PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by orly57

Um...this is from the psa web site for when a card is "ungradeable." N-5 and N-7 seem pretty clear here.

Maybe the before and after scans were not "evidence"?

[orly57]

This is true. Looks like they would require mitochondrial DNA of known card doctors to be lifted from the card and analyzed by Dr. Henry Lee.

[jfkheat]

Originally Posted by orly57

So if psa is shown proof that a card was doctored, they will still not label it "altered?" Then what the hell gets an altered? Only trimmed cards?

I wonder if PSA was made aware of the doctoring when the card was sent in for review?
James

[VintageBen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I believe it sold in between REA and Goldin for a lot more than that.

Wow!!!! Instead of flipping homes, you can flip baseball cards.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are two issues here. One, is the restoration considered acceptable. Two, should the restoration be disclosed.

Generally, I think that if the restoration involves chemicals that change the card's fibers, or that possibility cannot reasonably be ruled out, it is unacceptable. I think the add/remove distinction is too simplistic, it depends what is being removed and how.

More importantly, I think that if the restoration dramatically improves the card's grade (such as here), it should be disclosed whether or not it's generally considered acceptable. I would want to know if the card I was buying had been restored appreciably. And notwithstanding a third party grade, it seems to me wrong to conceal it.

I agree, plus there are some restorations like smoothing out wrinkles that a year or so later the wrinkle comes back on the card and even though you have a PSA '5' or whatever, one with a wrinkle would lower the value of that '5' so some of the high '4's for example. As a buyer i would want to know about that issue.

[KendallCat]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

Guys please give it a break!
Bad enough this thread may perhaps sabotage my very expensive investment,
Please lose the shill bidding insinuations.
S***n is also bidding on several high priced cards. I know for a fact he outbid me on the 38 playball DiMaggio PSA 8 and the Psa 8 53 topps mantle.
As someone said earlier on one of these posts that they have been watching his bidding patterns as well. It's not my business what he bids on or not, maybe he has tons of money who knows.
I can't control who bids on my cards, I have a couple other higher end cards on this auction and I can assure you s***n has not bid on any of them.

Please.... I am completely innocent here. I am going to take a good financial hit due to this thread.
Please don't make it worse.

Btw... My name is John Perez not Gomez

Man this thread has it all. People come on here making claims of card doctoring just because the card goes from SGC 4 with stains to a PSA 7 without them.

Now it is about some bidder on eBay (s***n)and he only has 10 retractions - not like the one guy back in the summer (a***t)who had 50+ retractions on several key rookie cards over a 3-4 month time period. Just because he bid this card up with 20+bids from $30k-43k within a few hours. Why would anyone be concerned?

I would be suspicious if the seller had come on here defending the practice of this bidder almost as if he knows him. You guys are just taking all of the fun out of hobby.

[botn]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Sounds like PSA doesn't consider a cleaned card as altered as long as thre are no signs of cleaning - nothing you can see, smell or feel. I tend to agree.

Sounds more like PSA doesn't want to admit to a mistake and write a check.

[nrm1977]

I would for surely want to know if a card I was buying at this price point was restored. Though, we're all different and I respect that. Now, if a low-end card I needed for a set was soaked in water to remove dirt, I wouldn't mind that at all. Though, I've seen cards soaked for dirt removal. I don't see how the tape markings were removed without chemicals. Which is not allowed by 3rd party grading companies. I thought the grading companies smelled the cards to detect chemicals? I recall in the book Mint Condition that being said. Again, I would think, if someone used a chemical you would be able to easily smell it but who knows?

I do feel the card should be disclosed as being restored. Dirt removal would be fine by me but, not tape markings/residue. For example, when you're buying a original classic collectible car, they typical stat if the car has been restored. Restored classic cars sell for less. I know it's a different hobby but, I'm just giving an example.

It's a nice looking card but, I just don't see how it got a 7 with the centering and faded "markings", which are clear as day. PSA would never admit they were wrong about a card of this price point. By them admitting they might have been wrong, would result in them not being credible. In their line of business credibility is number one. No way in a colds day in hell they'd admit it.

