Brent Huigens - PWCC. Do you really want to keep this game up? I'm ready boss.

[aloondilana]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

And he made some good money on it..at least what most of us would consider good money........and maybe gets the commission back too..? the rich get richer.

I know if i consigned a card that PSA removed from the registry, i would give the money back to the buyer if the buyer wanted their money back since they bought a card that was supposed to be a certain grade and that grade is removed.

No reason to attack me for the post, but the sale is what it is....its not like i am making this up..

Jake Please!

I purchased the card for $46,800

It sold for $52,351, then minus Brent's commission I net $48,163
Which made me $1,362 bucks.

Brent on the other hand paid $6,500, then sold it to Cortney for $75,000, then made $4,188 on my commission. Brent then paid me $48,163 so when all is said and done, Brent's profit is $24,525. So who's the rich getting richer as you say?

My case is plain and simple, obviously the card did not sell to a legit buyer, therefore why should I pay commission to Brent when all he did was have it "sold" to hide the card, thus we see now the card is no longer in the PSA POP Report.

[slidekellyslide]

yeah, this doesn't look good for PWCC or PSA

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

yeah, this doesn't look good for PWCC or PSA

They're Teflon, bro. Nothing will change.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They're Teflon, bro. Nothing will change.

I'll bet Doug Allen and Bill Mastro thought they were Teflon too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

Jake Please!

I purchased the card for $46,800

It sold for $52,351, then minus Brent's commission I net $48,163
Which made me $1,362 bucks.

Brent on the other hand paid $6,500, then sold it to Cortney for $75,000, then made $4,188 on my commission. Brent then paid me $48,163 so when all is said and done, Brent's profit is $24,525. So who's the rich getting richer as you say?

My case is plain and simple, obviously the card did not sell to a legit buyer, therefore why should I pay commission to Brent when all he did was have it "sold" to hide the card, thus we see now the card is no longer in the PSA POP Report.

Has Brent refunded the ebay buyer's money? Or do we think there was no actual sale? Otherwise, isn't his profit $68,500 minus costs of alteration the first time, and then $4188 the second time?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

Jake Please!

I purchased the card for $46,800

It sold for $52,351, then minus Brent's commission I net $48,163
Which made me $1,362 bucks.

Brent on the other hand paid $6,500, then sold it to Cortney for $75,000, then made $4,188 on my commission. Brent then paid me $48,163 so when all is said and done, Brent's profit is $24,525. So who's the rich getting richer as you say?

My case is plain and simple, obviously the card did not sell to a legit buyer, therefore why should I pay commission to Brent when all he did was have it "sold" to hide the card, thus we see now the card is no longer in the PSA POP Report.

Assuming the card was just removed from the registry for being altered etc...

Someone making more than someone else isnt really cause to get a commission back. Making $1300+ on a card in the matter of a month or so is a lot of money for most of us.

However, returning the money you got on the card and getting the card back puts everyone in the most fairest spot. Assuming the buyer of the card was real and wants the sale canceled.

You could then pursue the auction house in which you bought the card and they could pursue the consignor who could pursue anyone manipulated the value of the card. It goes down the line, taking a bigger profit from sale from someone who made an even bigger profit on an alleged fraud as a gripe is not the way to go.

If they sold the card to a 'legit' buyer, the card sells for less and you lose money. So making money isnt really a cause for a complaint if the reason is the card didnt sell to a 'legit' buyer.

Still need to know the reasons why the grade was removed by PSA. Was it regarded? Was it sent to SGC, whats the current grade now. If the card went to SGC for example, maybe it gets a SGC 4 and SGC advised PSA to remove the card from their registry. Yes this is a very unlikely scenerio, but in this scenerio there was nothing wrong in the sale of the card and all. Thus, its too much speculation right now unless we know why the card was removed from the registry.

[Whodunit]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Someone making more than someone else isnt really cause to get a commission back. Making $1300+ on a card in the matter of a month or so is a lot of money for most of us.

However, returning the money you got on the card and getting the card back puts everyone in the most fairest spot. Assuming the buyer of the card was real and wants the sale canceled.

You could then pursue the auction house in which you bought the card and they could pursue the consignor who could pursue anyone manipulated the value of the card. It goes down the line, taking a bigger profit from sale from someone who made a big profit as a gripe is not the way to go.

