I totally forgot PWCC had an auction ending tonight

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Cards get rejected for EVIDENCE of trimming, etc., there is no 100 percent proof standard, don't know where you are coming up with that. The human eye is probably the best evidence in any event. That's how most alterations are detected. Do you think they're putting cards through lab tests?

What are you suggesting then? If a vintage card looks too clean it shouldn't be graded because it was probably bleached? I'm not sure how this could be detected without some kind of forensic test, and don't think a card should be rejected without some kind of evidence that it was, or probably was altered.

Looking too clean or white is not enough evidence in my opinion for a TPG to reject a card.

[trambo]

I bid on 2 t205's last night in the PWCC. I bid accordingly to what I thought they were worth and used a snipe program to do the bidding. I lost both auctions.

Auction 1 was the same card listed and sold by PWCC in February (same PSA cert on the card). Of the bids by the winning bidder in all auctions, 66% of their bids were for PWCC auctions.

Auction 2-new item. Of the bids by the winning bidder in all auctions, 41% of their bids were for PWCC auctions.

The above tells me that at least auction 1 was a shill bid but most likely both were.

I wasn't too broken up that I didn't win the cards (ok..not broken up at all) but it crystallized my opinion of the shady tactics PWCC employs. Nothing to do here really but stay away from PWCC auctions as many have said. I'm sure this sort of thing has been posted more than once but thought my first hand experience may help someone even if it's buried on this thread.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

What are you suggesting then? If a vintage card looks too clean it shouldn't be graded because it was probably bleached? I'm not sure how this could be detected without some kind of forensic test, and don't think a card should be rejected without some kind of evidence that it was, or probably was altered.

Looking too clean or white is not enough evidence in my opinion for a TPG to reject a card.

If that were the case (rejecting cards that are "too clean"), the Black Swamp find, for one, would have never been graded.

Steve

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Steve D

If that were the case (rejecting cards that are "too clean"), the Black Swamp find, for one, would have never been graded.

Steve

BSF cards were stored in paper practically from the time they were made and still did not have SNOW WHITE borders like the gehrig...or other bleached cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

BSF cards were stored in paper practically from the time they were made and still did not have SNOW WHITE borders like the gehrig...or other bleached cards.

Plus there was provenance explaining the BSF cards.

[Throttlesteer]

One other possibility is to manipulate the scans to make the borders or colors brighter. I'm not saying that bleach was or wasn't used, but it's another way to make the card look good for prospective bidders.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

One other possibility is to manipulate the scans to make the borders or colors brighter. I'm not saying that bleach was or wasn't used, but it's another way to make the card look good for prospective bidders.

Read the description which I quoted.

[Throttlesteer]

I did. It references clean, free of toning. But. It doesnt necessarily negate my comment. A quick Google of 1932 US Caramels shows several old PSA examples with similar borders. Again, I'm not claiming it wasnt bleached, but I'm not as sure about this one as some.

[deadballera]

picked up a couple of T206's last night.

It seemed that prices were lower than what they normally go for. I personally thought some of the lower prices were due to Gavelsnipe not working.