To the gentlemen that was flipping the card, even though I don't "flip" cards, I'm glad you made your money back. Though, I was taken back when you said this thread was costing you money on your "investment". A high dollar card like this was restored, I'm sure a buyer would want to know.

Lastly, this is why having cards graded by a 3rd party company is so subjective. Way too much faith is put into these companies. Maybe someday this section of the hobby will be regulated somehow. For me, I'll just stick to my 401k, real estate, for investing purposes and continue to collect cards for the enjoyment which it was intended for, a fun hobby!

Nick

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by orly57

Um...this is from the psa web site for when a card is "ungradeable." N-5 and N-7 seem pretty clear here.

N-5 Altered Stock - This term is used when the paper stock is altered in one or more of the following ways: Stretching and trimming, recoloring and restoring, trimming and recoloring, restoring and trimming, crease or wrinkle is pressed out, or gloss is enhanced.

How do you know the paper stock was altered? You've seen the card in hand?

N-7 Evidence of Cleaning - When a whitener is used to whiten borders or a solution is used to remove wax, candy, gum or tobacco stains.

The key word there is evidence. The card has to show evidence. I would assume that means something you can feel or smell. And the before and after pictures are not evidence because I'm sure the graders didn't have the luxury of seeing the before pic like we did.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

N-5 Altered Stock - This term is used when the paper stock is altered in one or more of the following ways: Stretching and trimming, recoloring and restoring, trimming and recoloring, restoring and trimming, crease or wrinkle is pressed out, or gloss is enhanced.

How do you know the paper stock was altered? You've seen the card in hand?

N-7 Evidence of Cleaning - When a whitener is used to whiten borders or a solution is used to remove wax, candy, gum or tobacco stains.

The key word there is evidence. The card has to show evidence. I would assume that means something you can feel or smell. And the before and after pictures are not evidence because I'm sure the graders didn't have the luxury of seeing the before pic like we did.

PWCC easily could have provided such pics if it was genuinely interested in ensuring the appropriateness of the grade when it sent it back in. For all we know, it did.

[dplath]

Though not high end, the centering is perfectly acceptable for a 7. From PSA's website:

[ NM-7 ] Near Mint 7 shows a slight surface wear visible upon close inspection. There may be slight fraying on some corners. Picture focus may be slightly out-of-register. A minor printing blemish is acceptable. Slight wax staining is acceptable on the back of the card only. Most of the original gloss is retained. Centering must be approximately 70/30 to 75/25 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

PWCC easily could have provided such pics if it was genuinely interested in ensuring the appropriateness of the grade when it sent it back in. For all we know, it did.

The card, not pics, the card has to show evidence. And it has to show evidence of a whitener or a solution. Water is neither.

Come on, Peter. You've read my previous posts about PSA. I absolutely despise them. But they aren't wrong here. PSA's grading standards are right there in black and white and people are twisting it around.

[Leon]

Seems the card has been pulled...? woops, didn't realize it sold....still looks like a 7 to me

http://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?item=...ctions&_sop=16

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Seems the card has been pulled...?

http://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?item=...ctions&_sop=16

.

It closed last night.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It closed last night.

another posting at the same time (of my edit above,) thanks though...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The card, not pics, the card has to show evidence. And it has to show evidence of a whitener or a solution. Water is neither.

Come on, Peter. You've read my previous posts about PSA. I absolutely despise them. But they aren't wrong here. PSA's grading standards are right there in black and white and people are twisting it around.

I do not for a minute believe that card was cleaned using only water.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Seems the card has been pulled...? woops, didn't realize it sold....still looks like a 7 to me

http://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?item=...ctions&_sop=16

.

And the Wagner looks like an 8.

[PhillipAbbott79]

I think this is the only point worth mentioning here:

Take out the fact that it may have been chemically cleaned, and whether or not PSA should have caught it or not, and what the actual definition of altered is, or what the technical definition of a chemical is, there appears to be enough evidence to show that card is the same one (although you never know) and that something was done to the card(probably).

PWCC was alerted to the issue, and they chose not to present more information about the item which is extremely relevant and has a high impact on the selling price. They have passed on the responsibility to PSA as the only personal responsible for the grade given, and the transparency on the item for sale.

