PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

PhillipAbbott79 · #1 02-10-2017, 02:48 PM

I think most people would be upset if they thought they bought a Ferrari, and found out it really is a Pontiac Fiero kit car with a Ferrari body.

I personally don't have the money to find out. Even if I loved the card, finding out it was messed with would change my opinion of it immediately and I would never look at it the same way again.

It would take the joy right out of having it, caused by knowing I could have paid a fraction of the price and done the same thing to have the same card would make me feel(and likely everyone else) that they got ripped off(which is what it would be).

sterlingfox · #2 02-10-2017, 02:54 PM

Is it just me, or does the PSA 7 look like the reverse text is bleeding a bit? I find the reverse text on the SGC 4 to be significantly sharper.

Could just be a slightly out of focus scan... or just me

As a side note, this thread reaffirms my desire to stay in the low end of the hobby. Restoration/Soaking/Doctoring and tampered with slabs are far less likely to happen to sub $200 cards... I'll take and enjoy a lightly trimmed or altered "Authentic" grade card any day of the week over the same card with a numeric grade that costs 10x - 100x as much. Where there's big $$ involved, there's greed and fraud. Always has been and always will be.

Touch'EmAll · #3 02-10-2017, 03:41 PM

I also appreciate the shared knowledge that comes with following this board. Thank you everyone.

...Even if I loved the card, finding out it was messed with would change my opinion of it immediately...

If it were a $100. card or a $50,000. card, I would take advantage of the return policy so fast it make your head spin. Certified, Delivery signature, insured, personal plane ride to return, whatever it takes - card is going back. Done. Then Brent can return it to the doctor or whatever.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 02-10-2017, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

I also appreciate the shared knowledge that comes with following this board. Thank you everyone.

...Even if I loved the card, finding out it was messed with would change my opinion of it immediately...

If it were a $100. card or a $50,000. card, I would take advantage of the return policy so fast it make your head spin. Certified, Delivery signature, insured, personal plane ride to return, whatever it takes - card is going back. Done. Then Brent can return it to the doctor or whatever.

Let's keep the facts straight, John Perez consigned this card to PWCC but he was not involved in the restoration, he purchased it as a PSA 7 from Goldin Auctions (to whom it had been consigned as a PSA 7 so no fault there either).

Touch'EmAll · #5 02-10-2017, 03:53 PM

Thanks for the clarification on the ownership trail. So then Brent can't return it to the doctor - ok then like I said ... or whatever. But I would be returning it. Real fast.

botn · #6 02-10-2017, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingfox

Is it just me, or does the PSA 7 look like the reverse text is bleeding a bit? I find the reverse text on the SGC 4 to be significantly sharper.

Could just be a slightly out of focus scan... or just me

I had not looked that closely but you might be right however all the resident board experts know without a doubt that only distilled water was used to turn the Joe D into a 7 and distilled water would not cause the text to bleed.

conor912 · #7 02-10-2017, 06:35 PM

That's one of the ugliest cards I've ever seen. Looks like a mugshot with a Yankees cap on.

scotty21690 · #8 02-10-2017, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conor912

That's one of the ugliest cards I've ever seen. Looks like a mugshot with a Yankees cap on.

Still nicer than his 38' Goudey Heads Up, albeit not by much.

conor912 · #9 02-10-2017, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotty21690

Still nicer than his 38' Goudey Heads Up, albeit not by much.

Ha! I love that set. There's no accounting for taste

Paul S · #10 02-11-2017, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conor912

That's one of the ugliest cards I've ever seen. Looks like a mugshot with a Yankees cap on.

My thoughts as well. If I owned it I might say, "Here's my Dimag PSA 7". But I could never say, "Here's my Dimag PSA 7. Ain't it a beaut?".

1952boyntoncollector · #11 02-11-2017, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul S

My thoughts as well. If I owned it I might say, "Here's my Dimag PSA 7". But I could never say, "Here's my Dimag PSA 7. Ain't it a beaut?".

Right but if was a PSA 4 Diimaggio you can say its an excellent example for the grade and a candidate for a bump.

