PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

"Removing" vs. "Adding"

removing = good

adding = bad

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by ajjohnsonsoxfan

"Removing" vs. "Adding"

removing = good

adding = bad

Unless you're removing some of the edges of the card...

[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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

Before those two issues, there is another issue to be considered. Is it really 'restoration' to begin with?

If I take a card that has wax residue on the front and remove it with nylon, is that restoration? After all, it's removing something that wasn't there when the card was printed and restoring it back to it's previous state.

[packs]

Personally I don't see that as the issue. There is no question about restoration's place in the hobby. A card that has been restored or altered from its original state is designated as either "Altered" or plainly "Authentic". There is no room for a grade when it comes to an altered card. I don't consider soaking to be an alteration or restoration but if you remove a stain from a card I think you've altered it, particularly when you haven't really removed it, you've just made it harder to see. The same would go for smoothing out a crease or erasing pencil marks.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Before those two issues, there is another issue to be considered. Is it really 'restoration' to begin with?

If I take a card that has wax residue on the front and remove it with nylon, is that restoration? After all, it's removing something that wasn't there when the card was printed and restoring it back to it's previous state.

Do you not see the irony in your post, you used the word "restoring" to describe something you say is not restoration. LOL. But no I would not consider that objectionable.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Do you not see the irony in your post, you used the word "restoring" to describe something you say is not restoration. LOL. But no I would not consider that objectionable.

Peter, that word was used intentionally. I was trying to be humorous. I was trying to show you that just because you remove something that shouldn't have been there in the first place doesn't make it restoration. Wax removal generally isn't considered restoration in our hobby. Neither is soaking.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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.

So Peter, do you think PWCC should disclose this and update their listing since they know it's been worked on and the grade has been massively improved from a 4 to a 7. I would think the winning bidder would have a great case to return the card if they found out later about the history of the card. Not doing a full disclosure of the known history of the card isn't the best approach IMO.

I think if a full disclosure was done, it could still have a chance to fetch some high bucks.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

So Peter, do you think PWCC should disclose this and update their listing since they know it's been worked on and the grade has been massively improved from a 4 to a 7. I would think the winning bidder would have a great case to return the card if they found out later about the history of the card. Not doing a full disclosure of the known history of the card isn't the best approach IMO.

I think if a full disclosure was done, it could still have a chance to fetch some high bucks.

Yes, in my opinion PWCC should disclose the card's history. It's a known material fact and it's deceptive not to disclose it, even though PSA has graded it -- in my opinion. To me, that does not cleanse (pun intended) the history which is independently relevant. I understand fully why PWCC would not WANT to disclose it -- fear of depressing price, angering the consignor, and making PSA potentially look bad -- but sellers who don't disclose usually have sound business reasons that don't persuade me.

To be clear, I don't think a card's grading history always needs to be disclosed. If someone did nothing to a card and bumped it from an 8 to a 9, I would not deem that to be material. But if substantial work is done on a card (even if considered acceptable) resulting in a 3 grade bump, to me that's a no brainer for materiality.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

I think it would super tough if near impossible to try and police the history of whether a card had been worked on for every card in an SGC or PSA holder at PWCC. If you're buying a slabbed card you're buying into the expertise of PSA/SGC to be the experts to authenticate and find alteration. If the card has a number and not designated altered then if I'm PWCC I'd feel good to go to market and sell. If PSA/SGC made a mistake then it's on them to rectify.

[aloondilana]

To All:
This issue has been acted upon.
Last night PWCC overnighted this WWG DiMaggio to PSA for inspection.
I just got word from PWCC that this card has been deemed a valid PSA 7 from PSA.
These concerns and this thread have been taken very seriously, as this auction was facing cancellation.
Regardless of what ever this cards past is, it has been determined that it is a qualified PSA 7.
Thank you,
John Perez

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

To All:
This issue has been acted upon.
Last night PWCC overnighted this WWG DiMaggio to PSA for inspection.
I just got word from PWCC that this card has been deemed a valid PSA 7 from PSA.
These concerns and this thread have been taken very seriously, as this auction was facing cancellation.
Regardless of what ever this cards past is, it has been determined that it is a qualified PSA 7.
Thank you,
John Perez

thank god...I feel so much better now! Has this "factoid" been added to the auction description?

[aloondilana]

Not sure.
I'm sure Brent or a representative from PWCC will address this board shortly.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

To All:
This issue has been acted upon.
Last night PWCC overnighted this WWG DiMaggio to PSA for inspection.
I just got word from PWCC that this card has been deemed a valid PSA 7 from PSA.
These concerns and this thread have been taken very seriously, as this auction was facing cancellation.
Regardless of what ever this cards past is, it has been determined that it is a qualified PSA 7.
Thank you,
John Perez

I am not surprised that PSA stood behind its grade. I would have been quite surprised if it had not. As a buyer, I would still want to know that the card started out as a 4 and was cleaned. PSA's opinion does not, for me, preclude the relevance of other information about history.

By some people's reasoning, I could trim a card, get it past PSA (it happens), and not be obligated to disclose I trimmed it because all I am selling is PSA's opinion. I don't buy it.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am not surprised that PSA stood behind its grade. I would have been quite surprised if it had not. As a buyer, I would still want to know that the card started out as a 4 and was cleaned.

totally

[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.