Everyone's favorite auction house

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

I rarely post in these type of threads.

On the E95 Cobb, you can clearly see something was erased (it's not trying to be hidden, or deceitful, there's an obvious erasure there). What's also obvious to me, and many others, is that SGC took this into consideration when grading the card. If it did not have that erasure, the card would've safely been a 4-5.

.

Thats horseshit, they won't grade a card with and MK or erasure higher than a 1.5.

[ullmandds]

i have no opinion on the sign...but that cobb is obviously mis-graded.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Thats horseshit, they won't grade a card with and MK or erasure higher than a 1.5.

That might be close but not entirely true. They graded my Ragan T207 a 2 despite a large pencil mark on the back. Older flip, though, so perhaps their standards have changed.

[Republicaninmass]

Highest grade per the website

GRADE

2

QUALITY

GOOD

DESCRIPTION

Centered 90/10 or better. This card usually exhibits one or more of these characteristics: heavy print spots, heavy crease(s), pinhole(s), color or focus imperfections or discoloration, surface scuffing or tear, rounded and/or fraying corners, ink or pencil marking(s), and lack of all or some original gloss.

[frankbmd]

I just went out and tried to get rid of some rust on the undercarriage of my Wisconsin born Honda with several dozen cotton balls and distilled water.

Do you want to speculate on the results?

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

I just went out and tried to get rid of some rust on the undercarriage of my Wisconsin born Honda with several dozen cotton balls and distilled water.

Do you want to speculate on the results?

Your cotton balls are no longer white.

Brian

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

I just went out and tried to get rid of some rust on the undercarriage of my Wisconsin born Honda with several dozen cotton balls and distilled water.

Do you want to speculate on the results?

Back story.

Several years ago I sold a 2003 Toyota to an exporter of used cars. I disclosed that the transmission had a potentially serious problem. He didn’t care. All he was interested in, while negotiating a purchase price, was how rusty the undercarriage was.

He paid in cash above book and shipped the car to France.

And “Yes, Brian” my cotton balls took a beating.

[rhettyeakley]

I also think the erasure on the Cobb would result in a grade lower than what it was graded and to be honest I would have preferred that it had been pulled but the fact that it was pointed out the day before the auction ended was a difficult situation to be put in. It was handled a bit clumsy perhaps but I have no doubt Al wouldn’t have had an issue if the winner had missed it and didn’t want to go through with the sale, this is based on his track record of being honest and wanting to do right so he gets the benefit of the doubt. This benefit of the doubt is not afforded to those that have been actively consorting with known card doctors and have seriously questionable morals due to an overwhelming mountain of evidence.

The graders missed the erasure, so did Al. It was a singular mistake and he tried his best to make it right. This whole thread is ridiculousness. Jesse has a strange vendetta and it is obvious, he is trying to condone his own past bad behavior with PWCC by pointing out something that in his mind made himself look better... most everybody saw right through it.

Enough about the sign already, after the cleaning it has much better eye appeal.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I also think the erasure on the Cobb would result in a grade lower than what it was graded and to be honest I would have preferred that it had been pulled but the fact that it was pointed out the day before the auction ended was a difficult situation to be put in. It was handled a bit clumsy perhaps but I have no doubt Al wouldn’t have had an issue if the winner had missed it and didn’t want to go through with the sale, this is based on his track record of being honest and wanting to do right so he gets the benefit of the doubt. This benefit of the doubt is not afforded to those that have been actively consorting with known card doctors and have seriously questionable morals due to an overwhelming mountain of evidence.

The graders missed the erasure, so did Al. It was a singular mistake and he tried his best to make it right. This whole thread is ridiculousness. Jesse has a strange vendetta and it is obvious, he is trying to condone his own past bad behavior with PWCC by pointing out something that in his mind made himself look better... most everybody saw right through it.

Enough about the sign already, after the cleaning it has much better eye appeal.

Very true. Discovering an error on the last day of an auction is very difficult to fix. It usually requires phone calls to the high bidder, under bidders and consignor. It very seldom is pleasant and based on everyone’s input and severity of the error a tough decision is made.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Enough about the sign already, after the cleaning it has much better eye appeal.

Except that I'm still interested in whether people think the result of the "cleaning" as it looks in the photos is reasonable or even possible, especially those who have a lot of experience collecting and/or dealing in metal items. Is this a common practice with those, and this a common result?

[Joe Hunter]

I don't think the sign could have undergone that degree of transformation using just water as the solvent.

[Republicaninmass]

Ok, can he really pull it the last day...no

BUT to play devil's advocate....

And I quote

"
Any graded card valued over $500 will be reviewed carefully by LOTG under magnification, along with halogen and long-wave ultraviolet lighting. *Should we discover any issues with which we are uncomfortable, the card will be resubmitted to the grading company for review or returned to the consignor at their request."


