Did You Win This $27,600 "Waterfront" Satchel Paige Card in REA's December Auction?

[superdan49]

As readers of Blowout are well aware, most of the TPG-graded altered cards which have been uncovered here since this scandal broke in early 2019 have been trimmed cards. However, while trimming is the most common form of alteration performed by card doctors, it certainly is not the only deceptive act they engage in.

On PSA's website, under the heading of "Ungradable Cards," it is clearly stated that the company "will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity." This policy is explained in further detail under the heading "No Grade Definitions":

If your card is returned as ungradable, that determination was made based on one of the following reasons:

N-1 Evidence of Trimming - When a card's edge appears to have been altered. A card doctor may use scissors, scalpel, cutter, or any other sharp instrument. A card that appears trimmed: A hooked appearance along the edge, unusually sharp or uncommon edges for the issue, an inconsistent tone to the color of the edge in question or a wavy, unnatural look to the edges.

N-2 Evidence of Restoration - When a card's paper stock appears to have been built up - for example, when ripped corners are built up to look like new corners.

N-3 Evidence of Recoloration - Where a card's color appears to have been artificially improved.

N-4 Questionable Authenticity - This is the term used when a card appears to be counterfeit or when the autograph is deemed to be not genuine.

N-5 Altered Stock - This includes, but is not limited to characteristics on the card that appear to show some form of alteration such as paper restoration, crease/wrinkle pressing or enhanced gloss.

N-6 Minimum Size Requirement - When a card is significantly undersized according to factory specifications. You will not be charged the grading fee.

N-7 Evidence of Cleaning - When a whitener is used to whiten borders or a solution is used to remove wax, candy, gum or tobacco stains.

N-8 Miscut - This term is used when the factory cut is abnormal for the issue, causing the card’s edges to deviate from their intended appearance. Grading fees are not charged in this instance.

N-9 Don't Grade - When we do not grade an issue. The cards may be oversized or an obscure issue. You will not be charged the grading fee.

N-0 Authentic Only - This means that PSA is only certifying that the item is genuine, without a numerical grade. This may be due to the existence of an alteration, one with malice or otherwise, a major defect or the original submitter may have requested that PSA encapsulate the card without a grade. The "Authentic" label means that the item, in our opinion, is real but nothing more.

AA Authentic Altered - This means that while PSA is certifying that the item is genuine, due to the existence of alterations, the item cannot receive a numerical grade. The term altered may mean that the card shows evidence of one or more of the following: trimming, recoloring, restoration, and/or cleaning. Items receiving the "Authentic Altered" designation, in our opinion, are genuine with the presence of some type of alteration. This is done on a case-by-case basis only, and must be notated on the submission form at the time of submission.

By definition, the card here, an iconic 1948 Leaf Satchel Paige rookie card, should have been rejected with the N-5 no grade. If slabbed, it should have been designated Authetic-Altered, greatly reducing its desirability and value. But it was not. Here are the details:



PSA Cert #:23545563

1948 Leaf #8 Satchel Paige SGC 3 to PSA 4.5
Alteration types: Creases pressed out
Set Registry status: None

Sales History:
Sold on 11/11/2011 as a SGC by Goodwin & Co. to an unknown buyer for $5,105.10
Sold on 11/22/2014 as a PSA 4.5 by eBay seller floyd6294 for $11,500.00 *First sale as a PSA 4.5*
Consigned to PWCC and sold on 2/4/2015 for $11,201.00
Consigned to REA and sold on 12/8/2019 for $27,600.00
Last sale price: $27,600.00


As an SGC 3, this Paige card had multiple veins of creasing in the lower left quadrant of its reverse, which are pointed out in the image below using green arrows. However, even though the scan of the PSA 4.5 is of much higher quality, there is barely any evidence of the creasing. (The REA catalog calls the creasing "faint"; the PWCC description does not mention creasing at all.) The pink circles are print marks and/or paper fibers proving the SGC 3 and the PSA 4.5 are the same card.










