Update: What would you do...

Leon · #1 06-04-2019, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jp1216

Link:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/401739877633

That is a great looking card I doubt has been tampered with from the scan. They would have cleaned up the creases if it was messed with, imo. Of course, I would have a double good look at it and put it under a blacklight and loupe too. The corners still look a little frayed too (a good thing nowadays). It's a keeper if you ask me.
Also, you would need a before picture, I think, to know if it has been messed with. The stain removals on cards don't upset me as much as the other things, but that is just me. And many, if not most vintage collectors, don't consider soaking in water to be a nefarious act. It should be counted off as anything else but to me, it wouldn't mean a non-numeric grade.

I should also add, if it will make the OP always nervous, then it is an easy decision to sell it.

T206Collector · #2 06-04-2019, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon

That is a great looking card I doubt has been tampered with from the scan.

Moser loves the T227 Cobb. There are two other T227 Cobbs that have already been outed as tampered with:

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...postcount=1642

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...postcount=2408

I am sure it has been cleaned, and given the amount of text fading on the reverse, not likely with water. The creases have also been pressed to make the card not look so rough. Soaked, cleaned and pressed. No doubt.

perezfan · #3 06-04-2019, 10:58 AM

Agree with T206 Collector...

Though it appears nice for the grade, odds are it has had some problems "lessened" by means of alteration. Does not looked trimmed, but may have had some color added. Near-impossible to tell without having it in-hand.

For your own peace of mind, I'd suggest returning it. You'll probably NEVER be at peace with the card now, and will look more at the treated flaws than the card itself.

What a shame.

steve B · #4 06-04-2019, 11:12 AM

I believe this is the before.

The scan here is overly bright, but the creases don't look much different.

Maybe just moved from SGC to PSA?

I'd save the scans/auctions, print them and keep them with the card. If any work has been done, it wasn't much.

http://www.milehighcardco.com/1912_M...-LOT60474.aspx

perezfan · #5 06-04-2019, 11:18 AM

Yup... that's definitely the "before". Looks a bit more vibrant, but could just be the photography. Probably just a crossover, with little (if any) work done.

Nice job finding that!

steve B · #6 06-04-2019, 11:18 AM

While I was looking, I ran across this other T227 Cobb.

Oh the irony...

I usually think "well, maybe" for odd wear patterns. But this one looks rather suspect. And was sold through Heritage.

https://www.psacard.com/cardfacts/mu...aseball/560029

Rhotchkiss · #7 06-04-2019, 11:21 AM

The psa 3 t227 is mine. The guys on blowout expressly admit that they cannot find any alteration. I have looked at it under a loop and can�t find anything (but I am hardly an expert). Yes, the card used to reside in an an SGC A flip and now is in a psa 3, but that could be a difference of opinion. Do I like that it went from an SGC A to a psa 3 through a Moser submission, he�ll no. But that alone is not damning. Neither blowout nor myself can find evidence of tampering and even on blowout they suggest bc of this card that they limit posts only to those cards with evidence of tampering and not get into opinion differences between SGC and PSA.

I fear there will be a lot of collateral damage here. I suppose that�s the price we all pay, so be it, but I do fear many good cards will be taken down with the bad .

Exhibitman · #8 06-04-2019, 11:25 AM

I'd try and get a full refund while the getting is good. The card may be legit, but given its history it likely is not 100%. This is supposed to be fun, a not source of stress, so who needs to fret over the history of the card?

Peter_Spaeth · #9 06-04-2019, 11:31 AM

It's Gary Moser there have to be certain presumptions at this point. So it comes down to your tolerance level for uncertainty, as well as types of alteration, I guess.

steve B · #10 06-04-2019, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

The psa 3 t227 is mine. The guys on blowout expressly admit that they cannot find any alteration. I have looked at it under a loop and can�t find anything (but I am hardly an expert). Yes, the card used to reside in an an SGC A flip and now is in a psa 3, but that could be a difference of opinion. Do I like that it went from an SGC A to a psa 3 through a Moser submission, he�ll no. But that alone is not damning. Neither blowout nor myself can find evidence of tampering and even on blowout they suggest bc of this card that they limit posts only to those cards with evidence of tampering and not get into opinion differences between SGC and PSA.

