PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Please share some of these facts and including the juicy texts, emails, spreadsheets, from whoever the man himself is.

You should also follow the forum rules and put your real name somewhere.

He's referring to Brent.

[Whodunit]

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.

[Exhibitman]

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:




And I'm just an amateur.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's fraud to sell an item without disclosing a known material fact. It's the same as lying. You're a lawyer, you know that. Are you seriously saying it's not material that the card came out of an SGC 50 and was worked on before being graded a 7 by PSA?

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'

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

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.

People can buy the card not the holder as well. The card is a legit PSA 7 is all i am saying. 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'

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.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's fraud to sell an item without disclosing a known material fact. It's the same as lying. You're a lawyer, you know that. Are you seriously saying it's not material that the card came out of an SGC 50 and was worked on before being graded a 7 by PSA?

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?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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?

Right, its a slippery slope....if i sell a card i now got to research its history...

the card was sold as a PSA 7 card....ant the card is a PSA 7 card....thats far from a scam.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Right, its a slippery slope....if i sell a card i now got to research its history...

the card was sold as a PSA 7 card....ant the card is a PSA 7 card....thats far from a scam.

Noise and spin.