PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[Whodunit]

Yes, I consigned it to Goldin. As for my disclosure, no, the facts surrounding this card weren't disclosed in Goldin's Auction. The details of this holders history didn't come out until Brent listed the card for sale in this auction. I had no clue that it'd been doctored when I bought it, or never in a million years would have bought it and had no idea when I sold it. I was alerted to this thread by someone who thought I might be interested in what was going on. I sold this card via Ken along with a '55 Clemente PSA 9 and some other very big cards.

[Whodunit]

Go to the auction. Look at the date that it started. Look at when S***N bid on the card to buy it back b/c I'd lost 25K on the card and would have rather had it in my collection at that price than see it go somewhere else.

Now, look at the date that this thread started and when I STOPPED bidding. I had no interest in the card after finding out it'd been manipulated/altered. It becomes pretty clear when evidence of this cards past came out of hiding.

[bnorth]

double post.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Go to the auction. Look at the date that it started. Look at when S***N bid on the card to buy it back b/c I'd lost 25K on the card and would have rather had it in my collection at that price than see it go somewhere else.

Now, look at the date that this thread started and when I STOPPED bidding. I had no interest in the card after finding out it'd been manipulated/altered. It becomes pretty clear when evidence of this cards past came out of hiding.

I for one appreciate you posting about this. Could you please post a timeline of ownership and card grade during their ownership to the best of your knowledge? Thank you!

[Whodunit]

I don't know who consigned it to REA, but I know who won it in REA. So, a timeline prior to "final value" in their auction, I can't even begin to speculate on. From the time that it sold in REA to date though, I can FAR MORE than speculate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

As I understand it, so it's clear.
1. Brent won the REA auction for the SGC 50.
2. Brent submitted the card to PSA after it was (your choice of verb) and received a 7.
3. Brent sold the PSA 7 privately to Cortney for 75K.
4. Cortney consigned to Goldin.
5. John Perez won the Goldin auction.
6. Perez consigned to PWCC.
7. PWCC sold to unidentified winner.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I understand it, so it's clear.
1. Brent won the REA auction for the SGC 50.
2. Brent submitted the card to PSA after it was (your choice of verb) and received a 7.
3. Brent sold the PSA 7 privately to Cortney for 75K.
4. Cortney consigned to Goldin.
5. John Perez won the Goldin auction.
6. Perez consigned to PWCC.
7. PWCC sold.

That's the way I'm reading it too. Just one question though (unless it's already been answered and I missed it), how do we know for sure that it was Brent who won the card originally from REA?

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

You may want to contact a lawyer.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

That's the way I'm reading it too. Just one question though (unless it's already been answered and I missed it), how do we know for sure that it was Brent who won the card originally from REA?

That would be courtesy of an ex REA employee and via Brent's own admission to me (he was always WAY too easy to get to put damning information into text/writing) after I confronted him about it after I was let on to this thread.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

That's the way I'm reading it too. Just one question though (unless it's already been answered and I missed it), how do we know for sure that it was Brent who won the card originally from REA?

David you aren't going to like this, but I know this independent of Cortney from an absolutely reliable source.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I for one appreciate you posting about this. Could you please post a timeline of ownership and card grade during their ownership to the best of your knowledge? Thank you!

To the best of my understanding, this is what the claim is:

Spring 2015: Sold in REA as an SGC 50 for $6600 to Brent
August 2015: Sold privately by Brent to Courtney as a PSA 7 for $75k
Oct 2016: Consigned by Courtney to Goldin and won by John Perez for $46,800
Feb 2017: Consigned by John to Brent and sold to unknown buyer for $52,300

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by conor912

To the best of my understanding, this is what the claim is:

Spring 2015: Sold in REA as an SGC 50 for $6600 to Brent
August 2015: Sold privately by Brent to Courtney as a PSA 7 for $75k
Oct 2016: Consigned by Courtney to Goldin and won by John Perez for $46,800
Feb 2017: Consigned by John to Brent and sold to unknown buyer for $52,300

Correct

[orly57]

So Brent cleaned the card and sent to psa? No wonder it got such a favorable grade. It was sent by a powerbroker in the business. I posted before that if any of us had sent that card to psa it would have been a 5(st) or 6 at best.
Here is the real kicker though: Brent knew the card he was selling on pwcc had been altered and didn't disclose it. It is one thing to do the initial private sale, but on the second sale he did it through his company and hurt his brand irreparably. We thought at first that he found out when we did, but that is obviously not the case. Wow.
I will now sit back and wait for Vintagetoppscardguy to demand Cortney's birth certificate and 2015 tax returns.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Correct

You may want to contact a lawyer.

[BengoughingForAwhile]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

You may want to contact a lawyer.

