So, are you the person who bought the card, the person you are wondering about in your above posts, or someone who somehow got caught in the middle of this? You joined under user name "Whodunit" right in the middle of the Scooby Doo mystery. That is not suspicious in the least.

He's referring to Brent.

My name is Cortney DeLorme. I'm not going to hide behind any computer screen. The "man himself" is Brent Huigens. Brent won it in REA. Brent sold the Dimaggio to me for 75K after the 2015 National. Is this how we play this game? Because I was the one that he sold the card to under false pretenses and have kept everything documented from day 1. Y'all wanna know who S***N is on ebay? ME.

This thread is like a written version of The View...or so I've been told.

We have got to come to terms with honest paper conservation in this hobby. The TPG miinions are no-talent ass-clowns when it comes to finding out what has been done by someone well versed in paper conservation techniques, and this focus on letting TPGs tell us what is what is just silly once you see what can be done without detection in terms of removal and cleaning, like the Joe D (assuming, of course, that there weren't harmful techniques and chemicals used). Properly performed conservation is accepted in every form of fine art and antiques involving paper, except baseball cards and comic books. Here are some insanely great examples of what can be done:

http://www.lapapergroup.com/before-after.html

and here is what they've done with baseball cards:

http://www.postermountain.com/form/p...formatted/5137

Look at the Johnny Unitas RC or the CJ Cobb midway down the page.

But it ain't cheap. Even a minimal project will run $200 with a good conservator.

As many have observed here, you can make dramatic changes with good old H2O. Look at this photo of Kid Kaplan I cleaned up with water and some photo cleaner:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...lan_%20Kid.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...1925%20NEA.jpg

And I'm just an amateur.

Now we are getting some where.

So you were the one that consigned it to Goldin? If so, did you disclose it to Goldin?

When Mr. James is not arguing with people on the Net54 forum he can be found arguing with himself at home in the mirror.

Way to go David...

Well the card is not fake. So should the guy who buys the card after its sold 3 times as a psa7 have to take the card back even if didnt know it was an SGC 50. Becomes a slippery slope. Theres no 'should of known' issue.

People can buy the card not the holder as well. The card is a legit PSA 7 is all i am saying (doesnt PSA have some type of guarantee). Im sure you have bought a card that 20 years ago maybe it was in another holder 4 grades below, do you track down that guy if you find that out.

If we are just talking about the one guy that did the doctoring, what if its soaked? I havent seen any auction in history talk about a card being soaked. Thus, being soaked isnt a material fact which appears well established.


Not saying its a good thing, but saying its not a 'scam'

Yes, I consigned it to Goldin. As for my disclosure, no, the facts surrounding this card weren't disclosed in Goldin's Auction. The details of this holders history didn't come out until Brent listed the card for sale in this auction. I had no clue that it'd been doctored when I bought it, or never in a million years would have bought it and had no idea when I sold it. I was alerted to this thread by someone who thought I might be interested in what was going on. I sold this card via Ken along with a '55 Clemente PSA 9 and some other very big cards.

As I said previously, anything said in defense of not disclosing the card's history here is just spin and noise. The before and after scans speak for themselves. The difference is material. It might not matter to some, but it would matter greatly to others.

Not arguing with anybody. It was a fair question.

Go to the auction. Look at the date that it started. Look at when S***N bid on the card to buy it back b/c I'd lost 25K on the card and would have rather had it in my collection at that price than see it go somewhere else.

Now, look at the date that this thread started and when I STOPPED bidding. I had no interest in the card after finding out it'd been manipulated/altered. It becomes pretty clear when evidence of this cards past came out of hiding.

Ok, but you said earlier, "I was the one that he sold the card to under false pretenses and have kept everything documented from day 1." When you say you kept everything documented from Day 1, that makes it sound like you knew about it early on. Not trying to argue, but that is how it sounds.

The fact that it doesnt matter to some, and there can be a difference of opinion shows its not to the level of a scam. It could be the basis of civil issue , but scam implies criminal. There really isnt a difference of opinion as to real SCAMs.

Its shady for sure i agree. Again for all we know the card was soaked etc, and soaking is NEVER disclosed and many in the hobby do not think that is a material fact. There are cards as well that get 'bumped. for psa 5 to psa 8 with no changes to the card. Maybe the person getting the bump has connections, but again to me its nota material that it was a psa 5, as long as its a legit psa 8 when purchased.

is a scam a legal term of art? News to me. It's fraud. Period. Ask yourself why, if it didn't matter, he didn't just disclose it?

double post.

