PDA

View Full Version : pwcc (part two)


Pages : [1] 2

vintagetoppsguy
10-24-2013, 01:03 PM
Last night I had someone contact me with some information about PWCC doctoring their auction scans. He said that he would provide me proof, but also asked for anonymity. I promised him such.

Take a look at the 1951 Parkhurst Hockey Milt Schmidt cards below. They are the same card, same serial number. Notice how the red print dot (to the right of his head) is missing from the first scan, but is visible in the second scan. Here’s is the card history:

PWCC first sold this card in August 2012 for $653. Here is a link:

http://www.pwccauctions.com/item.php?item_no=249611

In this auction, the red print dot is missing. The scan has been touched up to remove it.

**************************************************
PWCC sold the same card once again just recently, this time selling for $542.73. Here is the link:

http://www.pwccauctions.com/item.php?item_no=496377

Perhaps the first buyer received the card and didn’t like it feeling it was misrepresented and returned it for a refund (I can only speculate), but for whatever reason PWCC ended up with the card once again. The second buyer now has it listed in his eBay store and the red dot is clearly visible...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1951-PARKHURST-29-MILT-SCHMIDT-SGC-9-/231009187536?pt=US_Hockey_Trading_Cards&hash=item35c93876d0#ht_111wt_1121

There is, to me at least, a difference in tweaking a scan so that it is a closer representation of the actual card versus editing a scan to cover up a known defect.

Thoughts anyone?

calvindog
10-24-2013, 01:12 PM
Are we actually still debating whether PWCC doctors its scans? Unless you're a consignor of PWCC or named Brent does anyone else honestly think they don't?

vintagetoppsguy
10-24-2013, 01:33 PM
Are we actually still debating whether PWCC doctors its scans? Unless you're a consignor of PWCC or named Brent does anyone else honestly think they don't?

Again, there is a difference (at least to me) in doctoring scans to make a card more aesthetically pleasing (adding color) versus doctoring scans to hide flaws within the card. Yes, both are wrong, but I think the latter of the two is way more deceptive. Until now, I’ve only seen where he added color to make his scans appear more brighter. This shows he doctors scans to hide flaws within the card.

autograf
10-24-2013, 02:05 PM
Agree completely on removing a print dot. Contrast/Hue/etc is one thing and might be explained away in a few circumstances. If the above is true, very indicting...........

glchen
10-24-2013, 02:35 PM
Again, I'm a known consignor to PWCC, so it is what it is. However, in the above scan, could it possibly be due to the dust removal option in the scanner? I've seen examples where the dot was removed from the half letter grades in PSA flips in scans. (e.g., "7.5" would appear as "7 5").

the-illini
10-24-2013, 02:37 PM
Again, I'm a known consignor to PWCC, so it is what it is. However, in the above scan, could it possibly be due to the dust removal option in the scanner? I've seen examples where the dot was removed from the half letter grades in PSA flips in scans. (e.g., "7.5" would appear as "7 5").

If I am the seller of the card and I saw that a setting I had turned on removed a significant flaw like the one above, I scan the card again, until it shows up properly.

cyseymour
10-24-2013, 02:47 PM
As members of this board, we have two options. We can absolve auction houses of all responsibility for their scans by saying that any disappeared blemish is a result of the dust removal option, and passing off any changes in the hue/contrast, etc. as simply an attempt by the auction house to make the scan appear more realistic.

Or, we can demand accountability and ensure that the settings aren't changed, dust removal options aren't being used, and that we are receiving true scans from modern scanners which, these days, possess the ability to give an accurate scan at their default settings.

The choice is yours, folks.

glchen
10-24-2013, 03:00 PM
If I am the seller of the card and I saw that a setting I had turned on removed a significant flaw like the one above, I scan the card again, until it shows up properly.

Well, I don't know if that's entirely fair. PWCC has thousands of cards that they scan. I remember (and now it seems so long ago) when people used to say that PWCC was one of the better auction houses in the business because they always provided large scans of both of front and back of cards. When they sell complete sets or near sets, they provide scans of an extraordinary number of cards, I would say more than any other auction house in the business including those who issue auction catalogs. You can't expect them to view every single auction closely to see the scan matches perfectly. What they do is they scan the items for the consignors, and then they allow the consignors to preview the items before they go live on ebay. If the consignors find any issues, then they report it to PWCC where they can make the necessary corrections. True story, this was one of my past consignments to PWCC: Link (http://www.pwccauctions.com/item.php?item_no=434263) When I saw the scan, I told Brent from PWCC that I thought the scan looked bad, and much worse compared to the Legendary auction scan where I bought the item from: Link (http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=118921). I told him the Legendary scan was much closer to what the actual item looked like. However, Brent basically told me that scan was the best they could do for a large item like that. I mean if there were any items to be touched up or photoshopped, you would have thought that he would have at least done something there, but he didn't do anything to make it appear better. Again, I'm not saying that PWCC is completely innocent as I don't know everything that goes on at PWCC. However, I don't know if I see a smoking gun yet.

vintagetoppsguy
10-24-2013, 03:11 PM
However, in the above scan, could it possibly be due to the dust removal option in the scanner? I've seen examples where the dot was removed from the half letter grades in PSA flips in scans. (e.g., "7.5" would appear as "7 5").

I've seen exactly what you're talking about in reference to the PSA flips, but I don't think that is the case here. If he had the dust filter turned on, why would it only remove that big red print dot and not other things - e.g. any of the punctuation (dots or commas) at the bottom of the card that is even smaller and even more resembling of dust?

Peter_Spaeth
10-24-2013, 03:12 PM
How do you remove the dot and get the same purple background as the rest of the card?

Runscott
10-24-2013, 03:21 PM
As members of this board, we have two options. We can absolve auction houses of all responsibility for their scans by saying that any disappeared blemish is a result of the dust removal option, and passing off any changes in the hue/contrast, etc. as simply an attempt by the auction house to make the scan appear more realistic.

Or, we can demand accountability and ensure that the settings aren't changed, dust removal options aren't being used, and that we are receiving true scans from modern scanners which, these days, possess the ability to give an accurate scan at their default settings.

The choice is yours, folks.

Let me get this straight - are you saying that we should all agree that no one is allowed go change scanner settings? Please clarify, because I am not sure what your position is.

thecatspajamas
10-24-2013, 03:28 PM
Or, we can demand accountability and ensure that the settings aren't changed, dust removal options aren't being used, and that we are receiving true scans from modern scanners which, these days, possess the ability to give an accurate scan at their default settings.

How about just shortening your statement to: "we can demand accountability and ensure that...we are receiving...an accurate scan."

Insisting that a seller use a "modern scanner" and "default settings" does not ensure an accurate scan. Hold the seller accountable for the accuracy of the image posted, not the means they employed to produce it.

cyseymour
10-24-2013, 03:42 PM
How about just shortening your statement to: "we can demand accountability and ensure that...we are receiving...an accurate scan."

Insisting that a seller use a "modern scanner" and "default settings" does not ensure an accurate scan. Hold the seller accountable for the accuracy of the image posted, not the means they employed to produce it.

I understand your point, but I am referring to auction houses that do hundreds of thousands of dollars of business each year. They can afford a high-quality CCD scanner. I have not seen examples where those scanners do not take accurate scans.

Yes, ultimately, what matters is that we receive an accurate scan. But my concern is that what can be deemed "accurate" is so subjective, that it allows auction houses to use attempts at "accuracy" as an excuse for adjusting their scans in fraudulent ways that are wholly inaccurate and enhance the image of the card.

Maybe some can argue that even the newest CCD scanners are not 100% accurate. But I would rather live in a world where all the auction houses are posting CCD scans on default setting than a world where all the auction houses are adjusting their scans for the sake of "accuracy", because I suspise that their idea of "accuracy" basically means brightening the hues and strengthening the contrast in order to enhance the card's image for prospective bidders (juicing the scan) instead of a genuine attempt at accuracy.

Runscott
10-24-2013, 03:42 PM
Well-said, Lance.

We could also have scanner police who install 'settings locks' on all scanners, and who can conduct unannounced visits to check for compliance;however, if someone is a cheat, there are other ways to do so besides scans.

cyseymour
10-24-2013, 03:45 PM
Well-said, Lance.

We could also have scanner police who install 'settings locks' on all scanners, and who can conduct unannounced visits to check for compliance;however, if someone is a cheat, there are other ways to do so besides scans.

Or they could just put it in their terms so that they are legally obligated use the default settings, as I suggested 200 posts ago on the other thread.

Runscott
10-24-2013, 03:48 PM
Yes, ultimately, what matters is that we receive an accurate scan.

Perfectly stated

But I would rather live in a world where all the auction houses are posting CCD scans on default setting than a world where all the auction houses are adjusting their scans for the sake of "accuracy", because I suspise that...

'Suspise' = to suspect and despise. I love this new word.

Runscott
10-24-2013, 03:52 PM
Or they could just put it in their terms so that they are legally obligated use the default settings, as I suggested 200 posts ago on the other thread.

I know. I heard you. And when you say it again, I will hear you again.

cyseymour
10-24-2013, 03:55 PM
I know. I heard you. And when you say it again, I will hear you again.

I had assumed you were being sarcastic in post #14. If you weren't, I apologize.

Runscott
10-24-2013, 04:20 PM
I had assumed you were being sarcastic in post #14. If you weren't, I apologize.

It was jestful sarcasm. Still, there isn't any need to apologize - it's good to know that you realize that you have been repeating yourself, and I completely understand the approach: if you repeat yourself enough times, the people who you are talking with will eventually realize how obvious it is that you have been correct all along, and they will change their minds.

