PWCC Altered Cards Callout Thread - 1952 Topps Mantle etc - Page 164

ThoseBackPages · 07-11-2019, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bensie

IMO, you're off by an order of magnitude. The tech to enable this exists today. I think this could be the reality for grading inside of 5 years.

sure, but the whales wont let it happen in 5 years

Super8er · 07-11-2019, 05:10 PM

Does anyone remember the old digest-sized TV Guides from back in the day? I used to love reading the mini movie reviews in the back. They were rated with stars and broken into four basic scores-

1 - poor
2 - fair
3 - good
4 - excellent

As a young movie fan, I used to hate that scoring system. I felt they were too vague. Nowadays when movie, tv show and game scores are broken in to tiny fractions ("I give that film a 7.5") I realize those old TV Guide scores were actually pretty great. It forced the reviewer to decide more definitively the overall quality of the film.

BO member mschoeneman came up with a 5-tier system in another thread that I thought worked really well-

Wouldn't it be more transparent if grading companies went to a smaller grading scale? Let's say 5 is the highest. I think we need a scale that would give an educated collector a good chance of discerning the grade. I can look at a card and tell if its a 5 or a 4.... I can't tell if its a 9 or a 10

Just my 2 cents.

1= sucks
2= kinda sucks
3= avg condition for vintage
4 = very nice to naked eye
5= well centered, sharp corners, clean surface

I'd be cool with a system similar to this. I think a smaller scale forces you to nitpick less and look more at general condition.

signed79 · 07-11-2019, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Here are my thoughts going forward.

I'll give you my personal example. Right before this thread was created, I was looking at beginning the Sandy Koufax Topps playing years run. Nothing crazy, but starting with a PSA 7-8 and seeing where that took me. I will graduate fellowship in summer 2020, and expect to have a substantial amount of extra discretionary income to play with. Seemed like a good time to dive into vintage.

Flash forward to today, and I've abandoned that project before I even started. How can you trust any high-grade example or unusually clean example for the issue where the provenance is unknown? Is it worth spending tens of thousands of dollars a year only to find out later that your cards are altered, and the road to recourse may be impossible?

Growing markets need more new money entering than old money exiting. How will the vintage market attract new big spenders with this cloud hanging over it?

Congratulations on graduating!

I was just getting back into collecting vintage grading before this all came out, but now I'll pass.

bensie · 07-11-2019, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhamlau

Bensie honest question: do you know or talk to any of the people directly accused of trimming and grading sports cards for resale purposes?

No, I do not. I don't have any friends or associates who collect cards. I collected when I was a kid and just got back into collecting relatively recently. Card collecting is a hobby that I enjoy by myself. I don't trim or alter cards. The most I've done is cracked out of an SGC holder to have graded by PSA because my OCD won't allow mismatched slabs in my PC.

Hell, I can't even bring myself to crack open some of the junk wax I've accumulated. I'd never have the heart to willfully deface a card.

Vintagecollect · 07-11-2019, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bensie

No, I do not. I don't have any friends or associates

Good for you

houdini · 07-11-2019, 07:18 PM

I have nothing but respect for the people who are uncovering all of this.

It can be difficult if you have certain proofs but not the permission to share it though. In that situation, is it better to share it and say I know this to be true but I cannot share the proof? If you do that, I think others can make their opinions based on just that. I think it is different than saying this is true and my word is the proof.

The evidence is what is making these cases though. I imagine they have mountains of cards they are pretty sure are trimmed, but they don't have the before image (or the image is too poor). The cards we are seeing, those cards have both images - some going back a decade or more - and that is how we know these cards are trimmed. The time and patience that this takes - and the talent. As far as I know, only one of these investigators does this for their career.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bensie

*clap clap clap*

That's exactly what I was saying. 100% agree.

Perhaps, but you come across as trolling. I don't think you are helping this forum or collectors in general if it just looks like you want attention for being a contrarian.

