PWCC Altered Cards Callout Thread - 1952 Topps Mantle etc

[pip]

Originally Posted by pspa123

Part of the CJ numbers is due to the availability of complete sets in albums at the time from the manufacturer, but that said, I am still skeptical.

Yes. They made factory sets in 1915. They came in little boxes. The population figures are still somewhat skewed though. I know of quite a few cards (complete sets, singles) that were aggressively soaked/treated so that they could be removed from albums. One such "high grade" set was sold by a major auction house. I know this because I have the "before" pictures.

[pip]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

PSA can't afford black lights. They can't even afford rulers.

They do when I submit cards. I once puchased a really nice older set from a comic dealer and submitted it to PSA. The result? Half of the cards came back with a "minimum size requirement" tag. I should have been working for PWCC. Rulers are scarce when their subs come in the front door.

[HarryLime]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

They probably gave it a thorough wash before they applied the blue coloring to the back.

ETA: Talking about the N300 Wards.

Huh? I'm talking about the scans. All of the edge damage is there on both cards. The SGC one makes some of the right edge more difficult to see because it is pressed up against the gasket where the PSA card is in an open area. The SGC scan has a much warmer color temperature while the PSA scan is much, much colder. This gives the PSA scan a blue/metallic feel to it and the reason why the edge damage is bright white versus the more sepia-looking SGC scan.

Obviously, no one added blue color to the back. Just basic common sense tells you that. If someone were going to add color to the back of the card they would add black. I've never soaked an N300 so I don't know what reaction the ink would have to prolonged exposure submerged in water. It could be the card was soaked and removed album residue which also removed black portions of the back, coupled with exposure to water and the scanner settings giving those areas a blue or off-black tint.

There's that clear splotch directly to the right of his hair and just above the green line that remained unchanged in both scans. I think there's strong evidence that the card was soaked but the scanner settings make it impossible to say whether it was with water or additional compounds. All the edge wear you see on the PSA card you can actually see on the SGC card, it's just darkened and brownish from the sepia-feel of the scan, whereas it looks stark white on the PSA scan.

Of course, this is just my opinion and I could certainly be wrong. I guess my point is, we get into a very dangerous area when we start definitively calling out cards as altered by re-coloring, bleaching, chemical baths, etc., when all we have to go on are two different scans from two different people from two different points in time. I'm the type of person that would want to actually see the card in-hand before I publicly called it out for one of the above reasons since it's not as clear-cut as trimming, pressed corners, wrinkle removal, etc.

But this isn't my party so I don't get a say in the flavor of the cake.

Arthur

[dustin42]

Originally Posted by HarryLime

ETA: Talking about the N300 Wards.

Huh? I'm talking about the scans. All of the edge damage is there on both cards. The SGC one makes some of the right edge more difficult to see because it is pressed up against the gasket where the PSA card is in an open area. The SGC scan has a much warmer color temperature while the PSA scan is much, much colder. This gives the PSA scan a blue/metallic feel to it and the reason why the edge damage is bright white versus the more sepia-looking SGC scan.

Obviously, no one added blue color to the back. Just basic common sense tells you that. If someone were going to add color to the back of the card they would add black. I've never soaked an N300 so I don't know what reaction the ink would have to prolonged exposure submerged in water. It could be the card was soaked and removed album residue which also removed black portions of the back, coupled with exposure to water and the scanner settings giving those areas a blue or off-black tint.

There's that clear splotch directly to the right of his hair and just above the green line that remained unchanged in both scans. I think there's strong evidence that the card was soaked but the scanner settings make it impossible to say whether it was with water or additional compounds. All the edge wear you see on the PSA card you can actually see on the SGC card, it's just darkened and brownish from the sepia-feel of the scan, whereas it looks stark white on the PSA scan.

