Poll: response to recent PWCC revelations

[SMPEP]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

So let me get this straight. From what I read you think that the other auction houses would have declined some of these bigger vintage cards.

Is this correct?

I fall on the side that they would have accepted them and so many of these cards can be sold anywhere. They have over 8,000 listings this auction. That is a ton of cards. Many of the cards that have been sold in their auctions turn over again somewhere else.

And your comment is relevant how? Who cares what other AHs MIGHT have done?

You said that risk of fraud exists everywhere.

I agree. It does.

But not at the same level.

In the world we live in today, one (and only one) source has been identified for selling altered material.

Have other sources done it? Sure, I bet they have.

But there is a large body of evidence against one AH, and no significant body of evidence against the others.

To say the risk is the same from both sources is flat out wrong.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

And your comment is relevant how? Who cares what other AHs MIGHT have done?

You said that risk of fraud exists everywhere.

I agree. It does.

But not at the same level.

In the world we live in today, one (and only one) source has been identified for selling altered material.

Have other sources done it? Sure, I bet they have.

But there is a large body of evidence against one AH, and no significant body of evidence against the others.

To say the risk is the same from both sources is flat out wrong.

No.

You obviously don't understand how risk works. The same cards can be sold anywhere so the risk is just the same.

So many cards trade on the private market that could have gone to PWCC or were on their way.

At the National this year there will be many cards that were bought through PWCC auctions I would bet.

[SMPEP]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

No.

You obviously don't understand how risk works. The same cards can be sold anywhere so the risk is just the same.

So many cards trade on the private market that could have gone to PWCC or were on their way.

At the National this year there will be many cards that were bought through PWCC auctions I would bet.

Okay, it seems I need to dumb this down for you.

You're going to spend $10K on merchandise (say a used car instead of a baseball card).

Who do you buy from?

Someone who might be a thief or someone who has been arrested for theft?

If you truly think the risk of being defrauded is the same from both sources - there are a lot of people who want your name and phone number.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

Okay, it seems I need to dumb this down for you.

You're going to spend $10K on merchandise (say a used car instead of a baseball card).

Who do you buy from?

Someone who might be a thief or someone who has been arrested for theft?

If you truly think the risk of being defrauded is the same from both sources - there are a lot of people who want your name and phone number.

Haha

No need to dumb anything down for me.

Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1969-Topps-...kAAOSwQ8xc9owy

You either plug your nose and bid or give up on your collection.

I would bid.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

Haha

No need to dumb anything down for me.

Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1969-Topps-...kAAOSwQ8xc9owy

You either plug your nose and bid or give up on your collection.

I would bid.

Don't worry, they will preserve another one.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Don't worry, they will preserve another one.

Pop 1 out of 534 submitted.

254,471 cards submitted from this set.

Lots of dedicated collectors.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

Pop 1 out of 534 submitted.

254,471 cards submitted from this set.

Lots of dedicated collectors.

Way out of my league. There is no way I can afford to pay over $6300 for a $10 card.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

Pop 1 out of 534 submitted.

254,471 cards submitted from this set.

Lots of dedicated collectors.

And that 10 is so much nicer than the much more affordable 9 because? Oh, right, I forgot. PSA graded it and PSA has been shown to be infallible. And the 10 is being sold by PWCC, a notoriously honest seller. LOL, whatever. To each his own.

[Gusturd]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

Haha

No need to dumb anything down for me.

Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1969-Topps-...kAAOSwQ8xc9owy

You either plug your nose and bid or give up on your collection.

I would bid.

Not a grading expert, but wouldn't the blue shadow around the left half of Oliver's head or the print spot on the end of Hebner's nose prevent it from being a 10?

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by Gusturd

Not a grading expert, but wouldn't the blue shadow around the left half of Oliver's head or the print spot on the end of Hebner's nose prevent it from being a 10?

Both photos are out of focus. I assume this is common with the set. No real knowledge of it and just was showing an example where a collector would be faced with the ultimate delimma of either sticking to their guns and boycotting PWCC or going after their set.