Edited
My first reaction


A bunch of feel good horseshit, you can see that's erased from the moon

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Joe Hunter

I don't think the sign could have undergone that degree of transformation using just water as the solvent.

Thanks, Joe, I tend to agree with you, but Al's consignor claims otherwise. Another question I have is this: if the transformation was accomplished purely with the removal of rust and oxidated(?) material, even if aided by chemicals or other means, would that still be acceptable as a method of "cleaning" that wouldn't need to be disclosed? In other words: no additions, no coverings, no restoration, just the removal of material original to the piece, deteriorated and otherwise. Is that OK?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Thanks, Joe, I tend to agree with you, but Al's consignor claims otherwise. Another question I have is this: if the transformation was accomplished purely with the removal of rust and oxidated(?) material, even if aided by chemicals or other means, would that still be acceptable as a method of "cleaning" that wouldn't need to be disclosed? In other words: no additions, no coverings, no restoration, just the removal of material original to the piece, deteriorated and otherwise. Is that OK?

Hank it seems to me that if something is OK, which it may well be, that's all the more reason TO disclose it; after all, what's the downside of letting potential bidders know something generally considered acceptable was done so they can make a fully informed decision?

Not specific to this case, but people always seem to trip over themselves trying to explain why a certain thing done to a card or other item is perfectly acceptable, yet they won't disclose it. And yes one can take this to an extreme silly hypothetical (nobody would disclose that they blew off a piece of dust and nobody would argue that they should) but that's not a helpful response.

PS nothing changes, we had the same discussion about the Keeler cabinet card in Mastro in 2004 or thereabouts.

[Joe Hunter]

I’m a collector of vintage bobble heads. Disclosure of bobble head restoration is expected of a seller. It’s certainly not taboo to restore a bobble head; in fact, a professionally restored doll can bring probably 80-90 % of the same doll in unrestored condition. But, the buyer needs to know this, up front. I would say the same would apply to metal signs.

[RedsFan1941]

Originally Posted by Joe Hunter

I don't think the sign could have undergone that degree of transformation using just water as the solvent.

i think most objective people would agree with you.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

i think most objective people would agree with you.

Are you guys really going to make me get some stuff from the garage and learn how to post videos?

[bobfreedman]

Guys, I was the consignor and I cleaned it with distilled water ONLY. I actually took a picture of the process because I was so surprise how easily it came off. Here it is,

I know skeptics will always be skeptics but judge for yourself. This will be my one and only post about this as I feel that this board has a lynch mob mentality.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I also think the erasure on the Cobb would result in a grade lower than what it was graded and to be honest I would have preferred that it had been pulled but the fact that it was pointed out the day before the auction ended was a difficult situation to be put in. It was handled a bit clumsy perhaps but I have no doubt Al wouldn’t have had an issue if the winner had missed it and didn’t want to go through with the sale, this is based on his track record of being honest and wanting to do right so he gets the benefit of the doubt. This benefit of the doubt is not afforded to those that have been actively consorting with known card doctors and have seriously questionable morals due to an overwhelming mountain of evidence.

The graders missed the erasure, so did Al. It was a singular mistake and he tried his best to make it right. This whole thread is ridiculousness. Jesse has a strange vendetta and it is obvious, he is trying to condone his own past bad behavior with PWCC by pointing out something that in his mind made himself look better... most everybody saw right through it.

Enough about the sign already, after the cleaning it has much better eye appeal.

Believe it or not (I'm sure most of you won't) I have no grudge or vendetta against Al or LOTG. I've never met the man. I've bid on a few of their auctions but never won anything. We may have had a brief conversation when I first signed up for LOTG, I honestly Don't remember. I've gotten into it with some guy who I believe used to work with him in a few threads. I think his screen name is Bicem. Something like that.

The other LOTG threads I've spoken up in just started with me sharing my opinion on the issue. These threads are always so one sided in their favor that I find it quite ridiculous. If I have any grudge or bias, it's with the attitude on this board that they can do no wrong, and not with the AH or owner personally. I do remember one in particular when I wrote a sarcastic prediction that something would be really messed up in an upcoming auction, which would be followed by several posts about how it's no big deal because Al's such a great guy. Both came true.

I did not go looking for these issues. Someone mentioned them to me, and I was initially not going to say anything because I knew how it would look given the timing and similarity between the alterations on the E95 Cobb and my T3 Cobb. I'm also aware of the perception that I'm out to get Al, and that this would only add fuel to that fire. I almost didn't start this thread because of this.

I am not trying to condone or justify how I handled the T3 situation. I did my best and don't really care if you or anyone else approves.

