PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[Peeonduke]

Hi all,
I was made aware of this thread last night so I decided to join and throw in my 2 cents because I've had many dealings with Brent on higher dollar cards. A few here probably know me from the CU message board hey day, but that's neither here nor there.

I've consigned a decent amount of high dollar cards ($5k-$30k) to Brent over the years and have bid on stuff as well. I've never been asked to bid anything up, and I would've absolutely declined had I been. I've always found his customer service to be above and beyond what I've received from almost every auction house I've dealt with (pretty much all of the major ones). In my years of dealing with Brent and his crew, I've never had the sense that any impropriety has occurred. In fact, a few years ago there was a several thousand dollar proof card I consigned to him where Brent was made aware during the auction that it was not quite exactly what was represented; nothing nefarious, but it was information pertinent to the card that we both agree should be disclosed. Brent notified me that he felt it was the right thing to do once the auction ended to notify the winning bidder of the new info and give him the option to pass on the card which I agreed was fair. The bidder declined to pay which was understandable, so we relisted it in the next auction and disclosed what we had learned and it sold for around 40% of what it did the first time. This was a clear case of where it would've been very easy to not say a word, let the 1st guy pay and book a nice win. Brent chose to be proactive and do what he felt was right, which I respected and agreed with even though it cost me several grand and him several hundred.

I didn't come here to speak about the DiMaggio tirefire because I'm not involved and it seems there are already enough hot takes. I agree that the request for Cortney to bump up his bid is not a good look and probably something Brent regrets doing. All I can say is that I've done enough high-end business with Brent (not to the level that Cortney has, but definitely significant) to make an informed decision about his character and intentions with regard to the hobby. I've never done business with Cortney so I can't speak intelligently about his character, but from a distance it appears as if he feels doing a good amount of business with somebody gives him the right to treat them poorly; like a regular at a high-end restaurant treating the waitstaff like crap. The "$20 collector" line in post #405 says a lot about who he is in my eyes. I do sympathize with him with regards to the DiMaggio- if Brent had knowledge that the card had been soaked/toned/whatever, that should have been disclosed before making the private sale. My guess is that if Cortney treated people in a more respectful manner, this whole deal would've gone down differently.

Anyway, I know I'm a newbie here and my opinion will be taken with a grain of salt which is fine. But after reading all of the posts piling on Brent, I felt the need to speak up on his behalf based on my experience.

Lee

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bounce

Couple questions/issues I think are at the heart of this.

1) I think it's pretty well established that PWCC was at least in some way involved with the purchase of the card from REA, which was prior to any "changes". They were then involved with the subsequent sale of the card after those "changes", so I think it logically follows that they knew the "changes" had been made. I don't think it really matters whether they were "owners" or "brokers" from the standpoint of responsibility for the changes, they had knowledge of it.

They were then involved a 2nd time in the sale of the "changed" card, and it seems pretty clear that in neither instance did they disclose or point out that "changes" had been made. I'm not trying to make a sweeping all encompassing judgment of disclosure requirements here, but I think we can all agree in this specific example the "changes" are pretty "significant" and would be considered "material" information to many collectors.

I think a lot of people view that lack of disclosure as at least mildly dishonest, or maybe a better phrase is misleading through ommission? In either description, there's absolutely a question of "intention" is there not?


2) I don't view "string bids" (whether you take the lead or not) made at what is well less than the expected ending price of an auction to be shilling, but I also recognize that may not necessarily be the majority view - however I do think that distinction is pretty relevant to forming an opinion around the text message asking Courtney to "take the lead".

I think I tend to agree that the overall context of the text discussion is relatively harmless, except for the part where it goes to being "outbid". This is where views on string bids separate opinions. PWCC seems to "know" that the bids will go higher, and if so then why would the string bid matter whether taking the lead or not? I know folks will say it "looks bad" and PWCC even implies that understanding in the texts, but again these sorts of bids at well less than final sale price ultimately are irrelevant to the final sale price. Sure it bumps "activity", but it doesn't ultimately affect the price.

However, I acknowledge that if you fall in the camp that string bids are really a form of shilling, then the "you will get outbid" statement becomes at least somewhat concerning doesn't it?