But I think you should have more confidence in your own ability to state your point clearly. I personally think you did a wonderful job of explaining your thoughts. It allowed me to very easily decide that I disagree with you. It doesn't mean that either one of us is right, only that we disagree.

npa589
10-24-2013, 04:27 PM
How do you remove the dot and get the same purple background as the rest of the card?

Theoretically speaking, if one were so inclined, and it was intentional rather than "unintentional" due to some obscure scanner setting, then one could open it in paint as a very large scan, select the color immediately around it with any "paint drop" tool from MSPaint, or nearly any image editor, and then use a small paintbrush tool to paint over the red dot.

cyseymour
10-24-2013, 04:38 PM
It was jestful sarcasm. Still, there isn't any need to apologize - it's good to know that you realize that you have been repeating yourself, and I completely understand the approach: if you repeat yourself enough times, the people who you are talking with will eventually realize how obvious it is that you have been correct all along, and they will change their minds.

But I think you should have more confidence in your own ability to state your point clearly. I personally think you did a wonderful job of explaining your thoughts. It allowed me to very easily decide that I disagree with you. It doesn't mean that either one of us is right, only that we disagree.

I get no enjoyment out of repeating myself over and over again, but Scott, if you continue to be sarcastic, the trouble is, not everyone has read all those other posts. Not everyone retains information as well as you, either.

I am not a mind-reader. I have no idea what you know or don't know. If you write something sarcastic instead of constructively stating your opinion, I may not know whether you've read my initial statement about it or not.

And by the way, if you don't like my ideas about how to hold the auction houses accountable, then fine. But what exactly do you plan to do about it? I haven't heard any of your ideas, just sarcastic remarks and statements that I am wrong and that you disagree.

You have said yourself that there is fraud - demanding greater disclosure is often how people deal with fraud from any company, not just auction houses. If you don't like that idea, then what exactly is your solution?

HRBAKER
10-24-2013, 04:44 PM
The best way to hold them accountable if you believe there are issues is to not do business with them. Short of that we can continue to thrash about on a message board.

cyseymour
10-24-2013, 04:47 PM
The best way to hold them accountable if you believe there are issues is to not do business with them. Short of that we can continue to thrash about on a message board.

The trouble is that the boycott approach doesn't seem to work. Because if the AH's have cards that collectors want, they bid anyways, because if the item is rare it might be their only opportunity to get that item for a long time, if ever.

steve B
10-24-2013, 04:48 PM
Nate's got it right, it might even be easier.

Those two scans aren't looking good.

But before we get out the pitchforks I'd like to be certain of one thing.
That the dot is actually on the card, and not "stuff" on the scanner glass or slab.

I regularly have to clean my scanner. I usually find "stuff" on there after I do a scan and see something I didn't think was on the card. I have a 3 year old, one card developed a nice yellow smiley face - Fortunately it was only drawn on the scanner glass. The gooey cheerio on the other hand became a feature of a cheap 80's common, which was added to the scanner by her. At least she's showing some interest. :)

So it's not impossible for stuff to get on the scanner. (I'm seeing the red dot as a result of scanning during lunch, perhaps a hot dog with ketchup?)
Or the scan has been played with. Removing something like that is beyond what I'd consider ok.

Any chance the person with the info was the first buyer? That would clear it right up. Or if someone knows the current owner or consigner.

Runscott
10-24-2013, 04:55 PM
I get no enjoyment out of repeating myself over and over again, but Scott, if you continue to be sarcastic, the trouble is, not everyone has read all those other posts. Not everyone retains information as well as you, either.

I am not a mind-reader. I have no idea what you know or don't know. If you write something sarcastic instead of constructively stating your opinion, I may not know whether you've read my initial statement about it or not.

And by the way, if you don't like my ideas about how to hold the auction houses accountable, then fine. But what exactly do you plan to do about it? I haven't heard any of your ideas, just sarcastic remarks and statements that I am wrong and that you disagree.

You have said yourself that there is fraud - demanding greater disclosure is often how people deal with fraud from any company, not just auction houses. If you don't like that idea, then what exactly is your solution?

Jamie, now you are just being a jerk. If you think that all of my remarks have been sarcastic, then you haven't been reading my posts. The fact that at this point in the discussion you still "have no idea what [I] know or don't know" indicates that I have been wasting my time responding to you. We'll talk again, I'm sure, but not on this subject.

thecatspajamas
10-24-2013, 04:56 PM
Scott is the master of sarcasm, wielding what is usually the sledgehammer of comedic approaches like a fine razor so that the victim doesn't even realize he's cut. Love it :D

cyseymour
10-24-2013, 04:59 PM
Jamie, now you are just being a jerk. If you think that all of my remarks have been sarcastic, then you haven't been reading my posts. The fact that at this point in the discussion you still "have no idea what [I] know or don't know" indicates that I have been wasting my time responding to you. We'll talk again, I'm sure, but not on this subject.

Scott, you are endlessly misrepresenting my views. That's why I need to continuously repeat myself. Never did I say that "all your remarks have been sarcastic".

And I also noticed you evaded my question on how to find a solution to the fraud.

To just say "you are wrong" and write sarcastic remarks without providing constructive criticism and constructive solutions is cowardly behavior.

cyseymour
10-24-2013, 05:01 PM
Scott is the master of sarcasm, wielding what is usually the sledgehammer of comedic approaches like a fine razor so that the victim doesn't even realize he's cut. Love it :D

Except that I did realize it.

HRBAKER
10-24-2013, 05:04 PM
The trouble is that the boycott approach doesn't seem to work. Because if the AH's have cards that collectors want, they bid anyways, because if the item is rare it might be their only opportunity to get that item for a long time, if ever.

The "Eyes Wide Shut" approach.

Peter_Spaeth
10-24-2013, 05:10 PM
The trouble is that the boycott approach doesn't seem to work. Because if the AH's have cards that collectors want, they bid anyways, because if the item is rare it might be their only opportunity to get that item for a long time, if ever.

The fraudsters are counting on people's collective indifference, and they are right.

HRBAKER
10-24-2013, 05:14 PM
Nobody is forcing anyone to bid anywhere. If you think there is something amiss and you continue to bid then I am not sure what you ever expect to change. I guess some folks "need" cards worse than others and we all have different levels of tolerance.

cyseymour
10-24-2013, 05:20 PM
Nobody is forcing anyone to bid anywhere. If you think there is something amiss and you continue to bid then I am not sure what you ever expect to change. I guess some folks "need" cards worse than others and we all have different levels of tolerance.

Right, but if an opening bid is 1/4 of a card's value, then someone is going to put a bid in, no matter what. The boycott approach has been tried and hasn't worked, so I think we are trying to come up with a Plan B.

CMIZ5290
10-24-2013, 05:22 PM
Guys, we all agree that there is a problem, but holy crap! This is overkill, what in the hell constructive is going to come of this? You can bet your ass Ebay is not going to do a damn thing....

HRBAKER
10-24-2013, 05:23 PM
Right, but if an opening bid is 1/4 of a card's value, then someone is going to put a bid in, no matter what. The boycott approach has been tried and hasn't worked, so I think we are trying to come up with a Plan B.

Keep doin' what you do and you'll keep gettin' what you get.
I hope your Plan B works out.

cyseymour
10-24-2013, 05:27 PM
Keep doin' what you do and you'll keep gettin' what you get.
I hope your Plan B works out.

Thanks.

thecatspajamas
10-24-2013, 05:28 PM
Jamie, what you fail to grasp is that forcing all sellers to use a specific device with specific settings to capture a card image does nothing to address the real problem: Crooks Will Be Crooks.

Even if you could somehow implement the requirement you've repeated over and over, what's to stop them from altering the image after the scan? Or from stating certain scanning parameters but not actually following them? You're imagining the scanner and its settings as the only means a dishonest seller has to alter their card images, and assuming that if you can control that one aspect, you can bring them back in line, when the reality is that manipulating the scan settings is about the least subtle way one could alter card images.

You can make all the rules you want, but if a seller has determined that deception is an acceptable selling tool, mandating scanners/scan settings won't rectify that.

Texxxx
10-24-2013, 05:38 PM
Nate's got it right, it might even be easier.

Those two scans aren't looking good.

But before we get out the pitchforks I'd like to be certain of one thing.
That the dot is actually on the card, and not "stuff" on the scanner glass or slab.

I regularly have to clean my scanner. I usually find "stuff" on there after I do a scan and see something I didn't think was on the card. I have a 3 year old, one card developed a nice yellow smiley face - Fortunately it was only drawn on the scanner glass. The gooey cheerio on the other hand became a feature of a cheap 80's common, which was added to the scanner by her. At least she's showing some interest. :)

So it's not impossible for stuff to get on the scanner. (I'm seeing the red dot as a result of scanning during lunch, perhaps a hot dog with ketchup?)
Or the scan has been played with. Removing something like that is beyond what I'd consider ok.

Any chance the person with the info was the first buyer? That would clear it right up. Or if someone knows the current owner or consigner.


It's on the card. Here is where it sold in 2011.
http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7032&lotIdNo=240002

cyseymour
10-24-2013, 05:40 PM
Jamie, what you fail to grasp is that forcing all sellers to use a specific device with specific settings to capture a card image does nothing to address the real problem: Crooks Will Be Crooks.

"Crooks will be crooks" - That, my friend, is a philosophy of complacency, and it solves nothing. No one ever changed the world by being complacent.


Even if you could somehow implement the requirement you've repeated over and over, what's to stop them from altering the image after the scan?

They could do that, but then it would be indefensible in a court of law because the scan could be retaken using the same technology they outlined in their terms. Since the results would differ, it would be proof that they committed the fraud.

CMIZ5290
10-24-2013, 05:56 PM
Nobody is forcing anyone to bid anywhere. If you think there is something amiss and you continue to bid then I am not sure what you ever expect to change. I guess some folks "need" cards worse than others and we all have different levels of tolerance.

