LeBron Exquisite /99 - altered & damaged

[ninjacookies]

Originally Posted by RogerGodahell

What's new? The PMG that Nat bought, the Honus Wagner were both trimmed. Those were both like $1M cards right?. Crazy to me that people would spend so much on an altered card but i guess when you have funny money it's like couch change. Can't and wont ever understand it because i don't have that kind of money. Nothing really surprises me anymore though after all of the high end cards that i've seen trimmed and patches being swapped out. That's the biggest reason i stay away from RPA's.

Fake patches and wiped autos used to be the original concern. Now it's shaved edges/ recolored corners and surfaces.


You're right...these people dumping 5-6 digits on a card just to risk it all by trimming have more money than sense. But seeing how a known altered PMG sets a new record high, it's no wonder these tycoons see it as a fool proof strategy.

It's almost like the greater fool theory. Keep on buying and dumping tainted items to the next man hoping the price hikes never end and you're not the last one holding the hot potato.

[usmc03vet]

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

I didn’t give them an unconditional stamp of approval. That’s why I’m waiting for my comments to be posted. As I recall, I clearly noted that strong provenance on a card like this would be important going forward in the hobby. Where is that provenance?

Without going round and round with you circling back to the same questions/answers & such.

I have nothing against you personally, I believe that you are a great resource for the hobby and have brought to light a lot of unsavory characters as well as called out many cards that have huge question marks.

But in this situation, you really dropped the ball. Moving forward my only hope is that you are more careful with what information you put out there.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by AbraCalabro

Auburn, I just sent you a PM. I think I know who owned this card before it sold to the trimmer, I have been hunting this one for a long time. The trim job and the two BGS 8 grades preceding the 9.5 all line up with what I know about my white whale.

My white whale has the pre-trim owner grading his RPA twice and then finally selling it before it reappeared as a BGS 9.5. It also had what was described as "chipping" in the bottom left corner. Please respond when you have a free moment.

I am interested in what comes of this.



Here are the copies with serial numbers before the card in question. This was actually the 8th copy graded, as *60 was graded three days later.

4473452 - Graded 7/20/06. BGS 9.5/10. Subs 9.5/9.5/9.5/9.0.
4481010 - Graded 7/26/06. BGS 8.0/10. Subs 10/7.5/9.0/9.5.
4505505 - Graded 8/2/06. BGS 8.5/10. Subs 10/8.0/8.5/9.5.
4524354 - Graded 8/15/06. BGS 7.5/10. Subs 9.5/7.5/7.0/8.0.
4573098 - Graded 9/7/06. BGS 8.5/10. Subs 10/8.0/9.5/9.
4656904 - Graded 9/22/06. BGS 9.5/10. Subs 10/9.5/9.5/9.5.
4770016 - Graded 10/26/06. BGS 7.5/10. Subs 10/7.0/9.5/9.5.
4796960 - Graded 11/17/06
4807366 - Index card. Graded 11/14/06.

Let's consider each individually.

*52. BGS 9.5. Nobody is cracking that.

*10. BGS 8.0 with bad corners. It is possible that this is the card. The card would have been returned to the owner from BGS, who then cracked and immediately listed for auction given the close timing. The buyer would have likely been the one who altered the card.

*05. BGS 8.5 with downgrades for corners and edges. Grade date is four days before the listed auction close date. Seems highly unlikely that the card would be cracked, then auctioned in a one or three day listing.

*54. BGS 7.5. This card is beat, including the surface. Does not seem likely to be the same card.

*98. BGS 8.5 with 8 corners and 9 surface. Also possible that this is the card. Would have had to be cracked and altered.

*04. BGS 9.5. True gem plus. Highest graded example. Certainly not the same card.

*16. BGS 7.5. Another card with bad corners. Also possible that this is the card. Would have had to be cracked and altered.

In my opinion, you can reasonably exclude four of the seven graded before the card in question. That leaves us three.

4481010 - Graded 7/26/06. BGS 8.0/10. Subs 10/7.5/9.0/9.5.
4573098 - Graded 9/7/06. BGS 8.5/10. Subs 10/8.0/9.5/9.
4770016 - Graded 10/26/06. BGS 7.5/10. Subs 10/7.0/9.5/9.5.