3) I've thought a lot about what the correct designation for this card is, and I'm not able to come to a conclusion that a PSA 7 is in any way accurate. My logic is as follows. At some point, the original card "toned" except in areas on the right side that almost look like it was "clipped" or "taped", whatever prevented those areas for also toning. Somehow, the card was returned closer to it's original presentation. So from that standpoint, I don't think "altered" is the right assessment, because the toned card wasn't really in its original condition. However, removing of the toning (whether water or chemical) ultimately "restored" the card closer to the original condition and to me that is the accurate grading of the card - it's been RESTORED.

I should add that I don't believe it's always possible to know a card has been "restored", and for now I think we're giving the grader the benefit of the doubt. Although, a close inspection of the pictures here still indicate the "shadow" areas of the "clip/tape", and I probably fall in the camp that for a card at this value level that should have been identified, which I believe would have led to better understanding of its history and ultimately would have landed it in a different holder.

This is a great post. I think "restored" might well be an appropriate designation and then people can decide for themselves how it affects their assessment of the value. I wouldn't even mind if a number grade was given too, to indicate the grader's assessment of the present appearance. In the meantime, all we can rely on is the seller's full and candid disclosure, which was not (in my opinion) forthcoming here.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You're an attorney, Peter. Isn't that hearsay?

Sure, but if I were prosecuting this case I would have the invoice and the direct testimony of the source. So in effect I am vouching for what I could prove if I had the same abilities to secure evidence in an actual case. And anyhow Brent's failure to deny when confronted also might be independently admissible as an admission.

Are you saying, David, that you don't believe me? I guess you must not since you keep this up. Do you really think I am going to come on here and lie about what I was told, or about the reliability of the source?

[mark evans]

I'm glad I don't have serious money to invest in cards. Seems like significant likelihood of stress and disappointment.

On another front, to beat a real old dead horse, it seems like this incident, as well as other hobby issues, might best be dealt with by some form of quasi-independent regulatory authority. Funded presumably by dealers, it could, for example, address what sort of card 'treatments' are acceptable, how each should be graded, and what disclosures to potential buyers need be made.

Before anyone suggests self-interest here, while I at one time would have enjoyed getting involved in such an effort, at this point my interest is purely academic -- getting too old for a job.

[Brent Huigens]

There are two questions that warrant our response, which I will address here.

I ask you to take a step back and consider what is going on here. We have a unstable person who feels unfounded anger toward our company and who has been prohibited from participating in most major auction venues come on a message board and share personal communication between himself and Brent. People with his demonstrated lack of integrity should not have a respected voice on these boards. Those hoping to get evidence of impropriety will be disappointed. We have earned the business of folks who would otherwise not bid on eBay simply because we have blocked Cortney DeLorme.

It might seem hard to believe to our few skeptics, but asking Cortney to take the place as the high bidder was done to avoid us having to cancel his bids which would have affected the integrity of the auction. We certainly would have preferred he never bid at all on this card. His sequential bids were damaging to the auction atmosphere, yet we couldn't cancel the bids because it was not technically outside our policy. By him becoming the high bidder, it lessened the impropriety of his sequential bidding per our policy. There was nothing conniving about us stating that he would be outbid; our claim was simply based on assumptions about the perceived value of the card and the overall price expectations.

With due respect to those who wish to continue contributing to this thread, this will be our last post.

Betsy Huigens

[botn]

Originally Posted by Leon

That Dimaggio doesn't look out of place in a 7 holder to me. And if if there is nothing to detect, minus the shadow left, I don't know how any sane person can fault a grader for not seeing something that can't be seen. Such idiotic comments ....but then again, we are a microcosm of society. Not much better or worse....

At the risk of your feeling interrogated I think you make a leap of faith when you conclude that there is nothing for PSA to detect. PSA misses stuff all the time, intentionally and not, so without your handling the card yourself after it was cleaned you cannot assume because it is in a holder now that there was nothing to detect.

As far as it being graded accurately, I am one who feels they missed the boat, at it should be in a 6. The remnants of the stain/toning are still there and should not be on a NM card. A card of that magnitude I would expect to have more than a cursory examination.

[sterlingfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This is a great post. I think "restored" might well be an appropriate designation and then people can decide for themselves how it affects their assessment of the value. I wouldn't even mind if a number grade was given too, to indicate the grader's assessment of the present appearance. In the meantime, all we can rely on is the seller's full and candid disclosure, which was not (in my opinion) forthcoming here.

I personally like how CGC graded comic books can have a "restored" grade with a number indicating the grader's assessment of its current appearance. My only concern with that is if a process was used that could enhance the item's degradation over time much quicker than normal.