Edit: EBAY listing showing it appears the photo is out of focus.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/RICH-HEBNER...ddf11bd6bb7122

[SMPEP]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

Haha

No need to dumb anything down for me.

Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1969-Topps-...kAAOSwQ8xc9owy

You either plug your nose and bid or give up on your collection.

I would bid.

And you claimed I didn't understand risk?

There are two sources of risk in this potential transaction - and you have only identified one of them.

The first - the risk that the item is altered. Yes, that is a risk no matter the source. You have identified this correctly.

The second - there is risk from the seller themselves. Some sellers are dishonest. Some are not. Can a honest seller make a mistake and do something dishonest? Sure. But your chances of that happening are smaller than the risk you face with dealing with someone who is known for altering merchandise.

So to claim the two are equal risk (including both factors - instead of just your one factor) is factually and logically wrong.

And since the central and original question was - would you buy from PWCC in the future? The first risk is irrelevant in that decision making process as that risk is the same regardless of the seller (as YOU pointed out). Therefore only the second risk matters in answering this question.

So once again you have factually and logically answered the question incorrectly. Which you are free to do - just don't expect people to take what you say seriously if you can't think things through.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

And you claimed I didn't understand risk?

There are two sources of risk in this potential transaction - and you have only identified one of them.

The first - the risk that the item is altered. Yes, that is a risk no matter the source. You have identified this correctly.

The second - there is risk from the seller themselves. Some sellers are dishonest. Some are not. Can a honest seller make a mistake and do something dishonest? Sure. But your chances of that happening are smaller than the risk you face with dealing with someone who is known for altering merchandise.

So to claim the two are equal risk (including both factors - instead of just your one factor) is factually and logically wrong.

And since the central and original question was - would you buy from PWCC in the future? The first risk is irrelevant in that decision making process as that risk is the same regardless of the seller (as YOU pointed out). Therefore only the second risk matters in answering this question.

So once again you have factually and logically answered the question incorrectly. Which you are free to do - just don't expect people to take what you say seriously if you can't think things through.

Are you saying he's using this risk theory?: "I'm going to jump in front of that speeding train, because if I stand here out of its way I could theoretically be hit by a car."

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

And you claimed I didn't understand risk?

There are two sources of risk in this potential transaction - and you have only identified one of them.

The first - the risk that the item is altered. Yes, that is a risk no matter the source. You have identified this correctly.

The second - there is risk from the seller themselves. Some sellers are dishonest. Some are not. Can a honest seller make a mistake and do something dishonest? Sure. But your chances of that happening are smaller than the risk you face with dealing with someone who is known for altering merchandise.

So to claim the two are equal risk (including both factors - instead of just your one factor) is factually and logically wrong.

And since the central and original question was - would you buy from PWCC in the future? The first risk is irrelevant in that decision making process as that risk is the same regardless of the seller (as YOU pointed out). Therefore only the second risk matters in answering this question.

So once again you have factually and logically answered the question incorrectly. Which you are free to do - just don't expect people to take what you say seriously if you can't think things through.

Haha

If people don't take what I have to say seriously life will go on.

Have you ever purchased a card from PWCC?

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

Haha

No need to dumb anything down for me.

Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1969-Topps-...kAAOSwQ8xc9owy

You either plug your nose and bid or give up on your collection.

I would bid.

My nose is already plugged, but a 1 of 1 PSA 10 with a recent cert # in a new holder, given what has been revealed in these threads and BO would give me some hesitation about bidding unless I was Al Oliver’s mother.

Maybe it’s been submitted only once, but PSA has had an opportunity to grade this card for over 25 years, and never before

I’m so glad that I’ve had the common sense and not the wherewithal to play the Registry game and I had the opportunity to see cert #00000001 before the McNall/Gretzky purchase.

I’ve never submitted a card to PSA AND i’m proud of it. To each his own.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

No.

I could buy an altered card from anyone.

I look at PWCC as more of a stock exchange at this point. I think that is their ultimate goal.

Please don't confuse me brushing off fraud as part of the game as suggesting it isn't repulsive. It is. I just am saying that you can't just quit buying from the seller that dominates the market because they have sold some questionable cards. I got a great deal on the last $20 purchase I made. I am willing to buy from anyone if I like the cards.

