Brent Huigens - PWCC. Do you really want to keep this game up? I'm ready boss.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Moonlight Graham

As an outsider, and hindsight being 20/20, I really don't understand why Brent didn't just kill the auction when he saw how much was being made of the grade, etc. Why chance having to eat that kind of money if things go bad, like they did. Especially if you compare your commission to the amount you may have to refund, it seems like a no-brainer. Brent should know that nothing ever gets by this board, there are way too many knowledgeable people on here. Also, I don't get why PWCC would post a couple of comments and in the second one state that this is the last time you're going to address this issue. It seems like a really big issue with potential fraud, and if you are just an innocent auction house, why not answer as many questions and be as transparent as you possibly can? Again, I'm new to this issue and these are just my 2 cents.

Joe K

That's not the PWCC way. Read the old posts I linked above. And it works, because ultimately "stuff" trumps transparency.

[Batpig]

One of the things that may be overlooked here is that it appears that PSA is stating (without actually stating) that before and after photos are in fact enough to deem a card "Evidence of cleaning", regardless of a lack of chemical smell or other indicators.

[asoriano]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

Jake,
I hate to tell ya, you are NOT the judge and jury of this hobby!
No one really gives a rats ass about what you think.
It's just annoying as hell to constantly read your whining, especially about subjects that are none of your business.

I understand you are a semi struggling lawyer, do you really think practicing "debate" on message boards is gonna help your career?
It's not!

It just makes you look like a jack ass.

I added Jake to my ignore list about six months ago. Best decision I've ever made.

Tu.rner Eng.le

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by swarmee

I know you said this was the last post on the thread, but there are still real questions to be asked/answered. Here is mine: will the card now be returned to PSA under their insurance policy and bought back down to the original price/grade range and then either cracked or reholdered?

If true, I wonder if they could then ship it back to SGC, so SGC could put it back into the "4" holder it apparently belongs in?

Nah, SGC cannot seem to provide a proper grade for their cards...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

If true, I wonder if they could then ship it back to SGC, so SGC could put it back into the "4" holder it apparently belongs in?

Nah, SGC cannot seem to provide a proper grade for their cards...

It belonged in that holder before it was altered. Not so sure now.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by cincyredlegs

i truly believe pwcc would not have done anything if courtney had not come on here. So, i won't give pwcc the "easy pass"

totally agree!!!

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Man, we have a very noteworthy event, a 50K card that PSA supposedly specifically blessed during a live auction after serious questions were raised about it being altered, the card now suddenly gets yanked from the registry, all sorts of questions remain about the supposed explanation from PWCC and the lack of other relevant information, and the thread degenerates into a name-calling and pissing contest.

Are you new here?

[Beastmode]

Originally Posted by Batpig

One of the things that may be overlooked here is that it appears that PSA is stating (without actually stating) that before and after photos are in fact enough to deem a card "Evidence of cleaning", regardless of a lack of chemical smell or other indicators.

++This is true. The 2nd item overlooked is the fact this crap happens every day at the AH's and nobody seems to give a hoot.

[rainier2004]

Technically the card is now altered and belongs in an authentic slab.

I would assume PSA detected nothing...why would they slab it a 7 if they had?

What a shit storm...and what are the odds that this is the tip of the iceberg?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by asoriano

I added Jake to my ignore list about six months ago. Best decision I've ever made.

Tu.rner Eng.le

Yes lets endorse John.....John did say this about the Dimaggio card that he was the consignor while it was still being bid on with PWCC in that famous thread people are referencing..

"Whoever cleaned it up did the hobby a huge favor. Great card either way"


Is there anyone on net54 that agrees with that statement? I will assume nobody does unless someone posts otherwise.

Correct me if I am wrong and he did not say this in that thread. Yes hes doing the card community a favor so lets support him... Yes later on he did disclose he was the owner of the card so he may of had a bias. So its a situation where Bias is involved and its not Len I am talking about.