I would not go so far as to say it is dishonest. I would more accurately describe it as less then honorable and less than noble. More like doing the bare minimum. They at a minimum had an obligation to mention the light spots before, and after having a attention called to them. It is part of the description of the card, that can be subtle enough to not be noticed right away, therefore warranting mention.

The problem is, that this is not the first time this has occurred. With that said, I personally like a lot of the items that they sell, but when I see things like this I want to grab my laptop and smash it into pieces. It angers me to see things I would buy from a seller who I feel has a less than impeccably perfect intention, and someone else's interest at heart rather than my own, whether I planned on bidding on the item in question or not. I had no intention on bidding on this item, but I can not shake the anger it makes me feel when I reflect about items I did want, that commanded higher prices due to lack of updating the description to be an accurate reflection of the card when mentioned.

[JustinD]

Ok, I am just waiting for the following now after this thread...

Board member decides to lash himself to the cross after buying a 50k card when well after the fact someone finds a previous photo that shows the card looking different.

He puts out an auction that states the following:

"I present to you a PSA 7 that has no visible proof of alteration and has been reviewed twice by PSA and found to have no proof of alteration. However, I have seen a prior iteration of this card that looks different and leads me to think it was cleaned. I do not know how it was cleaned, it could have been untoward. But...I feel I should reveal it was altered in some way whether the grading companies say it or not. Please take this theoretical alteration into account when bidding.

Also, please look at this prior photo of my card showing the change prior to my owning the card that I cannot explain fully, but has been cleared twice by PSA, but I am uncomfortable with."

and more shockingly does not get divorced after he explains this to his wife about how he lost 25K, lol.

PS: I am totally not trying to pick a fight, this just is a situation I am waiting for someone to live up to after this.

I don't see options of recourse here other than this. What case does someone have with PSA or even going back to the prior auction house. If you have no proof of alteration (this card had to be submitted raw if the change took place. The argument that it smells of chemicals or the paper stock was changed by chemicals seems null. This was examined raw.) other than photos, and no proof of how the alteration was done unnaturally to disprove the examiners opinion, you have no case.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The seller chose not to reveal a known material fact about the card's history. I can only assume part of the reason for not disclosing was concern that disclosure would affect the price. The rest is just spin and noise.

[Touch'EmAll]

Return: 30 days money back. Buyer pays return shipping.

Stated in listing. Curious to see if the card pops back up for sale in near future.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The seller chose not to reveal a known material fact about the card's history. I can only assume part of the reason for not disclosing was concern that disclosure would affect the price. The rest is just spin and noise.

I know you can edit the listing, but can you edit the description? Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well could be), but I didn't think you could edit a description. i thought you could only add to the description. Even then, the changes don't appear in the description, they appear somewhere at the bottom of the page. If that's the case, look at the listing again. It's very "busy" with a lot of text. Do you think a bidder would have noticed it? I'm not arguing one way or the other, I am asking a legitimate question.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I know you can edit the listing, but can you edit the description? Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well could be), but I didn't think you could edit a description. i thought you could only add to the description. Even then, the changes don't appear in the description, they appear somewhere at the bottom of the page. If that's the case, look at the listing again. It's very "busy" with a lot of text. Do you think a bidder would have noticed it? I'm not arguing one way or the other, I am asking a legitimate question.

The seller knew the history at the start of the auction, so it's a moot point, but yes I think on a 50K card people likely would have read the description.

[botn]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I know you can edit the listing, but can you edit the description? Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well could be), but I didn't think you could edit a description. i thought you could only add to the description. Even then, the changes don't appear in the description, they appear somewhere at the bottom of the page. If that's the case, look at the listing again. It's very "busy" with a lot of text. Do you think a bidder would have noticed it? I'm not arguing one way or the other, I am asking a legitimate question.

You are correct and therefore because the seller cannot amend the listing like a self hosting auction house could, the proper thing to do would have been to end the listing and tell the consignor the item could be returned to him or sold in next month's auction. Fact is there was no incentive for the seller to do that.

And like the seller, PSA had no incentive to buy back the card or change the grade, assuming the card was actually provided to them for review. With or without a picture of the card in its previous condition, the card does not meet the criteria of a NM example. So even if there is no evidence it was cleaned, it is still over graded based on its presentation.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Return: 30 days money back. Buyer pays return shipping.

