PWCC Altered Cards Callout Thread - 1952 Topps Mantle etc

[pip]

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

And the stain on the back.

Which one?

[pip]

Originally Posted by HarryLime

It's just the toughest 10 of the decade, that's all. No way anyone will ever look at the actual card and notice it's an 8 that got trimmed.

Arthur

But is it or is that PSA telling you that it is?

https://youtu.be/Wirna8ihUuA?t=484

[mhcook]

Originally Posted by corndog

And the yellow ink is noticeably out of register.

That card is ugly.

Is out of register the correct term for the colors not being in the lines like they should be? I am not sure where that factors into grading because I owned a BGS 10, but it had that issue and to me that is not a pristine or gem card.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[corndog]

Originally Posted by mhcook

Is out of register the correct term for the colors not being in the lines like they should be? I am not sure where that factors into grading because I owned a BGS 10, but it had that issue and to me that is not a pristine or gem card.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Yes, that is the term used in printing when colors are not correctly lined up.
I don't know if it is implemented when grading a card, but it is a printing flaw or error. IMO, ink registration should be a greater factor than centering.

An example:
Both of these PSA 4 cards were each purchased for just over $21,000.000.
Who spent their money wisely and has a nice card and which was purchased by Ray Charles?

[Pink Pussycat]

Originally Posted by corndog

Yes, that is the term used in printing when colors are not correctly lined up.
I don't know if it is implemented when grading a card, but it is a printing flaw or error. IMO, ink registration should be a greater factor than centering.

An example:
Both of these PSA 4 cards were each purchased for just over $21,000.000.
Who spent their money wisely and has a nice card and which was purchased by Ray Charles?

Just another fiasco as it relates to TPG. They'll give an otherwise perfect card a "3" for having a tiny pinpoint spot of paper loss. But they don't punish the card at all for having poor registration and bad focus.

They'll severely downgrade a card with poor centering... but they look right past the central image of the card, even if looking at it makes you feel dizzy.

Both centering and registration are traits that are original to the card... So why the obvious conflict and disparity? Why would they downgrade for one, and not the other? If anything, the poorly focused card is the greater annoyance. DUMB!

[HarryLime]

Originally Posted by pip

But is it or is that PSA telling you that it is?

https://youtu.be/Wirna8ihUuA?t=484

I'd question the sample size of those other cards but not all cards on the edge are treated the same. A perfect example is the '87 O-Pee-Chee Bonds card. For whatever reason, that card virtually never got properly cut top-to-bottom. No other card on the edge or another corner has the same problem.

But it's all a moot point. Whether the card is legitimately the toughest 10 or PSA is making it the toughest 10, both set of circumstances make that example even more ridiculous.

Arthur

[mjohnatgt]

Bad registration can downgrade the card's grade or give it the uncommon OF (out-of-focus) qualifier from PSA. Rare, but they exist.

[Pink Pussycat]

Originally Posted by mjohnatgt

Bad registration can downgrade the card's grade or give it the uncommon OF (out-of-focus) qualifier from PSA. Rare, but they exist.

Please post one, if you have access. Personally, I have never seen this qualifier (but would like to). Have seen countless cards exactly like the Paige above... all of which suffer no penalty whatsoever for horrible focus/registration. Thanks!

[auburn35]

Originally Posted by Pink Pussycat

Please post one, if you have access. Personally, I have never seen this qualifier (but would like to). Have seen countless cards exactly like the Paige above... all of which suffer no penalty whatsoever for horrible focus/registration. Thanks!

Here's a PSA video discussing the (OF) qualifier.
https://blog.psacard.com/2019/01/23/...ifiers-part-2/

[Pink Pussycat]

Originally Posted by auburn35

Here's a PSA video discussing the (OF) qualifier.
https://blog.psacard.com/2019/01/23/...ifiers-part-2/

Thanks for posting that... much appreciated.

So why was the "OF" qualifier not used on the Paige above? Seems like it's a lot worse off than the Ed Brinkman in their example. I don't want to belabor the point, but I can think of countless examples where that qualifier should've been used (and wasn't).

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by Pink Pussycat

Thanks for posting that... much appreciated.

So why was the "OF" qualifier not used on the Paige above? Seems like it's a lot worse off than the Ed Brinkman in their example. I don't want to belabor the point, but I can think of countless examples where that qualifier should've been used (and wasn't).

most folks choose to not use qualifiers when submitting

[Vintagecollect]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

most folks choose to not use qualifiers when submitting

Like Mk, MC, and PD, it is not a qualifier you cannot request. Only OC is only one that will be graded at the lower standard

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by Vintagecollect

Like Mk, MC, and PD, it is not a qualifier you cannot request. Only OC is only one that will be graded at the lower standard

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

yes, good point!

[superdan49]

PSA Cert #:15440605

1955 Bowman Football #158 Chuck Bednarik PSA 7 to PSA 8
Alteration types: Trimming
Set Registry status: JMDVM

Sold on 6/9/2008 by eBay seller www.stevenovella.com to whitman111 (Gary Moser's eBay user ID) for $46.76
Consigned to PWCC and sold on 2/4/2011 as a PSA 8 for $188.61
Final price: $188.61
Value gain: $141.85


Here's an early example of a Gary Moser altered card first sold through PWCC (the first documented sale on record, in any event). The right edge of this '55 Bowman Bednarik card has been slightly trimmed to give it an artificial rough cut look. The small paper fiber image comparison below shows that there is some white showing between the fiber and the right edge on the PSA 7, but none on the PSA 8, confirming the alteration. Blue circles are print marks and/or paper fibers common to the two sets of images, confirming they are of the same exact card. Red boxes shows the trimmed edge, while the purple boxes highlight the location of the telltale paper fiber.