Of course, this is just my opinion and I could certainly be wrong. I guess my point is, we get into a very dangerous area when we start definitively calling out cards as altered by re-coloring, bleaching, chemical baths, etc., when all we have to go on are two different scans from two different people from two different points in time. I'm the type of person that would want to actually see the card in-hand before I publicly called it out for one of the above reasons since it's not as clear-cut as trimming, pressed corners, wrinkle removal, etc.

But this isn't my party so I don't get a say in the flavor of the cake.

Arthur

How many cards have you doctored and profited off of? Do you have an angle here or our you just trolling people because you have nothing better to do?

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by HarryLime

ETA: Talking about the N300 Wards.

Huh? I'm talking about the scans. All of the edge damage is there on both cards. The SGC one makes some of the right edge more difficult to see because it is pressed up against the gasket where the PSA card is in an open area. The SGC scan has a much warmer color temperature while the PSA scan is much, much colder. This gives the PSA scan a blue/metallic feel to it and the reason why the edge damage is bright white versus the more sepia-looking SGC scan.

Obviously, no one added blue color to the back. Just basic common sense tells you that. If someone were going to add color to the back of the card they would add black. I've never soaked an N300 so I don't know what reaction the ink would have to prolonged exposure submerged in water. It could be the card was soaked and removed album residue which also removed black portions of the back, coupled with exposure to water and the scanner settings giving those areas a blue or off-black tint.

There's that clear splotch directly to the right of his hair and just above the green line that remained unchanged in both scans. I think there's strong evidence that the card was soaked but the scanner settings make it impossible to say whether it was with water or additional compounds. All the edge wear you see on the PSA card you can actually see on the SGC card, it's just darkened and brownish from the sepia-feel of the scan, whereas it looks stark white on the PSA scan.

Of course, this is just my opinion and I could certainly be wrong. I guess my point is, we get into a very dangerous area when we start definitively calling out cards as altered by re-coloring, bleaching, chemical baths, etc., when all we have to go on are two different scans from two different people from two different points in time. I'm the type of person that would want to actually see the card in-hand before I publicly called it out for one of the above reasons since it's not as clear-cut as trimming, pressed corners, wrinkle removal, etc.

But this isn't my party so I don't get a say in the flavor of the cake.

Arthur

Look closer at the edges. There are areas in the post-alteration scan, well within the border, where new fraying appears. That's not explained by being close to the plastic case inside the slab.

The crackling pattern on the back tells me that the surface of the card is slightly brittle, and soaking the card would cause certain areas to flake.

Regarding the re-coloring, I believe PSA penalizes a card down to a 1 grade if there is paper loss on the back. By re-coloring the areas to make it appear as though there is no paper loss, the card was eligible to be bumped up a grade.

You can see where the areas of paper loss have a fuzzy appearance, pre-alteration, due to being forcibly removed from an album or something similar. The surface was ripped off. In the post-alteration, that fuzziness is camouflaged with the blue tint making it appear less obvious to the grader. Hence the grade bump.

The other explanation is that the black-blue color on the back of the card somehow ran when exposed to water or chemicals, and the running of the pigment covered the white areas of paper loss. This explanation is less convincing to me, but it's possible.

Re-coating the back with black would be too risky and difficult to disguise, in my opinion, because the card doctor would have to re-surface the back to remove the cracks and bumps that would become covered in black paint. That would appear unnatural and give away the whole alteration and most graders would pick up on it.

Also, the stain above his head that is visible pre-alteration is contrasted enough that it would be visible in any scan regardless of the settings. The entire card is age-toned brown with rounded area of white discoloration (due to moisture or some other environmental factor). In the post-alteration scan, the entire card is uniform in color. How would you explain that uniformity?