Stated in listing. Curious to see if the card pops back up for sale in near future.

probably with probstein

[BengoughingForAwhile]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Return: 30 days money back. Buyer pays return shipping.

Stated in listing. Curious to see if the card pops back up for sale in near future.

After another good "cleansing" it could end up in a PSA 8 holder next time!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The seller knew the history at the start of the auction, so it's a moot point, but yes I think on a 50K card people likely would have read the description.

The consignor stated in Post #85 that "I did not have any knowledge of all the issues many of you have on this thread." If he didn't know about it, how could PWCC have known about it? Is someone lying?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The consignor stated in Post #85 that "I did not have any knowledge of all the issues many of you have on this thread." If he didn't know about it, how could PWCC have known about it? Is someone lying?

I am sure John is telling the truth. The point I was making is not John's prior knowledge, it's PWCC's.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am sure John is telling the truth. The point I was making is not John's prior knowledge, it's PWCC's.

What makes you think PWCC had prior knowledge of the card's history?

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

I think this is the only point worth mentioning here:

Take out the fact that it may have been chemically cleaned.

PWCC was alerted to the issue, and

The problem is, that this is not the first time this has occurred. With that said, I personally like a lot of the items that they sell, but when I see things like this I want to grab my laptop and smash it into pieces. It angers me to see things I would buy from a seller who I feel has a less than impeccably perfect intention, and someone else's interest at heart rather than my own, whether I planned on bidding on the item in question or not. I had no intention on bidding on this item, but I can not shake the anger it makes me feel when I reflect about items I did want, that commanded higher prices due to lack of updating the description to be an accurate reflection of the card when mentioned.

"Mentioned only for completeness" on the 50.00 card, yet on the 50k card they chose now to remain silent even though PWCC knew. Now what would be really interesting is the new owner just learns of this and stumbles across this net54 thread. Then he returns the card for a full refund because PWCC did not disclose everything. Then the card becomes tainted for years to come. I used to think the same thing on the Gretzky Wagner card, but the people who buy a known altered card like that, must enjoy the publicity about it.

So, who was the mastermind who sent the card off to get worked on, then resubmitted to PSA for a huge bump? My hunch is it was someone who had pull with PSA to get them to have blinders on when grading and I'm sure he forgot to tell PSA the card used to be properly graded in a SGC holder. I feel bad for the owners of legit high grade Joe DiMaggio 1936 WW cards as they just got knocked off the podium. It's like the Olympics where it's a game between the drug users and the committee to detect drug use. Steroids in the 80s and Peds in the 2000s.

[orly57]

Mentioned for completeness. Just perfect. Thanks for the laugh JC. We don't want guys walking around with mislabled $50 cards, but a restored former sgc 50 cloaked in a psa 7 is perfectly acceptable.
I have always been an advocate of card soaking and restoration. I honestly don't mind it so long as the card grades. I think, as I have stated before, that as long as you aren't trimming or altering the card, there is nothing wrong with sprucing up the card to it's original appearance. But I do draw the line when it results in people losing 50k due to the fraud. I think Peter has a point when he says that if it isn't a big deal, they should disclose it.
PSA has probably been shown the photos. There is ZERO doubt that the card has been doctored and therefore should not receive a grade. They owe it to the card community to get it right, even if they have to write a check. And as fond as I am of Brent, I think that he was bound to his clients to mention it "for completeness."

[PhillipAbbott79]

There is a certain amount of liability. They can't just write a check without getting the card in return. Common sense. Another buyer would then have the same claim against them.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by orly57

Mentioned for completeness. Just perfect. Thanks for the laugh JC. We don't want guys walking around with mislabled $50 cards, but a restored former sgc 50 cloaked in a psa 7 is perfectly acceptable.
I have always been an advocate of card soaking and restoration. I honestly don't mind it so long as the card grades. I think, as I have stated before, that as long as you aren't trimming or altering the card, there is nothing wrong with sprucing up the card to it's original appearance. But I do draw the line when it results in people losing 50k due to the fraud. I think Peter has a point when he says that if it isn't a big deal, they should disclose it.
PSA has probably been shown the photos. There is ZERO doubt that the card has been doctored and therefore should not receive a grade. They owe it to the card community to get it right, even if they have to write a check. And as fond as I am of Brent, I think that he was bound to his clients to mention it "for completeness."