CaptSpaulding · 07-11-2019, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by houdini

How do we know what you know? Think about that for a second. If what you say makes it so, then anyone can make any accusation and it would be founded because you don't know what they know.

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying if you can't/won't post the proof, then don't say it is proven. You see?

That is my only point. I think it is fair and I stand behind it.

Hi Houdini,

I appreciate your point and it is a delicate balance however I would much prefer to take grief from a few if it means I may have helped a few more avoid becoming victims of this fraud. I could not provide nearly as much information as I have were it not for people who trust me with the information. For those who feel that post of the 12 cards was all circumstantial evidence they can disregard it however I really do not think they should.

Peace,
Greg

pspa123 · 07-11-2019, 08:43 PM

The WWG DiMaggio (which in hindsight should have set off a lot more alarm bells than it did) was first tied to Brent as the purchaser through a source who requested that I not identify him. I had to make a judgment that the source was reliable and that it was better to inform people even subject to that limitation than not. Brent eventually admitted he was in fact the purchaser of the card. He then gave a version of events that was directly contradicted by Cortney, the first purchaser of the card post alteration.

jhuch · 07-11-2019, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bensie

Thank you, Arthur. You hit the nail on the head.

Sorry, Arthur is right. I was posing a thought experiment to try to get you guys to think about why the alteration really bothers you. I felt (and still feel) that several people are having a very emotional reaction to this. The original impetus to my posing the thought experiment was my seeing a couple of people selling all their cards and getting out of the hobby entirely. If you would step back and look at my posts objectively, you'd see them for what they are...questions posed to invoke thought and to get you guys to apply more critical thinking skills here.

I'm having an Andy Kaufman ABC Fridays "this is a happening" flashback. Then I threw up a little in my mouth.

KhalDrogo · 07-11-2019, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pspa123

The WWG DiMaggio (which in hindsight should have set off a lot more alarm bells than it did) was first tied to Brent as the purchaser through a source who requested that I not identify him. I had to make a judgment that the source was reliable and that it was better to inform people even subject to that limitation than not. Brent eventually admitted he was in fact the purchaser of the card. He then gave a version of events that was directly contradicted by Cortney, the first purchaser of the card post alteration.

Do you think Cortney was truthful when he said that Brent claimed the card was his?

pspa123 · 07-11-2019, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Do you think Cortney was truthful when he said that Brent claimed the card was his?

Let's put it this way. I don't believe much of anything Brent said or says on any topic of any controversy. Recall this is the man who told me flat out two or three years ago Gary had essentially retired. The man who, although just months before he had posted a lengthy defense of his scans on CU in response to a post complaining about them, claimed on 54 that he had never heard a bad word about his scans before. The man who, every time I pointed out a bidder in violation of his much-ballyhooed new retraction policies, offered an excuse why he was permitting that bidder to keep bidding. Etc. Etc.

The man who, even in the throes of the scandal, tried to bury an addendum about the altered T3 Cobb at the bottom of pages of boilerplate where nobody was ever going to see it, and even then made the preposterous claim that in the 2 holder the altered card was appropriately graded.

ThoseBackPages · 07-11-2019, 09:02 PM

was Courtney ill?

pspa123 · 07-11-2019, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

was Courtney ill?

I don't know the circumstances of his passing.

ThoseBackPages · 07-11-2019, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pspa123

I don't know the circumstances of his passing.

me either. he was young.

superdan49 · 07-11-2019, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

was Courtney ill?

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/...y-shea-delorme

RIP

bensie · 07-11-2019, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptSpaulding

For those who feel that post of the 12 cards was all circumstantial evidence they can disregard it however I really do not think they should.

Peace,
Greg

The posting of all twelve cards is not what anyone is taking issue with. It's your claim that it was Brent (pwcc) that did the buying/altering. That conclusion was simply unfounded given the evidence provided.