Yes, please!!!!! Lets do that. LOL. In the end (from the time it was purchased from REA, doctored and submitted to PSA), Brent is the beginning and the end of this card in it's PSA 7 life. Wouldn't that make him the ultimate responsible party in the matter? Granted there is the person who bought it from Brent (me), Goldin Auctions, who would then refer back to his consignor (me), John (who won it in Goldin) and ultimately back to Brent (who dang sure can't go back on his consignor now).

Now we wait for Phillip Abbot. I know you have something "intelligent" (by that I mean demeaning) or attacking to say b/c you believe that your opinion is the only one that matters and when you can't add things up, you get your panties in a wad and start wildly cussing (refer to the last string of comments directed at me............unless of course Leon made you edit them due to the content or you do so when being called out on it).

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Yes, please!!!!! Lets do that. LOL. In the end (from the time it was purchased from REA, doctored and submitted to PSA), Brent is the beginning and the end of this card in it's PSA 7 life. Wouldn't that make him the ultimate responsible party in the matter? Granted there is the person who bought it from Brent (me), Goldin Auctions, who would then refer back to his consignor (me), John (who won it in Goldin) and ultimately back to Brent (who dang sure can't go back on his consignor now).

Now we wait for Phillip Abbot. I know you have something "intelligent" (by that I mean demeaning) or attacking to say b/c you believe that your opinion is the only one that matters and when you can't add things up, you get your panties in a wad and start wildly cussing (refer to the last string of comments directed at me............unless of course Leon made you edit them due to the content or you do so when being called out on it).

I agree, its usually really hard to find who caused the issue in the first place (ie. altered the card, stole the card etc) in the art world or collectible world. Thats how it goes though. When people buy things that arent what they paid for due to fraud or whatever they lose money because its hard to prove and get a timeline on what happened on the item. Fake artwork occurs all the time or artwork that was stolen and sold, only to be returned to the rightful owner and the poor guy that paid for the stolen artwork is out the money

If you bought artwork from someone that it turned out was originally stolen from the Nazis, doesnt the original owner or owners family on many occasions have the right to have the artwork back? what about the guy that paid $400,000 for it at auction. What about the consignor of that stolen artwork. This stuff happens more often than you think and it sucks for the people that paid money and are now in chase mode. The chase mode ends when the next victim in the line has no one else to pursue. Example, buyer at auction house goes after auction house, auction house goes after consignor, consignor goes after the person that sold them the item, that person goes after the next guy. There are law implications as well that may limit things, but just giving a general discussion.

With that being said, it does appear on the issue on subject card, we are able to trace back the origins. So what usually is an almost an impossible process (the chase mode), seems not so impossible in this case.

[PhillipAbbott79]

Originally Posted by Whodunit

Now we wait for Phillip Abbot. I know you have something "intelligent" (by that I mean demeaning) or attacking to say b/c you believe that your opinion is the only one that matters and when you can't add things up, you get your panties in a wad and start wildly cussing (refer to the last string of comments directed at me............unless of course Leon made you edit them due to the content or you do so when being called out on it).

I am far from sub-intelligent. Like I mentioned, at one time I backed your opinion/story. You lost that ground.

I now believe you are part of the problem, as noted in that post, because of you are withholding facts you have said you have, while making ridiculous excuses, now on 2 occasions. Period.

On with it, or on with you.

[2dueces]

For the uninformed, are there pictures of this card? Or have they disappeared too?

[rainier2004]

.

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Hey quick question. How can we tell this is the same card? I'm curious. Thanks

[Batpig]

You know, now that I'm looking at it again, while the card looks better in some regards, there are obvious new flaws that I would have thought would prevent a 7. There's the weird stripe pattern and the ink for his name appears damaged and has bled somewhat.

[BengoughingForAwhile]

Originally Posted by aloondilana

Jake Please!

I purchased the card for $46,800

It sold for $52,351, then minus Brent's commission I net $48,163
Which made me $1,362 bucks.

Brent on the other hand paid $6,500, then sold it to Cortney for $75,000, then made $4,188 on my commission. Brent then paid me $48,163 so when all is said and done, Brent's profit is $24,525. So who's the rich getting richer as you say?

My case is plain and simple, obviously the card did not sell to a legit buyer, therefore why should I pay commission to Brent when all he did was have it "sold" to hide the card, thus we see now the card is no longer in the PSA POP Report.

John, If Brent was the owner of the card when he sold it to Cortney he made a lot more than 24k on this card. 75,000 - 6,500= $68,500 (minus cleaning and reholdering costs.) Plus the $4,000 commission he made off of you