I've been experimenting with ways make alterations appear more visible on digital images, and one method that works for matching stains on 1914 and 1915 Cracker Jack cards is to reduce the brightness of the image so the stains become more apparent. I found this method also works with making wrinkles and creases more visible, as you will see below on the reverse images of this 1948 Leaf Paige card. I first matched the brightness levels of the two images and then reduced their brightness to a -60 on a scale of -100 to +100 in my PictureProject software. The images below are taken from the 11/11/2011 Goodwin sale of the SGC 3 and the 12/8/2019 sale of the PSA 4.5. Notice how much more apparent the creasing becomes on the SGC 3 when light is reduced. I have highlighted the creasing area in green.





Conclusion:
This $27,600 card is altered, and should have been rejected by PSA with a N-5 designation. Please note that the first documented sale of the altered PSA 4.5 was from eBay user floyd6294. His new eBay ID is desert-ice-sports. More research is needed to see if desert-ice-sports submitted this card to PSA or purchased it already graded.


Relevant links:
Goodwin SGC 3 sale: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/b...t/42414/SGC/40
Best images of SGC 3: http://www.cardtarget.com/cards/53491
floyd6294 eBay PSA 4.5 sale: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/b.../42414/PSA/4.5
PWCC eBay PSA 4.5 sale: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1064785
REA PSA 4.5 sale: https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...e?itemid=61859

And for the record, the term "waterfront card" is universally hated.

[3124508 on COMC]

Oh no, not a Waterfront card!

[pspa123]

With all we've seen this edited version may be more accurate. Joke of course, sort of.

The company "will not grade cards unless they bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity."

[pip]

This may be considered a radical statement by some, but in addition to PSA's gratuitous error, REA shares some of the blame. You would think that the major auction houses, many with former TPG graders on staff, would have the ability to spend 5 to 10 minutes checking a few online resources to see if some of the more expensive cards in their auctions--especially those valued in excess of $25,000--have been altered.

Also, which party is currently liable? PSA?

[pip]

There's something wrong with the corners on the card too. It looks like to me that they've been artificially lightened by bleach or some other chemical that has removed all the darkened areas that are typically associated with that type of corner wear. Anyhow, that doesn't look normal. At all.

There also appears to be some fiber degradation, which is especially noticeable near the LR corner. Again, this is typical for cards that have been bleached.

[Beantownhero]

So for liability, in the game of musical chairs. Who is most likely the person/company who will take the hit?

Buyer
Consignor
Trimmer
REA
PWCC

This is assuming that teflon PSA does not do anything about this and just tells us how they get most of their opinions right.

[superdan49]

Originally Posted by Beantownhero

So for liability, in the game of musical chairs. Who is most likely the person/company who will take the hit?

Buyer
Consignor
Trimmer
REA
PWCC

This is assuming that teflon PSA does not do anything about this and just tells us how they get most of their opinions right.

My guess is REA will refund the buyer. Anything beyond that would be a wild guess.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by superdan49

My guess is REA will refund the buyer. Anything beyond that would be a wild guess.

Agreed. What’s crazy is how long ago the alteration took place. Amazing work as always superdan.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by pip

This may be considered a radical statement by some, but in addition to PSA's gratuitous error, REA shares some of the blame. You would think that the major auction houses, many with former TPG graders on staff, would have the ability to spend 5 to 10 minutes checking a few online resources to see if some of the more expensive cards in their auctions--especially those valued in excess of $25,000--have been altered.

Also, which party is currently liable? PSA?

Exactly! Isn’t this what real and reputable auction houses do and is paid for by buyers fees??