[slidekellyslide]

I wonder how much trouble Doug Allen had getting cards past PSA that he had worked on? I wonder if PSA looks past their "big" customers? I honestly don't believe that any of what is going on is on the up and up. The HUGE dollar amounts between a 7 to 8 to 9 to GEM MINT have got to be very tempting. When the number a grader slaps on a slab pushes a card up tens of thousands of dollars when the difference between a 9 and 10 is difficult for anyone to see...I don't see how there isn't fraud happening unless every grader is Mother Theresa.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I wonder how much trouble Doug Allen had getting cards past PSA that he had worked on? I wonder if PSA looks past their "big" customers? I honestly don't believe that any of what is going on is on the up and up. The HUGE dollar amounts between a 7 to 8 to 9 to GEM MINT have got to be very tempting. When the number a grader slaps on a slab pushes a card up tens of thousands of dollars when the difference between a 9 and 10 is difficult for anyone to see...I don't see how there isn't fraud happening unless every grader is Mother Theresa.

Well whoever is making the cards better is doing the hobby a favor some would argue, at least the submitter would argue and anyone who buys the card trying to sell it at a profit

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I wonder how much trouble Doug Allen had getting cards past PSA that he had worked on? I wonder if PSA looks past their "big" customers? I honestly don't believe that any of what is going on is on the up and up. The HUGE dollar amounts between a 7 to 8 to 9 to GEM MINT have got to be very tempting. When the number a grader slaps on a slab pushes a card up tens of thousands of dollars when the difference between a 9 and 10 is difficult for anyone to see...I don't see how there isn't fraud happening unless every grader is Mother Theresa.

All submitters are equal, but some are probably more equal than others.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Leon

And I think it's good it came off the pop report (if it did) and it's not in that holder any longer.

Where did you read/hear this? It is not in Brent's post. That's why I asked the question as to what the end state of the card would be.

[nsaddict]

Well, the SMR on this card in PSA 1 is 950 (authentics not listed). I would be willing to help the hobby and buy this infamous card at "their" valuation

[Leon]

I assumed (yikes) this from what I read, I don't know if it is there or not, personally. I thought I read it got cracked out of the holder (and therefore wouldn't be there) but am not wading to find out. Again, if it is still in the 7 holder and on the report, so be it. I don't really care that much.

Originally Posted by swarmee

Where did you read/hear this? It is not in Brent's post. That's why I asked the question as to what the end state of the card would be.

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

All submitters are equal, but some are probably more equal than others.

..I have never had much contact with any of the brass at PSA.... except for a couples rounds of golf at Pebble Beach with Joe O. ( Oh ,and yeah --there was that crazy weekend at Catalina....)

...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Brent did say it had been removed from the registry.
"PSA decided to remove the card from the registry due to concerns raised by the hobby about the restoration."

[swarmee]

I was questioning the cracking out of the card. It sounds like the buyer hasn't sent it back yet.

[jfkheat]

I wonder how many soaked cards have been sold by members here without full disclosure.
James

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by cincyredlegs

It seems to me PWCC only did "the right thing" after Courtney blew the lid off of this issue. I truly believe PWCC would not have done ANYTHING if Courtney had not come on here.

Mark

I liken it to theft. Someone gets caught stealing something, they return the item, they apologize. Because the item went back to the owner, doesn't mean that a crime or misdemeanor wasn't committed and that there isn't consequences to the actions. The police could still get called, and that person could still be charged.

Regardless of the fact that they ate the commissions, price of the card, the card was pulled from the registry, all does not change the fact that the act actually occurred, and that there should be and could be consequences to that.

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by jfkheat

I wonder how many soaked cards have been sold by members here without full disclosure.
James

Full disclosure? Lol. How abiut ANY disclosure?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Full disclosure? Lol. How abiut ANY disclosure?

James is trying to suggest Brent did nothing different than what people here do. I very much doubt anyone here has had a card chemically treated (a virtual certainty see other thread) and obtained a three grade bump making the card worth 50k plus and then said nothing about it. So no it's not at all the same as soaking a card out of a scrapbook or soaking it in water to remove glue or paper. But carry on with the defense, please.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by asoriano

ignore list

Tu.rner Eng.le

I learn something new every day. That will really shorten certain threads.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by Bliggity

That is the funniest I've seen in a while!!