" Paging Jeff Lichtman. Please pick up the nearest white courtesy phone."

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

You may want to contact a lawyer.

I already have. I was cleared by them this week to let the hobby (other than just the high end elite) know about what was ACTUALLY going on.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Go to the auction. Look at the date that it started. Look at when S***N bid on the card to buy it back b/c I'd lost 25K on the card and would have rather had it in my collection at that price than see it go somewhere else.

Here you say you were bidding on the card to buy it back for your collection. Now you're saying you were asked to shill. Which is it?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Here you say you were bidding on the card to buy it back for your collection. Now you're saying you were asked to shill. Which is it?

Well he may of shilled to a point and then noticed the price point wasnt going over a certain amount so than switched to buying it.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Well he may of shilled to a point and then noticed the price point wasnt going over a certain amount so than switched to buying it.

Maybe he intended to buy it and was asked to shill it.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Yes, I consigned it to Goldin. As for my disclosure, no, the facts surrounding this card weren't disclosed in Goldin's Auction. The details of this holders history didn't come out until Brent listed the card for sale in this auction.

Ok, but you said earlier, "I was the one that he sold the card to under false pretenses and have kept everything documented from day 1." When you say you kept everything documented from Day 1, that makes it sound like you knew about it early on. Not trying to argue, but that is how it sounds.

[Whodunit]

By "documented", it means that I have records of when I bought it, how much I paid for it, who I bought it from, when I got it in my hands, etc. I'm not referring to having had "documented" the fact that the card was altered/manipulated. I've already stated in this thread that there would have been absolutely zero chance of my purchasing this card had he told me what he'd done to get it out of the SGC 50 and into the PSA 7. The documentation of this cards HISTORY, for me, now starts from the point that Brent won it in REA (yes, that is highly documented) to the point that it just sold BY HIM again to another unsuspecting high end collector. This thread started a few days after the auction started. Brent defended the card up until about day 3 of the auction and obviously knew the details as we've well established at this point that he won it, he cleaned it/had it cleaned, he holdered it and he sold it to me. He and who I will refer to as "the cleaner", were at that point, the only ones that knew that it was the same card. I'd have to go back and look at the early stages of this thread, but whoever put the fact that this card was the same card that REA sold as a 50 was the same one, was the one that let the cat out of the bag.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

By "documented", it means that I have records of when I bought it, how much I paid for it, who I bought it from, when I got it in my hands, etc. I'm not referring to having had "documented" the fact that the card was altered/manipulated. I've already stated in this thread that there would have been absolutely zero chance of my purchasing this card had he told me what he'd done to get it out of the SGC 50 and into the PSA 7. The documentation of this cards HISTORY, for me, now starts from the point that Brent won it in REA (yes, that is highly documented) to the point that it just sold BY HIM again to another unsuspecting high end collector. This thread started a few days after the auction started. Brent defended the card up until about day 3 of the auction and obviously knew the details as we've well established at this point that he won it, he cleaned it/had it cleaned, he holdered it and he sold it to me. He and who I will refer to as "the cleaner", were at that point, the only ones that knew that it was the same card. I'd have to go back and look at the early stages of this thread, but whoever put the fact that this card was the same card that REA sold as a 50 was the same one, was the one that let the cat out of the bag.

This certainly is an interesting development. That would explain why he defended it being a 7, and why he sent it back to PSA. It also explains why he has not made any statements on this thread. At all.

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by PhillipAbbott79

This certainly is an interesting development. That would explain why he defended it being a 7, and why he sent it back to PSA. It also explains why he has not made any statements on this thread. At all.

It was reholdered by me (reverse cert). No chance Brent sent this card back to PSA for "verification" when he was the one who had it put in the first PSA holder. John told me the same thing about Brent sending it to "Joe Orlando's personal attention" for verification.............needless to say, we both got a good laugh out of that one.

[Whodunit]

Stay tuned guys. As this all unfolds, piece by piece, I'll continuously oblige anyone who's paying attention with some new facts and "hard" evidence. I know that what has recently been let out sounds like a lot of damning information, but we haven't even begun to scratch the surface yet. "Tip of the iceberg" of one might say. There will be no speculation, and I'll listen to anyone who wants to counter anything that I have to say.

I'm the guy that a lot of people on this message board have complained about for quite a while (that little tidbit came from Brent telling me to be more careful how I bid b/c a lot of you guys were complaining about my bid history..........MUCH more on that later) of being a "disciple" or "shill bidder" for Brent, and while the fact is that I bid on many hundreds of thousands of dollars in cards in every auction, what I won, I paid for (S***N). I'm also the one that had the call letters A***T. As for the "50 retractions" that one guy on here referenced, EVERY ONE of those were in ONE of Brent's auction when I caught him lying to me. Looking back, I guess I should have packed up shop and moved on to another reputable seller and left him alone. As for what all I sold via Brent, how bout the 1916 Ruth M101-5 PSA 5 Ruth that set his ship in motion?