*10 was graded before the auction, so we know it changed hands after that (unless someone wants to suggest that it was shilled by the owner and never actually sold). To fit Abra's story of the card being graded by the original owner twice before being sold, the card in question would have had to be graded under the *98 and *16 serial numbers before the owner sold it to the trimmer. There is a major difference between 8.0 and 7.0 corners, and the card had an interval decrease in grade. That does not jive to me as being the same card, unless it was damaged in the interval, then cleaned up.

There's also only one copy graded a BGS 8 before this copy was put in the 9.5 slab. If a card does not meet the minimum, a grade is not assigned by BGS. So unless there is knowledge of a RCR 8.0 (were they even doing RCR in 2006), then there weren't two grades of 8.0 assigned by BGS prior to this card being slabbed. Not sure if you misspoke there?

Just some more food for thought here.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

Overlays.

Why didn't you post them in the original outing?

[3124508 on COMC]

I'm now done posting in this thread following a threat I have been sent due to outing this card. Have a good night everyone.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

I'm now done posting in this thread following a threat I have been sent due to outing this card. Have a good night everyone.

oh my.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

I'm now done posting in this thread following a threat I have been sent due to outing this card. Have a good night everyone.

It's unfortunate that happened if it was a physical threat, and unfortunate you won't answer the questions I have asked of you.

[buybuymj]

OK, I'm here.

I already tried to spend a lot of my time and find where I got this pic from but couldn't figure it out unfortunately since it was 14 years ago. It could've been from live eBay listing, or from completed listings at the time, or from someone directly. I didn't save every email around 2006, instead tried to delete as much as possible especially which contained pictures, as email companies didn't provide a bunch of gigabytes like today but some megabytes. Yes, it's that long time ago.

Still my pic is the earliest in existence as I know. Then let's see this carefully.







First of all, I'm glad there's a lot of space around the card in this scan to say the least, and I'm 100% confident to say that the card is not in penny sleeve. If we collect these cards, then let's think about carefully, we'd know there's no that huge penny sleeve exists which doesn't even show in that much space. Indeed, corners could look like that since it's a very thick card and if it was in a penny sleeve which is very tight, yes, when penny sleeve is very tight. Everyone knows what I'm saying if you ever tried to put a thick card in a penny sleeve. To show like that, penny sleeve should pressure corners heavily and cause damages, thus people normally wouldn't do that.

Secondly, it was a HUGE card, that's when Kobe's 2003-04 Ultimate Logoman AU 1/1 was worth under $5k, and Kobe's PMG Green 008/100 jersey number was worth a half of $5k. To Khal, it was not the one which sold for the highest at the time at all.








Even a patch like this sold for over $8k at the time.





Although that's the card which got a new clothes like this afterward.








Of course I never seen a person who owns LBJ Exquisite /99 and tried to put it in a penny sleeve and then put it in a toploader. You can see even a seller who sold that white patch above still put it in a thick holder, not toploader. It was still a HUGE card at the time. There's no penny sleeve in the scan, and I'm saying there's no one who would've put it in a penny sleeve either.

Then don't ever underestimate what could happen in that era, it was nothing better than now. Some people might think this hobby really sucks now because of so many trimmers, but like I said before if anyone remembers, it was already there.







So it's 14 years ago but we could glance a bit what the hobby was like.


Then let's take a look at this photo again carefully.








Look at the shadow around the right edge since the card is pretty thick, it's so obvious where it ends, where the edge ends. If you ever tried to scan multiple times with thick cards, I believe you know what I'm saying. I'm also skeptical on the right edge with chipping.

Then few people might wonder, are those grading companies really that silly and couldn't catch it? Unfortunately they are sometimes, and we could understand it in some way, if I didn't have this pic I wouldn't and couldn't say nothing either. We have so many proofs that grading companies made mistakes and sometimes they made HUGE mistakes, I believe 312 or anyone who has been following him know that as well as I know.

I won't name anyone but I already had talked with a high end collector from BO who also has been trying to save as much database of LBJ Exquisite like me, when this 25/99 BGS 9.5 popped up on eBay last December.








I also talked with a person who has owned as many LBJ Exquisite as anybody in the world, and he said like he kind of remembers it and when he saw it way back he was thinking it was damaged.

I also talked with a person from this thread and he provided an evidence that in November 2006, there was a thread in Hobbykings that someone got 9.5 for his LBJ Exquisite /99 and original owner was saying he tried to grade it two times before and returned as 8, so of course that's very possible.

While I tried to find more info about this 25/99, instead I just found this from my old email.