I for one appreciate you posting about this. Could you please post a timeline of ownership and card grade during their ownership to the best of your knowledge? Thank you!

By "documented", it means that I have records of when I bought it, how much I paid for it, who I bought it from, when I got it in my hands, etc. I'm not referring to having had "documented" the fact that the card was altered/manipulated. I've already stated in this thread that there would have been absolutely zero chance of my purchasing this card had he told me what he'd done to get it out of the SGC 50 and into the PSA 7. The documentation of this cards HISTORY, for me, now starts from the point that Brent won it in REA (yes, that is highly documented) to the point that it just sold BY HIM again to another unsuspecting high end collector. This thread started a few days after the auction started. Brent defended the card up until about day 3 of the auction and obviously knew the details as we've well established at this point that he won it, he cleaned it/had it cleaned, he holdered it and he sold it to me. He and who I will refer to as "the cleaner", were at that point, the only ones that knew that it was the same card. I'd have to go back and look at the early stages of this thread, but whoever put the fact that this card was the same card that REA sold as a 50 was the same one, was the one that let the cat out of the bag.

Thats always your fallback argument on everything but thats the the industry standard. I dont see every fault put on a card. It may not matter there is a micro spec on a card (that cant be seen in the picture ) as well to a seller but maybe to one buyer out there it could matter. Thus, just knowing someone may bid less if they knew something isnt enough to prove a scam.

Im sure you have sold card on net54 and not disclosed things. Maybe its because you dont think they were material, however, as you say 'ask yourself, if it didnt matter, why not disclose it'

I don't know who consigned it to REA, but I know who won it in REA. So, a timeline prior to "final value" in their auction, I can't even begin to speculate on. From the time that it sold in REA to date though, I can FAR MORE than speculate.

Peter, as I mentioned in post 277 and 281, there are ways of removing toning without any chemicals, water or anything else even touching the card. In fact, some museums use this process. I think "fraud" is a matter of interpretation. If I buy a card that is a PSA 7ST because of a wax stain on the front surface, crack the card, clean the wax with nylon and then re-submit it to PSA, is that fraud? Not sure where you really draw the line?

All that said, I can understand a buyer wanting to know the card's history, but I really don't think it's fraud. Can you show me one case where a person has ever been convicted of removing a stain or toning or whatever from a card?

I was the buyer that Brent sold the card to. He bought the card as an SGC 50. He doctored it. He sold it to me as a PSA 7 WITHOUT DISCLOSING MATERIAL FACTS that HE KNEW would have affected my decision. So, with that argument, tell me how Peter is wrong? I paid 75K for a card that I wouldn't have paid 5K for had the truth been DISCLOSED.

This certainly is an interesting development. That would explain why he defended it being a 7, and why he sent it back to PSA. It also explains why he has not made any statements on this thread. At all.

To the best of my understanding, this is what the claim is:

Spring 2015: Sold in REA as an SGC 50 for $6600 to Brent
August 2015: Sold privately by Brent to Courtney as a PSA 7 for $75k
Oct 2016: Consigned by Courtney to Goldin and won by John Perez for $46,800
Feb 2017: Consigned by John to Brent and sold to unknown buyer for $52,300

Correct

It was reholdered by me (reverse cert). No chance Brent sent this card back to PSA for "verification" when he was the one who had it put in the first PSA holder. John told me the same thing about Brent sending it to "Joe Orlando's personal attention" for verification.............needless to say, we both got a good laugh out of that one.

So Brent cleaned the card and sent to psa? No wonder it got such a favorable grade. It was sent by a powerbroker in the business. I posted before that if any of us had sent that card to psa it would have been a 5(st) or 6 at best.
Here is the real kicker though: Brent knew the card he was selling on pwcc had been altered and didn't disclose it. It is one thing to do the initial private sale, but on the second sale he did it through his company and hurt his brand irreparably. We thought at first that he found out when we did, but that is obviously not the case. Wow.
I will now sit back and wait for Vintagetoppscardguy to demand Cortney's birth certificate and 2015 tax returns.

You may want to contact a lawyer.

" Paging Jeff Lichtman. Please pick up the nearest white courtesy phone."

As I understand it, so it's clear.
1. Brent won the REA auction for the SGC 50.
2. Brent submitted the card to PSA after it was (your choice of verb) and received a 7.
3. Brent sold the PSA 7 privately to Cortney for 75K.
4. Cortney consigned to Goldin.
5. John Perez won the Goldin auction.
6. Perez consigned to PWCC.
7. PWCC sold to unidentified winner.

Stay tuned guys. As this all unfolds, piece by piece, I'll continuously oblige anyone who's paying attention with some new facts and "hard" evidence. I know that what has recently been let out sounds like a lot of damning information, but we haven't even begun to scratch the surface yet. "Tip of the iceberg" of one might say. There will be no speculation, and I'll listen to anyone who wants to counter anything that I have to say.

I'm the guy that a lot of people on this message board have complained about for quite a while (that little tidbit came from Brent telling me to be more careful how I bid b/c a lot of you guys were complaining about my bid history..........MUCH more on that later) of being a "disciple" or "shill bidder" for Brent, and while the fact is that I bid on many hundreds of thousands of dollars in cards in every auction, what I won, I paid for (S***N). I'm also the one that had the call letters A***T. As for the "50 retractions" that one guy on here referenced, EVERY ONE of those were in ONE of Brent's auction when I caught him lying to me. Looking back, I guess I should have packed up shop and moved on to another reputable seller and left him alone. As for what all I sold via Brent, how bout the 1916 Ruth M101-5 PSA 5 Ruth that set his ship in motion?

Some call it "shill bidding". Others call it "pushing/protecting". Regardless of what you call it, as long as you pay for what you win, and it wasn't yours to begin with, that's all it is............complaining about not letting someone steal a card way under value. As someone with millions at stake in this hobby, I'm not going to let a card go a dime under its value which is the reason that I have so many duplicates of high end cards.

Did you see a sudden drop in Brent's monthly auctions/sales? Would that have been 4 months ago when I stopped sending him 50K cards b/c of the cannibalizing of high end cards by his incessantly running 3 Unitas 8's head to head, or 4 Clemente 8's side by side, or Koufax, etc.

That's the way I'm reading it too. Just one question though (unless it's already been answered and I missed it), how do we know for sure that it was Brent who won the card originally from REA?

I already have. I was cleared by them this week to let the hobby (other than just the high end elite) know about what was ACTUALLY going on.

Been watching this post with great interest. This is just sad on several levels...

The most interesting aspect of this post for me is I have my 1936 WWG DiMaggio going up for auction in the next month with Goldin. Hoping this doesn't hit my card negatively, and readying for any potential interrogation.

The second most interesting aspect of this post for me is learning Jake is a lawyer, and has more than a grade 3 education.

That would be courtesy of an ex REA employee and via Brent's own admission to me (he was always WAY too easy to get to put damning information into text/writing) after I confronted him about it after I was let on to this thread.

1 x-large jumbo popcorn puh-lease!!!!!

David you aren't going to like this, but I know this independent of Cortney from an absolutely reliable source.

Cortney, the one thing I haven't been able to find out is who fixed the card and by what method. Did you learn anything in that regard?

If he did send it back it was a pretty low-risk proposition. I think he might well have.

Yes, I know who cleaned it. But, Im not at liberty to disclose his name yet. As I mentioned, I had to wait until my attorneys had everything established......but, wanted to make sure I got involved in the thread within the return policy timeframe so that whoever won it, assuming it wasnt Brent, has a chance of seeing this and returning it if they so desire.

I have no way of knowing if he sent it in for "verification" after John bought it, but considering the source and who originally had it graded in raw form........100% agree......LOW (NO) risk.

Are you suggesting that he bids on cards in his own auction?

This thread is more intriguing that this season's Homeland.

Im not going to slander anyone by saying something like that if I dont have hard proof. And, Im certainly not going to put myself in that legal sinkhole, but they all have accts, theyre all collectors, and ebay is a very easy platform to hide behind. Then again, you could always "assume" that he has people bid on his items for whatever "reason". (Key the screenshots.........BRENT HUIGENS).

Im waiting on you buddy !!!!!! ;-)

Is Kellyanne Conway available? :D:eek:

Highly, highly sickening chain of events unfolding.

If you know what the discoloration is from that information is readily available on several websites.

Steve B

agreed.

Reads a bit differently now in light of the recent bombshell doesn't it?

So, this makes sense why Brent didn't come on this thread to chime in when myself along with others asked him to, plus John (The consignor to PWCC) said he would. I see PWCC does full disclosures on other cards which I guess PWCC "Brent" is not vested in. Plus, Orlando said it best earlier which I agreed on earlier posts that the submitter of the card had to have some pull to get that kind of inflated grade with PSA. Even the second go around which I highly doubt the card was sent back to PSA, to be reconfirmed of the grade.

I feel bad for Courtney who for one, probably didn't do all the research he should have when buying a 50k plus card but I do understand having trust from the auction house or private sale you want to take them at their word and assume they are disclosing everything.