Spring 2015: Sold in REA as an SGC 50 for $6600 to Brent (according to Betsy from PWCC "for an unnamed client" - a request to confirm the unnamed client has no ownership interest in PWCC has not been responded to)

Question - Has anyone on here had any dialogue with Brent about purchasing cards for them from other AH's? Is this a service he offers or something he has done for anyone?

August 2015: Sold privately by Brent to Courtney as a PSA 7 for $75k (Betsy from PWCC states that this was on behalf of another client (it has not been clarified how the card made it from alleged client 1 to alleged client 2), Courtney the buyer states that Brent represented the card was owned by him personally). It was between the Robert Edward purchase and the Courtney purchase that the card was altered and jumped from an SGC 50 to a PSA 7.

Speculation - Brent had the card altered and submitted to PSA (the submission is fact) and at this point Brent is +$68,400 (less shipping, alteration and grading fees)


Oct 2016: Consigned by Courtney to Goldin and won by John Perez for $46,800

Courtney -$28,200
Brent - +$68,400

Feb 2017: Consigned by John to Brent and sold to unknown buyer for $52,300 (after which according to Betsy from PWCC - buyer returns card to PWCC who is "taking the loss" on the card)

Courtney -$28,200
Brent +$16,100 ($68,400 - $52,300)
John +1,300.


Speculation:

The "loss" on the last sale still leaves Brent +$16,100 from the original sale to Courtney. The card conveniently for PWCC - "disappears". If PWCC is truly innocent, it only makes sense that they go to PSA looking for reimbursement of the sale price - as PSA missed the alteration and $52,300 is A LOT of money........unless PSA would be able to come back and prove that in fact PWCC did or contracted for the alteration - giving them a solid argument not to pay. By not pursuing it, PWCC conveniently avoids this potentially more visible and costly public relations nightmare. I think PWCC has created a story about the "unnamed clients", believing it allows them "plausible deniability". PWCC tries to spin it that they are "doing the right thing" by taking the card back and refunding it's latest purchaser, when it actually conveniently leaves the card in their hands, Brent +$16,100 and Courtney out $28,200 (leaving him starting this thread and understandably upset).

Would be really curious to hear PSA weigh in on the conversation. Unfortunately, I presume PWCC is one of their best customers and they have a vested interest in finding a way to cover their own ass while protecting PWCC.



This situation raises a number of questions:

1) Is it illegal to alter a card, make no representation about it and let a grading company grade do the talking? What if it is ungraded? Some have suggested "removing what is not supposed to be there is okay" - curious to hear opinions - where is the line? soaking to get rid of paper or scrap book residue? removing tape? removing stains? removing creases? whitening? trimming? Coloring? replacing missing pieces? Does it make a difference if the card is $50 or $50,000?

2) I like the idea of doing something similar to what CGC does - a separate color label with details of alteration (these comic books sell for less than unaltered books in the same grade) - Clearly the grading companies have a harder time detecting alteration? - or just choose to ignore it?


2) If PSA's policy is it will not grade cards it determines are altered, then like many have raised, why is the Gretzky Wagner still in the PSA population?

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by hcv123

That is the funniest I've seen in a while!!

I do what I can.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by hcv123

That is the funniest I've seen in a while!!



Spring 2015: Sold in REA as an SGC 50 for $6600 to Brent (according to Betsy from PWCC "for an unnamed client" - a request to confirm the unnamed client has no ownership interest in PWCC has not been responded to)

Question - Has anyone on here had any dialogue with Brent about purchasing cards for them from other AH's? Is this a service he offers or something he has done for anyone?

August 2015: Sold privately by Brent to Courtney as a PSA 7 for $75k (Betsy from PWCC states that this was on behalf of another client (it has not been clarified how the card made it from alleged client 1 to alleged client 2), Courtney the buyer states that Brent represented the card was owned by him personally). It was between the Robert Edward purchase and the Courtney purchase that the card was altered and jumped from an SGC 50 to a PSA 7.