[superdan49]

And here's one more from the '48 Leaf set...Maybe not waterfront, but oh well


PSA Cert #:22170388

1948 Leaf #98 Hal Newhouser PSA 6 to PSA 7
Alteration types: Bleaching
Set Registry status: None

Sales History:
Sold on 5/8/2011 as a PSA 6 by REA to an unnamed buyer for $2,115.00
Consigned to Memory Lane Inc. and sold as a PSA 7 on 12/20/2013 for $4,850.44 *First sale as a PSA 7*
Consigned to PWCC and sold on 9/7/2016 for $6,601.00
Last sale price: $6,601.00


The green box on the upper edge of the PSA 6 shows a small, crescent-shaped black mark, perhaps some stray ink. In the green box of the PSA 7, that mark is gone. Where did it go? More on that below. The pink circles are print marks and/or paper fibers proving the PSA 6 and the PSA 7 are the same card.










Just as with the 1948 Leaf Paige card, I first matched the brightness levels of the images and then reduced their brightness, this time to a -90 on a scale of -100 to +100 in my PictureProject software. The images below are taken from the REA sale of the PSA 6, and both the Memory Lane and PWCC sales of the PSA 7. Here you see the area on the PSA 7 where a chemical cleaning took place of that dark mark on the PSA 6, which I pointed out with green arrows. On a white border in normal lighting, it is difficult to see. However, when the brightness is reduced, it is undeniably brighter than the rest of the card stock. Think of this as a digital black light.





Conclusion:
This $6,610 card is altered, and should have been rejected by PSA with a N-7 designation for use of a bleaching agent. I used two independent images of the PSA 7— one from Memory Lane and one from PWCC. The area where the black mark was removed lights up on both of them. Please note that the first documented sale of the altered PSA 7 was from Memory Lane. If the consignor of this card to Memory Lane matches the buyer from REA, then that person is the card doctor.


Relevant links:
REA PSA 6 sale: https://www.robertedwardauctions.com...er-rookie-psa/
Memory Lane PSA 7 sale: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/b...nt/42353/PSA/7
PWCC eBay PSA 7 sale: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1341247

[Wiseguy917]

PSA doing what they do best, causing ignorant people to throw away money.

[rcmb3220]

I think we know the real reason auction houses employ former graders.

[Rooftop]

I purchased a card on ebay from desert-ice-sports back in 2018. after some suspension, I decided to go back and trace other cards in his submission. I came up with 138 cards (28303756 - 28303894). Checking the sales from PSA, deserticesportscom and user987654987654 also sold cards from this lot on ebay. I saw one that went to an auction house. Several of the cards submitted in this group came back as altered.

[auburn35]

Originally Posted by Rooftop

I purchased a card on ebay from desert-ice-sports back in 2018. after some suspension, I decided to go back and trace other cards in his submission. I came up with 138 cards (28303756 - 28303894). Checking the sales from PSA, deserticesportscom and user987654987654 also sold cards from this lot on ebay. I saw one that went to an auction house. Several of the cards submitted in this group came back as altered.

Nice find. Sounds like desert-ice-sports is worth looking into.

[TomRacer]

Thanks BODA for your continuing work.

I now pronounce PSA as passé.

[JrFinest]

NEVER GET CHEATED!


FFS PSA. smh

[Bruins1993]

My understanding is slabbed cards with pressed crease/s have a tendency for the crease to "come back" over time... sometimes in a very short amount of time after being slabbed.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by pip

This may be considered a radical statement by some, but in addition to PSA's gratuitous error, REA shares some of the blame. You would think that the major auction houses, many with former TPG graders on staff, would have the ability to spend 5 to 10 minutes checking a few online resources to see if some of the more expensive cards in their auctions--especially those valued in excess of $25,000--have been altered.

Also, which party is currently liable? PSA?

In all seriousness, why is the responsibility for not catching these issues before a purchase is completed spread all the way down the tree but stop before the person or persons who stand to lose the most: the buyer? The cardinal rule in a free market always has been and always be caveat emptor. When I purchased my house it was my responsibility to have the house inspected for flaws not the real estate agent.