+1

CMIZ5290
10-24-2013, 05:58 PM
Has anyone even contacted Ebay about these accusations?

thecatspajamas
10-24-2013, 07:03 PM
They could do that, but then it would be indefensible in a court of law because the scan could be retaken using the same technology they outlined in their terms. Since the results would differ, it would be proof that they committed the fraud.

What would be even better in court would be to compare the scan to the actual card and show how it was misrepresented. This has the added benefit of not hampering every seller with what you incorrectly assume is a universal imaging solution.

Right, but if an opening bid is 1/4 of a card's value, then someone is going to put a bid in, no matter what. The boycott approach has been tried and hasn't worked, so I think we are trying to come up with a Plan B.

I like how you tell Jeff his solution of not doing business with crooked sellers is not workable, but requiring all sellers to use the same scanner on the same settings is. :rolleyes:

"Crooks will be crooks" - That, my friend, is a philosophy of complacency, and it solves nothing. No one ever changed the world by being complacent.

Who said anything about being complacent? I actually really like Jeff's idea of not doing business with known crooks. I am also in the habit of holding newfound crooks accountable when what they deliver doesn't match up to what was shown/described. I don't need to know what their scanner/settings are for that.

cyseymour
10-24-2013, 07:40 PM
What would be even better in court would be to compare the scan to the actual card and show how it was misrepresented.

It wouldn't be better because it wouldn't prove whether the problem was the performance of the scanner itself or fraud committed by the auctioneer.

I like how you tell Jeff his solution of not doing business with crooked sellers is not workable, but requiring all sellers to use the same scanner on the same settings is. :rolleyes:

I never said that they all ought to use the same scanner, just that they ought to own a scanner with modern technology and keep the settings on default.

vintagetoppsguy
10-24-2013, 07:51 PM
I never said that they all ought to use the same scanner, just that they ought to own a scanner with modern technology and keep the settings on default.

Did you know that what you are referring to as modern technology (CCD) technology actually predates CIS technology? CIS technology is fairly recent. CCD technology first came out in 1969 (I believe).

Eric72
10-24-2013, 07:56 PM
Oy, vey. Gentlemen, part one was painful enough to read.

Should the focus be whether or not default scanner settings are the way to go - or - whether or not an accurate scan is appropriate?

As it pertains to the OP (in this thread) questioning a disappearing dot on the Mint 9 hockey card, I strongly feel as though some sort of shenanigans were in order there. It seems to be clear fraud to me. I may be mistaken.

Best Regards,

Eric

cyseymour
10-24-2013, 08:00 PM
Did you know that what you are referring to as modern technology (CCD) technology actually predates CIS technology? CIS technology is fairly recent. CCD technology first came out in 1969 (I believe).

That is an interesting piece of trivia, but maybe at that time CCD wasn't affordable. Nowadays, thanks to advances in CCD technology, clearly it is. So it is still modern technology. But even if it weren't, the larger point is that it is superior to the CIS for graded cards and ought to be used by the auction houses for their scans.

Frankly, I would bet that almost all auction houses already do use it at this point.

thecatspajamas
10-24-2013, 08:07 PM
I never said that they all ought to use the same scanner, just that they ought to own a scanner with modern technology and keep the settings on default.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. You keep talking about "modern" scanners and assuming they all come with the same "default" settings, when that is not the case. If you're not going to require everyone to use the same model of scanner, your premise is flawed from the start. In your court scenario, the first thing they would ask is, "Was the same scanner used to produce both the auction house scan and the scan you made at home?" It's ridiculous.

Seriously, how many different scanners have you used?

cyseymour
10-24-2013, 08:07 PM
Oy, vey. Gentlemen, part one was painful enough to read.

Should the focus be whether or not default scanner settings are the way to go - or - whether or not an accurate scan is appropriate?

Eric

Eric, I agree, it has been painful. To answer your question, most people here, including vintagetoppsguy, believe that the CCD scanners are good enough under their default settings to get an accurate scan. So it doesn't have to be an "or" question.

Basically, it is just a bunch of people arguing about nothing. Or just writing snarky comments.

cyseymour
10-24-2013, 08:12 PM
In your court scenario, the first thing they would ask is, "Was the same scanner used to produce both the auction house scan and the scan you made at home?" It's ridiculous.



Obviously, the prosecution would use the same scanner!

steve B
10-24-2013, 09:20 PM
It's on the card. Here is where it sold in 2011.
http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=7032&lotIdNo=240002

Thanks, that does make it clear the scan was altered.

Steve B

T206Collector
10-24-2013, 09:33 PM
Basically, it is just a bunch of people arguing about nothing.

+1

...and on two concurrent threads no less.

HRBAKER
10-24-2013, 09:35 PM
It's not that they're arguing about nothing, it's that nothing will come from it.

calvindog
10-24-2013, 10:51 PM
Mandating new auction-wide scanner rules is laughable. As is special, scary stationary for hobby watchdog groups run by the fraudsters themselves.

Lawsuits, grand jury subpoenas and indictments are the only things which will stop the fraud -- or at least slow it down.

cyseymour
10-24-2013, 11:20 PM
Mandating new auction-wide scanner rules is laughable. As is special, scary stationary for hobby watchdog groups run by the fraudsters themselves.

Lawsuits, grand jury subpoenas and indictments are the only things which will stop the fraud -- or at least slow it down.

No one is talking about mandating auction-wide scanner rules. No one here even has the authority to do that. But pressuring auction houses to disclose their scanning policies, not change their settings, and put it in their terms is doable.

Pressuring companies to disclose policies is not a new tactic. Companies are often pressured to disclose labor practices, political donations, carbon-footprint information, among other things.

Will increased disclosure stop fraud? No, but it could slow it down - just like lawsuits, grand jury subpoenas and indictments. And pressuring for disclosure and prosecution don't have to be mutually exclusive - they can be done in conjunction.

Just remember: you can prosecute - and lose. It is no slam dunk, either.

calvindog
10-25-2013, 05:59 AM
Just remember: you can prosecute - and lose. It is no slam dunk, either.

Ask anyone who's ever been indicted how much they enjoyed the experience, win or lose.

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 06:34 AM
Ask anyone who's ever been indicted how much they enjoyed the experience, win or lose.

Good luck getting them to prosecute, though. They would most likely view PWCC as small-time. The worst you have against them right now is a scan of a $500 hockey card. That's a far cry from a trimmed PSA 8 t206 Wagner.

Thousands of examples of ebay fraud have been posted on this message board, and how many of them have been prosecuted by the feds? Very few, if any. Can't see how PWCC would be any different.

My guess is that if the feds were going to prosecute anyone about scan enhancing, it would be one of the larger auction houses selling big-ticket items, not a small-time ebay outfit.

calvindog
10-25-2013, 06:42 AM
I would say that your knowledge of what went into the determination to indict Mastro -- which is what you're referring to -- is wrong. I would also say that the idea that the Feds are the only prosecutorial body available to handle fraud such as we've seen here is also incorrect.

vintagetoppsguy
10-25-2013, 06:56 AM
But pressuring auction houses to disclose their scanning policies, not change their settings, and put it in their terms is doable.

Why do you keep going back to the same argument about AHs not changing their scanner settings? If an auction house can provide a scan that is an exact representation of a card with a $20 scanner they have to tweak a bit (change the scanner settings), why do you care? What does it matter as long as it's an exact represenation?

I don’t care if they have their 3 year old color me a picture of the card with Crayons, as long it is a close representation of the card. Lance said it best earlier in this thread, “Hold the seller accountable for the accuracy of the image posted, not the means they employed to produce it."

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 06:59 AM
I would say that your knowledge of what went into the determination to indict Mastro -- which is what you're referring to -- is wrong. I would also say that the idea that the Feds are the only prosecutorial body available to handle fraud such as we've seen here is also incorrect.

As far as I can tell, no prosecutorial body has been overly enthusiastic about combating ebay fraud. That might be because ebay is a $50billion business with shareholders who include hedge funds and billionaires, and those people don't want to see lawsuits regarding ebay in the news since it is bad P.R. for ebay. If the worst example you have is a $500 hockey card, then the $500 hockey card is 1/100,000,000th of the assets of ebay. To say that you are financially over-matched is to be putting it mildly.

CMIZ5290
10-25-2013, 07:01 AM
I ask again, has anyone notified Ebay? If so, what is there stance? As I said before, probably a complete waste of time....

calvindog
10-25-2013, 07:04 AM
As far as I can tell, no prosecutorial body has been overly enthusiastic about combating ebay fraud. That might be because ebay is a $50billion business with shareholders who include hedge funds and billionaires, and those people don't want to see lawsuits regarding ebay in the news since it is bad P.R. for ebay. If the worst example you have is a $500 hockey card, then the $500 hockey card is 1/100,000,000th of the assets of ebay. To say that you are financially over-matched is to be putting it mildly.

LOL why are you discussing something of which you have no idea? Do you think prosecutors simply take as evidence just what people on Net 54 dig up? Or do they send out subpoenas and conduct an investigation? Do you think that a red dot on a single card is the iceberg itself or just the tip?

vintagetoppsguy
10-25-2013, 07:06 AM
I ask again, has anyone notified Ebay? If so, what is there stance? As I said before, probably a complete waste of time....

My guess is that eBay doesn't care. They would probably tell us that is what Buyer Protection is for - if a card in hand doesn't match the scan in the listing, then send it back.

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 07:24 AM
Why do you keep going back to the same argument about AHs not changing their scanner settings? If an auction house can provide a scan that is an exact representation of a card with a $20 scanner they have to tweak a bit (change the scanner settings), why do you care? What does it matter as long as it's an exact represenation?