In any case, with the PSA grading system the way it is currently, I feel the DiMaggio would be much better suited in a PSA "Authentic Altered" holder than a "7".

As a $20 collector and a relatively new board member, though, my opinion is next to worthless.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Are you saying, David, that you don't believe me?

Peter, it's not that I don't believe you, it's that I believe you may have been given false information. You still have no hard evidence that Brent won the card at REA, other than what people have told you. Do you think that just because enough people tell you something that it's true?

On the other hand, Cortney has said (and these are direct quotes), "Brent won it in REA (yes, that is highly documented)" and "I'll continuously oblige anyone who's paying attention with some new facts and "hard" evidence."

OK, so oblige me. Where's this "highly documented" "hard evidence" that Brent bought it at REA? He said he has a screen shot. Either I'm overlooking it (and if I am please point me to it) or he hasn't posted it.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Peeonduke

Hi all,
I was made aware of this thread last night so I decided to join and throw in my 2 cents because I've had many dealings with Brent on higher dollar cards. A few here probably know me from the CU message board hey day, but that's neither here nor there.

I've consigned a decent amount of high dollar cards ($5k-$30k) to Brent over the years and have bid on stuff as well. I've never been asked to bid anything up, and I would've absolutely declined had I been. I've always found his customer service to be above and beyond what I've received from almost every auction house I've dealt with (pretty much all of the major ones). In my years of dealing with Brent and his crew, I've never had the sense that any impropriety has occurred. In fact, a few years ago there was a several thousand dollar proof card I consigned to him where Brent was made aware during the auction that it was not quite exactly what was represented; nothing nefarious, but it was information pertinent to the card that we both agree should be disclosed. Brent notified me that he felt it was the right thing to do once the auction ended to notify the winning bidder of the new info and give him the option to pass on the card which I agreed was fair. The bidder declined to pay which was understandable, so we relisted it in the next auction and disclosed what we had learned and it sold for around 40% of what it did the first time. This was a clear case of where it would've been very easy to not say a word, let the 1st guy pay and book a nice win. Brent chose to be proactive and do what he felt was right, which I respected and agreed with even though it cost me several grand and him several hundred.

I didn't come here to speak about the DiMaggio tirefire because I'm not involved and it seems there are already enough hot takes. I agree that the request for Cortney to bump up his bid is not a good look and probably something Brent regrets doing. All I can say is that I've done enough high-end business with Brent (not to the level that Cortney has, but definitely significant) to make an informed decision about his character and intentions with regard to the hobby. I've never done business with Cortney so I can't speak intelligently about his character, but from a distance it appears as if he feels doing a good amount of business with somebody gives him the right to treat them poorly; like a regular at a high-end restaurant treating the waitstaff like crap. The "$20 collector" line in post #405 says a lot about who he is in my eyes. I do sympathize with him with regards to the DiMaggio- if Brent had knowledge that the card had been soaked/toned/whatever, that should have been disclosed before making the private sale. My guess is that if Cortney treated people in a more respectful manner, this whole deal would've gone down differently.

Anyway, I know I'm a newbie here and my opinion will be taken with a grain of salt which is fine. But after reading all of the posts piling on Brent, I felt the need to speak up on his behalf based on my experience.

Lee

I am sure he had no issues with disclosing that your card had an issue with it. The problem here is, it was his card, and he was the one who had it cleaned. See how they are not even close in comparison?

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Brent Huigens

There are two questions that warrant our response, which I will address here.

I ask you to take a step back and consider what is going on here. We have a unstable person who feels unfounded anger toward our company and who has been prohibited from participating in most major auction venues come on a message board and share personal communication between himself and Brent. People with his demonstrated lack of integrity should not have a respected voice on these boards. Those hoping to get evidence of impropriety will be disappointed. We have earned the business of folks who would otherwise not bid on eBay simply because we have blocked Cortney DeLorme.

It might seem hard to believe to our few skeptics, but asking Cortney to take the place as the high bidder was done to avoid us having to cancel his bids which would have affected the integrity of the auction. We certainly would have preferred he never bid at all on this card. His sequential bids were damaging to the auction atmosphere, yet we couldn't cancel the bids because it was not technically outside our policy. By him becoming the high bidder, it lessened the impropriety of his sequential bidding per our policy. There was nothing conniving about us stating that he would be outbid; our claim was simply based on assumptions about the perceived value of the card and the overall price expectations.

