@JoeBanzai said:
I also no longer worry about the prices of cards. I decide what I am willing to pay and stop bidding at that amount. This can be hard to do, but it can be done!
I do the same thing. The only difference might be I always wait until the final seconds of the auction and submit my one-and-only bid on the item (and keep my fingers crossed).
There's only so much you can realistically do to combat any of these issues.
Some auction houses (well only ebay I guess) allow retractions, and even if they didn't, I am sure sellers can still find ways to bid on their stuff.
Grading companies can't spend a lot of time pouring over every card to make sure they are not altered and apparently there are things that cannot be detected. There isn't even a consensus here on what is and isn't ok to do to a card.
I decide what I am willing to pay for an item if I want to add it to my collection. Of course I would like to get it for less. Being realistic has to come into play. I usually (not always) put in a snipe and forget about it.
I would like to see the TPG's institute a policy on high dollar cards (this won't affect me either, I'm not in that market) where they scan them for comparison. These scans should somehow be "shared" so that cards could be compared. Kind of like a fingerprint database.This won't completely solve the problem either. Many people here don't seem to understand that the printing process itself makes some of the print defects over and over again. One of the Mantle's I have seen that is under question has a couple of print dots circled on it that is supposed to "prove" it's the same card as another. Maybe, maybe not.
I am sure I have some "bad" cards in my collection.
My bottom line is; there's only so much you can do as a collector.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I would like to see the TPG's institute a policy on high dollar cards (this won't affect me either, I'm not in that market) where they scan them for comparison. These scans should somehow be "shared" so that cards could be compared. Kind of like a fingerprint database.This won't completely solve the problem either.
This!
Digital “finger prints” of cards that would be made publically available to be used by collectors for comparison would be really helpful, though admittedly it might also cut some of PSA’s crack-and-resubmit-business.
Many people here don't seem to understand that the printing process itself makes some of the print defects over and over again. One of the Mantle's I have seen that is under question has a couple of print dots circled on it that is supposed to "prove" it's the same card as another. Maybe, maybe not.
And This!
Another case where PSA could use the digital finger print to have near certainty whether a raw card is one they have looked at before. Besides the front/back scans which would be publicly available they could capture other physical and qualitative details such a exact measurements, thickness, registrations/focus, edge sharpness, etc. such an approach might even enable an ability to mechanize the grading, or at least provide a preliminary mechanized opinion that a human grader would then review.
I am a bit confused. I have sold with PWCC in the past and was very happy. Is it the opinion here that we should hold off selling with him for a while until we see what happens here? I was think of sending some cards in for an upcoming auction.
@mexpo75 said:
I am a bit confused. I have sold with PWCC in the past and was very happy. Is it the opinion here that we should hold off selling with him for a while until we see what happens here? I was think of sending some cards in for an upcoming auction.
I am not a consignor, but I do see a card I "need" in one of their auctions.
I am going to bid. I want the card. I don't see why you wouldn't sell with them unless you are worried you might not get as much bidding activity right now.
If you have desirable cards, I would assume they will do fine with PWCC, if you are worried, list them yourself. That's what I do. Not sure what's better. If you aren't in dire need of the money, you might wnt to wait a while until this all settles down?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@DotStore said:
In his interview he actually says there will be hundreds of these cards. I mean, if he has an attorney, they should be advising him not to state publicly that he knows there will be hundreds of these -- the message he is sending out is that he knows there are tons of these cards, yet he continued to sell and in some cases promote (via PQ or HE Stickers) these "problem" cards...
We ALL know there are hundreds, more likely thousands of altered cards in circulation already in slabs. For him to deny it would be foolish.
Their position is clearly stated that they are NOT a grading service (yes I know, stickers boo hoo) so unless you can prove he actually altered any cards, you're getting worked up about little or nothing.
That being said, it certainly looks to me like his business will either fail now or be seriously damaged.
People really do need to get over the whole sticker thing.
You are missing the point. If he admits he knew about the "doctored" cards, and then he also assigned his sticker to cards he knew that were doctored -- that is a major problem. I personally don't mind the stickers and would pay more for a stickered card. Just as long as it was not one of the doctored cards...
None of this would have happened if the TPG was doing their job ……….. based on the cert numbers it's clear that some of these high value cards were sent to the TPG at the same time.
@JoeBanzai said:
I also no longer worry about the prices of cards. I decide what I am willing to pay and stop bidding at that amount. This can be hard to do, but it can be done!
I do the same thing. The only difference might be I always wait until the final seconds of the auction and submit my one-and-only bid on the item (and keep my fingers crossed).
There's only so much you can realistically do to combat any of these issues.
Some auction houses (well only ebay I guess) allow retractions, and even if they didn't, I am sure sellers can still find ways to bid on their stuff.
Grading companies can't spend a lot of time pouring over every card to make sure they are not altered and apparently there are things that cannot be detected. There isn't even a consensus here on what is and isn't ok to do to a card.