There are many collectors i know that for their personal collection they would rather have a prime '6' than a low '7' and would trade straight up by giving the higher grade card for the lower grade card depending on the card or at least giving a great deal on paper

Paul S · #12 02-11-2017, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Right but if was a PSA 4 Diimaggio you can say its an excellent example for the grade and a candidate for a bump.

There are many collectors i know that for their personal collection they would rather have a prime '6' than a low '7' and would trade straight up by giving the higher grade card for the lower grade card depending on the card or at least giving a great deal on paper

Wrong. Get your you's straight. I was commenting on Conor's remark (Hi Conor) that the image itself is a mugshot. Fugly foto no matter what the grade.

Neal · #13 02-10-2017, 06:36 PM

Does anyone know if Brent collects cards? Does he buy and sell?
Just curious

vintagetoppsguy · #14 02-10-2017, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by botn

however all the resident board experts know without a doubt that only distilled water was used to turn the Joe D into a 7

Show me one post where anybody said they know without a doubt that only distilled water was used. Just one post. Nobody can say that because nobody knows for certain.

Conversely, there are several posts where the resident board experts say there was more than just distilled waters used. I guess they were there and watched

rats60 · #15 02-10-2017, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Show me one post where anybody said they know without a doubt that only distilled water was used. Just one post. Nobody can say that because nobody knows for certain.

Conversely, there are several posts where the resident board experts say there was more than just distilled waters used. I guess they were there and watched

Or maybe they are experts on soaking cards and know what water only may remove.

ullmandds · #16 02-10-2017, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60

Or maybe they are experts on soaking cards and know what water only may remove.

yes...that!

Peter_Spaeth · #17 02-10-2017, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Show me one post where anybody said they know without a doubt that only distilled water was used. Just one post. Nobody can say that because nobody knows for certain.

Conversely, there are several posts where the resident board experts say there was more than just distilled waters used. I guess they were there and watched

People can make reasonable inferences based on detailed before and after scans as well as their experience and knowledge. One doesn't need eyewitness testimony.

vintagetoppsguy · #18 02-10-2017, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

People can make reasonable inferences based on detailed before and after scans as well as their experience and knowledge. One doesn't need eyewitness testimony.

Based on that experience and knowledge, what chemical(s) do you think were used?

bnorth · #19 02-10-2017, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Based on that experience and knowledge, what chemical(s) do you think were used?

Yes wouldn't that be awesome. A list of chemicals and maybe detailed info on how to use them. That way we could have more idiots altering cards.

Peter_Spaeth · #20 02-10-2017, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Based on that experience and knowledge, what chemical(s) do you think were used?

I would think -- and this has been reinforced by people much more knowledgeable than myself -- bleach or some sort of caustic agent. I posted the contents of an email I had received early in the thread to this effect. Maybe there are newer and better methods, but I am just really skeptical that water alone could bring about that change. I mean on the SGC 50 detailed scan I posted, look at the contrast between the protected areas on the right side and the rest of the card.

JustinD · #21 02-10-2017, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

People can make reasonable inferences based on detailed before and after scans as well as their experience and knowledge. One doesn't need eyewitness testimony.

Absolutely.

I do not believe this was water and I have a theory, but no proof. The only issue I have with this thing is presenting theory as fact. If this was all presented as a talking point without the thread decending into stating it was unequivobly true a few posts in without anything but a photo, it would be more palatable.

Not being political, but as a reference, this is somewhat like switching between Breitbart and Huffington Post...the truth is likely in the middle.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1936 Goudey Wide Pen R314 Joe DiMaggio Type 4 SGC 60	luxurywines	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	1	11-02-2014 04:38 PM
Does anyone here own a 1936 Joe Dimaggio World Wide Gum rookie?	Zone91	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	18	09-23-2014 06:13 PM
1936 Goudey Wide Pen R314 Joe Dimaggio SGC 30	majordanby	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	1	01-11-2011 09:25 PM
1936 Goudey Wide Pen R314 Joe Dimaggio SGC 30	majordanby	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	1	12-17-2010 05:38 PM
DiMaggio Rookie - 107 1936 World Wide Gum Cards on eBay	Archive	Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T	2	06-05-2007 02:06 PM