With due respect to those who wish to continue contributing to this thread, this will be our last post.

Betsy Huigens

I love how you still can't just say what was done to the card and why you did not mention it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

David I am telling you my source is absolutely reliable, among the most respected figures in this hobby. I am not going to give him up right now. Use your common sense. Brent and Betsy have been waging a PR campaign to try to counter Cortney's assertions about shill bidding. Without commenting on that issue, don't you think if Brent hadn't bought the SGC 50 they would have denied that? Au contraire, they essentially admitted it by pointing out that they sometimes buy cards for clients. Go back and read their posts.

[Rookiemonster]

Didn't know how sensitive some grow men could be. I might be considered a 10 dollar collector to many in the hobby. I really don't care what it's called or how someone feels about my collecting budget or anything for that matter.

Next PWCC nice stance but with a name like pre-war card collector you would think that your damage control would be more direct then a I'm not talking about this anymore. Considering this extremely damaging info on the biggest pre war card site.

Those are the two questions you feel compelled to respond to? Not that fact that you knew before hand that card was purchased by your company and the altered and resold? Well as it's stands and not expecting any more responses from you. I could tell you my 10 dollar or 20 won't be going towards your company.

I mean you also have the texts so let's see them from Brent. If it's just some angry guy blow him out the water and fix your name . Or if you can't ! Just walk away......

[Peter_Spaeth]

Post 409, David.

Though not part of our regular service offering, PWCC has had cards graded on behalf of our clients, usually at major shows, which are then consigned to our auctions. In rarer cases, we have also purchased cards on behalf of consignors with whom we manage a credit. This is largely consistent with every other auction house in the country.

Enough of this.

[Peeonduke]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

I am sure he had no issues with disclosing that your card had an issue with it. The problem here is, it was his card, and he was the one who had it cleaned. See how they are not even close in comparison?

I was not comparing my situation to the DiMaggio, they are clearly two entirely different things. I was just trying to shed light as to why I trust Brent's intentions as it relates to the hobby and give an example of why I feel this way. I feel he made some questionable calls with regard to the DiMaggio situation and stated as much in my post. But I also believe this situation is the exception rather than the rule.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Please read the entire comment before responding.
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.
2) I stated that since the cards were marked "paid", that ebay or paypal doesn't allow you to pay them "again". That being the case, the only method of payment that falls within the ebay/paypal buyer/seller protection guidelines is not available to me since he's marked them as already paid. My only option now is to pay via wire or paypal gift. THAT is what I said was not going to happen....paying him a disclosed amount with no accounting in place to document it.
3) Therefor, I have asked on multiple occasions for a PAYPAL INVOICE detailing what the $59,310 was for and STATED THAT IT would be paid immediately.

My guess is he knows I've got him by the balls here and wants to be able to throw rocks at me for this "unpaid debt" that they referenced. I owe them $59,310. I'm not disputing that. Get them to invoice me, and I'll screenshot a picture of the payment min's later.

Do I need to detail that any further b/c it seems pretty cut and dry to me? I can't pay what he marked paid b/c ebay won't let me. I'm not going to wire them when they're bashing me due to a "very large unpaid debt" even though he and I have worked off of wires for over 5 years. This particular case is a little different; wouldnt you agree? Again, I've asked for an invoice on multiple occasions and he refuses to send it to me. The last time I asked (2/8/17) was actually 2 min's after he said "you need to worry about what you owe us and not.....". In that screenshot, I asked again for an invoice and have yet to get one. I would absolutely love for Brent/Betsy to provide "proof" of something that can dispute ANY of what I've said or am saying. Again, I'm not going to put myself in a legal jam by saying things that aren't true about someone or a company. However, when I have the proof, and when you lie to me and piss me off bad enough, I will go to the ends of the earth to unearth the last thing on the planet that he wants you guys to see.

Again, if you're going to question me on something I've already stated, please at least make sure you've read the entire post and not simply skimmed through it.

I'm beginning to think that you and David are on the same team here and no matter what one says, you're going to try and find a way to spin it in another direction, or intentionally manipulate or overlook SHOWN FACTS.

If the latter is the case, STFU and quit responding to my posts.

Yes i understand why you want to pay by ebay, its actually shady to do it through paypal. Perhaps when he blocked you he is unable to go through ebay. What cards were purchased, and what has become of them?