I decide what I am willing to pay for an item if I want to add it to my collection. Of course I would like to get it for less. Being realistic has to come into play. I usually (not always) put in a snipe and forget about it.
I would like to see the TPG's institute a policy on high dollar cards (this won't affect me either, I'm not in that market) where they scan them for comparison. These scans should somehow be "shared" so that cards could be compared. Kind of like a fingerprint database.This won't completely solve the problem either. Many people here don't seem to understand that the printing process itself makes some of the print defects over and over again. One of the Mantle's I have seen that is under question has a couple of print dots circled on it that is supposed to "prove" it's the same card as another. Maybe, maybe not.
I am sure I have some "bad" cards in my collection.
My bottom line is; there's only so much you can do as a collector.
I think the more telling issue are the identical paper pulp indicators on the back of the card. Those should be very unique.
I do get that print defects can be replicated on the front, but if you can trace a card back to Moser over and over again and they come up a few months later in a PWCC auction, it’s probably been messed with.
@JoeBanzai said:
I also no longer worry about the prices of cards. I decide what I am willing to pay and stop bidding at that amount. This can be hard to do, but it can be done!
I do the same thing. The only difference might be I always wait until the final seconds of the auction and submit my one-and-only bid on the item (and keep my fingers crossed).
There's only so much you can realistically do to combat any of these issues.
Some auction houses (well only ebay I guess) allow retractions, and even if they didn't, I am sure sellers can still find ways to bid on their stuff.
Grading companies can't spend a lot of time pouring over every card to make sure they are not altered and apparently there are things that cannot be detected. There isn't even a consensus here on what is and isn't ok to do to a card.
I decide what I am willing to pay for an item if I want to add it to my collection. Of course I would like to get it for less. Being realistic has to come into play. I usually (not always) put in a snipe and forget about it.
I would like to see the TPG's institute a policy on high dollar cards (this won't affect me either, I'm not in that market) where they scan them for comparison. These scans should somehow be "shared" so that cards could be compared. Kind of like a fingerprint database.This won't completely solve the problem either. Many people here don't seem to understand that the printing process itself makes some of the print defects over and over again. One of the Mantle's I have seen that is under question has a couple of print dots circled on it that is supposed to "prove" it's the same card as another. Maybe, maybe not.
I am sure I have some "bad" cards in my collection.
My bottom line is; there's only so much you can do as a collector.
I think the more telling issue are the identical paper pulp indicators on the back of the card. Those should be very unique.
I do get that print defects can be replicated on the front, but if you can trace a card back to Moser over and over again and they come up a few months later in a PWCC auction, it’s probably been messed with.
I was not referring to the card back comparisons. I would have to take a closer look at the backs to see if the marks were in fact unique.
Print marks on front are often replicated. Case in point; 1974 Killebrew card has what I call a "poop" variation. A print blob under Killebrew, between his legs. Not all cards have it, but a lot of them do. Circling a couple of print spots on the front of two cards proves nothing.
Moser is most likely involved.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Print marks on front are often replicated. Case in point; 1974 Killebrew card has what I call a "poop" variation. A print blob under Killebrew, between his legs. Not all cards have it, but a lot of them do. Circling a couple of print spots on the front of two cards proves nothing.
Moser is most likely involved.
While I do believe that the BO people who are circling spots on the front and back searched for images of cards are onto something that is happening, I agree with you that a somewhat more thorough confirmation of each case is really appropriate.
@CrissCriss said:
There is no question that confirmation of each case is appropriate. If the accusers are posting unverified or untruthful information, well, that could turn on them rather quickly.
well said. beware of trial by twitter and like modern social media judgement. Hence why I hope FBI is really involved....nothing like good ole wire fraud investigation work to turn up the truth.
Saw a lot of good suggestions in this thread to help improve the grading process by identifying problem cards and repeat offenders.
I also hope all of the TPG's can help each other by sharing key information. I'm not suggesting they share trade secrets, But perhaps they can keep some sort of common file of any cards that were rejected along with additional info such as: notes/description of why it was rejected, the submitter (although aliases could be used), return address of submitter, and pictures of front/back of rejected cards.
This could be the first thing each TPG checks before continuing the grading process.
I know it's sometimes difficult to share key information with "the competition", but this could really benefit everyone in the long run...
Why does Tom Seaver keep popping up on this page. I feel like I'm at the county fair, playing that game where you try to hit the mole with the hammer everytime he pops up from his hole.
@doubledragon said:
Why does Tom Seaver keep popping up on this page. I feel like I'm at the county fair, playing that game where you try to hit the mole with the hammer everytime he pops up from his hole.
He wants someone to get the sticker off him And to be sold by someone other than PWCC.
@FSU939913 said: @MrHockey
I have seen hundreds of the card online and a few in person. It looks solid. I reviewed the card for almost a week. I watch sold eBay and other auction houses for pricing. I make a Jordan market report weekly, so I can review trends. I invest mainly in Michael Jordan cards and collect many other stars from my childhood. I think high graded MJ cards are more likely to appreciate than others. His brand is huge and well-known with the younger generations. Plus, the Asian market is always going to have demand for Michael Jordan cards.