[superdan49]

PSA Cert #:42313908

1951 Topps Ringside #88 Joe Louis PSA 7 to PSA 8
Alteration types: Trimming

Sold on 6/6/2018 as a PSA 7 by eBay seller eddieplank to whitman111 (Gary Moser's eBay ID) for $177.50
Consigned to PWCC and sold on 3/27/2019 as a PSA 8 for $356.00
Final price: $356.00
Value gain: $178.50


The next few trimmed 1951 Topps Ringside boxing cards all came in via anonymous tip. Here the trimmed sides are highlighted in red, while the distinguishing print marks and/or paper fibers on the reverse are in blue. Please note that the images of the card in the PSA 7 holder were taken from an earlier sale.


PSA 7: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/b...8/101384/PSA/7
PSA 8: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/b...8/101384/PSA/8

[SetBuilder]

That card is part of a large submission from March 2019 comprising of cert #'s beginning with 423137, 423138, and 423139.

All trimmed 1950's issues. All Moser. All auctioned in PWCC's March 13-31 auctions.

Look'n'See, Parkhurst, Bowman, Leaf, etc.

[HarryLime]

Originally Posted by dustin42

How many cards have you doctored and profited off of? Do you have an angle here or our you just trolling people because you have nothing better to do?

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Send me a PM if you want to continue this.

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

Look closer at the edges. There are areas in the post-alteration scan, well within the border, where new fraying appears. That's not explained by being close to the plastic case inside the slab.

The crackling pattern on the back tells me that the surface of the card is slightly brittle, and soaking the card would cause certain areas to flake.

Regarding the re-coloring, I believe PSA penalizes a card down to a 1 grade if there is paper loss on the back. By re-coloring the areas to make it appear as though there is no paper loss, the card was eligible to be bumped up a grade.

You can see where the areas of paper loss have a fuzzy appearance, pre-alteration, due to being forcibly removed from an album or something similar. The surface was ripped off. In the post-alteration, that fuzziness is camouflaged with the blue tint making it appear less obvious to the grader. Hence the grade bump.

The other explanation is that the black-blue color on the back of the card somehow ran when exposed to water or chemicals, and the running of the pigment covered the white areas of paper loss. This explanation is less convincing to me, but it's possible.

Re-coating the back with black would be too risky and difficult to disguise, in my opinion, because the card doctor would have to re-surface the back to remove the cracks and bumps that would become covered in black paint. That would appear unnatural and give away the whole alteration and most graders would pick up on it.

Also, the stain above his head that is visible pre-alteration is contrasted enough that it would be visible in any scan regardless of the settings. The entire card is age-toned brown with rounded area of white discoloration (due to moisture or some other environmental factor). In the post-alteration scan, the entire card is uniform in color. How would you explain that uniformity?

The cracking is normal for N300s. They're extremely thick cards, even for cards from that period. It's common to find back damage and the #1 thing to look for in Mayo is black re-coloring. Whether it's the baseball set or the football set there's a veritable wasteland of cards that have tried to get past TPGers by having black added to either the front or the back. It's easily the #1 reason why there are so many Authentic slabbed cards.

These cards are hard to trim because they're so thick and consist of so many layers of material. I've owned a few that had edge damage that curved up and onto the front and exposed the innards of the card, they're all brittle by now.

I do believe the color on the back is due to running but it's a moot point. I'm not here to say the card hasn't been altered, I'm simply bringing up the point that when it comes to things like re-coloring, bleaching, cleaning, etc., it's a slippery slope between what we all assume is obvious and what may be the product of water. That's all. A simple word of caution and thoughtful point of view that doesn't necessarily scream for beheadings. I know these types of comments are frowned upon but I figured I'd throw it out there anyway.

Continue with the blind rage.

Arthur

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by HarryLime

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Send me a PM if you want to continue this.



The cracking is normal for N300s. They're extremely thick cards, even for cards from that period. It's common to find back damage and the #1 thing to look for in Mayo is black re-coloring. Whether it's the baseball set or the football set there's a veritable wasteland of cards that have tried to get past TPGers by having black added to either the front or the back. It's easily the #1 reason why there are so many Authentic slabbed cards.

These cards are hard to trim because they're so thick and consist of so many layers of material. I've owned a few that had edge damage that curved up and onto the front and exposed the innards of the card, they're all brittle by now.

I do believe the color on the back is due to running but it's a moot point. I'm not here to say the card hasn't been altered, I'm simply bringing up the point that when it comes to things like re-coloring, bleaching, cleaning, etc., it's a slippery slope between what we all assume is obvious and what may be the product of water. That's all. A simple word of caution and thoughtful point of view that doesn't necessarily scream for beheadings. I know these types of comments are frowned upon but I figured I'd throw it out there anyway.

Continue with the blind rage.

Arthur

That's why I clearly put "possibly bleached" in my write-up. I use the word bleached when I see cards with drastic changes in color tone. This one was in-between, so I put possibly.

[dustin42]

How about don't use water or anything at all to alter the appearance of a card? If you do don't sell the card. Keep it for yourself.

[superdan49]

PSA Cert #:26782108

1951 Topps Ringside #88 Joe Louis PSA 6 to PSA 7
Alteration types: Trimming

Sold on 12/1/2016 as a PSA 6 by eBay seller jobemo-0 to whitman111 (Gary Moser's eBay ID) for $107.33
Consigned to PWCC and sold on 5/23/2017 as a PSA 8 for $214.05
Final price: $214.05
Value gain: $106.72


Another trimmed Joe Louis card from this classic set found thanks to the anonymous tipster. Here the trimmed sides are highlighted in red, while the distinguishing print marks and/or paper fibers on the reverse are in pink. Please note that the images of the card in the PSA 6 holder were taken from an earlier sale.


PSA 6: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/b...8/101384/PSA/6
PSA 7: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/b...8/101384/PSA/7

[superdan49]

PSA Cert #:22243903

1948 Leaf Boxing #101 John L. Sullivan PSA 6.5 to PSA 8
Alteration types: Trimming

Sold on 9/16/2013 as a PSA 6.5 by eBay seller probstein123 to whitman111 (Gary Moser's eBay ID) for $89.00
Consigned to PWCC and sold on 2/28/2016 as a PSA 8 for $426.05
Final price: $426.05
Value gain: $337.05


It appears that 1948 Leaf Boxing, like its sister sets in baseball and football, is also subject to Moser trimming. This Sullivan card was trimmed slightly on its left edge and was massively trimmed on its right edge, as highlighted in green. Yellow circles denote paper fibers and/or print marks that allow us to determine that the two images are indeed the same card. Thanks again to the anonymous tipster.


PSA 6.5: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/b...e-detail-popup
PSA 8: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/b...01/72256/PSA/8

[pip]

I think you made a mistake on the Sullivan. That card isn't trimmed. It's one of the super rare American Beauty varieties.

In all seriousness, if I owned a grading company that made these types of inexplicable errors, I would just shut it down. How can the FBI not be all over this, especially given that CU is a publicly traded company? (Rhetorical question) It's either gross and sustained incompetence or rampant collusion with submitters. Either way, it's fraudulent to the tune of tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars.

[superdan49]

I wanted to re-post this from another thread because it gives context to the long-running con game trimmers like Gary Moser have played on collectors by using TPGs like PSA to certify their fraudulent cards. BO member Shouldabeena10 was responding to another member posting a link to an August 2004 thread on the CU forums that discusses PSA's failure to stop card doctors, including Moser, 15 years ago. His insights deserve to be in this thread of record:

Originally Posted by Shouldabeena10

Wow, That really takes me back ... seeing my old comments in a post from 15 years ago, in that long forgotten PSA thread.

I'll tell you exactly what happened, and how PSA responded back in 2004 when we first tried to expose these guys .... because that was when I realized the amount of corruption, collusion and outright incompetency that was going on with ALL of the grading companies and the known card doctors / bulk submitters.

If you notice in that post we were listing complete submissions from a couple of the known card doctors, along with the % of cards they were getting graded -vs- rejected. There were probably 100 similar posts from that same month that were all deleted by the PSA Mods within hours of getting posted.