The main focus of my collection is vintage baseball autographs. The autograph market as a whole is probably one of the most toxic and peril collectible industries and markets out there. I don't, however, have any reservations about navigating that market because I learned early on that blind trust was idiotic. I can name three times in collecting that I have been burned on what I would consider high dollar items. All three happened early in my collecting career when I blindly accepted the opinions of others as fact instead of doing the due diligence myself. I returned or asked for a return on zero of them, because I realized the onus on me and if I had done even minimal research on the items I would have probably avoided them. Since then I have taken the time to study the provenance and authenticity of every autograph I've purchased whether it a $50 or $5000 item. I've been lucky to befriend dozens of dealers and collectors with some of the best reputations in the hobby and there is exactly one singular person who I would take an opinion from above all diligence and sadly that person has retired from the hobby. Do I have some bad items in my collection? I'm sure I do, it's the nature of hobby unfortunately, but since I realized that the best thing I could do was protect myself I personally feel confident in every purchase I've made. I do buy PSA/DNA, JSA, and BAS items and occasionally use them myself, but I also realize that they are nothing but opinion and some people have really bad opinions. They are what they are, a needed but flawed part of the hobby.

Let's face it, the vast majority of collectors paying five figures for a card with a 8, 9, or 10 on the flip are doing so for three main reasons.

1. Resell down the road for a profit.
2. Enter a number in a registry and move up a few spots.
3. (And I would argue the most common reason) To show off to fellow collectors and be adulated.

The only group of these three that seem to be outraged are those people in the investment category. (And honestly, even with the scope of the fraud exposed thus far - prices on a major scale have yet to be affected.) Take this for what you want, but when one of my investment performs poorly I don't blame my broker.

[dictoresno]

Originally Posted by auburn35

Nice find. Sounds like desert-ice-sports is worth looking into.

ive purchased a card or two from them. they were both vintage T206 cards, nothing of huge value at all by any means (sub $100 commons). I think they are a high volume dealer specializing in vintage and pre-war stuff. nothing suspicious to report about the cards I got from them. I think they are active on the CU forums too. my guess is they purchased/resold the card unsuspectingly and that they aren't necessarily a culprit in the ordeal, especially given the fact their name hasn't come up in any of the other BODA investigations. id be wiling to give them the benefit of the doubt, ive only had positive experiences with them.

why doesn't someone reach out to them and ask. maybe they will be forthcoming and give a lead. judging from the sound of their contact us page and guarantee, looks like they would be interested to hear what BODA may have to say.

https://www.deserticesports.com
https://www.deserticesports.com/contact-us/

[Bruins1993]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

When I purchased my house it was my responsibility to have the house inspected for flaws not the real estate agent.

...

The only group of these three that seem to be outraged are those people in the investment category. (And honestly, even with the scope of the fraud exposed thus far - prices on a major scale have yet to be affected.) Take this for what you want, but when one of my investment performs poorly I don't blame my broker.

I think that is a very poor analysis above, and I strongly disagree that the "only group.. that seem to be outraged are those people in investment category".

What groups of people negatively effected by false advertising and fraud should not be "outraged"? That includes investors to passionate collectors with no intent on selling for a profit and/or making "investments".

[pip]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

When I purchased my house it was my responsibility to have the house inspected for flaws not the real estate agent.

Let's complete the analogy. What if your house had some major flaws, not unlike the 1948 Leaf Paige? And what if you purchased it from one of the top brokers in the country--a broker who wrote an extensive description of the condition of the house and told you that there were no major flaws?

To say that well known, established auction houses have no responsibility to reject altered cards from submitters or to exercise their exerpertise when determining the authenticity, condition, and legitimacy of each item they auction makes little sense. Take an obvious example like Coach's Corner, for instance. Do you think they should have any liability for the thousands of fake autographed items they've sold? Or would that be someone else's fault?

[superdan49]

Originally Posted by Bruins1993

My understanding is slabbed cards with pressed crease/s have a tendency for the crease to "come back" over time... sometimes in a very short amount of time after being slabbed.