I don’t care if they have their 3 year old color me a picture of the card with Crayons, as long it is a close representation of the card. Lance said it best earlier in this thread, “Hold the seller accountable for the accuracy of the image posted, not the means they employed to produce it."

It is a moot point because the auction houses already own and use CCD scanners.

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 07:29 AM
LOL why are you discussing something of which you have no idea? Do you think prosecutors simply take as evidence just what people on Net 54 dig up? Or do they send out subpoenas and conduct an investigation? Do you think that a red dot on a single card is the iceberg itself or just the tip?

Well, you're the legal genius. If not the feds, then what prosecutorial body is going to investigate this?

calvindog
10-25-2013, 07:43 AM
Well, you're the legal genius. If not the feds, then what prosecutorial body is going to investigate this?

Sorry, I'm off to federal court to do a hobby-related sentencing for fraud. After you spend another night in a Holiday Inn Express I'm sure the answer will come to you. Again.

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 07:50 AM
Sorry, I'm off to federal court to do a hobby-related sentencing for fraud. After you spend another night in a Holiday Inn Express I'm sure the answer will come to you. Again.

That sounds a lot like you don't know.

calvindog
10-25-2013, 08:01 AM
That sounds a lot like you don't know.

Yeah, it would be tough for a criminal lawyer who practices in federal and state courts all over the country to be able to list the law enforcement offices which prosecute fraud. Why don't you stick to what you know -- whatever it is you've been repeating for the past 9000 posts on this and the other PWCC thread?

Leon
10-25-2013, 08:08 AM
Well, you're the legal genius. If not the feds, then what prosecutorial body is going to investigate this?

I will help you out with a few....Postal Inspectors, local law enforcement., Secret Service, Dept. of Homeland Security.....and as you mentioned (I think) the FBI.....

And if you find fraud, spread wide enough, then some of these agencies would be interested. They won't be as interested in a particular event unless it's a big one. And as taxpayers we wouldn't want them investigating every $100 fraud.

I do agree ebay does very little, from what I have seen, to prevent fraud on their site.

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 09:34 AM
Yeah, it would be tough for a criminal lawyer who practices in federal and state courts all over the country to be able to list the law enforcement offices which prosecute fraud. Why don't you stick to what you know -- whatever it is you've been repeating for the past 9000 posts on this and the other PWCC thread?

But who, specifically, do you think we ought to call? You having been repeatedly urging us to take action. Which specific action should we take? You're the criminal lawyer, so you'd know better than any of us who to call, right?

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 09:50 AM
I will help you out with a few....Postal Inspectors, local law enforcement., Secret Service, Dept. of Homeland Security.....and as you mentioned (I think) the FBI.....

And if you find fraud, spread wide enough, then some of these agencies would be interested. They won't be as interested in a particular event unless it's a big one. And as taxpayers we wouldn't want them investigating every $100 fraud.

I do agree ebay does very little, from what I have seen, to prevent fraud on their site.

Well, so far we have proof of fraud on one $653 hockey card. But the fraud isn't for $653, it's for the difference in sale price between the time it sold without the dot and the time it sold with the dot. $653 minus $542.73 equals $110.27 worth of fraud.

I've been told by the FBI that they won't bother with anything under 20k worth of fraud, so we have a long way to go there. As for postal inspectors, I doubt they are interested in ebay scans. We can cross that off the list. The Dept of Homeland Security just deals with things coming into the country, so that's a no.

So does that only leaves PWCC's local police department as our only option? I agree with Leon, it's hard to imagine bothering anyone over $110.27 worth of fraud.

prestigecollectibles
10-25-2013, 10:15 AM
Unless I missed it, nobody mentioned anything about monitors. I use a Samsung 26" HD monitor with my PC. I also have a notebook, tablet and smartphone and I am sure the same scan will look different on each one. While I agree the scan should accurately represent the card that doesn't mean the person with a crappy monitor will view it as such.

vintagetoppsguy
10-25-2013, 10:19 AM
Unless I missed it, nobody mentioned anything about monitors. I use a Samsung 26" HD monitor with my PC. I also have a notebook, tablet and smartphone and I am sure the same scan will look different on each one. While I agree the scan should accurately represent the card that doesn't mean the person with a crappy monitor will view it as such.

Do you mean that the same scan would look different on your Samsung 26" HD monitor than it would on my monitor pictured below? :D

http://www.knysnawebsitedesign.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Computer-Monitor-Old.jpg

prestigecollectibles
10-25-2013, 10:21 AM
It is hard to compete with a Franklin monitor. :D

markf31
10-25-2013, 10:27 AM
Well, I don't know if that's entirely fair. PWCC has thousands of cards that they scan.

I'm personally tired of hearing this statement made, that because an Ebay consignment seller sells/posts and has to scan soooo many items that they can't realistically QA/QC each and every scan. That is the biggest bunch of BS. If they can't complete what should be one of the basic tasks of their business then they need to rethink and re-evaluate how they operate their business. Of course, they won't be pressured to change until something begins to effect their bottom line.

I do have a new suggestion though that I believe could greatly improve the relationship between the scans posted and the actual condition of the cards themselves in regards to scanner settings. If every scan would simply include a "proof color strip" that shows the basic RGB colors (red, green, blue, white and black) on a strip of paper next to the card itself on the scanner bed. A quick glance at the proof strip would allow the viewer to quickly determine if the scanner settings have been modified, if black or any other colors look washed out on the proof strip, the viewer knows the scan is washed out or some other settings have been modified to try to improve the scans appearance.

Now granted this does not eliminate flat deception from Photoshop editing, but I think it would go a long way in improving most scans where scanner settings are involved.

HRBAKER
10-25-2013, 10:33 AM
Yes, the 'ol we're too big/busy to do things right excuse.

Leon
10-25-2013, 10:38 AM
Well, so far we have proof of fraud on one $653 hockey card. But the fraud isn't for $653, it's for the difference in sale price between the time it sold without the dot and the time it sold with the dot. $653 minus $542.73 equals $110.27 worth of fraud.

I've been told by the FBI that they won't bother with anything under 20k worth of fraud, so we have a long way to go there. As for postal inspectors, I doubt they are interested in ebay scans. We can cross that off the list. The Dept of Homeland Security just deals with things coming into the country, so that's a no.

So does that only leaves PWCC's local police department as our only option? I agree with Leon, it's hard to imagine bothering anyone over $110.27 worth of fraud.

Actually, 20k, from my experience, wouldn't make an FBI investigative list. On the other hand, Postal Inspectors, will be interested in ebay stuff as almost everything (with some exceptions) gets sent through the email. But, no, I don't see them investigating $100 of fraud specifically. With Secret Service and Homeland Security, they get interested in the forgeries, monies used for them and international stuff...and there are a lot of those things to look at. I have spoken with each of the agencies I have listed, more than once. I applaud law enforcement for helping us...

glchen
10-25-2013, 11:06 AM
Mark, Jeff, I don't know what lines of business you guys are in, but people are human and make mistakes. This is true in any occupation. The question is whether this is outright fraud, negligence or just a human mistake. For example, I sell cards on ebay on the side. I scan the front and back of each card using my CanoScan 8600F at 300 dpi, with default settings. Then I create the ebay listings using Turbolister. When I create the listings, I look at the card, and note in the ebay description any imperfections in the card that need to be pointed out, like creases, wrinkles, marks, etc. Then I move on to the next listing. I don't check to make sure every imperfection that I saw in the card was caught in the scan. I have three kids and a real job. I don't have time for this. There was one time when shipping a sold card, where I noticed that there was a crease in the card that could only be seen at an angle. I think it was a PSA 3, so by chance I thought, wow, was this card overgraded, and I checked the scan in the ebay listing, and noticed that this crease did not show up in the scan. I took a photo of the card at that angle where the crease could be seen, and then I mailed the buyer this photo, and told him about the situation, and that I would completely understand if he wanted to cancel the transaction. If he still wanted to keep the card, I would take 40% off the sold price. He decided to keep the card and take the discount. However, it was purely by chance that I caught this. A bunch of other cards could have been shipped by me that had the same problem, but were not caught. On the flip side, there was one time that I purchased a card from Howard (buythatcard). There was a mark in the card that was clearly in the scan, but not in the description. When I saw the mark, I couldn't believe that I missed it, so I messaged Howard, and he allowed the full return no questions asked. That's the point with ebay, however much we dislike it. Ebay through the Top Rated Seller rules, tries to push for allowing 14 day returns on all items. So if you get the item and don't like it, just return it. If you don't think that what you received didn't match the seller's description or scan, ding his DSR's (Detailed Seller Ratings). You can say well, if I ding this guy, it won't make a difference, but for me as a seller, I can only receive 2 ratings of 1-2 in a DSR category per YEAR, or I will lose my Top Rated Seller rating. So if three buyers say that my scan or description did not match what they received, then I lose my rating that 20% fee discount that goes with it. And obviously, the last part of this is that if the ebay seller refuses the return, you can log a SNAD case with them for ebay to decide. In the case of the missing print dot, I'm pretty sure ebay would rule in the buyer's favor. Again, if PWCC is doing mass alterations of their scans, that's completely wrong. In no way am I advocating that. Nor am I saying it's okay to make their scans look brighter or wipe away flaws. If they are doing that deliberately, it's obviously wrong. However, I don't think people can expect perfection here.

HRBAKER
10-25-2013, 11:20 AM
Gary,

I make plenty of mistakes and so do the people I work for and the people who work for me. However there is a difference between an error of omission/mistake and saying that the enterprise is so large that the proper degree of oversight is unmanageable IMO.

cubsfan-budman
10-25-2013, 11:24 AM
It may also be worth noting that far more often than not, in order to get good visual fidelity, you need to adjust the settings on electronic components from their default states. This goes for TVs, computer monitors, cameras, scanners, etc.

