BUYER BEWARE: PWCC Selling Altered 1909 E102 Ty Cobb SGC 4

[3124508 on COMC]

Sold unaltered as an SGC 60 from Heritage for $7,800: http://www.vintagecardprices.com/car...&w=1868&h=3120

Sold altered by PWCC as an SGC 4 with a PQ sticker for $17,656: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1738974

PWCC is selling again this month with a new sticker: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/2040139


Don't know what the hell they were doing with the corners. Totally ruined the card imo.

[Big35Hurt]

Holy crap those SOB's are such scumbags. I hope people call out these clowns at the National.

[3124508 on COMC]

Originally Posted by Big35Hurt

Holy crap those SOB's are such scumbags. I hope people call out these clowns at the National.

Wonder if Brent bought it from Heritage?

[superdan49]

I have a pre-war card coming to the Mantle thread where the same thing was done to a corner. This is the M.O. of the "other" (read: non-Moser) card doctor used by PWCC. The thought must be that graders treat evenly rounded corners with no discernible wear showing less harshly than corners showing uneven wear.

I'll cross-post this one to the Mantle thread just so its there in the thread of record, too.

[Corky]

So they damaged the card and ended up with a lower grade. I don't understand why someone would round off the top corners, it is mindboggling.

[3124508 on COMC]

Originally Posted by Corky

So they damaged the card and ended up with a lower grade. I don't understand why someone would round off the top corners, it is mindboggling.

Yet the lower grade card sold for $10k more than the higher grade one...

[superdan49]

Originally Posted by Corky

So they damaged the card and ended up with a lower grade. I don't understand why someone would round off the top corners, it is mindboggling.

I think the high final value price is a combination of an improving market from 2017 to 2018, as well as the power of the PWCC sticker.

If it is true that Brent is stickering his own cards, after the company went on record saying this is an unbiased and blind process, this may constitute another example of fraud that could be grounds for federal investigation.

[Bruins1993]

My wild guess is a chemical bath frayed the corners further than when the individual started work, then "rounding" the corners took place as a "fix"...

[pspa123]

Originally Posted by superdan49

I think the high final value price is a combination of an improving market from 2017 to 2018, as well as the power of the PWCC sticker.

If it is true that Brent is stickering his own cards, after the company went on record saying this is an unbiased and blind process, this may constitute another example of fraud that could be grounds for federal investigation.

If? May? Is there any reason to believe a word he or Betsy have ever said at this point?

[SetBuilder]

I guess that the blue ink dots were holding that card back from selling for $10,000 more at Heritage. Damn those pesky blue dots!

[CaptSpaulding]

Originally Posted by superdan49

I think the high final value price is a combination of an improving market from 2017 to 2018, as well as the power of the PWCC sticker.

If it is true that Brent is stickering his own cards, after the company went on record saying this is an unbiased and blind process, this may constitute another example of fraud that could be grounds for federal investigation.

There were just too many cards within the submissions I recreated that received the eye appeal certification. If the process was unbiased why were these submissions just happened to include so many cards with eye appeal? These are internal submissions for Gary and Brent and do not represent outside consignments. Betsy tried way too hard to convince me the process was done in an unbiased fashion.

[SetBuilder]

Same card in 2007:




I found this same card a few days ago and Dan and I agreed that the white area on the top left was just something on the slab. We decided it was inconclusive due to the low res scan.

Just something interesting after today’s discovery.

This Cobb has been on one strange odyssey over the last 12 years...

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

Yet the lower grade card sold for $10k more than the higher grade one...

Do we really know if any of the sales are real at this point?

[superdan49]

From https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/eye-appeal-faq:

3.How does a card get reviewed for these designations, and how is the determination made?
Each vintage card (pre-1987) that is consigned to PWCC with an estimated value over $250 is reviewed by our two Consignment Directors and then queued up for the final assessment by our CEO and Founder, Brent Huigens. With 25+ years of experience handling vintage cards, Brent is able to identify those that present an exceptional or superior appeal with its assigned technical grade.

A key component to this program is that PWCC makes the determination without bias. Firstly, PWCC does not charge consignors for this review service. Secondly, the potential for any bias is further removed by doing the eye appeal review after all auction items are sorted by sport, issue, and year which shields Brent from any consignor information ensuring that the evaluation be based on visual presentation only.