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.

Did you see a sudden drop in Brent's monthly auctions/sales? Would that have been 4 months ago when I stopped sending him 50K cards b/c of the cannibalizing of high end cards by his incessantly running 3 Unitas 8's head to head, or 4 Clemente 8's side by side, or Koufax, etc.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

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

I think in your scenerio the card was yours to begin with but was going to the highest bidder...i agree though, if you are going have to pay the 8%-14% on top of your bid to win back your own card, go for it.

[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 Whodunit

It was reholdered by me (reverse cert). No chance Brent sent this card back to PSA for "verification" when he was the one who had it put in the first PSA holder. John told me the same thing about Brent sending it to "Joe Orlando's personal attention" for verification.............needless to say, we both got a good laugh out of that one.

If he did send it back it was a pretty low-risk proposition. I think he might well have.

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If he did send it back it was a pretty low-risk proposition. I think he might well have.

I have no way of knowing if he sent it in for "verification" after John bought it, but considering the source and who originally had it graded in raw form........100% agree......LOW (NO) risk.

[rats60]

He said he found out because of this thread.

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Yes, I consigned it to Goldin. As for my disclosure, no, the facts surrounding this card weren't disclosed in Goldin's Auction. The details of this holders history didn't come out until Brent listed the card for sale in this auction. I had no clue that it'd been doctored when I bought it, or never in a million years would have bought it and had no idea when I sold it. I was alerted to this thread by someone who thought I might be interested in what was going on. I sold this card via Ken along with a '55 Clemente PSA 9 and some other very big cards.

[Rookiemonster]

Sooooooo your saying colonel mustard is innocent? I don't believe it !

Why does it matter who doctored the card I'm sure there are many that can do it and maybe even more.

[BeanTown]

Thanks for restating Cortney as I missed your earlier post as I was speed reading the thread. Glad to see both Cortney and Evan post on the board as we knew there were many other private collectors/investors who drop six figures or more into the card market each year.

Glad to hear Goldin didn't know about the clean up job as I would hope that any credible auction house would disclose all information about the item they were auctioning off.

It wouldn't surprise me whoever won the PWCC card will make it disappear. Looks like the PWCC consignor John gets his investment (flipper) money back plus a grand and that's the end of the 1936 WW Joe DiMaggio card.

After reading this thread and Brent's involvement and knowledge of this card (if true), he probably should say something on here and I'm sure he is hoping this card disappears and gets forgotten about.

[Whodunit]

Making the card disappear isnt necessary, or even warranted, imo. Getting it into the proper holder (A) seems more appropriate. Evan likes to say Id have bought the card regardless of whether it had been altered or not. What Evan failed to mention is I dont own ANY other holder than PSA and none other than graded cards. I dont buy altered, raw or anything in the neighborhood.....unless, im otherwise misled (lied to) and find out the hard way that it was manipulated and slipped past PSA. I fault PSA zero in this case.....I fault a thief and a liar 100%. There again, only Brent and I can dispute this claim. Where is he these days? Im not hearing a claim from the cats mouth.

[Beastmode]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Making the card disappear isnt necessary, or even warranted, imo. Getting it into the proper holder (A) seems more appropriate. Evan likes to say Id have bought the card regardless of whether it had been altered or not. What Evan failed to mention is I dont own ANY other holder than PSA and none other than graded cards. I dont buy altered, raw or anything in the neighborhood.....unless, im otherwise misled (lied to) and find out the hard way that it was manipulated and slipped past PSA. I fault PSA zero in this case.....I fault a thief and a liar 100%. There again, only Brent and I can dispute this claim. Where is he these days? Im not hearing a claim from the cats mouth.

Courtney, for the record, PSA reviews PHYSICAL alternations, not chemical. Card's been trimmed, they note it; Card has been restored via chemical/water alteration, they don't give a shit.

Now it's been "disclosed" to you, and every vintage buyer reading this thread, when you buy/shill your next $100K card in a PSA Holder, it's possible that card has been chemically altered.

I'm not trying to bust your balls, but for goodness sakes, don't rely on the Auction House to give you that information. Most of them don't even disclose the bidders for dang sake.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Beastmode

PSA reviews PHYSICAL alternations, not chemical. Card's been trimmed, they note it; Card has been restored via chemical/water alteration, they don't give a shit.

What are trying to do, start another 400 post thread?!

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by Beastmode

Courtney, for the record, PSA reviews PHYSICAL alternations, not chemical. Card's been trimmed, they note it; Card has been restored via chemical/water alteration, they don't give a shit.

Now it's been "disclosed" to you, and every vintage buyer reading this thread, when you buy/shill your next $100K card in a PSA Holder, it's possible that card has been chemically altered.

I'm not trying to bust your balls, but for goodness sakes, don't rely on the Auction House to give you that information. Most of them don't even disclose the bidders for dang sake.

Read ALL my posts, not simply the most recent one. Everything you just said has been discussed over the last 8 hrs.

And when accusing about shill bidding, have facts ready. I have all my facts. You, my $20 collector friend, obviously do not.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

I have all my facts. You, my $20 collector friend, obviously do not.

You know what dude. You had me until this post.

Your comment shows what a dipsh*t douche you must be. Playing the "I spend more money than you so my credibility is higher, and my opinion is right." card. What a loser... comments like this by losers like you make my stomach turn.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

You, my $20 collector friend, obviously do not.

^

This is exactly the way to alienate pretty much everyone.

I have nothing against collectors who can or will spend freely. A twinge of jealousy as you'd expect, but overall more of a "Hats off to you, both for making the sort of choices that led you to such prosperity and for having enough dedication to a hobby to create a really great collection" attitude.

Unless you use that to put down other collectors and project the attitude that you're better than them simply because you have money. Then you're just being a _ (fill in blank with whatever seems appropriate)

Steve B

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

Thanks for restating Cortney as I missed your earlier post as I was speed reading the thread. Glad to see both Cortney and Evan post on the board as we knew there were many other private collectors/investors who drop six figures or more into the card market each year.

Glad to hear Goldin didn't know about the clean up job as I would hope that any credible auction house would disclose all information about the item they were auctioning off.

It wouldn't surprise me whoever won the PWCC card will make it disappear. Looks like the PWCC consignor John gets his investment (flipper) money back plus a grand and that's the end of the 1936 WW Joe DiMaggio card.

After reading this thread and Brent's involvement and knowledge of this card (if true), he probably should say something on here and I'm sure he is hoping this card disappears and gets forgotten about.

What can he say, he isn't going to deny the facts, so his only choice is to go the Jake route and say it's a PSA 7 and that's all that matters, and/or that the hobby accepts this sort of restoration and therefore it's not material.

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What can he say, he isn't going to deny the facts, so his only choice is to go the Jake route and say it's a PSA 7 and that's all that matters, and/or that the hobby accepts this sort of restoration and therefore it's not material.

If PSA allows this type of alteration/manipulation and grade anyway, Ill concede defeat. But, to my knowledge, that isnt the case. If I were buying a holder, Id do the same, but I buy cards. And I bought one hell of an altered 4. Lmao. And it wasnt even a PSA 4, it was SGC; and id rather own wrinkled, raw than SGC.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

If PSA allows this type of alteration/manipulation and grade anyway, Ill concede defeat. But, to my knowledge, that isnt the case. If I were buying a holder, Id do the same, but I buy cards. And I bought one hell of an altered 4. Lmao. And it wasnt even a PSA 4, it was SGC; and id rather own wrinkled, raw than SGC.

You had me till the last sentence. PSA might sell for more but SGC is a way better company. They are way more consistent in their product and are not constantly being accused of favoritism. The only thing you hear from the PSA sheeple is their slab sells for more because their product is garbage IMHO.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

And it wasnt even a PSA 4, it was SGC; and id rather own wrinkled, raw than SGC.

If you truly believe this ridiculous comment...then you are a moron!

[Whodunit]

Sorry for that comment. Slipped off the tongue. It's just my personal preferences. I admit and apologize for the negative sgc comment. I am 110% dedicated to the consistent value of PSA, but realize that sgc does have their niches and value as well. My apologies. My issues with SGC and BVG are due to their lack of q's. No excuse though for my bad behavior. :-(

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

If you truly believe this ridiculous comment...then you are a moron!

In keeping consistent with this thread, there's probably a fuc**ed up story behind that comment

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

If PSA allows this type of alteration/manipulation and grade anyway, Ill concede defeat. But, to my knowledge, that isnt the case. If I were buying a holder, Id do the same, but I buy cards. And I bought one hell of an altered 4. Lmao. And it wasnt even a PSA 4, it was SGC; and id rather own wrinkled, raw than SGC.

My guess is that whoever worked on it did a pretty good job and given the limited capabilities of a TPG (they are not crime labs), PSA did not detect anything. As Evan mentioned, lots of cards that get worked on end up in holders.

[Stonepony]

Lots of trash been thrown around...so who DID work on it?!?!