People that use those items for their business or for a serious hobby almost never leave their devices in their default states.

So PWCC saying that they do change their settings doesnt indicate that they are adjusting the image to make it look better than what it looks like in reality.

markf31
10-25-2013, 11:27 AM
Gary,

I make plenty of mistakes and so do the people I work for and the people who work for me. However there is a difference between an error of omission/mistake and saying that the enterprise is so large that the proper degree of oversight is unmanageable IMO.

+1
Precisely!!

Runscott
10-25-2013, 11:29 AM
Mark, Jeff, I don't know what lines of business you guys are in, but people are human and make mistakes. This is true in any occupation.

Our prisons are full of people who made mistakes.

nolemmings
10-25-2013, 11:34 AM
Gary,

Critical in your post and in your conduct is that you note imperfections in the auction listing. I am satisfied if the listing notes creases and wrinkles even if they're hard to see or cannot be seen in the scan. This often happens with T213-2s, although that set is one of the few that is so rife with creases, most of them hard to see, that you probably should assume they are there.

I have been told that I should expect to find small creases in cards graded 4 because the TPGs allow for them in their stated graded policies. Well most as in nearly all of the 4s I own do not have such creases, and the Altoona Baker I showed on the other thread was worthy of a 4 without the crease, IMO ( I would grade it a 3 or 3.5 now). If I should expect to find them, why is it the seller shouldn't expect to look for them once he sees the grade assigned, and then identify them in the listing?

rainier2004
10-25-2013, 11:45 AM
I make plenty of mistakes and so do the people I work for and the people who work for me. However there is a difference between an error of omission/mistake and saying that the enterprise is so large that the proper degree of oversight is unmanageable IMO.

I'd say I agree with this. This is not acceptable in other industries, why here. If your making errors, maybe the volume is too big and something needs to change.

I would like AHs making it known how they scan their items. It would just be something to tie to the card and possibly provide some more info on the card. I really don't care how they do it, just make it as representative as possible.

The scans below are the same card, left has the default and the right has 2 modifications. The one on the right is far closer to the real card as it doesn't "glow" like the other scan.

Bocabirdman
10-25-2013, 12:14 PM
This reply, my first in either thread on this topic, is not intended to dispute the existence of a scan problem. However, focusing solely on the scanner and its quality and settings is akin to talking only about the mayo used to make a BLT. Multiple scanners with identical settings WILL generate scans nearly identical. Unfortunately, on the home front, monitor quality, settings, and size will offer varying scan results. Factor in the lighting in the room, the individual's eyesight and color recognition and you will find that any scan deemed perfect by one will possibly be deemed flawed by another. The ONLY answer is a "No Questions Asked, Satisfaction Guaranteed, Full Money Refund Policy". I shall now retreat to the shadows of my ill-lit computer den and squint, awaiting the next post.:)

Deertick
10-25-2013, 01:21 PM
This reply, my first in either thread on this topic, is not intended to dispute the existence of a scan problem. However, focusing solely on the scanner and its quality and settings is akin to talking only about the mayo used to make a BLT. Multiple scanners with identical settings WILL generate scans nearly identical. Unfortunately, on the home front, monitor quality, settings, and size will offer varying scan results. Factor in the lighting in the room, the individual's eyesight and color recognition and you will find that any scan deemed perfect by one will possibly be deemed flawed by another. The ONLY answer is a "No Questions Asked, Satisfaction Guaranteed, Full Money Refund Policy". I shall now retreat to the shadows of my ill-lit computer den and squint, awaiting the next post.:)

Maybe in addition to buyers requiring all sellers of cards to use the exact same scanner using the exact same settings, sellers can require all buyers to have the exact same monitor, video card, and operating system. Requiring a certified eye exam, while desirable, is just too silly. :rolleyes:

calvindog
10-25-2013, 02:23 PM
Gary, you must have gotten some great prices on your consignments with PWCC. You're twisting yourself into a pretzel defending some pretty obvious fraud.

leaflover
10-25-2013, 02:56 PM
There are days, thru my eyes, when my collection looks NM-MT :):)and other days when it looks only EX-MTor worse.:(:( Do scanners have bad days too?

rainier2004
10-25-2013, 03:45 PM
There are days, thru my eyes, when my collection looks NM-MT :):)and other days when it looks only EX-MTor worse.:(:( Do scanners have bad days too?

Huh, just the other day I had the same thought...except some days they look Gd/Vg and other days when it looks like crap...

glchen
10-25-2013, 05:09 PM
Gary, you must have gotten some great prices on your consignments with PWCC. You're twisting yourself into a pretzel defending some pretty obvious fraud.

I wish. I think I only did well on that Exhibits Cobb that you won.

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 05:57 PM
As far as I can tell, we haven't done a single thing to rectify the problem. All we've done is hold a massive kangaroo court with a bunch of people snapping at each other. We've got a lawyer who thinks that everyone ought to complain to law enforcement, but if you ask him specifically whom we ought to call, he can't tell you. He won't say. So we have reached the point where absolutely nothing has been done except create three threads that are a basically just a bunch of people bickering with each other about scans and scanners. Maybe that's because no one other than us even cares about this. Maybe law enforcement isn't the least bit interested, and this whole thing has been nothing more than a source of entertainment.

CMIZ5290
10-25-2013, 06:09 PM
As far as I can tell, we haven't done a single thing to rectify the problem. All we've done is hold a massive kangaroo court with a bunch of people snapping at each other. We've got a lawyer who thinks that everyone ought to complain to law enforcement, but if you ask him specifically whom we ought to call, he can't tell you. He won't say. So we have reached the point where absolutely nothing has been done except create three threads that are a basically just a bunch of people bickering with each other about scans and scanners. Maybe that's because no one other than us even cares about this. Maybe law enforcement isn't the least bit interested, and this whole thing has been nothing more than a source of entertainment.

I agree, a whole lot of entertainment....Brent's laughing all the way to the bank....

frankbmd
10-25-2013, 06:14 PM
Does anyone know how many Rocky movies there were?

FYI - a seventh is being planned.:eek:

Bocabirdman
10-25-2013, 06:20 PM
Does anyone know how many Rocky movies there were?

FYI - a seventh is being planned.:eek:

There ya go Frank, defusing an argument about nothing that is gonna change, with a question that requires too much thought for a Friday night.:D

steve B
10-25-2013, 06:35 PM
As far as I can tell, we haven't done a single thing to rectify the problem. All we've done is hold a massive kangaroo court with a bunch of people snapping at each other. We've got a lawyer who thinks that everyone ought to complain to law enforcement, but if you ask him specifically whom we ought to call, he can't tell you. He won't say. So we have reached the point where absolutely nothing has been done except create three threads that are a basically just a bunch of people bickering with each other about scans and scanners. Maybe that's because no one other than us even cares about this. Maybe law enforcement isn't the least bit interested, and this whole thing has been nothing more than a source of entertainment.

Yes Jamie. That's what is called due process. If you've been scammed report it. The authorities will investigate, or not depending on how solid your complaint is. "Some guy cheated some other guy out of $100 over the internet" Probably isn't going to go far. They have to balance the cost of investigating with the end result. And they need more than our saved copies of scans to make it stick.

Jeff L - Please correct me if I have any of this wrong.

I'm assuming the cost of making the case and seeing it through would be .....A lot, at least by my standards.

Frankly, while I think altering scans to get a few extra bucks is very wrong and not at all smart (Because eventually someone will add up all the times it was likely done and see a nice number to go after) I'd rather see the FBI and even the local PD spend their time on the people doing far worse things.

Steve B

calvindog
10-25-2013, 06:37 PM
I wish. I think I only did well on that Exhibits Cobb that you won.

That's ok, Gary, I had a better year than you -- by the end of January.

vintagetoppsguy
10-25-2013, 06:38 PM
As far as I can tell, we haven't done a single thing to rectify the problem. All we've done is hold a massive kangaroo court with a bunch of people snapping at each other. We've got a lawyer who thinks that everyone ought to complain to law enforcement, but if you ask him specifically whom we ought to call, he can't tell you. He won't say. So we have reached the point where absolutely nothing has been done except create three threads that are a basically just a bunch of people bickering with each other about scans and scanners. Maybe that's because no one other than us even cares about this. Maybe law enforcement isn't the least bit interested, and this whole thing has been nothing more than a source of entertainment.

There is not a lot we can do as a group. However, we can do our own individual part. I made a commitment not to bid on any of Probstein's auctions after it was discovered he was protecting shill bidders. I have honored that commitment. It's been hard as I've seen some cards that I wanted to bid on, but I refrained from doing so. As I mentioned in the other thread, I don't bid on Brent's stuff anyway. So, I feel like I'm doing my part by not giving them any of my business.

If what has been brought to light bothers anyone, they can choose not to do business with these guys. If they continue to do business with them, then they have no right to complain. Right?

calvindog
10-25-2013, 06:39 PM
As far as I can tell, we haven't done a single thing to rectify the problem. All we've done is hold a massive kangaroo court with a bunch of people snapping at each other. We've got a lawyer who thinks that everyone ought to complain to law enforcement, but if you ask him specifically whom we ought to call, he can't tell you. He won't say. So we have reached the point where absolutely nothing has been done except create three threads that are a basically just a bunch of people bickering with each other about scans and scanners. Maybe that's because no one other than us even cares about this. Maybe law enforcement isn't the least bit interested, and this whole thing has been nothing more than a source of entertainment.

Jamie, three people who sold fraudulent game used jerseys were sentenced today to jail time in a federal court in Rockford, IL. Again, as usual, you're clueless. Of course that won't stop you from typing up every thought that crosses your brain. Law enforcement reads not only Net 54 but this thread -- and yes, they're laughing at you as well.