Excuse me, but I don't follow. You say you don't mind soaking and restoration as long as the card grades. Then you say this particular card should not grade. Which is it? Let me guess. As long as it's YOUR card and it grades, that's OK, but if it's somebody else's card and it grades and they make a lot of money from it, it's not OK. Did I get it right?

And, Peter, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question as to how Brent had prior knowledge of the card's history???

[Peter_Spaeth]

David, all I am going to say on the subject for now is that I have learned a great deal of information about this card and its history from reliable and corroborating sources. And I am comfortable saying what I said, or I would not have said it.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David, all I am going to say on the subject for now is that I have learned a great deal of information about this card and its history from reliable and corroborating sources. And I am comfortable saying what I said, or I would not have said it.

Gotcha! Whoever cleaned the card (or had it cleaned) and submitted it to PSA probably called Brent up one day and said, "Your never going to believe this..." Makes sense to me.

[Beastmode]

I'm enjoying this thread and have a few observations.

We can assume with 100% certainty that ALL of the other AH's have sold altered cards, knowing the cards were alterted, and maybe even taken part in the altering. If you ask PWCC to disclose an alterted card, then you need to have a global standard for ALL AH's to disclose that information.

Why is PWCC constantly held to this higher standard of disclosure? Because they are the most transperant? They are the only AH where we can see the bidders and history. How about the other AH's show us the bidders before we throw the book at PWCC.

PWCC does not have to be the most honordable and ethical AH; they only have to be better than their competitors. And their competitors aren't anywhere near PWCC's moral compass.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David, all I am going to say on the subject for now is that I have learned a great deal of information about this card and its history from reliable and corroborating sources. And I am comfortable saying what I said, or I would not have said it.

Re-read this and pretend you are someone else.

It sounds like: "I have great sources of information no one else has and never will and I will not tell you what you want to know because I do not feel like it, and you should just trust me when I say, I know the truth."

You should have thrown in a "nanny nanny boo boo" at the end to augment the legitimacy of what you were saying in that post.

[steve B]

I believe it's more likely one of the following

Peter being told something in confidence and not being the sort of person to break that confidence.

Sometimes we all learn "stuff" and it's possible disclosing "stuff" could result in a lawsuit. Which would be expensive even if there was solid evidence the info was true. Without that- and getting some "stuff" in writing is not easy, it could become very expensive and/or time consuming. Not being stupid he decides to avoid an unprovable direct accusation.

Steve B

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

Re-read this and pretend you are someone else.

It sounds like: "I have great sources of information no one else has and never will and I will not tell you what you want to know because I do not feel like it, and you should just trust me when I say, I know the truth."

You should have thrown in a "nanny nanny boo boo" at the end to augment the legitimacy of what you were saying in that post.

[mechanicalman]

Does anyone else keep checking the February Pick-Ups thread in hopes of seeing someone post a '36 Goudey WWG DiMaggio PSA 7? That would be epic.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Steve it's #1. I get that people don't like it, that it comes across as obnoxious. At the same time, I did not want to let stand the suggestion David made (understandably) that it may not have been practical for PWCC to disclose this having learned it for the first time mid-auction.

[steve B]

I've very mixed feelings on this whole thing.

I think the original toning was from being next to acidic paper for some amount of time. Over more time that would damage the card, (Still might because it's not all gone) The process for removing that involves either a bleaching agent or a deacidifier.

Lots of good general info here
http://www.collectorsguide.com/fa/fa010.shtml

Any of that should be disclosed, and should be part of the items history which should be included in any transfer.

But it won't, because of the stigma attached to even appropriate conservation that all gets lumped under the heading of "alteration". That stigma affects value in out hobby, perhaps far more than in others.

So let me ask a different sort of question. The answer matters less than the thinking behind it, although I have a preferred answer.

If I had the card. And posted it here raw asking the question "I have this card that's got fairly mild damage from acid exposure that will only worsen over time eventually destroying it. It's a fairly important and valuable card, and I think it should be deacidified so that it will last another few generations. But I'm concerned about how that will affect the value. What should I do?"