Speculation - Brent had the card altered and submitted to PSA (the submission is fact) and at this point Brent is +$68,400 (less shipping, alteration and grading fees)


Oct 2016: Consigned by Courtney to Goldin and won by John Perez for $46,800

Courtney -$28,200
Brent - +$68,400

Feb 2017: Consigned by John to Brent and sold to unknown buyer for $52,300 (after which according to Betsy from PWCC - buyer returns card to PWCC who is "taking the loss" on the card)

Courtney -$28,200
Brent +$16,100 ($68,400 - $52,300)
John +1,300.


Speculation:

The "loss" on the last sale still leaves Brent +$16,100 from the original sale to Courtney. The card conveniently for PWCC - "disappears". If PWCC is truly innocent, it only makes sense that they go to PSA looking for reimbursement of the sale price - as PSA missed the alteration and $52,300 is A LOT of money........unless PSA would be able to come back and prove that in fact PWCC did or contracted for the alteration - giving them a solid argument not to pay. By not pursuing it, PWCC conveniently avoids this potentially more visible and costly public relations nightmare. I think PWCC has created a story about the "unnamed clients", believing it allows them "plausible deniability". PWCC tries to spin it that they are "doing the right thing" by taking the card back and refunding it's latest purchaser, when it actually conveniently leaves the card in their hands, Brent +$16,100 and Courtney out $28,200 (leaving him starting this thread and understandably upset).

Would be really curious to hear PSA weigh in on the conversation. Unfortunately, I presume PWCC is one of their best customers and they have a vested interest in finding a way to cover their own ass while protecting PWCC.



This situation raises a number of questions:

1) Is it illegal to alter a card, make no representation about it and let a grading company grade do the talking? What if it is ungraded? Some have suggested "removing what is not supposed to be there is okay" - curious to hear opinions - where is the line? soaking to get rid of paper or scrap book residue? removing tape? removing stains? removing creases? whitening? trimming? Coloring? replacing missing pieces? Does it make a difference if the card is $50 or $50,000?

2) I like the idea of doing something similar to what CGC does - a separate color label with details of alteration (these comic books sell for less than unaltered books in the same grade) - Clearly the grading companies have a harder time detecting alteration? - or just choose to ignore it?


2) If PSA's policy is it will not grade cards it determines are altered, then like many have raised, why is the Gretzky Wagner still in the PSA population?

The prior thread has extensive discussions on issue #1. And as far as I know, PSA has never made a determination the Wagner is altered. Mastro acknowledges he trimmed it, but I have not seen PSA acknowledging this.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The prior thread has extensive discussions on issue #1. And as far as I know, PSA has never made a determination the Wagner is altered. Mastro acknowledges he trimmed it, but I have not seen PSA acknowledging this.

Nor will they ever!

I think, although this is not breaking news, that the 2 parties being discussed in this thread are more than just acquaintances.

Still a ton of unanswered questions from both parties, and although one has attempted to clear the air, so to speak, the other has been silent.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by irv

Nor will they ever!

I think, although this is not breaking news, that the 2 parties being discussed in this thread are more than just acquaintances.

Still a ton of unanswered questions from both parties, and although one has attempted to clear the air, so to speak, the other has been silent.

PSA is notorious for avoiding public discussion and shutting down dissent on its own board. It seems to be the right judgment, as business is thriving. Similarly, I doubt the issues some of us have with PWCC have much if any impact on its business.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Perhaps if those who sell on EBay, link to the threads here, it may.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by irv

Still a ton of unanswered questions from both parties

Not really. I think both parties have explained their side pretty well. Answers only lead to more and more questions. That's pretty obvious. Where does it end? At this point I think we have enough information to draw our own conclusions.

That's just my opinion.

[swarmee]

Again, the main unanswered question is when Brent gets the card back from the buyer, will he crack it out of the PSA 7 case? If not, it's still a problem as PSA has disavowed the card. It could still be sold as a PSA 7 in a private sale, even though it technically isn't anymore.

I would bet PSA and Brent will probably come to a settlement that allows them both to show that the card was removed from the holder and both split the loss. PSA has bought back cards graded in error before when called on it, especially since they're financially liable to losses based on the insurance policy covering their grades.