HRBAKER
10-25-2013, 06:40 PM
Again at the end of the day you are ultimately responsible for what you do. If you think something smells and you continue to bid anyway then I guess it didn't really bother you that much did it. It's good to know when you think this stuff goes on so you can make a personal decision about who to and not to do business with.

Peter_Spaeth
10-25-2013, 06:45 PM
As far as I can tell, we haven't done a single thing to rectify the problem. All we've done is hold a massive kangaroo court with a bunch of people snapping at each other. We've got a lawyer who thinks that everyone ought to complain to law enforcement, but if you ask him specifically whom we ought to call, he can't tell you. He won't say. So we have reached the point where absolutely nothing has been done except create three threads that are a basically just a bunch of people bickering with each other about scans and scanners. Maybe that's because no one other than us even cares about this. Maybe law enforcement isn't the least bit interested, and this whole thing has been nothing more than a source of entertainment.

I don't think even "we" care enough to make a stand. How many people here (among those who believe this auctioneer has some serious issues that have yet to be addressed) would refuse to bid with him or consign to him? I hope I am wrong but my presumption is that most people are not wiling to take a stand if it means any degree of sacrifice including passing on a baseball card they want.

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 06:48 PM
Jamie, three people who sold fraudulent game used jerseys were sentenced today to jail time in a federal court in Rockford, IL. Again, as usual, you're clueless. Of course that won't stop you from typing up every thought that crosses your brain. Law enforcement reads not only Net 54 but this thread -- and yes, they're laughing at you as well.

Unless Brent is prosecuted, then I'd say that you're the one who is clueless, Jeff. Because if law enforcement is reading this, and they don't prosecute Brent, then clearly they are laughing at you.

calvindog
10-25-2013, 06:51 PM
I don't think even "we" care enough to make a stand. How many people here (among those who believe this auctioneer has some serious issues that have yet to be addressed) would refuse to bid with him or consign to him? I hope I am wrong but my presumption is that most people are not wiling to take a stand if it means any degree of sacrifice including passing on a baseball card they want.

You're never going to get a boycott of an auction house unless it's a de facto boycott because everyone is terrified that they won't get their cards or consignment checks as what occurred to one poster who consigned with Legendary and got stiffed. If there is enough easily noticed fraud or funny business with an auction house, some law enforcement body will investigate. Doesn't have to be the feds. Keep in mind that there are NUMEROUS investigations going on right now of auction houses in our hobby. Just because they're not public doesn't mean that they don't exist. People are going to prison. Auction house principles have been sued for fraud. Consignors who have conspired with auction houses to defraud bidders have been successfully sued or have reached out of court settlements. The bottom line is, as victims here we have more power than we think. Don't be so quick to assume everyone is getting away with it, they're not.

calvindog
10-25-2013, 06:52 PM
Unless Brent is prosecuted, then I'd say that you're the one who is clueless, Jeff. Because if law enforcement is reading this, and they don't prosecute Brent, then clearly they are laughing at you.

Do you talk out of your ass all day? I mean is that what you do for a living? You have no idea how the process works and yet you continue to blabber on like a fourth grader. Why don't you focus on what you know? Like your scanner.

glchen
10-25-2013, 06:53 PM
That's ok, Gary, I had a better year than you -- by the end of January.

Jeff, don't be so sensitive. I was being sarcastic, and obviously the cost of that card was chump change for you.

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 06:57 PM
Do you talk out of your ass all day? I mean is that what you do for a living? You have no idea how the process works and yet you continue to blabber on like a fourth grader. Why don't you focus on what you know? Like your scanner.

Don't think that insults are going to get you out of this. You said that we should complain to law enforcement, then where is the phone number? You said that Brent's committed fraud, then where is the prosecution? It's put up or shut up. Like always.

Eric72
10-25-2013, 06:57 PM
Again, I loathe to tread...however...have a question. Would a class action lawsuit be in order? It seems as though a skilled prosecutor might be able to line up a great many similarly situated plaintiffs.

A successfully litigated case just might be enough to deter future fraudsters from misrepresenting the online images of the items being offered for sale...at least, it should do so for the major players.

If PWCC realizes exceptionally high prices for their items through manipulating images in an unscrupulous manner, then drag them into court. If not, then cut bait and move on. I really don't see any other way to handle this issue.

Just my two cents. Others can, will, and should disagree.

Best Regards,

Eric

calvindog
10-25-2013, 07:02 PM
Don't think that insults are going to get you out of this. You said that we should complain to law enforcement, then where is the phone number? You said that Brent's committed fraud, then where is the prosecution? It's put up or shut up. Like always.

You're a jackass. There's not an auction house law enforcement hotline to call. And just because fraud is committed does not mean that a prosecution starts an hour later. Do you think grand juries are dispatched every time you post on Net 54? Have you ever been a part of a criminal investigation? Or do you just blather on and on and on about things you have no personal experience of and no training for?

And get me out of what? The hot light of your pinpoint questioning? I don't work for you. And I certainly wouldn't share with you what I do or don't do in connection with the reporting of any auction house fraud. If you're a victim I'd advise you to make yourself known on this page.

Also, I've successfully sued auction house owners, I've reached cash settlements with crooked consignors, I've represented numerous witnesses in grand juries investigating auction house fraud, I've represented numerous defendants in criminal cases relating to the hobby. What have you done besides drone on like a braying jackass?

Lastly, why am I even talking to you?

Peter_Spaeth
10-25-2013, 07:03 PM
Again, I loathe to tread...however...have a question. Would a class action lawsuit be in order? It seems as though a skilled prosecutor might be able to line up a great many similarly situated plaintiffs.

A successfully litigated case just might be enough to deter future fraudsters from misrepresenting the online images of the items being offered for sale...at least, it should do so for the major players.

If PWCC realizes exceptionally high prices for their items through manipulating images in an unscrupulous manner, then drag them into court. If not, then cut bait and move on. I really don't see any other way to handle this issue.

Just my two cents. Others can, will, and should disagree.

Best Regards,

Eric

Eric a prosecutor works for a government, and does not bring a class action lawsuit.

Peter_Spaeth
10-25-2013, 07:05 PM
You're never going to get a boycott of an auction house unless it's a de facto boycott because everyone is terrified that they won't get their cards or consignment checks as what occurred to one poster who consigned with Legendary and got stiffed. If there is enough easily noticed fraud or funny business with an auction house, some law enforcement body will investigate. Doesn't have to be the feds. Keep in mind that there are NUMEROUS investigations going on right now of auction houses in our hobby. Just because they're not public doesn't mean that they don't exist. People are going to prison. Auction house principles have been sued for fraud. Consignors who have conspired with auction houses to defraud bidders have been successfully sued or have reached out of court settlements. The bottom line is, as victims here we have more power than we think. Don't be so quick to assume everyone is getting away with it, they're not.

I agree a boycott is too ambitious to be practical, but as a matter of principle I still think people should refuse to deal with people they think are fraudulent. I know we have disagreed on this before.

calvindog
10-25-2013, 07:11 PM
Eric a prosecutor works for a government, and does not bring a class action lawsuit.

A class action could be handled by a private civil lawyer. Peter, don't you do class actions? :)

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 07:12 PM
There's not an auction house law enforcement hotline to call.

You were the one who wrote that we should complain to law enforcement.

If you're a victim I'd advise you to make yourself known on this page.



I'm not a victim.

Otherwise, Jeff, here's a little piece of advice. Grow up and stop hurling insults. Now, I know that the only reason you're insulting me is because you've gotten your butt kicked in this argument. And if law enforcement is reading this, then terrific. But if they are, then you really ought to think about how you conduct yourself. Even if they weren't, it's something you ought to consider.

And frankly, I don't think Brent ought to be prosecuted. I've written that before, and I'll say it again now. I just wanted to see what you really had, and so far the answer seems to be nothing. And if you can get law enforcement to prosecute Brent over $110.27 of fraud, more power to you. But I'll have to see it to believe it.

Good night, sir.

calvindog
10-25-2013, 07:16 PM
First off, if you think I've gotten my butt kicked in this argument you're more delusional than you appear.

Second, it's obvious that you don't think Brent should be held accountable for the fraud which has been revealed on Net 54. It's very clear that you're doing all that you can to protect him. Why, I have no idea and don't care.

Lastly, now you're dispensing professional advice? Why don't you stick to what you know -- nothing.

Eric72
10-25-2013, 07:16 PM
Eric a prosecutor works for a government, and does not bring a class action lawsuit.

Peter,

With all due respect, then, who does?

Please know that I am not taking a swipe at you. It simply seems to me that a great many people might have been defrauded by PWCC. If this is the case, who should represent them?

Very truly yours,

Eric

Peter_Spaeth
10-25-2013, 07:18 PM
A class action could be handled by a private civil lawyer. Peter, don't you do class actions? :)

Yup. But usually on the defense side.

Peter_Spaeth
10-25-2013, 07:19 PM
Peter,

With all due respect, then, who does?

Please know that I am not taking a swipe at you. It simply seems to me that a great many people might have been defrauded by PWCC. If this is the case, who should represent them?

Very truly yours,

Eric

Eric, as Jeff says, a private civil lawyer. I haven't given it much thought, but I could see a number of obstacles given the technicalities of class action law.

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 07:27 PM
Why don't you stick to what you know -- nothing.

If Brent is indicted, you'll be proven correct indeed. Gooooood luck! :D

Eric72
10-25-2013, 07:28 PM
Eric, as Jeff says, a private civil lawyer. I haven't given it much thought, but I could see a number of obstacles given the technicalities of class action law.

Peter,

Again, I am not taking a swipe at you. I simply wish to ask a question.

In the case of public opinion v. auction house fraud, does the public opinion have a colorable claim?