And here from another page on their site, https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/eye-appeal

Since 2015, PWCC has worked to aid investors by highlighting trading cards that possess eye appeal in the top 30% of the market, using our PWCC Certified A, E, and S designations. On average, PWCC Certified cards have consistently sold for 130-200% of average market. Our desire is to empower investors with a consistent and unbiased eye appeal assessment overseen by Brent Huigens, the founder of PWCC and a card expert with more than 25 years of experience in the industry.

If Brent is certifying his own cards with these stickers, and only a limited number of these stickers are being awarded each auction, isn't this misrepresenting to possible consignors the possibility of earning one of these stickers that can increase the value of their card, according to PWCC's alleged data, by 130-200%?

I'll cite one example here of a collector who submitted a card to PWCC in the hopes that Brent would award him a PWCC Certified sticker. If there was ever a case to be made that this is out-and-out fraud, 6celtics33 has a strong one:

Originally Posted by 6celtics33

I am the person that owned the BVG 7 Bill Russell
[...]
My understanding of the pwcc high end and pq designations were that they were based on eye appeal. Eye appeal on vintage largely resting on centering.

So I thought to myself that I had a lock candidate for that.

[...]
So I reached out to Brent about it. I have consigned to him before. I have reported issues of cards in his auctions before and he has always responded quickly and taken action and I felt good about our relationship in as much as I knew him what little bit that I did. I showed him a pic and told him what I was after and inquired about how and who reviews the cards. He told me he would personally review it and that he would be excited to see it in person and couldn't really make a claim about whether it would or would not qualify until he had it in person. (I thought that was fair)

[...]
To skip to the point, he does it by sport so when he got around to the basketball he told me it did not qualify. He had written a nice description which he then even made better for me. He told me it was a nice piece but that he found the wrinkle (s) (1 or 2) and that it wouldn't grade above a psa 5 because of that. He also said that people will wonder why a card like that is in a bvg holder. Evidence to back that up is TBP up above asking that very question.

I personally did not see or notice any wrinkles myself. This was before their ultra zoom images. Eye appeal wise, I felt like this was as nice a 7 as you could get. It looked like a 9 if you just held it out and looked at it.

However as mentioned vintage is not my specialty and I think I probably had some bias drilled into my head about bvg not knowing what they were doing combined with the fact that I trusted Brent and just assumed that if he sees them then they are there.

So I let it go with the nice description. Felt like a punch in the gut this morning to see it posted [same card as a PSA 7.5].

The consignor of that BVG 7 Russell sent the card to PWCC specifically because he thought it was high end and deserved an allegedly unbiased PWCC high end sticker. Instead Brent allegedly saw two wrinkles in it, which he listed in the description. Beckett Vintage Grading did not see any wrinkles (or it would not have been a BVG 7!) nor did the consignor.

The whitman111 eBay account wins the card, either Gary Moser or whoever else is using the whitman111 ID has it altered, and it is certified as a PSA 7.5 with a PWCC-PQ sticker. And there is no mention of any wrinkles. And it gains over $21,000.

[CaptSpaulding]

Hey Dan,

The eye appeal certification is very misleading and it not only enriches Brent when he places those stickers on cards he submits to PSA and SGC but it also brings in a good deal of consignments as prospective consignors have no idea there is little chance their material will get a sticker. Brent will sticker cards he knows are altered and he will use a sticker on cards he submitted to grading that dropped in grade to make up for the loss in value.

Greg

[cking]

Originally Posted by superdan49

The consignor of that BVG 7 Russell sent the card to PWCC specifically because he thought it was high end and deserved an allegedly unbiased PWCC high end sticker. Instead Brent allegedly saw two wrinkles in it, which he listed in the description. Beckett Vintage Grading did not see any wrinkles (or it would not have been a BVG 7!) nor did the consignor.

The whitman111 eBay account wins the card, either Gary Moser or whoever else is using the whitman111 ID has it altered, and it is certified as a PSA 7.5 with a PWCC-PQ sticker. And there is no mention of any wrinkles. And it gains over $21,000.

Wow. That statement right here really makes me want to reconsider even being in this hobby.

That is some lowdown, dirty stuff right there.

I literally hope this guy goes to prison and loses everything.

What a complete and total greaseball POS.

Every dog has its day. Patience. It all comes around.