ThoseBackPages · 07-11-2019, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superdan49

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/...y-shea-delorme

RIP

oh man. stress/guilt comes to mind

bensie · 07-11-2019, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by houdini

Perhaps, but you come across as trolling. I don't think you are helping this forum or collectors in general if it just looks like you want attention for being a contrarian.

Point taken.

CaptSpaulding · 07-11-2019, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bensie

The posting of all twelve cards is not what anyone is taking issue with. It's your claim that it was Brent (pwcc) that did the buying/altering. That conclusion was simply unfounded given the evidence provided.

Got it.

cking · 07-12-2019, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptSpaulding

Hi Houdini,

I appreciate your point and it is a delicate balance however I would much prefer to take grief from a few if it means I may have helped a few more avoid becoming victims of this fraud. I could not provide nearly as much information as I have were it not for people who trust me with the information. For those who feel that post of the 12 cards was all circumstantial evidence they can disregard it however I really do not think they should.

Peace,
Greg

Keep doing exactly what you are doing. Dont let this guy or a few others rattle you.

Thats what they are trying to do. Get you to stop.

He keeps saying he is trying to get people to look at it in a diffrent manner.

Why would he care how anyone else was looking at it?

If he dont like what is being posted then he dont have to read it.

Ignore him.

houdini · 07-12-2019, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptSpaulding

For those who feel that post of the 12 cards was all circumstantial evidence they can disregard it however I really do not think they should.

I think our differences here are mere semantics. I have zero problem with your post above. You have to understand though that it is circumstantial to everyone else except you and the person who told you.

That doesn't mean I think you are wrong and it certainly doesn't mean I doubt you either.

CaptSpaulding · 07-12-2019, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by houdini

I think our differences here are mere semantics. I have zero problem with your post above. You have to understand though that it is circumstantial to everyone else except you and the person who told you.

That doesn't mean I think you are wrong and it certainly doesn't mean I doubt you either.

To anyone who feels my post was a leap of faith they should not rely on it. I am going to keep doing what I am doing until I am told I do not have to do it anymore. Last thing I am trying to do is alienate or mislead any collectors and I have to make judgement calls all the time as to when or if there is something I can post. Not a day goes by where I do not get a valuable tip. I will continue to use the information responsibly, when able. Getting the message out to people is more important to me than winning a popularity contest.

corndog · 07-12-2019, 02:51 AM

PSA Cert #24822078

1952 Berk Ross Gil Hodges

Value gain of $52.37

This card was purchased by whitman111 (Gary Moser) from PWCC (Brent and Betsy Huigens) as a PSA-6 on July 09, 2015 for $71.13. PWCC Marketplace link: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1148063
Same card was sold by PWCC (Brent and Betsy Huigens) as a PSA-8 for $123.50 on June 08, 2017. PWCC Marketplace link: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1486016

Yellow circles are print or fiber identifiers.
Red squares identify trimmed left and right edges with artificial rough cut.

Vintagecollect · 07-12-2019, 06:21 AM

What is the most stressing part of this, is that they alter a card and make FIFTY frigging bucks. Sure they had some monster hits, but this shows me that nothing is sacred, and most of the cards being auctioned appear they were either doctored, or bid (shilled0 up. Either Moser won them or he bid them up so high, there was no point in alterations ..ahem "conserving' them. To echo Brentsy's point, they WOULD have been "paid for" if Moser in fact won. However, my guess it was a slush fund for him to alter and resell, or they were never paid for at all

HarryLime · 07-12-2019, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptSpaulding

To anyone who feels my post was a leap of faith they should not rely on it. I am going to keep doing what I am doing until I am told I do not have to do it anymore. Last thing I am trying to do is alienate or mislead any collectors and I have to make judgement calls all the time as to when or if there is something I can post. Not a day goes by where I do not get a valuable tip. I will continue to use the information responsibly, when able. Getting the message out to people is more important to me than winning a popularity contest.