I have a good eye but don't think I could pick up on a slight trim job from an expert cutter.
Just wanted others opinion because I have only been back collecting for around six months. I have studied as much as I can in that six months, though.
I tried posting a pic of the card but it has to be approved.
I am reading this a few days late, but in case this helps anyone who reads it....you will always get that approval message if you try to post an image without also posting text. It will never end up posting. Just adding a to the post will make it work.
Comments
There's only so much you can realistically do to combat any of these issues.
Some auction houses (well only ebay I guess) allow retractions, and even if they didn't, I am sure sellers can still find ways to bid on their stuff.
Grading companies can't spend a lot of time pouring over every card to make sure they are not altered and apparently there are things that cannot be detected. There isn't even a consensus here on what is and isn't ok to do to a card.
I decide what I am willing to pay for an item if I want to add it to my collection. Of course I would like to get it for less. Being realistic has to come into play. I usually (not always) put in a snipe and forget about it.
I would like to see the TPG's institute a policy on high dollar cards (this won't affect me either, I'm not in that market) where they scan them for comparison. These scans should somehow be "shared" so that cards could be compared. Kind of like a fingerprint database.This won't completely solve the problem either. Many people here don't seem to understand that the printing process itself makes some of the print defects over and over again. One of the Mantle's I have seen that is under question has a couple of print dots circled on it that is supposed to "prove" it's the same card as another. Maybe, maybe not.
I am sure I have some "bad" cards in my collection.
My bottom line is; there's only so much you can do as a collector.
This!
Digital “finger prints” of cards that would be made publically available to be used by collectors for comparison would be really helpful, though admittedly it might also cut some of PSA’s crack-and-resubmit-business.
And This!
Another case where PSA could use the digital finger print to have near certainty whether a raw card is one they have looked at before. Besides the front/back scans which would be publicly available they could capture other physical and qualitative details such a exact measurements, thickness, registrations/focus, edge sharpness, etc. such an approach might even enable an ability to mechanize the grading, or at least provide a preliminary mechanized opinion that a human grader would then review.
Dave
I am a bit confused. I have sold with PWCC in the past and was very happy. Is it the opinion here that we should hold off selling with him for a while until we see what happens here? I was think of sending some cards in for an upcoming auction.
I am not a consignor, but I do see a card I "need" in one of their auctions.
I am going to bid. I want the card. I don't see why you wouldn't sell with them unless you are worried you might not get as much bidding activity right now.
If you have desirable cards, I would assume they will do fine with PWCC, if you are worried, list them yourself. That's what I do. Not sure what's better. If you aren't in dire need of the money, you might wnt to wait a while until this all settles down?
Captspaulding on the blowout forum did a LOT of work on this!
None of this would have happened if the TPG was doing their job ……….. based on the cert numbers it's clear that some of these high value cards were sent to the TPG at the same time.
I think the more telling issue are the identical paper pulp indicators on the back of the card. Those should be very unique.
I do get that print defects can be replicated on the front, but if you can trace a card back to Moser over and over again and they come up a few months later in a PWCC auction, it’s probably been messed with.
I was not referring to the card back comparisons. I would have to take a closer look at the backs to see if the marks were in fact unique.
Print marks on front are often replicated. Case in point; 1974 Killebrew card has what I call a "poop" variation. A print blob under Killebrew, between his legs. Not all cards have it, but a lot of them do. Circling a couple of print spots on the front of two cards proves nothing.
Moser is most likely involved.
While I do believe that the BO people who are circling spots on the front and back searched for images of cards are onto something that is happening, I agree with you that a somewhat more thorough confirmation of each case is really appropriate.
Dave
well said. beware of trial by twitter and like modern social media judgement. Hence why I hope FBI is really involved....nothing like good ole wire fraud investigation work to turn up the truth.
Reading this makes me sick.
Number one proves next to nothing.
Number two could be the same card.
Saw a lot of good suggestions in this thread to help improve the grading process by identifying problem cards and repeat offenders.
I also hope all of the TPG's can help each other by sharing key information. I'm not suggesting they share trade secrets, But perhaps they can keep some sort of common file of any cards that were rejected along with additional info such as: notes/description of why it was rejected, the submitter (although aliases could be used), return address of submitter, and pictures of front/back of rejected cards.
This could be the first thing each TPG checks before continuing the grading process.
I know it's sometimes difficult to share key information with "the competition", but this could really benefit everyone in the long run...
Why does Tom Seaver keep popping up on this page. I feel like I'm at the county fair, playing that game where you try to hit the mole with the hammer everytime he pops up from his hole.
He wants someone to get the sticker off him And to be sold by someone other than PWCC.
Dave
I am reading this a few days late, but in case this helps anyone who reads it....you will always get that approval message if you try to post an image without also posting text. It will never end up posting. Just adding a
to the post will make it work.