---------------------------------






My preference is for doing the conservation. If it's done professionally there should be no damage, and aside from earlier pictures, no physical indication that it's been done. Without conservation, we as a hobby are essentially condemning some of the best items to a premature destruction.

TPG will probably NEVER be realistically able to work with conservation vs eventual damaging originality as long as they operate the way they have. And as long as genuine conservation is looked down on by the hobby in general.

Nearly every other hobby accepts disclosed conservation/restoration as long as it's done appropriately. Some hobbies ignore some conservation that's not disclosed. Coins- nearly every really bright looking uncirculated silver coin has been cleaned. Other Silver objects- basically have to be polished occasionally to remove tarnish. If it's not brown/black it's been cleaned. Maybe it's time for us to do the same.

And I don't buy the "It's a PSA 7 so it's A PSA 7 and nobody should question that" line. Grades should always be questioned if they seem off.

Steve Birmingham

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Steve it's #1. I get that people don't like it, that it comes across as obnoxious. At the same time, I did not want to let stand the suggestion David made (understandably) that it may not have been practical for PWCC to disclose this having learned it for the first time mid-auction.

I for one have no problem with it at all.

Steve B

[packs]

The hobby doesn't have an issue with restoration though. Cards that have been restored (i.e. re-backed, re-colored, re-built, etc.) are given the grade of Authentic.

[Huysmans]

Just OT and to lighten the mood a bit....

How many here know Joe D's lifetime batting average? .... without checking of course! 😁

[steve B]

That's just it though. An uncirculated coin professionally cleaned is still graded as uncirculated. Old posters are routinely backed with linen, and not deacidifying and backing usually brings a lower price. Stamps with hinge remnants are if used totally fine if those are soaked off. Proper cleaning and preservation are not generally penalized in most hobbies. Possibly because some of the stuff can survive far more than old paper can. Possibly because they either outgrew or never developed the whole "my item is better than yours because some expert says so." attitude. Yeah, condition matters, but in time for some items that statement may become "I had the best surviving copy, and because of some competition I left it "original" and now it's pretty much ruined."

Steve B

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Just OT and to lighten the mood a bit....

How many here know Joe D's lifetime batting average? .... without checking of course! ��

.325 or something like that.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

.325 or something like that.

Winner!!

Thanks Peter.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by steve B

If I had the card. And posted it here raw asking the question "I have this card that's got fairly mild damage from acid exposure that will only worsen over time eventually destroying it. It's a fairly important and valuable card, and I think it should be deacidified so that it will last another few generations. But I'm concerned about how that will affect the value. What should I do?"

I would say if you're that worried about it, you should sell it before doing any work on it. And I would say you're paranoid. Because life expectancy of baseball cards is longer than humans.

[ullmandds]

While I think grading kinda sucks...especially PSA...it seems that the times they are a changing. Perhaps the demand for some cards is just so great...combined with an apathy or lack of awareness of altered cards that are in slabs. Cards are now a commodity and the slab is all that matters!

Alterations have become acceptable in this beloved hobby just like lots of others!

Long live the fuc$ing slab!

[orly57]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Excuse me, but I don't follow. You say you don't mind soaking and restoration as long as the card grades. Then you say this particular card should not grade. Which is it? Let me guess. As long as it's YOUR card and it grades, that's OK, but if it's somebody else's card and it grades and they make a lot of money from it, it's not OK. Did I get it right?

And, Peter, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question as to how Brent had prior knowledge of the card's history???

David, you seem very angry in your defense of card doctoring, or psa, or Pwcc, or whatever indefensible thing it is you are defending. I was clear that I don't mind buying a card I knew was soaked so long as it has a grade. I personally don't know how to soak cards, nor do I have the balls to try it. I said it doesnt bother me. But I draw the line when buyers aren't made aware by sellers WHO KNOW that the card was doctored. And yes, the amount matters! The fact that some guy now owns a 50k card that, thanks to this blog, will live in infamy, pisses me off. It is criminal. And if Brent didn't know before he listed the item, he most certainly knew BEFORE IT SOLD. Perhaps on the next blog post you can defend Pete Rose or the DH Rule.