The numbers were staggering. I remember finding / seeing submissions of 100+ cards, where 75% to 80% of the cards were rejected for min size or trimming .. yet the 20% that got 'past the goalie' proved that the game these guys were playing was well worth their effort. All kinds of freshly trimmed, graded, (hundreds & thousand dollar+ cards) and new "low pop 1's".. were the card doctor's reward.

You see, back then ... we could search PSA's database and pull up entire submissions on anyone ... by simply using the submission numbers and cross checking them against cert numbers & eBay listings. This would show all of the results from a doctors submission. It showed the cards submitted, the cards rejected, the reason they were rejected, the grades, the cert numbers, etc. Also, eBay didn't mask ID's back then, so it was much easier to trace cards and people .. -vs- what BODA is having to do today.

So, for a few weeks .. a handful of us were posting daily rants on the PSA message boards, showing these ridiculous submission results, exposing the trimmed cards, showing before and after pics, and pointing out who they were coming from ... the repeat offenders, etc. We were just trying to get simple answers from PSA as to how this obvious fraud was allowed to continue? How could they even consider grading one card as legit .. when the submission was filled with almost all trimmed cards?

Also, on the collusion front .... Why did it look like a couple of "preferred submitters" (big eBay dealers) were getting all of these incredible runs of straight PSA 10's and low pop cards that were clearly not worthy of the grade? (we were showing pics of their graded cards and circling the multiple flaws that should have made them PSA 8's, at best). Remember, this was back before PSA offered the service where they would only grade for 10's.

PSA's response was to delete the posts, and boot the guys making the accusations. A few of us created bogus profiles and would sneak onto the message boards late at night or on the weekends (when the Mods weren't active) and post our findings .. trying to scream loud enough to get more collectors attention. However, the posts would always disappear the next morning, and then they started tracking IP addresses, stopping guys from making new profiles.

A few days later, they "fixed" the loophole in their database which allowed us to easily lookup all of these submissions.

Also, the PSA message board only had a few thousand guys on it back then. The set registry and the yearly awards were new and shiny things, and it was hard to get anyone's attention. PM's and e-mails sent to Joe Orlando and PSA Mods either went unanswered or we'd get some generic response that they were "looking into it" and blah, blah, blah. Honestly, most collectors just kept their heads down and didn't want to get booted from the boards.
Most would not even acknowledge what was clearly going on. I remember several collectors and dealers commenting that we were "overly paranoid" or "jealous" of the grades that the big submitters were getting, and questioning why we collected graded cards .. if we thought it was so rigged.

That was the year I left the graded card world. I deleted and retired all of my registry sets, sold off most of them, cracked out a couple hundred more slabs ... and started collecting raw again. The hobby is supposed to be fun, and I just couldn't continue to swim in that pool anymore ... knowing about all of the piss and sharks that were floating around in it.

Collecting raw doesn't solve the problem either, because all of those rejected trim jobs just get recycled throughout the raw community. The only way I've learned to keep collecting (and sleep well at night) is to educate myself to a point where I feel confident enough in my ability to catch most bad cards before buying them. I'll never catch them all .. and I'm OK with that, because I don't spend anywhere near the money I use to spend on the hobby.

Anyway, the fact that 15 years later these same sketchy names and companies are all still around, pulling the same scams, doesn't surprise me. Corruption has been in the hobby since well before 2004 and it can never be completed eliminated. There's just too many opportunities for unscrupulous people to make money.

15 years from now there will be new scandals and names being talked about. However, I imagine many of the same old names will still be around too. If you're paying attention, hopefully you'll learn a few things from all of this mess and adjust your collecting habits accordingly.

The truth is; No grading company will ever be able to catch the majority of doctored cards being submitted. It's just not possible, and quite frankly ... they barely even try. They are not "professional authenticators." They don't utilize the tools that any serious authenticating company would use. Any forensic document expert will tell you that a ruler, some lights and a magnifying glass just doesn't cut it. Hell, they can't even be bothered to simply measure all of the cards they grade.

