PWCC PSA2 T3 Cobb

[rhettyeakley]

I read too fast and didn't see that Brent did mention that it had previously been graded authentic BUT I don't understand how a card can be holdered "AUTHENTIC" due to some alteration & then the said alterations were removed (and done so terribly) so in affect re-altering an already altered card somehow in you minds can be an accurate PSA 2? And only mentioned in small print at the end of the description? What is wrong with you guys?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I read too fast and didn't see that Brent did mention that it had previously been graded authentic BUT I don't understand how a card can be holdered "AUTHENTIC" due to some alteration & then the said alterations were removed (and done so terribly) so in affect re-altering an already altered card somehow in you minds can be an accurate PSA 2? And only mentioned in small print at the end of the description? What is wrong with you guys?

After page after page of PWCC boilerplate. NOBODY is going to see this. And if they do, they will read how Brent says the grade is appropriate. It's beyond belief that you have signed onto this Jesse. And (rhetorical question) what is wrong with Brent after all that's happened pulling this crap instead of taking down an altered card? He does the wrong thing, it seems, every single time.

[BLongley]

Guess this is why Jesse has remained a fan of PWCC... because they both have the same integrity. I can only hope that this information makes it into the investigation. The recent update shows the following looking into PWCC:

-FBI Criminal Justice Information Systems
-The Supreme Court Of The U.S.
-U.S. House Of Representatives
-eBay Inc

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

After page after page of PWCC boilerplate. NOBODY is going to see this. And if they do, they will read how Brent says the grade is appropriate. It's beyond belief that you have signed onto this Jesse. And (rhetorical question) what is wrong with Brent after all that's happened pulling this crap instead of taking down an altered card? He does the wrong thing, it seems, every single time.

I was sent the statement via email and did not notice the placement. I will discuss further with Brent. My intention was to have prospective bidders made aware of the history that I was unaware of when purchasing this card and let them make their own decision.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I was sent the statement via email and did not notice the placement. I will discuss further with Brent. My intention was to have prospective bidders made aware of the history that I was unaware of when purchasing this card and let them make their own decision.

Did you approve the statement that the grade was appropriate? And what about the next time the card gets sold? The right thing to do here is SO obvious.

[Bicem]

Too funny, if it were any other AH other than PWCC Jesse would be leading the charge pitchfork in hand.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Too funny, if it were any other AH other than PWCC Jesse would be leading the charge pitchfork in hand.

If it were any other auction house, they would end the auction.

Edited - just read that this auction will be ended. Good.

[MULLINS5]

I'm glad the right thing was done.

Shame it took some backlash to get the owner to do the right thing.

Astonishing to think him and Brent thought it was OK to pull a stunt like that.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Too funny, if it were any other AH other than PWCC Jesse would be leading the charge pitchfork in hand.

You must have me confused with someone else. The only time I ever remember speaking out against an AH was when a small one posted a fake 52 Mantle so bad it made the other fakes available on Ebay for 5 bucks look good. I don't recall leading a charge against another, but I suppose it's possible I've forgotten.

As for the Cobb I don't really expect Dan to take it back after 2 years, unless he happens to be involved in or knows what happened to it. If he wants to reach out and discuss a possible resolution I'm open to that.

I plan to contact PSA on Monday and hopefully drop the card off for review when I receive it back from PWCC. As I honestly don't know if erased pencil marks are enough for the A designation or why it it was in the A holder before I got it I am curious to see what they'll say.

[dariushou]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

You must have me confused with someone else. The only time I ever remember speaking out against an AH was when a small one posted a fake 52 Mantle so bad it made the other fakes available on Ebay for 5 bucks look good. I don't recall leading a charge against another, but I suppose it's possible I've forgotten.

As for the Cobb I don't really expect Dan to take it back after 2 years, unless he happens to be involved in or knows what happened to it. If he wants to reach out and discuss a possible resolution I'm open to that.

I plan to contact PSA on Monday and hopefully drop the card off for review when I receive it back from PWCC. As I honestly don't know if erased pencil marks are enough for the A designation or why it it was in the A holder before I got it I am curious to see what they'll say.

What in gods name do you mean when you state "if erased pencil marks are enough for the A designation". I hope you misspoke. Do you see the eraser marks on the card? I do as does everyone else. That's flagrant alternation but still misses the point. Using an eraser to erase a previous stain/pen/pencil mark will remove the color from the card and likely more than that...as seen in your card that was altered. There's no excuse here. The card you purchased from Dan was altered. Plain and simple.

[BLongley]

Look at these great things Brent is still doing...

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...postcount=3827

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...postcount=3839

And Jesse you’re getting famous over on other forums too.

[dariushou]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I was sent the statement via email and did not notice the placement. I will discuss further with Brent. My intention was to have prospective bidders made aware of the history that I was unaware of when purchasing this card and let them make their own decision.

The only right thing to do in my opinion is to either pull the auction or put it in the title of the auction. It needs to be clear and conspicuous and anything less such as including it in the description is not going to hold up. It's ridiculous to do anything other than those two options in my opinion. If someone buys that card and claim they didn't see the fine print (the description) then you will lose. FTC Standard and let me tell you something..it applies here. You know the card is altered and so does everyone reading this forum and Brent. Anything less is fraud in my opinion.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by dariushou

The only right thing to do in my opinion is to either pull the auction or put it in the title of the auction. It needs to be clear and conspicuous and anything in the description is not going to hold up. It's ridiculous to do anything other than those two options in my opinion. If someone buys that card and claim they didn't see the fine print (the description) then you will lose. FTC Standard and let me tell you something..it applies here. You know the card is altered and so does everyone reading this forum and Brent. Anything less is fraud in my opinion.