Greg, look at it this way: if someone were actively defending PWCC they would be able to take those two statements that you made (not the information you shared, I'm talking about the two declaratory final judgments that you reached) and use them to say "look, the people that are investigating Brent are making leaps of logic and passing judgments on him without actually having the evidence!"

That's the concern. I don't doubt "what you know." I'm saying we have to stick to what we can prove and if we can't prove it yet then it gets tabled until we can. We already know there are people just looking for ANY crack in the glass to blow it out of proportion. Brent now has a monster legal team on his side.

Arthur

07-11-2019, 08:43 PM	#4083
pspa123 Member Join Date: Jun 2017 Posts: 3,740	The WWG DiMaggio (which in hindsight should have set off a lot more alarm bells than it did) was first tied to Brent as the purchaser through a source who requested that I not identify him. I had to make a judgment that the source was reliable and that it was better to inform people even subject to that limitation than not. Brent eventually admitted he was in fact the purchaser of the card. He then gave a version of events that was directly contradicted by Cortney, the first purchaser of the card post alteration. Last edited by pspa123; 07-11-2019 at 08:47 PM.

07-11-2019, 09:02 PM	#4087
ThoseBackPages Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Long Island Posts: 90,283 ThoseBackPages	was Courtney ill? __________________ Pumpers Paradise #YouCryIBuy Four things that we cannot change each others minds about: Politics, Religion, Third Party Grading, and 2021 Bowman's Best Rookie Cards

07-12-2019, 02:51 AM	#4098
corndog BODA Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: From a table in McDonalds, with lovely fake flowers on it. Posts: 18,092	PSA Cert #24822078 1952 Berk Ross Gil Hodges Value gain of $52.37 This card was purchased by whitman111 (Gary Moser) from PWCC (Brent and Betsy Huigens) as a PSA-6 on July 09, 2015 for $71.13. PWCC Marketplace link: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1148063 Same card was sold by PWCC (Brent and Betsy Huigens) as a PSA-8 for $123.50 on June 08, 2017. PWCC Marketplace link: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1486016 Yellow circles are print or fiber identifiers. Red squares identify trimmed left and right edges with artificial rough cut. __________________ He has no rival, He has no equal.

07-12-2019, 06:21 AM	#4099
Vintagecollect Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 1,122	What is the most stressing part of this, is that they alter a card and make FIFTY frigging bucks. Sure they had some monster hits, but this shows me that nothing is sacred, and most of the cards being auctioned appear they were either doctored, or bid (shilled0 up. Either Moser won them or he bid them up so high, there was no point in alterations ..ahem "conserving' them. To echo Brentsy's point, they WOULD have been "paid for" if Moser in fact won. However, my guess it was a slush fund for him to alter and resell, or they were never paid for at all __________________ Signed 1952 topps "You literally asked a question and quoted the answer"

07-11-2019, 05:10 PM	#4077
Super8er Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Houston Posts: 2,719 squirrelythings	Does anyone remember the old digest-sized TV Guides from back in the day? I used to love reading the mini movie reviews in the back. They were rated with stars and broken into four basic scores- 1 - poor 2 - fair 3 - good 4 - excellent As a young movie fan, I used to hate that scoring system. I felt they were too vague. Nowadays when movie, tv show and game scores are broken in to tiny fractions ("I give that film a 7.5") I realize those old TV Guide scores were actually pretty great. It forced the reviewer to decide more definitively the overall quality of the film. BO member mschoeneman came up with a 5-tier system in another thread that I thought worked really well- Wouldn't it be more transparent if grading companies went to a smaller grading scale? Let's say 5 is the highest. I think we need a scale that would give an educated collector a good chance of discerning the grade. I can look at a card and tell if its a 5 or a 4.... I can't tell if its a 9 or a 10 Just my 2 cents. 1= sucks 2= kinda sucks 3= avg condition for vintage 4 = very nice to naked eye 5= well centered, sharp corners, clean surface I'd be cool with a system similar to this. I think a smaller scale forces you to nitpick less and look more at general condition.