The biggest ruse is that some old card show dealers got together 20 years ago and invented these 3 "professional grading companies" out of thin air. They anointed themselves as the "authentication experts" and talked everyone into sending them their cards, and money ... professing that they were here to help the hobby.

When in reality they are the equivalent of a big bank, relying on a few minimally trained tellers to catch all the fake $100 bills that get submitted ... by simply taking a quick peek at them.

With that said, people shouldn't be shocked to learn that the bank has accidentally taken in millions of fake $100 bills? Or that the tellers "best friends" were caught depositing new fake bills every week.

[superdan49]

PSA Cert #:22090868

1951 Topps Ringside #32 Rocky Marciano PSA 6.5 to PSA 7
Alteration types: Trimming

Sold on 8/16/2013 as a PSA 6.5 by PWCC to whitman111 (Gary Moser's eBay ID) for $504.00
Consigned to PWCC and sold on 12/14/2014 as a PSA 7 for $735.54
Final price: $735.54
Value gain: $231.54


This is the final altered card for now from a helpful anonymous tipster. Trimmed sides are highlighted in green, while the distinguishing print marks and/or paper fibers on the reverse are in blue. This set should be considered tainted in all higher grades.


PSA 6.5: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/547280
PSA 7: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1060510

[cking]

Originally Posted by superdan49

I wanted to re-post this from another thread because it gives context to the long-running con game trimmers like Gary Moser have played on collectors by using TPGs like PSA to certify their fraudulent cards. BO member Shouldabeena10 was responding to another member posting a link to an August 2004 thread on the CU forums that discusses PSA's failure to stop card doctors, including Moser, 15 years ago. His insights deserve to be in this thread of record:

So basically you are saying this has been brought to the attention of PSA 15 years ago and they are still allowing it to go on?

[Onepocketj]

Originally Posted by cking

So basically you are saying this has been brought to the attention of PSA 15 years ago and they are still allowing it to go on?

Pathetic but not surprising.

[superdan49]

PSA Cert #:27581074

1953 Parkhurst #53 Gump Worsley PSA 7 to PSA 8
Alteration types: Trimming

Sold on 5/25/2017 as a PSA 7 by eBay seller jac1504 to whitman111 (Gary Moser's eBay ID) for $483.88
Consigned to PWCC and sold on 9/27/2017 as a PSA 8 for $1,325.00
Final price: $1,325.00
Value gain: $841.12


This is another trimmed '53 Parkie hockey card. The left edge was significantly trimmed, as detailed in the green boxes. Red circles on the back highlight print marks and/or paper fibers confirming the two images are of the same card.


PSA 7: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/h...3/164731/PSA/7
PSA 8: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1552278

[Bruins1993]

1948 Leaf Phil Rizzuto #11 (PSA 5 to PSA 7)

This card was originally PSA 5 with cert # 21400198 purchased by w***1 from an eBay seller on October 8, 2014 for $149.99

Same card a PSA 7 with cert # 23642211 was sold by pwcc_auctions (eBay) on April 5, 2015 for $551.00
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1085787

Value gain of $401.01

Yellow circles are print, fiber identifiers.
Purple boxes identify trimmed (ALTERED) left and right side edges in this example.

[Bruins1993]

1948 Leaf Phil Rizzuto #11 (PSA 4.5 to PSA 5.5)

This card was originally PSA 4.5 with cert # 16733334 purchased by w***1 from an eBay seller on October 15, 2014 for $107.73

Same card a PSA 5.5 with cert # 23967347 was sold by pwcc_auctions (eBay) on April 5, 2015 for $170.00
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1085786

Value gain of $62.27

Yellow circles are print, fiber identifiers.
Purple boxes identify trimmed (ALTERED) left and right side edges in this example.