I am not on either ones side. You did state you would be sending more texts from before and after the texts you provided which havent been showed yet.

Your tact and bedside manner is pretty poor but no one should be ripped off. In any event i think you explained things better on that post, which was not explained before and my post was fair to ask for a better response.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by botn

At the risk of your feeling interrogated I think you make a leap of faith when you conclude that there is nothing for PSA to detect. PSA misses stuff all the time, intentionally and not, so without your handling the card yourself after it was cleaned you cannot assume because it is in a holder now that there was nothing to detect.

As far as it being graded accurately, I am one who feels they missed the boat, at it should be in a 6. The remnants of the stain/toning are still there and should not be on a NM card. A card of that magnitude I would expect to have more than a cursory examination.

I agree it should be a 6 but its in a gray area.


Peter: If you buy a card raw for 10 dollars at a yard sale and then 'restore' it..and send it in to PSA and get a grade of PSA 7 and now that card is worth $7000, i dont think anyone would say that sale of the card for $7000 wasnt fair or that the sale of the card was a SCAM.

Whats really the difference of buying a card in a SGC holder or a raw card in terms of then having the card restored and graded by PSA

You have to send in the raw card first to PSA and get an 'authentic' and then send it in again 'restored' and get a PSA 7 to now have to disclose the prior grade. The fact that the card got a grade before changes everything?

If the card earns a grade it earns a grade. To quote a football coach, you are what your record is....

You may not agree with what i said about a raw card earning a grade but you have to agree that i have never seen an auction in history talk about a card that was sent in to PSA after it was restored ever.

The only exceptions i can see is if the 'restoring' did something that could be reversed as the card sits in the holder where it would be obvious that in a unreasonable amount of time the card was waaaay overgraded. Like seeing a wrinkle after a year on a PSA 8 etc.

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I agree it should be a 6 but its in a gray area.


Peter: If you buy a card raw for 10 dollars at a yard sale and then 'restore' it..and send it in to PSA and get a grade of PSA 7 and now that card is worth $7000, i dont think anyone would say that sale of the card for $7000 wasnt fair or that the sale of the card was a SCAM.

Whats really the difference of buying a card in a SGC holder or a raw card in terms of then having the card restored and graded by PSA

You have to send in the raw card first to PSA and get an 'authentic' and then send it in again 'restored' and get a PSA 7 to now have to disclose the prior grade. The fact that the card got a grade before changes everything?

If the card earns a grade it earns a grade. To quote a football coach, you are what your record is....

You may not agree with what i said about a raw card earning a grade but you have to agree that i have never seen an auction in history talk about a card that was sent in to PSA after it was restored ever.

The only exceptions i can see is if the 'restoring' did something that could be reversed as the card sits in the holder where it would be obvious that in a unreasonable amount of time the card was waaaay overgraded. Like seeing a wrinkle after a year on a PSA 8 etc.

You mean like t206 mastro Wagner? Look where it got them but that only happens when you didn't do anything that wrong and psa was also innocent in that matter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I agree it should be a 6 but its in a gray area.


Peter: If you buy a card raw for 10 dollars at a yard sale and then 'restore' it..and send it in to PSA and get a grade of PSA 7 and now that card is worth $7000, i dont think anyone would say that sale of the card for $7000 wasnt fair or that the sale of the card was a SCAM.

Whats really the difference of buying a card in a SGC holder or a raw card in terms of then having the card restored and graded by PSA

You have to send in the raw card first to PSA and get an 'authentic' and then send it in again 'restored' and get a PSA 7 to now have to disclose the prior grade. The fact that the card got a grade before changes everything?

If the card earns a grade it earns a grade. To quote a football coach, you are what your record is....

You may not agree with what i said about a raw card earning a grade but you have to agree that i have never seen an auction in history talk about a card that was sent in to PSA after it was restored ever.

The only exceptions i can see is if the 'restoring' did something that could be reversed as the card sits in the holder where it would be obvious that in a unreasonable amount of time the card was waaaay overgraded. Like seeing a wrinkle after a year on a PSA 8 etc.

Altering a raw card and getting it graded is the same thing. How is that not obvious? Your logic would say that if I trim a card and get it past PSA, that's fine too. "If a card earns a grade it earns a grade."

Carry on with the spin and defense. Apparently Brent and Betsy are not posting any more so they need good proxies.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Post 409, David.