Can you see the difference? Would you say it's because of angle or scan? To me it's so obvious and I can say more but if you don't want to accept what I believe, so be it. At the end of the day I'm not here to force anyone to believe what I believe. This takes a lot of my time and I'm neither trying to sell it nor buying it, that's why I didn't try to out this here and possibly argue about it to be honest.

Then I can see how much time 312 spends on his things. Did he get paid a bunch to take a look at that before the purchase? I guess he just spent his time and tried to help good people. Unless he got paid a lot because of what he did, you can take anyone's opinion with a grain of salt and at the end of the day, it should be you who judge it.

I know it's pretty difficult for him, or anyone, to change his opinion completely, he doesn't necessarily need to say he made a mistake because his changed opinion already says enough. Actually I got impressed by his action because if many people were in his position, they would want to go easy path instead of spending his additional time and showing he made a mistake, expecting some potential blames which I'm not sure how much he deserves.

Can we even call it's really that huge mistake? If he had this pic or info before the purchase and forgot about it, then that's a mistake. He didn't have this though, how in the world could he foresee what he sees now. He's just trying to be as transparent as he could be, and that's a rarely seen these days.

Did anyone else know about 11/23 until today? You can argue with me as long as you want if you really want it, but if I can choose, I'd rather let you believe what you want to believe and take my time for something else. This one reply already is taking two hours from me right now, in the Monday morning here.

Let's look at it this way. He spent his time and did his best for someone else, to help someone else. There was no any other intention from him but good one, and he's not a newbie on these things at all. Did he do a bad thing? Or tried to do a good thing?

Is there any profit for me doing this with spending more than two hours? Now I'm doing this for who? I only need few seconds to judge it for myself. 312's thing is good for the hobby. One opinion before new info came out to him shouldn't judge his professionalism and intention I think. We all know who're real ones to be blamed.

[cking]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

How many times have you regurgitated the same material? Honest question. You posted the Xander. Now the Lauri. When is the Blake Bortles 9.5 centering coming?

Ask and you shall recieve.

9.5 centering.LOL.

[ninjacookies]

>when TPG trimming mafias become the new age Gambinos

[bmf]

Originally Posted by Deadshot

Joe,

I believe there is another side to consider in this as well. At one point you sought me out on Instagram to ask my advice on an Anthony Davis RPA. I gave my opinion and made sure to emphasize it was just that - not trying to bash the card in any fashion. Just one hobby enthusiast trying to help another.

You thanked me and noted that you had been referred to me because I was the #1 source (you even bolded the #1). I want to interject here that I never referred to myself as that nor do I think of myself in that way, I'm just including that to show that you do indeed value opinions outside of the professionals.

Afterward you shared with the potential trader what I said and he messaged me about it and was pretty upset.

All of that is to say 2 things:

1) I feel like you're downplaying the role of the "non-professionals" here but have had no trouble seeking them out in the past for your own potential purchases/trades.

2) From then on, I haven't had much interest in helping people who message me privately about a card. I went about it in the most respectful way possible and ended up getting heat from the potential trader who wasn't even in on the conversation.

I enjoyed our 2 conversations at the time and I only add this because I think it's relevant to this situation as well. I don't speak for 312 and this is not an attempt to defend him either.

yikes. not cool.

[GeechQuest]

Originally Posted by buybuymj

OK

Thanks for taking the time to post that. I know it took you some time.

[KhalDrogo]

buybuymj, do you not have the auction from August 2006 saved? You have two sales that surround it. That auction description would settle the issue. And again, I am not saying the card is not trimmed, or that it's not possible it is trimmed. I am only saying the images and techniques shown raise doubt in my mind that it is trimmed.

Also, can anyone confirm when BGS started grading these? I don't believe 4473452 was actually the first copy as I can see sales of BGS 9.5s that pre-date that. Did BGS used to assign a new serial number on a reslab?

[cking]

I think the Lebron is trimmed

[usmc03vet]

Originally Posted by bmf

yikes. not cool.

I agree, in hindsight...however there really was more to story, the seller didn't know of a database being kept and had asked about it, so I pointed to my resource to educate him. I honestly didn't see it as a bad thing, he wasn't upset just wanted to know more about his card and why it was suspect. Now that I have read this from Deadshot I feel horrible that he received any backlash and I will reach out to him and clear things up. Publicly, I #@#@#@#@ed up and I'm sorry Deadshot. Your a Gem buddy!