Best Regards,

Eric

calvindog
10-25-2013, 07:29 PM
If Brent is indicted, you'll be proven correct indeed. Gooooood luck! :D

So now a person has to be indicted in order for it to be true that he committed fraud. Got it. Another pearl of wisdom.

calvindog
10-25-2013, 07:30 PM
Yup. But usually on the defense side.

Make an exception. We'll split the depositions.

Peter_Spaeth
10-25-2013, 07:34 PM
Peter,

Again, I am not taking a swipe at you. I simply wish to ask a question.

In the case of public opinion v. auction house fraud, does the public opinion have a colorable claim?

Best Regards,

Eric

Eric I am not exactly sure what you are asking. Only a person who can allege that he/she has been harmed can bring a civil claim for damages, and to allege fraud one needs at least a reasonable factual basis for making that allegation, mere speculation is not enough. The "public" has no standing to sue, although of course a governmental body can vindicate the public interest.

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 07:37 PM
So now a person has to be indicted in order for it to be true that he committed fraud. Got it. Another pearl of wisdom.

That's why we have a judicial system, right?

calvindog
10-25-2013, 07:43 PM
That's why we have a judicial system, right?

That's a non-sequitur. Again, you're wrong.

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 07:47 PM
That's a non-sequitur. Again, you're wrong.

Now, I might not have a law degree, but I am pretty darn sure that the function of a trial court is to determine guilt vs. innocence.

calvindog
10-25-2013, 07:51 PM
Now, I might not have a law degree, but I am pretty darn sure that the function of a trial court is to determine guilt vs. innocence.

So if you shoot someone dead with a gun and get away with it, that means you're not a murderer. You're smarter than I thought.

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 07:57 PM
So if you shoot someone dead with a gun and get away with it, that means you're not a murderer. You're smarter than I thought.

You said he was guilty of fraud and ought to be prosecuted. If you are correct on all accounts, he will be convicted. Everything else you write is bullshit.:cool:

I'll be watching... gooooooooood luck!:rolleyes:

Peter_Spaeth
10-25-2013, 08:00 PM
It seems to be non sequitur night.

calvindog
10-25-2013, 08:04 PM
You said he was guilty of fraud and ought to be prosecuted. If you are correct on all accounts, he will be indicted. Everything else you write is bullshit.:cool:

I'll be watching... gooooooooood luck!:rolleyes:

You said that unless he is indicted then he's not guilty of fraud -- that was wrong.

I said fraud occurred in his auctions and that whether or not he's indicted, fraud still occurred in his auctions -- that is correct. PS -- he can also be found liable for civil fraud.

As I'm not a prosecutor I don't control who gets indicted -- that is correct.

I understand these concepts are difficult for you because you're a clueless moron with no experience in these issues -- again, correct.

calvindog
10-25-2013, 08:06 PM
It seems to be non sequitur night.

Big surprise that fraud runs rampant in our hobby. Jamie Bone.parth is exhibit A.

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 08:07 PM
You said that unless he is indicted then he's not guilty of fraud -- that was wrong.

I said fraud occurred in his auctions and that whether or not he's indicted, fraud still occurred in his auctions -- that is correct. PS -- he can also be found liable for civil fraud.

As I'm not a prosecutor I don't control who gets indicted -- that is correct.

I understand these concepts are difficult for you because you're a clueless moron with no experience in these issues -- again, correct.

I think that the final determinant of Brent's is innocence or guilt will be a matter decided by the court, not by you or I. As I've said before, you think he's guilty and ought to be prosecuted - if you are correct, then I'm sure we'll see him behind bars. Now goodnight.

calvindog
10-25-2013, 08:08 PM
I think that the final determinant of Brent's is innocence or guilt will be a matter decided by the court, not by you or I. As I've said before, you think he's guilty and ought to be prosecuted - if you are correct, then I'm sure we'll see him behind bars. Now goodnight.

Not a single thing you wrote above is correct. LOL

Peter_Spaeth
10-25-2013, 08:20 PM
Law enforcement has the means to investigate a small fraction of the frauds that occur in the hobby and elsewhere. Therefore, the notion that if someone is not the subject of a criminal proceeding they did not commit fraud is demonstrably false and patently absurd.

Conversely, the mere fact that someone is investigated or even indicted does not mean they committed fraud. An indictment is an allegation, nothing more.

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 10:49 PM
the notion that if someone is not the subject of a criminal proceeding they did not commit fraud is demonstrably false and patently absurd.

Never wrote that.

Conversely, the mere fact that someone is investigated or even indicted does not mean they committed fraud. An indictment is an allegation, nothing more.

I confused the words indictment and conviction. Meant to say convicted.

Jeff says he is guilty and ought to be prosecuted. I never said Brent was innocent, just that he shouldn't be prosecuted. If law enforcement chooses not to prosecute Brent, then obviously they agree with me and disagree with Jeff. If Brent is prosecuted and found innocent, then he still shouldn't have been prosecuted as he will have been exonerated. So for Jeff to be correct, Brent needs to be both prosecuted and convicted.

cyseymour
10-25-2013, 11:07 PM
Not a single thing you wrote above is correct. LOL

Not a single thing about who you are as a human being is at all decent. Your attitude and manner are disgusting. And in fact you are wrong. You have said yourself that Brent has committed fraud and ought to be prosecuted, so go and do it. Otherwise, shut up about it already. Because anything other than getting it done is just blowing smoke up people's ass. It is all talk and no walk. If you think Brent has committed fraud and ought to be prosecuted, then either go find a way to put him behind bars, or just shut up already.

CaramelMan
10-26-2013, 04:49 AM
This thread sux....too much bickering and you lose the importance of the subject

calvindog
10-26-2013, 05:32 AM
Not a single thing about who you are as a human being is at all decent. Your attitude and manner are disgusting. And in fact you are wrong. You have said yourself that Brent has committed fraud and ought to be prosecuted, so go and do it. Otherwise, shut up about it already. Because anything other than getting it done is just blowing smoke up people's ass. It is all talk and no walk. If you think Brent has committed fraud and ought to be prosecuted, then either go find a way to put him behind bars, or just shut up already.

It's rare to find someone who is so proud to be an ignorant jackass. You now have multiple lawyers on this thread pointing out how the educational system has failed you -- or perhaps you were just too busy braying like the jackass that you are and weren't listening in class that day or month. Your understanding of the legal system would appear as if you learned it all from watching the Flintstones.

One of the purposes of this board is to point out fraud. And fraud exists in PWCC auctions with the scans and the shill bidding. When the fraud stops, the comments about the fraud will stop, not just because a low grade moron like you wants it to stop. Just as I wasn't cowed by other jackasses years ago when I pointed out the Mastro fraud and they tried to change the subject, I won't be deterred by a simpleton like you. By screaming that if Brent isn't 'locked up behind bars' by sundown today then we should stop talking about it isn't going to work if you haven't noticed. But let's keep this issue going, the more we talk about it on here the more people are coming out with examples of fraud in his auctions. You're doing a great job of keeping the spotlight on the fraud in PWCC auctions.

frankbmd
10-26-2013, 05:46 AM
"All rise.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................................................
You may be seated"

Sorry, Judy is still with her make-up artist. The judge is averse to wrinkles ya know.

cyseymour
10-26-2013, 06:27 AM
But let's keep this issue going, the more we talk about it on here the more people are coming out with examples of fraud in his auctions.

I'll ignore the insults, but let me say this - based on what I have seen so far, the only evidence against him seems to be that his scans are minimally brighter and that he allegedly doctored the image of a $643 hockey card. That doesn't seem like much to go on for a prosecution. If you have other people coming to you with examples that I don't know about, that is a different story.

I'm sorry that I got so upset, it's just that I don't like seeing people go to jail. And I just can't equate PWCC with Mastro. Maybe if there were more compelling evidence, I would feel differently. Anyways, I do apologize and I know that you think I'm an idiot. I just feel like I want to end my role in this, so this will be my last post on this thread.

Adieu.

ullmandds
10-26-2013, 06:27 AM
I must agree that us talking about this and keeping it at the forefront and making others aware and citing examples...is DOING something...despite the sentiment of some that since I'm not a blue collar worker...I'm a pussy for not busting knee caps and threatening people with bodily harm because I was shilled out of some cash.

You know who u are GiantSlayer!!!!!

tschock
10-26-2013, 07:48 AM
I think that the final determinant of Brent's is innocence or guilt will be a matter decided by the court, not by you or I. As I've said before, you think he's guilty and ought to be prosecuted - if you are correct, then I'm sure we'll see him behind bars. Now goodnight.

Jeez, I'm not a lawyer and even I know that one can't be found "innocent" in a court of law. Just "not guilty". There's a difference. Look it up.

bobbyw8469
10-26-2013, 09:12 AM
Long story short, PWCC gets UNREAL prices for his items, which attracts consignors, which attracts sales. Just check out completed listings for a 1956 Mantle #135 PSA 6 to see what I am talking about. Typically, a $800 card, his sells for over $2,000. My mind is blown everytime I see the prices his cards gets. Someone could make a decent living just buying my stuff and consigning it with Brent!! :p

Runscott
10-26-2013, 10:25 AM
Not a single thing about who you are as a human being is at all decent. Your attitude and manner are disgusting.

Jamie, it's one thing to be argumentative and confrontational, which is something I totally get, as I'm right there with you, but when someone who knows an area much better than you tells you that you are blowing hot air, why can't you just say thanks for the education and go from there? If you did that, you wouldn't get forced into a corner where all you can do is hurl insults.

The last thing I would do is try to force my lawn-chair thoughts on law, on Jeff or any of the other lawyers on this forum. Use them as a resource when you want to LEARN about law, and I'm sure they'll use you as a resource when they want to know about whatever it is you're good at.