[Vintagecollect]

Naw, bet he throws a few stickers, and a few shill bids for his new co signers as well. Just a taste

[mainerunr]

Originally Posted by superdan49

F
The consignor of that BVG 7 Russell sent the card to PWCC specifically because he thought it was high end and deserved an allegedly unbiased PWCC high end sticker. Instead Brent allegedly saw two wrinkles in it, which he listed in the description. Beckett Vintage Grading did not see any wrinkles (or it would not have been a BVG 7!) nor did the consignor.

The whitman111 eBay account wins the card, either Gary Moser or whoever else is using the whitman111 ID has it altered, and it is certified as a PSA 7.5 with a PWCC-PQ sticker. And there is no mention of any wrinkles. And it gains over $21,000.

Would that be intentional misrepresentation to lower the value allowing a preferred customer to purchase at a better price followed by a resale at a higher price and more commission? Because THAT seems like something the feds might be interested in...if that is what happened.

[anusinha]

Yeah, its been pretty clear for a while that PWCC tosses those labels on their own cards

[superdan49]

Originally Posted by mainerunr

Would that be intentional misrepresentation to lower the value allowing a preferred customer to purchase at a better price followed by a resale at a higher price and more commission? Because THAT seems like something the feds might be interested in...if that is what happened.

That my friend is the $21,000 question.

[mattglet]

Originally Posted by superdan49

That my friend is the $21,000 question.

It sure is, but man that's going to be a hard one to actually prove.

[signed79]

Originally Posted by superdan49

From https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/eye-appeal-faq:



And here from another page on their site, https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/eye-appeal



If Brent is certifying his own cards with these stickers, and only a limited number of these stickers are being awarded each auction, isn't this misrepresenting to possible consignors the possibility of earning one of these stickers that can increase the value of their card, according to PWCC's alleged data, by 130-200%?

I'll cite one example here of a collector who submitted a card to PWCC in the hopes that Brent would award him a PWCC Certified sticker. If there was ever a case to be made that this is out-and-out fraud, 6celtics33 has a strong one:




The consignor of that BVG 7 Russell sent the card to PWCC specifically because he thought it was high end and deserved an allegedly unbiased PWCC high end sticker. Instead Brent allegedly saw two wrinkles in it, which he listed in the description. Beckett Vintage Grading did not see any wrinkles (or it would not have been a BVG 7!) nor did the consignor.

The whitman111 eBay account wins the card, either Gary Moser or whoever else is using the whitman111 ID has it altered, and it is certified as a PSA 7.5 with a PWCC-PQ sticker. And there is no mention of any wrinkles. And it gains over $21,000.

Gary was supposedly asked about all this for the New York Times article.

His response was that he looks for cards that bump.

He's a known card doctor. But, what if he's telling the truth? What if the Whitman account is Brent posing as Moser and Moser is actually innocent in all this?

Tin foil hat-ish thinking - but can't rule anything out in all this mess at this point!

[pspa123]

Originally Posted by signed79

Gary was supposedly asked about all this for the New York Times article.

His response was that he looks for cards that bump.

He's a known card doctor. But, what if he's telling the truth? What if the Whitman account is Brent posing as Moser and Moser is actually innocent in all this?

Tin foil hat-ish thinking - but can't rule anything out in all this mess at this point!

Many people have shipped cards won over the years by Whitman111 to Gary.

[mrdallas]

Originally Posted by mainerunr

Would that be intentional misrepresentation to lower the value allowing a preferred customer to purchase at a better price followed by a resale at a higher price and more commission? Because THAT seems like something the feds might be interested in...if that is what happened.

If the Feds truly are investigating this and they can find out that Brent is intentionally skewing cards in the description so that he and Moser can pick up for cheaper to then turn around and make a ton more money by adding their BS sticker and alterations then this will be the one that WILL do them in. Since the start of all this it did have me wondering what would stop PWCC and Brent Huigens from Committing this type of fraud and I couldn't think of anything.

Brent, I hope you read these threads everyday. I wish I could take time to go to the Nationals.. I think you are going to be in for rude awakening. You and your corrupt wife are going to be embarrassed by many people and I wish I could see it.

[KhalDrogo]

Ah the Bill Russell BVG 7. That one deserved more attention that it received.

Brentsy “seeing” wrinkles that nobody else could. Even if they were there, the eye appeal of the card was through the roof. It’s EYE appeal, not JEWLER’s LOUPE appeal.