Though not part of our regular service offering, PWCC has had cards graded on behalf of our clients, usually at major shows, which are then consigned to our auctions. In rarer cases, we have also purchased cards on behalf of consignors with whom we manage a credit. This is largely consistent with every other auction house in the country.

Enough of this.

Post 456 Peter:

Brent says that whoever removed the toning from the card did the hobby a favor. While that's his opinion, it sounds to me like from the tone of the text somebody else did it and he's not sure who it was.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

You may not agree with what i said about a raw card earning a grade but you have to agree that i have never seen an auction in history talk about a card that was sent in to PSA after it was restored ever.

Here you go:

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...tored-example/

Now let the argument be that its a Wagner and the other card is not as if that matters.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Post 456 Peter:

Brent says that whoever removed the toning from the card did the hobby a favor. While that's his opinion, it sounds to me like from the tone of the text somebody else did it and he's not sure who it was.

He knew it had been worked on when he submitted it to PSA. It's obvious he knew who had done the work or who commissioned it, but it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. I have wasted enough time on this, nobody else on this Board believes Brent did not know the history of this card including the work done on it.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Altering a raw card and getting it graded is the same thing. How is that not obvious? Your logic would say that if I trim a card and get it past PSA, that's fine too. "If a card earns a grade it earns a grade."

Carry on with the spin and defense. Apparently Brent and Betsy are not posting any more so they need good proxies.

Now its you doing the spin. I never said anything about trimming the card, noone said the Dimaggio was altered that way.

What about soaking a card. If you soak a card at a yard sale for $5 and you get the card graded a 7 and sell it for $5000. I dont think anyone would complain. But if you bought the card as a SGC 4, and there is a auction sale of the card and now you soak the card and get a PSA 7 and make $5000 people will have a problem with that. At least more people would have a problem with that second example then the first, but to me they are the same level.

Many on this board think soaking a card isnt scam behavior. Please refrain from adding extra things to fake make a point. I also do not think its ok to buy a card thats ripped in half then put it together. Thats also not what happened with the Dimaggio. I can fake make a point as well and say a card was altered because somebody removed dust. No need to make up extreme fact patterns.

I also concur with you that at this point that it does appear Brent knew the history of the card when it was listed at PWCC.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

What about soaking a card. If you soak a card at a yard sale for $5 and you get the card graded a 7 and sell it for $5000. I dont think anyone would complain.

If they know about it, they likely would. Which is exactly the point of this thread. Disclosure.

How after hundreds of posts is that not perfectly crystal clear? It doesn't matter if you think that, it is wrong or right. It is wrong to not disclose it. It has proven to affect value.

It is that simple. The rest is people attempting to win the argument with their point of view, and items presented are irrelevant to the facts that 'lack of disclosure brings less profit'.

[botn]

I have recreated the PSA submission that contained the 36 WWG Joe D and identified who sold the card and when it was sold. Also added pics of those cards except for the 33 Foxx and of course the infamous 36 WWG Joe D. I am sure David James and Jake will have no problem with this. 5 out of 10 happened to be Certified HE. Have not bothered to try to trace the cards to lower graded holders so if someone out there wants to...

24692740 1911 D304 Brunners Bread Ty Cobb PSA 4.5 Sold by PWCC 12/6/15
24692741 1915 Cracker Jack #105 Joe Jackson PSA 3 Sold by PWCC 11/8/15
24692742 No Grade
24692743 No Grade
24692744 1933 Goudey #29 Jimmy Foxx PSA 5 No Record of Sale
24692745 1933 Goudey #149 Babe Ruth PSA 5.5 Sold by PWCC 10/6/15
24692746 1934 Goudey #61 Lou Gehrig PSA 5 Sold by PWCC 10/6/15
24692747 1935 National Chicle #34 Bronko Nagurski PSA 3.5 Sold by PWCC 10/18/15
24692748 1936 World Wide Gum #36 Joe DiMaggio PSA 7 Sold Privately by PWCC
24692749 1940 Play Ball #1 Joe DiMaggio PSA 5 Sold by PWCC 10/6/15
24692750 1940 Play Ball #27 Ted Williams PSA 6 Sold by PWCC 10/6/15
24692751 1941 Play Ball #14 Ted Williams PSA 6 Sold by PWCC 11/8/15
24692752 1941 Play Ball #71 Joe DiMaggio PSA 5 Sold by PWCC 11/8/15
24692753 No Grade
24692754 1957 Topps #95 Mickey Mantle PSA 8.5 Sold by PWCC 10/8/15

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

If they know about it, they likely would. Which is exactly the point of this thread. Disclosure.