PSA 7: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/f...=&limit=999999
PSA 8: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/75786

[superdan49]

BGS Cert #:0007647138

1996 Leaf Signature Autographs Derek Jeter Gold BGS 4 to BGS 9.5
Alteration types: Trimming
Set Registry status: N/A

Sold on 3/11/2013 as BGS 4 by eBay seller oak753 to an unknown buyer for $1,324.00
Consigned to PWCC and sold on 6/9/2013 as a BGS 9.5 for $4,750.00
Final price: $4,750.00
Value gain: $3,426.00


Unfortunately, the image in Worthpoint of the BGS 4 is substandard, but it is sufficient to show that the back reverse edge was slightly trimmed, which is a common alteration on these '96 Leaf Signature autograph cards. Obviously other, more drastic alterations were performed by the card doctor as well, as the card's surface subgrade was raised from a "3" to a "9.5" (Very Good to Gem Mint), and its corners subgrade was bumped from an "8" to a "9.5" (Near Mint-Mint to Gem Mint). The autographs are a perfect match, so the BGS 4 and BGS 9.5 cards are without question one and the same.

Due to the short turnaround between the sale of the BGS 4 and the reselling as a BGS 9.5 in a PWCC auction (with Beckett grading inbetween), the culprit who altered this card is undoubtedly the same person or connected to the same person who purchased the BGS 4.

BGS 4:https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...gold-420445837
BGS 9.5: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/495311

[mjohnatgt]

Dadgummit.

[3124508 on COMC]

PWCC reselling trimmed 5 figure Mahomes autograph. Why are they reselling cards originally consigned by known trimmers?

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1353535

[pip]

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

PWCC reselling trimmed 5 figure Mahomes autograph. Why are they reselling cards originally consigned by known trimmers?

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1353535

In clinical terms, it would be referred to as the dominant pathology that controls their actions.

[MoreToppsPlease]

They just might be that desperate for cash.

[superdan49]

PSA Cert #:28469906

1910 E90-2 American Caramel Honus Wagner PSA 2 to PSA 4
Alteration types: Recoloration and Bleaching
Set Registry status: None

Sold on 10/29/2017 by Robert Edward Auctioins to an unknown buyer for $6,600.00
Consigned to PWCC and sold on 4/10/2018 as a PSA 4 for $12,326.00
Final price: $12,326.00
Value gain: $5,726.00


Another member started a thread about one of these cards that was altered and sold through Heritage (see here), so I decided to see if PWCC ever sold any examples. Not surprisingly, I found this recolored and bleached example. The bleaching is quite obvious as you can see on the card back, which was stained and now is unnaturally white. The area of recoloring can be seen in the area boxed in red. This is not the first Honus Wagner card recolored and first sold through PWCC (see post #5456). It is believed that most of these recolored graded prewar cards initially sold through PWCC are the hand of the same criminal card doctor.

PSA 2: https://www.robertedwardauctions.com...-honus-wagner/
PSA 4: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1637415



Addendum: The winning bidder of the PSA 4 sold through PWCC is masked as t***9 on VCP, which is eBay ID qut9, owned by convicted felon Will Jaimet. Was this sale to Jaimet legitimate, or was this card another example of shill bidding?

[pip]

Originally Posted by superdan49

Addendum: The winning bidder of the PSA 4 sold through PWCC is masked as t***9 on VCP, which is eBay ID qut9, owned by convicted felon Will Jaimet. Was this sale to Jaimet legitimate, or was this card another example of shill bidding?

I vote shill bidding.

[ken161]

Originally Posted by superdan49

Addendum: The winning bidder of the PSA 4 sold through PWCC is masked as t***9 on VCP, which is eBay ID qut9, owned by convicted felon Will Jaimet. Was this sale to Jaimet legitimate, or was this card another example of shill bidding?

It could have been shilled and accidentally won. The card doctor might also have seen room for "upward mobility" with a little corner sharpening. Regardless, I seriously doubt the card is now proudly displayed in his collection.

This Wagner really speaks to the extent of the problem (and the skill of BODA). A big money card is outed, a little research is conducted, and (voila!) another case of $5.7K in fraud is quickly unearthed. Can't make this stuff up, Joe Orlando.

If I didn't know better, I'd say this problem is very widespread with all big $$$ cards that have passed through the hallowed halls of Professional Sports Authenticator.

[signed79]

I almost bought that Wagner when it was in a PSA 2 holder.

[superdan49]

Originally Posted by signed79

I almost bought that Wagner when it was in a PSA 2 holder.

Too bad you didn't. He would still have the natural pinkish colors in his face instead of the ghoulish complexion caused by the whitening chemicals.

[buck724]

Definitely looked better in the PSA slab before additional alterations. Sad though, a big piece of history for our hobby ruined.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk