PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7
PWCC has a generously graded 36 WWG Joe D, http://www.ebay.com/itm/142260836796 but I guess it looks better than it did before, http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...maggio-rookie/.
|
wow! thats some ROI!
|
So how did someone remove such a significant amount of age toning to render the untoned spots nearly invisible in this incarnation? A miracle of modern card doctoring.
|
A Lady Macbeth job to be sure.
|
Well, that stinks!
Wow!
|
Had not noticed that the WWG Joe D as a PSA 7 sold recently in a Goldin Auction because I do not look at their auctions. Their scan was a bit misleading as it is washed out and the stain is not as obvious as it is in the PWCC scan. https://goldinauctions.com/LotDetail...entoryid=25573
|
Wwg
Whoever cleaned it up did the hobby a huge favor. Great card either way.
|
HOLY MOLY. I'm in the wrong business. Definitely crazy ROI.
|
Remember........
Never Get Cheated!
|
It takes a lot of balls to soak a $6600 card, but I guess it paid off in end.
Still a NM (7) and you can still see the remnants of the tape stains IS a little concerning. Wonder if that would be a (7) on any modern card with similar evidence of past taping on it. Looking at the REA auction, it was probably cleaned up just to get the (4). Now another round of cleaning got it to a (7). :eek: |
Quote:
|
Is there a company not out there that specifically cleans/fixes cards?
It's hard to say with this pic/card, but I would tend to believe it was professionally done? |
It may have been professionally done.
The question is why wasn't it "professionally" caught? |
I don't know much about restoration of cards, but to me this looks like the first card was up against some acidic paper and the two corners were protected. The result is toning, which happens in old prints that have been framed with non-acid free mats and backing. The process to remove this toning is well established and very common. If my assumptions are correct, it might not have taken a whole lot to remove the toning from this one.
|
:eek:
|
Quote:
There's restoration companies that clean up posters, but that's more accepted in that field. They aren't cheap but I'm sure some of them would handle cards if given the business. This one certainly paid off for somebody. Likely not the guy who bought it from Goldin though. They'll probably be ecstatic if they break even at this point. |
Quote:
|
Or another question should be who submitted the card and did they get a favor done. #PSAblewit
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.gonewiththestain.com/ |
Quote:
|
:eek: is correct!
|
Quote:
|
Whoa. Incredible.
|
Sorry, may be a stupid question, but how do we know these are the same 2 cards?
|
WWG DiMaggio
I don't care about its past, it's a PSA 7 now and I'll take it!!!
It's like a fat broad that loses 75 pounds and becomes hot. |
Quote:
Just so you know those women that lose 75 pounds only look hot with clothes on. |
Lol
So true!!
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Great card, and have zero problem with removing tape and stain residue If I had the cheddar, I'd still want to own it |
Wwg
Right !!! It's a darn POP 1 PSA 7. None higher!!!
Why are we even attempting to knock this card? Any one of us would kill to have this. |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
If the restoration is acceptable to the community then there should be no concern about disclosing it. But somehow i am guessing PWCC is not going to do that and the consignor would not want that.
|
Quote:
|
There is no deception in art restoration. There is a world of deception in baseball card restoration/alteration, because rarely is any of it disclosed, and the whole point is to make a card look better and grade higher while deceiving the grading companies and potential buyers into thinking it's original.
As I said, if the restoration in this case is no big deal, then the consignor should have no objection to its disclosure. But something tells me the consignor would have been furious if PWCC had posted a picture of the SGC 50 in the auction and explained the work done by Towle or whoever did it. Can't have it both ways. If it's acceptable and even a good thing as some seem to be saying, you should have no objection to disclosure. |
Quote:
|
i highly doubt this card was "just" soaked!
|
Interesting debate. When I go to sell my house I'm hoping to brush over a couple of 100 flaws/issues. I won't actively deceive anyone, or make any affirmative claims that are false, but I'm going to do everything I can to make the house present well and detract attention away from its shortcomings. Might slap some paint on the side of the house that turns to hell after a few months for some odd reason. May scrub the garage door that always attracts some green mold crud. Does that make me a bad guy?
Did anyone ever answer how we know this is the same card? |
Vintage car restoration is acceptable (and disclosed) but collectors pay way way more for untouched, original paint, low mileage jewels that are "condition rarities". The value goes way down if a car(d) is sold as original and then you find out it was reconditioned. That, my friends, is fraud. I would have loved to own that DiMaggio if I could afford it but now it is a lie in a holder.
Scott |
Quote:
. |
its pretty obvious its the same card...just look at the before and after for christ sake?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The same discoloration marks on the front are still visible on both....even the cleaned up card. Also, same centering and same print/toning dots on back of card. |
Quote:
among others. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Look at that REA version of the card. If those lighter spots are the original color of the card, then that's not "toning". That's a stain! I'd guess it was soaked out of a scrapbook. The "toning" is glue residue that seeped into the paper, and the lighter marks are one of three things. #1. Old tape that covered that area, and then deteriorated #2. Something similar to stamp mounts #3. The evidence of whatever tool was used to hold the card in place when it was taking it's chemical bath |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
You said among other(s) after that? Have 1 more cup, I am.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Well, it's back on the market just a few months after being sold by Goldin. I wonder if the winning bidder of that auction had buyers remorse so soon after getting it in hand (or somebody alerted him of the restoration job), and decided he'd be better off without it. |
Quote:
|
Disagree all you want to. It is a chat board. :) The reality is that if a grader can't see a fault they aren't going to discount the grade for it. No matter how much you disagree it won't change that fact.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
,
Quote:
|
Quote:
I might even go as far as to say even IF they did see the before picture, it is STILL graded correctly today. |
My guess is that this card has had significant chemical intervention, in which case it is not a "small small" matter as Brent suggests. I hope I am wrong.
And I will go further to say that if he is aware that the card was restored/altered to make a significant difference in its appearance and grade, he is withholding a material fact. |
Here we go again... nothing at all new here... card has been embellished...it is obvious to anyone with decent vision let alone the foremost grading company in the world. The card is over graded it has obvious remnants of what used to be there it is not a seven and should not be a seven. And it seems some people are now on PSA's payroll!!
|
Quote:
|
I would suspect that they would have to tag it as "altered" if they saw the transformation no? And a 7 with that centering is a stretch in my opinion. I just don't think that I or any of us get a 7 on that card if we sent it in. And why no qualifier on the stain? In this case, the whole card is stained except for the two light areas.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I don't think he meant you Leon. If he did, I withdraw my approval of that portion of the post.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
According to someone whose opinion I respect highly, the distilled water thing is wishful thinking.
"Your post about the card is essentially correct. It has undoubtedly been submerged in a caustic chemical such as bleach in order to remove the toning and obscure the lighter, untoned areas on the front and back. The type of chemical that has been added has altered the chemical composition of the card and will likely cause the fibers in the cardboard to degrade over time." This person also believes improvement was made to the corners, based on his close examination of the respective scans. |
Just as reckless as your other post. Who is the person? And I think your person is entirely wrong too.
Quote:
|
If it will cause long-term deterioration of the card, this goes from a harmless fix, to a full-blown scam.
|
Quote:
I don't see how this can be good for the hobby. It has all the appearances of fraud and deception. Heck, even PSA can't figure it out. If someone was doing this to the cards I buy (early 70's PSA 9's), I would be disgusted. BTW, PSA pooffed the thread over there. Someone posted a really nice pair of photos showing both cards side by side. Can someone do that here within the thread? |
And who said SGC cards wouldn't cross to PSA?
|
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Thanks
|
As long as there are no long term effects to the card, I have no problem with it. And, until someone can prove it was more than just a soaking in water (which is acceptable in our hobby), then you're just making assumptions. That said, I do think the grade is a little generous. Looks more like a 6 to me.
Oh, and to blame PWCC for selling it just shows you have an axe to grind wirh Brent. |
I don't see anything wrong with soaking cards and other stuff out of scrapbooks and albums with water. I've done it myself many times, though not with anything expensive.
If it doesn't harm the card, and releases it from it's jail. No harm, no foul. THAT, is not a product of water restoration, distilled or otherwise. The first time, in the REA auction. Yes. No biggie. To bump it up to a (7)? You could soak an old piece of paper/cardboard with that much toning for days, and it wouldn't come out that clean......and even if it did, the paper would have soaked too much water into it's fibers for too long to recover to it's original state. Like stretching the rubber band in your underwear for too long. Just my opinion, but I think it's pretty "Cut & Dry" :D See what I did there? ;) |
I knew I was setting myself up for that! Well played, sir. Well played indeed.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:09 AM. |