PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[seanofjapan]

My 2 cents:

I can kind of see the point that the card is overgraded at a 7 since the toning and centering suggest it is lower (maybe a 5 or 6? Not sure).

But I don't think you can fault PSA for not catching the cleaning. When they get a card to grade the only thing they should be looking at is the card itself because that is an easily identifiable objective standard to go by. Assuming the card itself displayed no signs of cleaning, then as far as I am concerned they weren't negligent in failing to catch it.

If you change the standard of grading to include background research on the specific card, (such as going through old auction listings) you start introducing more subjective elements to the process that are going to be impossible for them to meet in most cases. OK, its kind of easy with this Dimaggio card since it is low population and the outlines of the toning make it pretty easy to match, but most cases involving cleaning aren't going to fit that profile. What if it is a higher pop card of high value (52 Mantle or something) and the match between the card in question and some random previous card with a flaw that seems to have disappeared is less obvious. Its really unclear how you would define a satisfactory level of in-depth background research for the grading company to undertake before reaching a grade - do they have to look through all previous 52 Mantle auctions to satisfy it? Its just creates uncertainty for the grader and the people buying graded cards if the criteria for grading is left a bit vague like that.

[JustinD]

I am a tad shocked that anyone thinks this is an anomaly.

In 2008 Dick stated he had done on the conservative side 15 to 18k cards that all (tried) passed grading. It's now been 9 more years of steady work to at least double that up. ( I am not saying this was Dick, there are plenty of people that can do something like this and get it graded. He is just a good example because he is the most open about his business.)

http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.com/nerattowle/

This is a well known aspect of the hobby to big money buyers or they are grossly misinformed. Anyone with a decent collection likely has a few items that passed through that shop at some time. That has to be at least (on the very low side) 40k cards that were worth the trip to add to a profit. In my mind, likely 85% of higher grade 52 Micks have already made that trip.

John has done nothing wrong on his side other than buying a card from a flipper.

I am also not saying anything untoward happened to this card as it is unproven to this point. I am speaking as a whole to those that think grading is some infallible knight of honor...it simply is not.

[swarmee]

Interesting quote in that article: "What they do with the card after that, I have no idea. But then again, if a card is already graded from a “4” to a “7,” that really tells the story."

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

My 2 cents:

I can kind of see the point that the card is overgraded at a 7 since the toning and centering suggest it is lower (maybe a 5 or 6? Not sure).

But I don't think you can fault PSA for not catching the cleaning. When they get a card to grade the only thing they should be looking at is the card itself because that is an easily identifiable objective standard to go by. Assuming the card itself displayed no signs of cleaning, then as far as I am concerned they weren't negligent in failing to catch it.

If you change the standard of grading to include background research on the specific card, (such as going through old auction listings) you start introducing more subjective elements to the process that are going to be impossible for them to meet in most cases. OK, its kind of easy with this Dimaggio card since it is low population and the outlines of the toning make it pretty easy to match, but most cases involving cleaning aren't going to fit that profile. What if it is a higher pop card of high value (52 Mantle or something) and the match between the card in question and some random previous card with a flaw that seems to have disappeared is less obvious. Its really unclear how you would define a satisfactory level of in-depth background research for the grading company to undertake before reaching a grade - do they have to look through all previous 52 Mantle auctions to satisfy it? Its just creates uncertainty for the grader and the people buying graded cards if the criteria for grading is left a bit vague like that.

If you ask me, they should be scanning every card and using some sort of fingerprinting like technology do comparisons. Suggesting a manual search is ridiculous, but implementing technology to do the analysis is not. It will help them understand when they have a new to market card or a resubmission which would have some solid impacts to the way things are now.

[packs]

That seems like a lot of work for one off things like this. I know that altering happens all the time but I'd also venture to guess an overwhelming majority of altered cards are found to be altered.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by packs

That seems like a lot of work for one off things like this. I know that altering happens all the time but I'd also venture to guess an overwhelming majority of altered cards are found to be altered.

I will agree on trimming, but not stain removal.

I fall on the same belief as Leon has referenced. Do I assume the worst on everything or if I cannot tell, nor anyone else, do I care? Honestly, not really.

Yes It is nice to turn a blind eye, but I instead just hold the belief that many if not more than 51% of high grade vintage cards have had a tad of assistance. As an art collector that has used a restorer to remove dry-matted prints, if it improves it I am happier with the end product. Personally, and I may be in the minority, I don't see stain, glue or tape removal in the same light as trimming or paper rebuilding.

I have never used a card restorer, but if I have a couple that have seen one (and I would not doubt that I have at some time logically), then oh well. This is the result of years of focus on condition. It's a foreseeable byproduct of the grading obsession.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

"Removing" vs. "Adding"

removing = good

adding = bad

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by ajjohnsonsoxfan

"Removing" vs. "Adding"

removing = good

adding = bad

Unless you're removing some of the edges of the card...

[Peter_Spaeth]

There are two issues here. One, is the restoration considered acceptable. Two, should the restoration be disclosed.

Generally, I think that if the restoration involves chemicals that change the card's fibers, or that possibility cannot reasonably be ruled out, it is unacceptable. I think the add/remove distinction is too simplistic, it depends what is being removed and how.

More importantly, I think that if the restoration dramatically improves the card's grade (such as here), it should be disclosed whether or not it's generally considered acceptable. I would want to know if the card I was buying had been restored appreciably. And notwithstanding a third party grade, it seems to me wrong to conceal it.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are two issues here. One, is the restoration considered acceptable. Two, should the restoration be disclosed.

Before those two issues, there is another issue to be considered. Is it really 'restoration' to begin with?

If I take a card that has wax residue on the front and remove it with nylon, is that restoration? After all, it's removing something that wasn't there when the card was printed and restoring it back to it's previous state.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are two issues here. One, is the restoration considered acceptable. Two, should the restoration be disclosed

More importantly, I think that if the restoration dramatically improves the card's grade (such as here), it should be disclosed whether or not it's generally considered acceptable. I would want to know if the card I was buying had been restored appreciably. And notwithstanding a third party grade, it seems to me wrong to conceal it.

So Peter, do you think PWCC should disclose this and update their listing since they know it's been worked on and the grade has been massively improved from a 4 to a 7. I would think the winning bidder would have a great case to return the card if they found out later about the history of the card. Not doing a full disclosure of the known history of the card isn't the best approach IMO.

I think if a full disclosure was done, it could still have a chance to fetch some high bucks.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are two issues here. One, is the restoration considered acceptable. Two, should the restoration be disclosed.

Generally, I think that if the restoration involves chemicals that change the card's fibers, or that possibility cannot reasonably be ruled out, it is unacceptable. I think the add/remove distinction is too simplistic, it depends what is being removed and how.

More importantly, I think that if the restoration dramatically improves the card's grade (such as here), it should be disclosed whether or not it's generally considered acceptable. I would want to know if the card I was buying had been restored appreciably. And notwithstanding a third party grade, it seems to me wrong to conceal it.

I agree, plus there are some restorations like smoothing out wrinkles that a year or so later the wrinkle comes back on the card and even though you have a PSA '5' or whatever, one with a wrinkle would lower the value of that '5' so some of the high '4's for example. As a buyer i would want to know about that issue.