How after hundreds of posts is that not perfectly crystal clear.

Thats not industry standard. How many cards that have sold at auction do you think were soaked previously. What percentage of those card are disclosed? Zero?

If a wrinkle/paperloss/crease is not disclosed thats different because thats industry standard.

Peope dont show what the card looked like when they bought it raw after its graded and people may not show what a card looked like in a different holder when they bought the card.

I do not have any expectation as a buyer at an auction that they would disclose if a card was soaked previously, would you? if i was buying a 50k card i know i would check past sales. for the Dimaggio it was not hard to track down the exact card being sold previously. Now if you couldnt find any prior sales in 5 minutes with google, maybe that would be a better argument, but thats not the case here. 5 minutes of due diligence and the buyer is fully informed.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Thats not industry standard. How many cards that have sold at auction do you think were soaked previously. What percentage of those card are disclosed? Zero?

If a wrinkle/paperloss/crease is not disclosed thats different because thats industry standard.

Peope dont show what the card looked like when they bought it raw after its graded and people may not show what a card looked like in a different holder when they bought the card.

You can't take history and justify righteousness with it. Insert another quarter.

REA's disclosure and PSA's label of restoration are righteous and noble. PWCCs cleaning/doctoring or whatever you want to call it, without disclosure is not. Tomorrow there may be yet another thing new that has not been discovered yet, that nets money that is less than pure and perfectly ethical. Does that mean that because its not industry standard it is OK? Of course not. Things take time to become standard. Scams take time to be discovered.

[1952boyntoncollector]

[QUOTE=botn;1632193]I have recreated the PSA submission that contained the 36 WWG Joe D and identified who sold the card and when it was sold. Also added pics of those cards except for the 33 Foxx and of course the infamous 36 WWG Joe D. I am sure David James and Jake will have no problem with this. 5 out of 10 happened to be Certified HE. Have not bothered to try to trace the cards to lower graded holders so if someone out there wants to...

Nothing wrong with tracking it down. I actually have more of a problem of any colluding shill bidding that is known by the auction owner versus worrying about a difference in opinion on grading companies and any accepted forms of altering cards.. There are more legal legs to the shilling..

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

You can't take history and justify righteousness with it. Insert another quarter.

REA's disclosure and PSA's label of restoration are righteous and noble. PWCCs cleaning/doctoring or whatever you want to call it, without disclosure is not. Tomorrow there may be yet another thing new that has not been discovered yet, that nets money that is less than pure and perfectly ethical. Does that mean that because its not industry standard it is OK? Of course not.

Actually you can. Thats actually a valid legal defense. It doesnt mean they win but it shows its far from scam behavior. Experts can be hired to argue those points for both ways. People lose tons of money and time pursuing cases in which maybe in 10 years they could of been right. Tell them dont worry it will take time for there to be a new standard even though they have now lost everything.

Again, when you buy anything at an auction house, do you expect them to disclose if a card was soaked prior to submission? You will say no.

Do you expect an auction house to disclose if a card is micro wrinkled that you may not be able to see from a photo? You will say yes.

You also didnt comment that its common practice to do due dillgence on a 50k card. A 5 minute google search would of resolved that. I dont buy a used card at a dealership and rely on the dealer to tell me everything about the car. There is an industry standard.

As an analogy, I may have caused your auto accident, but if you are only injured because you did not wear a seatbelt, you are to blame.

[Republicaninmass]

Interesting that suspected shilling by the consignors was always a topic, but not that PWCC was the actual owner and seller.

[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.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Actually you can. Thats actually a valid legal defense. It doesnt mean they win but it shows its far from scam behavior. Experts can be hired to argue those points for both ways. People lose tons of money and time pursuing cases in which maybe in 10 years they could of been right. Tell them dont worry it will take time for there to be a new standard even though they have now lost everything.

Again, when you buy anything at an auction house, do you expect them to disclose if a card was soaked prior to submission? You will say no.

Do you expect an auction house to disclose if a card is micro wrinkled that you may not be able to see from a photo? You will say yes.

You also didnt comment that its common practice to do due dillgence on a 50k card. A 5 minute google search would of resolved that. I dont buy a used card at a dealership and rely on the dealer to tell me everything about the car. There is an industry standard.

