like Brent’s emails?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I'm not a lawyer, but what if they turn away a consignment and that person alleges discrimination? What if they were falsely accused of being a card doctor by an ex business partner determined to see them fail? Who is responsible for putting names on this can't submit list? Is there an appeal process? In theory it sounds great. Just don't accept submissions from known card doctors. In practice I don't think it's that simple.

Double post.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I'm not a lawyer, but what if they turn away a consignment and that person alleges discrimination? What if they were falsely accused of being a card doctor by an ex business partner determined to see them fail? Who is responsible for putting names on this can't submit list? Is there an appeal process? In theory it sounds great. Just don't accept submissions from known card doctors. In practice I don't think it's that simple.

My head may explode from all these hypotheticals. Look, the bottom line is that for the most part the major card doctors are well known to the major sellers in the hobby and the grading services and many of the collectors. And to the FBI, I would add. It's a close-knit community going back to the pre-internet show days and insiders know. There may be some who have flown under the radar but for the most part, they haven't.