There is some evidence that the creasing has begun to return.

The 2015 PWCC catalog description of the PSA 4.5 makes no mention of creasing at all, while the catalog description of the PSA 4.5 from the 2019 REA sale calls it "faint."

[corndog]

Nice work Superdan - a new way to look at cards for alterations!

[NYRE2PECT]

Originally Posted by corndog

Nice work Superdan - a new way to look at cards for alterations!

So true - great work Superdan!

I’m now down to exactly 26 PSA slabs from having well over 700+.

[mchenrycards]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

In all seriousness, why is the responsibility for not catching these issues before a purchase is completed spread all the way down the tree but stop before the person or persons who stand to lose the most: the buyer? The cardinal rule in a free market always has been and always be caveat emptor. When I purchased my house it was my responsibility to have the house inspected for flaws not the real estate agent.

The main focus of my collection is vintage baseball autographs. The autograph market as a whole is probably one of the most toxic and peril collectible industries and markets out there. I don't, however, have any reservations about navigating that market because I learned early on that blind trust was idiotic. I can name three times in collecting that I have been burned on what I would consider high dollar items. All three happened early in my collecting career when I blindly accepted the opinions of others as fact instead of doing the due diligence myself. I returned or asked for a return on zero of them, because I realized the onus on me and if I had done even minimal research on the items I would have probably avoided them. Since then I have taken the time to study the provenance and authenticity of every autograph I've purchased whether it a $50 or $5000 item. I've been lucky to befriend dozens of dealers and collectors with some of the best reputations in the hobby and there is exactly one singular person who I would take an opinion from above all diligence and sadly that person has retired from the hobby. Do I have some bad items in my collection? I'm sure I do, it's the nature of hobby unfortunately, but since I realized that the best thing I could do was protect myself I personally feel confident in every purchase I've made. I do buy PSA/DNA, JSA, and BAS items and occasionally use them myself, but I also realize that they are nothing but opinion and some people have really bad opinions. They are what they are, a needed but flawed part of the hobby.

Let's face it, the vast majority of collectors paying five figures for a card with a 8, 9, or 10 on the flip are doing so for three main reasons.

1. Resell down the road for a profit.
2. Enter a number in a registry and move up a few spots.
3. (And I would argue the most common reason) To show off to fellow collectors and be adulated.

The only group of these three that seem to be outraged are those people in the investment category. (And honestly, even with the scope of the fraud exposed thus far - prices on a major scale have yet to be affected.) Take this for what you want, but when one of my investment performs poorly I don't blame my broker.

As the ultimate "end users" of graded cards we have been told to trust the TPG's. The beauty of the third party grading when it burst on the card collecting scene 20 years ago was that we can trust them and remove any doubt as to the grade and authenticity of a card, therefore leveling the playing field for all involved. You have to remember back in the day what I called a ex-mt card could vary greatly from what someone else would call an ex-mt card. TBG's removed that ambiguity and everyone learned to trust them as the ultimate knowledge base for card grading an authentication.

While this was going on there was a small group of collectors who would be crying in the wilderness to buy the card and not the holder and those voices would just die off as grading became more accepted. Even the hobby's biggest mouthpiece, Alan "Mr. Mint" Rosen was against grading at the start and would run adds saying that TPG's were not needed in this hobby but even he soon came around to the dark side because he saw the money that could be made with cards that were entombed in plastic. Seems to me it is time to start listening to those voices in the distance again to buy the card and not the holder and educate one's self before spending any amount of money on cards. The days of trusting TPG's as the ultimate knowledge base of cards is over as it seems they are involved in a money grab and could care less about what their negligence is doing to the hobby and those collectors who are pending hard earned money on the passion.

So in conclusion...yeah....much of the blame has to be placed on the end user as nobody seems to want to do their due diligence in this hobby any more because they are all blindly following the flip at the top of the slab and not looking deeper at the card itself. Lemmings....all of them.