As an analogy, I may have caused your auto accident, but if you are only injured because you did not wear a seatbelt, you are to blame.

The law will attempt to defend righteousness, but being lawful at all times isn't always righteous. My guess is you are a lawyer, so I completely understand why you may be blind to that fact. I believe relevant facts about items should be disclosed. It is good for both the seller and buyer to eliminate confusion on items by providing clear communication about the items state. If their pictures are not clear enough to disclose what can be found out by holding an item in your hand.

We both know that "As an analogy, I may have caused your auto accident, but if you are only injured because you did not wear a seatbelt, you are to blame." is a moronic statement and is an flawed analogy. If I am liable for your injuries I may argue that if you had worn your belt your injuries would have been a lot less severe. Wearing your seat belt is the law, much like not doing whatever caused the accident makes me liable.

You can stop playing word games. That only works in the court on stupid people.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by botn

Here is the 15 CJ Jackson before it was cleaned. Come on David and Jake, you guys try to find the other 9 on the list and let's all have fun.

Took you like 5 minutes to find it. I bet when you buy a card you will know the history of it. Looks like that card was soaked and not ripped in half and no razor was involved. I bet a tidy profit was made. The buyer of the card may of known about the alteration as well. Not sure what you are proving except that soaking is commonplace and never disclosed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Looked better with the stains, Greg.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Took you like 5 minutes to find it. I bet when you buy a card you will know the history of it. Looks like that card was soaked and not ripped in half and no razor was involved. I bet a tidy profit was made. The buyer of the card may of known about the alteration as well. Not sure what you are proving except that soaking is commonplace and never disclosed.

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

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

The law will attempt to defend righteousness, but being lawful isn't always righteous. My guess is you are a lawyer, so I completely understand why you may be blind to that fact.

Im guessing you arent a lawyer when looking at your legal arguments and also think the law is about being fair. There is politics in the law. Politicians create law. Judges gets voted in and politicians pick judges as well. If you think politicians are righteous then really nothing more to be said.

[Rookiemonster]

Who sold that card Greg ?

Ps your awesome

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[botn]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Took you like 5 minutes to find it. I bet when you buy a card you will know the history of it. Looks like that card was soaked and not ripped in half and no razor was involved. I bet a tidy profit was made. The buyer of the card may of known about the alteration as well. Not sure what you are proving except that soaking is commonplace and never disclosed.

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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

No we completely disagree obviously, I was being sarcastic.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

Who sold that card Greg ?

Ps your awesome

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Im guessing you arent a lawyer when looking at your legal arguments and also think the law is about being fair. There is politics in the law. Politicians create law. Judges gets voted in and politicians pick judges as well. If you think politicians are righteous then really nothing more to be said.

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

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No we completely disagree obviously, I was being sarcastic.

and I wasnt?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

Right anyone who agrees with you is someone you are impressed with.



I just have more of a problem with the shilling then the arguable accepted practices of what to disclose and how a card can be soaked/altered.

If there are more people out there that implicate PWCC with colluded shilling that would be interesting...

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

...items presented are irrelevant to the facts that 'lack of disclosure brings less profit'.

I believe that full disclosure typically brings less profit.

Still, it's the ethical (and legal, if I'm not mistaken) thing to do.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

and I wasnt?



Right anyone who agrees with you you are impressed with.

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

and I wasnt?



Right anyone who agrees with you is someone you are impressed with.

Not at all. I am equally impressed by people who disagree with me if they state their arguments well.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Im guessing you arent a lawyer when looking at your legal arguments and also think the law is about being fair. There is politics in the law. Politicians create law. Judges gets voted in and politicians pick judges as well. If you think politicians are righteous then really nothing more to be said.

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

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

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

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

[jmb]

Originally Posted by botn

Here is the 15 CJ Jackson before it was cleaned. Come on David and Jake, you guys try to find the other 9 on the list and let's all have fun.

I guess none of those white spots are paper loss that was colored in ?

What a way to make money. Lather, rinse, repeat.
And, it's not illegal like counterfeiting.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

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

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

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

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

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


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

Actually on dictionary.com they say

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


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

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not at all. I am equally impressed by people who disagree with me if they state their arguments well.

Same here my friend. Still waiting for you to be impressed with someone that disagrees with you though. (saying someone now is too late, you would have to have posted in previously for it to mean anything)