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by cking

I think the Lebron is trimmed

you dont say?

[ichirorox]

I didn’t even realize the right edge for 25 could be questionable until bbmj just pointed it out. Was mainly focusing on the bottom edge. Dang

[buybuymj]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

buybuymj, do you not have the auction from August 2006 saved? You have two sales that surround it. That auction description would settle the issue. And again, I am not saying the card is not trimmed, or that it's not possible it is trimmed. I am only saying the images and techniques shown raise doubt in my mind that it is trimmed.

Unfortunately I don't otherwise I easily found it and shared it. Since there's no eBay's watermark on the bottom right in the pic I'm really not sure whether it was listed on eBay for sale at the time or not. Also I don't save every image from eBay, like listings with BIN that doesn't sell, when it sells and then when I check bid history and it's not suspicious, I've been trying to save those sales only.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by buybuymj

Unfortunately I don't otherwise I easily found it and shared it. Since there's no eBay's watermark on the bottom right in the pic I'm really not sure whether it was listed on eBay for sale at the time or not. Also I don't save every image from eBay, like listings with BIN that doesn't sell, when it sells and then when I check bid history and it's not suspicious, I've been trying to save those sales only.

PWCC's archive isn't perfect (as evidence by the sales you have documented, but don't show up in the archive), but this is pretty good evidence that it sold.

[buybuymj]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

PWCC's archive isn't perfect (as evidence by the sales you have documented, but don't show up in the archive), but this is pretty good evidence that it sold.

Yes you said earlier it sold raw on eBay on August 6, 2006 for $11.2k and there's eBay's watermark in the pic you provided as well, so I'm sure it had been listed on eBay at the time. I don't think I missed the sale, maybe I didn't like its bid history and didn't save the sale. The card from your picture looks clean, I just don't know what happened on that card between Feb 2006 and Aug 2006.

Edit - I meant I don't know whether it was listed on eBay around Feb 2006, not Aug.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by buybuymj

Yes you said earlier it sold raw on eBay on August 6, 2006 for $11.2k and there's eBay's watermark in the pic you provided as well, so I'm sure it had been listed on eBay at the time. I don't think I missed the sale, maybe I didn't like its bid history and didn't save the sale. The card from your picture looks clean, I just don't know what happened on that card between Feb 2006 and Aug 2006.

Edit - I meant I don't know whether it was listed on eBay around Feb 2006, not Aug.

The image I posted looks good, but it’s another poor quality image. I would not use it to make judgement either way. Just that here is a picture of the card unslabbed, from an eBay auction, which ended on August 6, 2006 per PWCC’s archive.

[AbraCalabro]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

I am interested in what comes of this.



Here are the copies with serial numbers before the card in question. This was actually the 8th copy graded, as *60 was graded three days later.

4473452 - Graded 7/20/06. BGS 9.5/10. Subs 9.5/9.5/9.5/9.0.
4481010 - Graded 7/26/06. BGS 8.0/10. Subs 10/7.5/9.0/9.5.
4505505 - Graded 8/2/06. BGS 8.5/10. Subs 10/8.0/8.5/9.5.
4524354 - Graded 8/15/06. BGS 7.5/10. Subs 9.5/7.5/7.0/8.0.
4573098 - Graded 9/7/06. BGS 8.5/10. Subs 10/8.0/9.5/9.
4656904 - Graded 9/22/06. BGS 9.5/10. Subs 10/9.5/9.5/9.5.
4770016 - Graded 10/26/06. BGS 7.5/10. Subs 10/7.0/9.5/9.5.
4796960 - Graded 11/17/06
4807366 - Index card. Graded 11/14/06.

Let's consider each individually.

*52. BGS 9.5. Nobody is cracking that.

*10. BGS 8.0 with bad corners. It is possible that this is the card. The card would have been returned to the owner from BGS, who then cracked and immediately listed for auction given the close timing. The buyer would have likely been the one who altered the card.

*05. BGS 8.5 with downgrades for corners and edges. Grade date is four days before the listed auction close date. Seems highly unlikely that the card would be cracked, then auctioned in a one or three day listing.

*54. BGS 7.5. This card is beat, including the surface. Does not seem likely to be the same card.

*98. BGS 8.5 with 8 corners and 9 surface. Also possible that this is the card. Would have had to be cracked and altered.