[superdan49]

PSA Cert #:25959146

1953 Parkhurst #1 Harry Lumley PSA 6 to PSA 8
Alteration types: Trimming

Sold on 5/27/2015 as a PSA 6 by eBay seller probstein123 to whitman111 (Gary Moser's eBay ID) for $400.39
Consigned to PWCC and sold on 3/26/2018 as a PSA 8 for $3,269.69
Final price: $3,269.69
Value gain: $2,869.30!


Huge gainer here for Moser and his accomplices. Both edges are trimmed, as indicated by the green boxes. Red circles on the back highlight print marks and/or paper fibers confirming the two images are of the same card.


PSA 6: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/h...-1/75221/PSA/6
PSA 8: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1628300

[superdan49]

PSA Cert #:26781953

1953 Parkhurst #50 Gordie Howe PSA 6 to PSA 7
Alteration types: Trimming

Sold on 10/22/2016 as a PSA 6 by eBay seller polarcapsales to whitman111 (Gary Moser's eBay ID) for $550.00
Consigned to PWCC and sold on 6/20/2017 as a PSA 7 for $1,381.23
Final price: $1,381.23
Value gain: $831.23


This is the second 1953 Parkie Howe #50 card found to be trimmed sold through PWCC. (See Post #3232 for the first one.) The left edge is definitely trimmed, as indicated by the green boxes. I believe the right edge is slightly trimmed as well, although I did not box it. Red circles on the back highlight print marks and/or paper fibers confirming the two images are of the same card.


PSA 6: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/h...50/75186/PSA/6
PSA 7: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/h...50/75186/PSA/7

[ken161]

Just for grins I went to VCP and looked up a few random vintage cards. I decided to look up three cards and count how many NM7 or higher cards had been sold in the last two years with the new "lighthouse" slab. So these cards had to have been graded since 2017. I was shocked at what I found.

1969 Topps Mickey Mantle White Letters - 10 Lighthouse Slabs PSA7 or higher

1954 Bowman Ted Williams - 13 Lighthouse Slabs PSA7 or higher

1965 Topps Joe Namath - 24 Lighthouse Slabs PSA7 or higher

Most were sold anonymously through PWCC or one of the big auction houses.

Who knew there were so many attic finds in recent years? If I recall correctly, Alan Rosen's 1954 Bowman find in Paris, TN did not include any Ted Williams cards. Where are these high-grade cards coming from? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

And sadly, I think this whole rotten mess goes way, way beyond Moser and other card doctors outed thus far. I think there are guys out there much more skilled as card doctors raking in way more $$$$$.

[Batpig]

Originally Posted by ken161

Just for grins I went to VCP and looked up a few random vintage cards. I decided to look up three cards and count how many NM7 or higher cards had been sold in the last two years with the new "lighthouse" slab. So these cards had to have been graded since 2017. I was shocked at what I found.

1969 Topps Mickey Mantle White Letters - 10 Lighthouse Slabs PSA7 or higher

1954 Bowman Ted Williams - 13 Lighthouse Slabs PSA7 or higher

1965 Topps Joe Namath - 24 Lighthouse Slabs PSA7 or higher

Most were sold anonymously through PWCC or one of the big auction houses.

Who knew there were so many attic finds in recent years? If I recall correctly, Alan Rosen's 1954 Bowman find in Paris, TN did not include any Ted Williams cards. Where are these high-grade cards coming from? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

And sadly, I think this whole rotten mess goes way, way beyond Moser and other card doctors outed thus far. I think there are guys out there much more skilled as card doctors raking in way more $$$$$.

I suspect the feds are finding it to be way more far reaching than they expected. This has been going on so long that many of these guys felt immune. That likely made them complacent and open to leaving huge paper trails leading to others and additional crimes. I expect there’s tax crimes, mail fraud, and who knows what else that they’re finding.

[pip]

There's some really nice cards here that are being totally ruined. Especially that Marciano. It kind of pisses me off.