I fear there will be a lot of collateral damage here. I suppose that�s the price we all pay, so be it, but I do fear many good cards will be taken down with the bad .

First, apologies for what was probably a somewhat hasty assessment. That's exactly why I don't usually go straight to trimming when I see an odd wear pattern. I don't follow blowout, so I had no idea it had already been covered.

It's interesting that there isn't any obvious alteration despite how it looks.
I've had a couple cards that I knew were unaltered get rejected by SGC that would have been given an A if I hadn't checked the right box. And considering how I just made a snap judgement, I think they handled it right by not grading cards that would appear altered.

I think in some cases, he might just be moving cards to PSA believing that they will sell for more as well as sending through a bunch of altered ones.
The companies do grade differently, and with expensive cards picking up ones that SGC didn't like much but that PSA would give a better grade to might be profitable.

D. Bergin · #11 06-04-2019, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B

I believe this is the before.

The scan here is overly bright, but the creases don't look much different.

Maybe just moved from SGC to PSA?

I'd save the scans/auctions, print them and keep them with the card. If any work has been done, it wasn't much.

http://www.milehighcardco.com/1912_M...-LOT60474.aspx

Yeah, looks like the same card. Looks like not much done other then a crossover and a popping of the colors by the scanner, unless there's some sort of a brightener that could be used on the card itself.

I mean, just the crossover and the phrase: "A world-class copy for the assessment and recommended by PWCC.", netted Moser an extra grand in bids.

Not a bad job if you can get it.

T_Hamilton · #12 06-04-2019, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B

I believe this is the before.

The scan here is overly bright, but the creases don't look much different.

Maybe just moved from SGC to PSA?

I'd save the scans/auctions, print them and keep them with the card. If any work has been done, it wasn't much.

http://www.milehighcardco.com/1912_M...-LOT60474.aspx

Steve thank you for finding this. I cant see much difference between the SGC and PSA. Will be starring at the card under a loop, black light and other lights later this evening. I really appreciate all of the help from the stellar members at N54.

ejharrington · #13 06-04-2019, 12:29 PM

What about sending it to PSA for a re-evaluation after explaining the situation? Does anyone think that is a good (or bad) idea?

T206Collector · #14 06-04-2019, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ejharrington

What about sending it to PSA for a re-evaluation after explaining the situation? Does anyone think that is a good (or bad) idea?

I would consider sending to SGC. PSA’s incentives on this one are not good.

Rhotchkiss · #15 06-04-2019, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ejharrington

What about sending it to PSA for a re-evaluation after explaining the situation? Does anyone think that is a good (or bad) idea?

My plan is to send it to PSA for re-review (along with one other of mine that has not been called out but that I just never felt totally comfortable about). If PSA certifies it/them, a second time, then I have that and I can feel comfortable disclosing that to any future owner (not that I am looking to part with either).

I once owned a T206 Red Cobb Piedmont Fact 42 in a BVG 7 flip. I bought it from a well known T206 dealer, who gave me what sounded like a plausible reason for why he was selling it (and it still resided) in a BVG flip. I asked SGC to encapsulate it, but it was rejected for failure to meet minimum grade, which I put down as a 6. Later, at the Philly show, I showed it to several people, all of whom stated "it needed to stay in the BVG flip". While I strongly suspected, I never had firm proof it was trimmed and I grew to hate the card. So, I called up the dealer and strongly suggested he buy it back at discount, which he did. I kind of feel that way about my T227, although I am much less convinced that it has been altered than I am about the T206 Cobb. I will let PSA be the arbiter.