Another good question is whether or not any of the buyers of the other cards in that submission asked for and received refunds due to the possibility of them having been altered and bumped. If so, those prices in VCP are now bogus, as the sale never actually took place. Or whether the buyers of those cards were even informed about the bumps/possible cleaning.

[PowderedH2O]

I'll ask the stupid question. Comments have been made about soaking being ok if it is with water, but not with other chemicals. So why is one ok and not the other?

To me it is like taking a shower. I can just use water, or I can choose to use shampoo and soap. Either way, it is still just me underneath. Nothing changed. Is a card so much different?

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by PowderedH2O

I'll ask the stupid question. Comments have been made about soaking being ok if it is with water, but not with other chemicals. So why is one ok and not the other?

To me it is like taking a shower. I can just use water, or I can choose to use shampoo and soap. Either way, it is still just me underneath. Nothing changed. Is a card so much different?

Yes. Chemicals can cause the paper, ink or other materials to degrade faster and cause physical harm long term, not otherwise seen in the immediate short term. One such similar example may be like rusting. Its not rusty now, but once it starts rusting, it will continue to get worse and worse.

[swarmee]

Not a stupid question, but one that's been asked over and over again on this board and elsewhere. And it's still being debated, but the current accepted practice is that soaking in just water is acceptable, while using chemicals is not.

Some people think erasure is okay and many do not. One of the most open card doctors is a member of this site, and to my knowledge, has never been banned.

Without soaking, high grade vintage cards become almost impossible. With soaking, they can be removed from scrapbooks and present very nicely, and are accepted across the community.

[CobbSpikedMe]

So if Zima and wine coolers aren't cool anymore, I guess you guys are going to tell me my bottles of Boone's are not good anymore too. Damn it!!

[Den*nis O*Brien]

......could still be good if it is vintage 1969 or 1970. And only if it has been stored in an appropriate wine cellar at the correct angle And temperature....with no direct sunlight....or...in the original case in the back of the garage. It could have morphed into ..."The Bomb". Thinking back to 1968 and 1969..Boone's Farm Apple "paired" nicely with a wide assortment of other products.

[clydepepper]

UNCLE already!

Why don't you guys use PMs instead of all this BM?


-

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

UNCLE already!

Why don't you guys use PMs instead of all this BM?


-

have a glass of Ripple.....or Tingle...

..

[mark evans]

It seems that the hobby will always have these issues regarding alterations until an agreed upon set of practices is adopted. Since there is no organization to fill this void, maybe next best would be for the more reputable third-party grading companies to consult with major figures in the hobby -- including auction houses, dealers and collectors -- and come up with a set of principles to guide future practices.

[swarmee]

They really already have: Authentic - Altered. All three major grading services use it and 95% of the collectors are okay with it. Some completely ignore cards marked that way, and some use it to buy great looking cards much cheaper than without trimming or cleaning or recoloring or erasures.

If the TPGs can't tell it's been cleaned by non-water solutions, they can't mark it Altered. Altered grades can be priced lower than poors to around PSA 3s, from what I've seen, depending on what the alteration is and how nice the card looks otherwise.

[WWG]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

Speaking of our beloved card, hmmm.... Check out the POP Report guys
The card has been removed.
I find it very hard to believe the winner of the card from PWCC
just sent it into PSA and asked to remove the card from the holder.
So who really won this card?
That's the question of the day.

Seems to me I should be reimbursed the commission I paid on this.

So PSA removes themselves from this mess by deleting the card from their Pop report and cert. verification but still lists the card in their past auction sales. So now what is the true value of this card in PSA 7/SGC 7?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I dunno but I wish I had bought the Dean in PSA6 in 2010

[sportscardsnautos]

is how the guy, or his CSRs, thinks that it is acceptable to charge $35 in shipping for an $8 or less flat rate envelope.

[murphy8276]

Originally Posted by sportscardsnautos

is how the guy, or his CSRs, thinks that it is acceptable to charge $35 in shipping for an $8 or less flat rate envelope.

What about insurance? He is covering the safety of the card arriving.

[conor912]

Oy vey.

[Leon]

For anyone that doesn't know, Cortney (who started this thread) passed away several weeks ago at the very young age of 41. For that reason this thread is being locked.