*04. BGS 9.5. True gem plus. Highest graded example. Certainly not the same card.

*16. BGS 7.5. Another card with bad corners. Also possible that this is the card. Would have had to be cracked and altered.

In my opinion, you can reasonably exclude four of the seven graded before the card in question. That leaves us three.

4481010 - Graded 7/26/06. BGS 8.0/10. Subs 10/7.5/9.0/9.5.
4573098 - Graded 9/7/06. BGS 8.5/10. Subs 10/8.0/9.5/9.
4770016 - Graded 10/26/06. BGS 7.5/10. Subs 10/7.0/9.5/9.5.

*10 was graded before the auction, so we know it changed hands after that (unless someone wants to suggest that it was shilled by the owner and never actually sold). To fit Abra's story of the card being graded by the original owner twice before being sold, the card in question would have had to be graded under the *98 and *16 serial numbers before the owner sold it to the trimmer. There is a major difference between 8.0 and 7.0 corners, and the card had an interval decrease in grade. That does not jive to me as being the same card, unless it was damaged in the interval, then cleaned up.

There's also only one copy graded a BGS 8 before this copy was put in the 9.5 slab. If a card does not meet the minimum, a grade is not assigned by BGS. So unless there is knowledge of a RCR 8.0 (were they even doing RCR in 2006), then there weren't two grades of 8.0 assigned by BGS prior to this card being slabbed. Not sure if you misspoke there?

Just some more food for thought here.

Real quick, as far as I can find, 4473452 was the first LeBron RPA to get the BGS 9.5 grade and I can confirm beyond any doubt that it was cracked out and placed in a new BGS slab with the same grade. I also have a picture of the card in raw form and it shows no damage, nor evidence of trimming. My white whale is not this card.

The other card is 53/99, which is BGS serial number 4656904, this card was listed as a BGS 9.5 and the auction completed. It sold for 21,100. This can be found on Worthpoint, but I also have an image, which another member provided me with of the actual eBay listing. I have screen shots of both Worthpoint and eBay and can post with permission from respective members. My white whale is not this card.

I also have evidence that an altered BGS 9.5 was listed on eBay in November of 2006 and the auction did not complete. The mention of the BGS 8 may also include the 8.5 range, as the owner at the time only mentioned 8 and grading it twice, I only see one standalone 8 and the rest are 8.5 in the window of relevant time/dates. So, those two subs would be accounted for.

The time this evidence was discussed/presented was while the listing for the altered BGS 9.5 was still up, there was notice and further elaboration on the card's faults. One being a chipped left corner and the other was evidence of trimming of the card's bottom edge. The evidence posted in this thread supports all that.

Unfortunately, images/links from this discussion are long dead, but the actual text when everything was live is still preserved and what the posters talk about paints a clear picture.

I have eliminated 4473452 and 4656904, that leaves only one card it could be:

4807366 - 25 of 99

Based on all this, I think that 25 of 99 being unaltered is wishful thinking. There is one last thing I need to check, but I am not sure it will yield results. Right now there is solid evidence that 25 is altered, but no evidence that the other BGS 9.5 cards are, so if any one can provide me with such evidence to make a case for it being one of the other two 2006 BGS 9.5 cards, I'd love to see it.

edit: stand by for images

[KhalDrogo]

Abra, I am curious as to your opinion of these as the sales all date prior to the date of the first copy in BGS’s pop report. Clearly *52 was not the first BGS 9.5.

Also, there’s 74/99! A BGS 9 back in 2004. Amazing. I guess if rookies was telling the truth, someone eventually cracked it and ruined it, then altered it to restore it.

[Deadshot]

Don't know if this has been posted yet, but PWCC made a video with the card in question before they placed it in their vault

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1duiY3mE4g

[AbraCalabro]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Abra, I am curious as to your opinion of these as the sales all date prior to the date of the first copy in BGS’s pop report. Clearly *52 was not the first BGS 9.5.

Also, there’s 74/99! A BGS 9 back in 2004. Amazing. I guess if rookies was telling the truth, someone eventually cracked it and ruined it, then altered it to restore it.

Can you show me the BGS serial number of that LeBron RPA in BGS 9.5 for 2004? I'm on the actual Beckett site and the earliest BGS 9.5 that I see on there is 2006. Do you have any image, or record of it? If this was already posted in here, please link me to the post, because I missed it. (No disrespectful tone here.)