I knew if I didn't point out these two items, no one else around here would. I felt they were worth discussing. I think it's beyond ridiculous that they put out a statement acting like they're above the current controversy and would instantly pull any altered card, only to do the opposite in the next auction. If they hadn't put out the statement, I would have no issue with the disclosure on the Cobb, other that the ridiculous justification for the decision based on the alternation not being done with the intent to deceive.

That statement in the Cobb disclosure is what pushed it over the edge for me, and what drew the PWCC comparison in my mind. Maybe the rest of you disagree. PWCC was crushed on the forums for making up the conservation definition as a distinction from other alterations. I personally believe he's right, there is a difference between cards that have been conserved, vs more egregious alterations, and that the hobby will eventually accept that definition. But that isn't relevant to this discussion.

This is copied from the LOTG disclosure:

"While our policy is to withdraw items that are discovered to be altered, in this case we believe the alteration is visible enough that it is debatable whether or not it was done deceptively."

I think that is a bunch of BS. The alteration is visible because someone did a poor job, just like on the T3 Cobb. Whoever it was that did the alteration was most likely trying to deceive either the next buyer or grader, but failed in their attempt to remove whatever was there without a trace.

I haven't seen anyone else even mention this, so perhaps I'm the only one who cares. But I have a hard time believing anyone could think a stain or mark wasn't removed from the Cobb deceptively. There should be no debate.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Believe it or not (I'm sure most of you won't) I have no grudge or vendetta against Al or LOTG. I've never met the man. I've bid on a few of their auctions but never won anything. We may have had a brief conversation when I first signed up for LOTG, I honestly Don't remember. I've gotten into it with some guy who I believe used to work with him in a few threads. I think his screen name is Bicem. Something like that.

The other LOTG threads I've spoken up in just started with me sharing my opinion on the issue. These threads are always so one sided in their favor that I find it quite ridiculous. If I have any grudge or bias, it's with the attitude on this board that they can do no wrong, and not with the AH or owner personally. I do remember one in particular when I wrote a sarcastic prediction that something would be really messed up in an upcoming auction, which would be followed by several posts about how it's no big deal because Al's such a great guy. Both came true.

I did not go looking for these issues. Someone mentioned them to me, and I was initially not going to say anything because I knew how it would look given the timing and similarity between the alterations on the E95 Cobb and my T3 Cobb. I'm also aware of the perception that I'm out to get Al, and that this would only add fuel to that fire. I almost didn't start this thread because of this.

I am not trying to condone or justify how I handled the T3 situation. I did my best and don't really care if you or anyone else approves.

I knew if I didn't point out these two items, no one else around here would. I felt they were worth discussing. I think it's beyond ridiculous that they put out a statement acting like they're above the current controversy and would instantly pull any altered card, only to do the opposite in the next auction. If they hadn't put out the statement, I would have no issue with the disclosure on the Cobb, other that the ridiculous justification for the decision based on the alternation not being done with the intent to deceive.

That statement in the Cobb disclosure is what pushed it over the edge for me, and what drew the PWCC comparison in my mind. Maybe the rest of you disagree. PWCC was crushed on the forums for making up the conservation definition as a distinction from other alterations. I personally believe he's right, there is a difference between cards that have been conserved, vs more egregious alterations, and that the hobby will eventually accept that definition. But that isn't relevant to this discussion.

This is copied from the LOTG disclosure:

"While our policy is to withdraw items that are discovered to be altered, in this case we believe the alteration is visible enough that it is debatable whether or not it was done deceptively."

I think that is a bunch of BS. The alteration is visible because someone did a poor job, just like on the T3 Cobb. Whoever it was that did the alteration was most likely trying to deceive either the next buyer or grader, but failed in their attempt to remove whatever was there without a trace.

I haven't seen anyone else even mention this, so perhaps I'm the only one who cares. But I have a hard time believing anyone could think a stain or mark wasn't removed from the Cobb deceptively. There should be no debate.

My understanding is that some people here are upset with PWCC's statement on conserving because they don't disclose what was done to the card. LOTG has disclosed issues with items. If conserving is ok as you believe, then why isn't it disclosed when the items are sold?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Can we please stop using PWCC's misleading terminology? Conservation is work done to preserve an item against further degradation. Even if you think what Brent does to cards is OK (and don't get me started), it isn't conservation, it's at best restoration -- work done to improve the appearance. Words matter.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Thats horseshit, they won't grade a card with and MK or erasure higher than a 1.5.

Nonsense!

The card below has a slight erasure on the back, one that I hadn't noticed despite owning the card since about 1980. I only found out about it when I asked SGC at a show why it was a 40 when I regularly see 50's with worse corners. They pointed it out pretty quickly.