This hobby has gone to hell.....it’s an absolute shame �� I’m glad I can still look back and remember all the great friends I’ve made from being in the hobby....it just seems to be getting worse by the day hour and minute

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by dariushou

The only right thing to do in my opinion is to either pull the auction or put it in the title of the auction. It needs to be clear and conspicuous and anything less such as including it in the description is not going to hold up. It's ridiculous to do anything other than those two options in my opinion. If someone buys that card and claim they didn't see the fine print (the description) then you will lose. FTC Standard and let me tell you something..it applies here. You know the card is altered and so does everyone reading this forum and Brent. Anything less is fraud in my opinion.

If I were even trying to do this right I would also include a picture of the card in the AUTH holder. And take out that fraudulent statement that the 2 grade is appropriate. No it isn't and you know it.

But I don't see any way to do this right. It's an altered card in a 2 holder and all the disclosure in the world isn't going to stop the buyer from reselling it without disclosure and that is a real concern.

[dariushou]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If I were even trying to do this right I would also include a picture of the card in the AUTH holder. And take out that fraudulent statement that the 2 grade is appropriate. No it isn't and you know it.

But I don't see any way to do this right. It's an altered card in a 2 holder and all the disclosure in the world isn't going to stop the buyer from reselling it without disclosure and that is a real concern.

I agree. It really should be pulled. These altered cards need to be marked in some way (invisible ink...but geez...maybe moser and crew can erase that). I hate to say destroy such card...but what else can you do. Actually, i think i read where someone said put a hole through it -- maybe invisible ink and a hole through it. scammers probably will fill the hole and erase invisible ink though. Man this sucks...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by dariushou

I agree. It really should be pulled. These altered cards need to be marked in some way (invisible ink...but geez...maybe moser and crew can erase that). I hate to say destroy such card...but what else can you do. Actually, i think i read where someone said put a hole through it -- maybe invisible ink and a hole through it. scammers probably will fill the hole and erase invisible ink though. Man this sucks...

I would be OK with returning it to an AUTH/Altered holder.

[pokerplyr80]

Waiting on a response from Brent and I reached out to Dan as well and am waiting on his response. I will update with more information as I have it.

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Waiting on a response from Brent and I reached out to Dan as well and am waiting on his response. I will update with more information as I have it.

As we all eagerly wait, how's everyone's Saturday night otherwise?

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by dariushou

The only right thing to do in my opinion is to either pull the auction or put it in the title of the auction. It needs to be clear and conspicuous and anything less such as including it in the description is not going to hold up. It's ridiculous to do anything other than those two options in my opinion. If someone buys that card and claim they didn't see the fine print (the description) then you will lose. FTC Standard and let me tell you something..it applies here. You know the card is altered and so does everyone reading this forum and Brent. Anything less is fraud in my opinion.

Yes. In my personal opinion as one of the lawyers here it should be pulled. It's perpetuating a pattern of fraud at the very least. Those directly involved should file a complaint with the FTC at the very least. I'm also hoping Brent isn't as dumb as he seems by this though who knows. Could very well (hopefully) be a set up by feds to help get to the bottom of this.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by kateighty

Yes. In my personal opinion as one of the lawyers here it should be pulled. It's perpetuating a pattern of fraud at the very least. Those directly involved should file a complaint with the FTC at the very least. I'm also hoping Brent isn't as dumb as he seems by this though who knows. Could very well (hopefully) be a set up by feds to help get to the bottom of this.

He's got a number of Moser cards (the guy with whom he will never do business again) in the current auction as found by BO.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

He's got a number of Moser cards (the guy with whom he will never do business again) in the current auction as found by BO.

Are you just assuming Moser is the consignor?

[ValKehl]

What about the 17 folks who have already bid on this card plus those folks that haven't yet bid but have created snipes, many/most of whom probably did so before the disclosure was added to the bottom of PWCC's eBay listing? My guess is that most of these folks won't even be going back the reread the listing's details. At least I don't after I have once read a listing's details and decided to bid on it. IMO, at the very least, some words about there being a new disclosure should be added to the title line of the listing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

What about the 17 folks who have already bid on this card plus those folks that haven't yet bid but have created snipes, many/most of whom probably did so before the disclosure was added to the bottom of PWCC's eBay listing? My guess is that most of these folks won't even be going back the reread the listing's details. At least I don't after I have once read the listing's details and decided to bid on it. IMO, at the very least, some words about there being a new disclosure should be added to the title line of the listing.

I don't think titles can be amended after bids have been placed. Could be wrong. Either way, you make an excellent point about snipes, this mess cannot possibly be fixed in the context of a live auction.

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

What about the 17 folks who have already bid on this card plus those folks that haven't yet bid but have created snipes, many/most of whom probably did so before the disclosure was added to the bottom of PWCC's eBay listing? My guess is that most of these folks won't even be going back the reread the listing's details. At least I don't after I have once read a listing's details and decided to bid on it. IMO, at the very least, some words about there being a new disclosure should be added to the title line of the listing.

Very good points!