I think people are underestimating how large of a percentage of $0.99 EBAY auctions PWCC represents.

Some? You make it sound like it is a trivial, insignificant amount of cards.
Have you paid any attention at all to the Blowout thread?

Originally Posted by frankbmd

My nose is already plugged, but a 1 of 1 PSA 10 with a recent cert # in a new holder, given what has been revealed in these threads and BO would give me some hesitation about bidding unless I was Al Oliver’s mother.

Maybe it’s been submitted only once, but PSA has had an opportunity to grade this card for over 25 years, and never before

I’m so glad that I’ve had the common sense and not the wherewithal to play the Registry game and I had the opportunity to see cert #00000001 before the McNall/Gretzky purchase.

I’ve never submitted a card to PSA AND i’m proud of it. To each his own.

No kidding, Frank.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by irv

Some? You make it sound like it is a trivial, insignificant amount of cards.
Have you paid any attention at all to the Blowout thread?



No kidding, Frank.

I have been following along for past few months when the dudes on Blowout outed the modern cards first and naturally have been following along on these recent revelations. You may have missed the comment where I was listed as someone who had purchased from one of them.

PWCC is auctioning off over 19,000 cards this month alone. If they even average 15,000 a month that is 180,000 cards in a year. If a few hundred have been identified obviously that isn't good for anyone but in relation to the number of cards they sell it is a fraction.

Lets say that 200 are deemed altered. Obviously a higher number than anyone wants. It is just over one tenth of a percent of the cards sold during a 12 month period. If anyone doesn't think they have this same risk when buying a card from any seller they are dreaming.

The 52 Mantle that kicked this storm off would have been gladly accepted from all auction houses. Goodwin auctions sold a bad 52 Mantle PSA 8 that when the slab was sent to PSA broke open on Joe Orlando's desk.

The fake Mexican slabs were a huge issue for awhile. Anyone could have bought a Jordan at that time that was bad. Fraud exists. It seems like a day doesn't go by where someone is outing an auction of a fake card and they still have bids from people thinking they are getting a steal.

There is risk when buying trading cards that can't entirely be avoided and if one thinks that boycotting PWCC reduces their risk significantly that is great but they are wrong.

Many cards change hands over and over again. Many of the cards they sell will surface in other auctions and ignorance will be bliss.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

And your comment is relevant how? Who cares what other AHs MIGHT have done?

You said that risk of fraud exists everywhere.

I agree. It does.

But not at the same level.

In the world we live in today, one (and only one) source has been identified for selling altered material.

Have other sources done it? Sure, I bet they have.

But there is a large body of evidence against one AH, and no significant body of evidence against the others.

To say the risk is the same from both sources is flat out wrong.

More assumptions and opinions stated as though they're facts. How do you know the risk isn't the same other places, or even worse? What if these guys on blowout are only reviewing cards from PWCC auctions and no where else? We will most likely never know the exact extent of the alterations, or any specific auction house's involvement.

You can assume and believe whatever you want, just as we all can. And it may turn out that more of the cards sold on PWCC were altered than those sold other places. But to say that's been proven at this point is flat out wrong.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

More assumptions and opinions stated as though they're facts. How do you know the risk isn't the same other places, or even worse? What if these guys on blowout are only reviewing cards from PWCC auctions and no where else? We will most likely never know the exact extent of the alterations, or any specific auction house's involvement.

You can assume and believe whatever you want, just as well all can. And it may turn out that more of the cards sold on PWCC were altered than those sold other places. But to say that's been proven at this point is flat out wrong.

That's where the initial focus has been (at least on the vintage side) because the whitman111/PWCC relationship left an easy paper trail to follow. Yes the results are horrifying, but it doesn't mean there aren't other equally bad venues that are going to be much more difficult to trace without cert numbers from the TPGs. The reality is that lots of card doctors have altered shitloads of cards for decades and have placed them in many many venues. That does not, in any way, minimize what PWCC has done here. And I am glad to see them come into focus for what they are, believe me.