Fred
10-26-2013, 11:04 AM
Has this forum passed a guilty verdict on someone? Sounds like the court of Net54 opinion has passed judgement.

Cmmon guys, lets get back to cardboard!

Peace, love, understanding and all that $hit.... :p

ullmandds
10-26-2013, 11:08 AM
I think the talk about how the forum used to be...has caused this forum to revert back...in some ways...to the way this forum used to be!!!

cyseymour
10-26-2013, 11:52 AM
Jamie, it's one thing to be argumentative and confrontational, which is something I totally get, as I'm right there with you, but when someone who knows an area much better than you tells you that you are blowing hot air, why can't you just say thanks for the education and go from there? If you did that, you wouldn't get forced into a corner where all you can do is hurl insults.

The last thing I would do is try to force my lawn-chair thoughts on law, on Jeff or any of the other lawyers on this forum. Use them as a resource when you want to LEARN about law, and I'm sure they'll use you as a resource when they want to know about whatever it is you're good at.

They misinterpreted my argument. They thought that I felt Brent ought not be prosecuted because I believed he was innocent, but the real reason why is because there seems to be insufficient damages. See posts 69 and 109 where I discuss that so far there seems to be only $110.27 in damages.

That said, another reason that I feel compassionate towards Brent is that he is a small-time ebay dealer. Those guys have very tight margins. Yes, there seems to be some funny business going on in Brent's auctions, but why not go after the big fish first, before worrying about small-fries like Brent?

What about this thread:
http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=174062&highlight=legendary

As for learning from Jeff, I'd be happy to do so as much as possible if he writes in a respectful, non-abusive manner. Before I wrote my insult, here's some of the things he wrote:

Do you talk out of your ass all day? I mean is that what you do for a living? You have no idea how the process works and yet you continue to blabber on like a fourth grader. Why don't you focus on what you know? Like your scanner.

You're a jackass... What have you done besides drone on like a braying jackass?

Big surprise that fraud runs rampant in our hobby. Jamie Bonep@rth is exhibit A.

I would like nothing more than to make up with Jeff and get along well. That is why I apologized for the role that I played in the conflict. I would love an apology from him as well, but if that is not forthcoming, then hopefully we can still find a way co-exist in a civil manner.

Peter_Spaeth
10-26-2013, 12:41 PM
Brent is a "small time ebay dealer"? Are you serious? He has 22,000 feedbacks in the last 12 months, and as we know that significantly UNDERSTATES the number of items he has sold. What planet is this thread on?

cyseymour
10-26-2013, 12:57 PM
Brent is a "small time ebay dealer"? Are you serious?

Well, even if he isn't small time, this is just how I feel about him. I went to his website and the photo of him smiling with his significant other. You can tell that they really love each other, and I'm sure that there are all these people in his life who really love him.

When you think about the amount of suffering it would cause to imprison him, it is scary. Based on where he lives, I am guessing that he would go to San Quentin. I have seen a documentary on that prison and it is really scary. There is a tremendous amount of violence in those environments.

The trouble is that when someone is the victim of violence like that, it creates a tremendous amount of trauma and suffering that can stay with them for many years, decades, and their entire life, even. It is a very sad thing and people who experience it often never fully recover.

I myself did volunteer work in a prison when I was a college student. The prisoners are very friendly to you and will smile, but what goes on behind the scenes is really ugly. I was counseling a gang leader in Springfield, and during my time with him, he and his "friends" beat up a rival gang member very badly. That guy had to be transferred to another prison and was in very bad condition. So the dynamics that go into play there are intense.

Now, I understand that Mastro & Co. did millions of dollars worth of fraud and their sentences will be well deserved. It was a tremendous and courageous effort on behalf of Jeff and many others, and I admire that tremendously. But the situation with PWCC seems far from that right now. The best evidence we had right now is just a hockey card scan missing a print dot.

Now, I realize that most likely more went on, but if the only concrete evidence of fraud we had is that hockey card, as well as some scans that are slightly brighter than usual, then to send him away to a place like San Quentin just for that would be incredibly cruel. And that I why I've found myself so upset about this issue.

Cardboard Junkie
10-26-2013, 01:03 PM
"You can tell that they really love each other." ha ha ha ha ha hah hah hah ah aha ahahaha hahha hahhha hahhhhhh!

Deertick
10-26-2013, 01:07 PM
Well, even if he isn't small time, this is just how I feel about him. I went to his website and the photo of him smiling with his significant other. You can tell that they really love each other, and I'm sure that there are all these people in his life who really love him.

When you think about the amount of suffering it would cause to imprison him, it is scary. Based on where he lives, I am guessing that he would go to San Quentin. I have seen a documentary on that prison and it is really scary. There is a tremendous amount of violence in those environments.

The trouble is that when someone is the victim of violence like that, it creates a tremendous amount of trauma and suffering that can stay with them for many years, decades, and their entire life, even. It is a very sad thing and people who experience it often never fully recover.

I myself did volunteer work in a prison when I was a college student. The prisoners are very friendly to you and will smile, but what goes on behind the scenes is really ugly. I was counseling a gang leader in Springfield, and during my time with him, he and his "friends" beat up a rival gang member very badly. That guy had to be transferred to another prison and was in very bad condition. So the dynamics that go into play there are intense.

Now, I understand that Mastro & Co. did millions of dollars worth of fraud and their sentences will be well deserved. It was a tremendous and courageous effort on behalf of Jeff and many others, and I admire that tremendously. But the situation with PWCC seems far from that right now. The best evidence we had right now is just a hockey card scan missing a print dot.

Now, I realize that most likely more went on, but if the only concrete evidence of fraud we had is that hockey card, as well as some scans that are slightly brighter than usual, then to send him away to a place like San Quentin just for that would be incredibly cruel. And that I why I've found myself so upset about this issue.

Why do I get the feeling we are being punk'd? Where are you hiding Ashton? :eek:

ullmandds
10-26-2013, 01:07 PM
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Where's Sy Sterling?

Leon
10-26-2013, 01:46 PM
Why do I get the feeling we are being punk'd? Where are you hiding Ashton? :eek:

I don't think you can make this stuff up. "Once upon a time", is all it is missing.

autograf
10-26-2013, 01:57 PM
Probably a lot of dudes that love their significant other in the slammer right now......doubt that would sway a jury.....odd line of reasoning (or lack thereof.....).....

'Chao, party of one.........'

Peter_Spaeth
10-26-2013, 02:15 PM
Chao is looking good in the rear view mirror.

ShoelessCrusader
10-26-2013, 02:16 PM
It sounds like a stupid question, but after reading a few pages of this thread, I have to wonder if some of you are truly getting any enjoyment out of this hobby.

With regards to Brent, I have both consigned and won cards from his auctions, and have been satisfied with both. None of the cards I've consigned with him look like they were altered in any way. In fact, I recently consigned a 55 Topps Jackie Robinson PSA 8--very nice card, no doubt, but there was a small black print mark on his chin that is noticeable. When the auction went live, guess what? The print mark was still there. It had not been altered.

As far as prices goes, yes, his auctions usually command premium prices. But so do high-end AH's like REA, Mile High, or Memory Lane, and he has high-end material every month that in many cases can match them, so not only are his auctions going to attract more buyers, but more buyers with deeper pockets.

Does any of this prove he's 100% not a cheat? No, it doesn't. We both live in the SF Bay area, and I did have the chance to meet Brent and his wife once while dropping off a consignment, and both of them seem like down-to-earth, level-headed people... But who knows? They could really be Bonnie and Clyde...lol

What I do know is this: if you spend the majority of your time and energy worrying and complaining about the hobby, what good is it to even be in the hobby in the first place? I'm sure most of you are well-intentioned in trying to preserve the integrity of the hobby, and I commend you for that, but don't let in consume you to the point it no longer becomes fun.

Sorry to chime in--just giving my two cents worth. I'm going to get back to what I love doing--admiring my T3 Turkey Reds. Peace, guys! And enjoy your collections!

HRBAKER
10-26-2013, 02:17 PM
This thread has become one of the classics.

HRBAKER
10-26-2013, 02:18 PM
To answer your question, I despise fraud, feel like the hobby is rampant with it and yes, I enjoy collecting.

ShoelessCrusader
10-26-2013, 02:43 PM
This thread has become one of the classics.
Glad to contribute, Jeff. BTW, did you happen to check out the nice T205 PSA 7 Baker card from last week's REA auction? Awesome card, especially for the very difficult T205 set...

ALR-bishop
10-26-2013, 03:07 PM
To answer your question, I despise fraud, feel like the hobby is rampant with it and yes, I enjoy collecting.


+ 1. I have discussed this with two people in Charlottetown Canada, and they are very, very concerned

JollyElm
10-26-2013, 05:07 PM
The road to hell is paved with apologists.

calvindog
10-26-2013, 06:16 PM
I've been gone for the day but now have just learned that Jamie actually does believe that Brent committed fraud -- despite his loud protests to the contrary last night -- but because he apparently met him for 30 seconds and believes the man loves his wife, he doesn't want him to get raped at San Quentin. So that's why he acted like a jackass last night and did all that he could to discourage any action to be taken against Brent. Apparently, anyone who discusses fraud in a PWCC auction is worse than those who commit such fraud and needs to be attacked. The fraudsters should be given a pass, of course, because of the whole love for wife thing. Got it.

I would state the obvious that no one put a gun to Brent's head to cause him to fudge scans or do any other funny stuff in his auctions. But to Jamie, Brent apparently has no liability in any of this -- because he loves his wife and he doesn't want Brent to be raped at San Quentin. And Brent will end up at San Quentin because, of course, Jamie knows so much about the American penal system and where crooked baseball card auctioneers go upon conviction: San Quentin, the Big House, Rape City. Got it.

On the topic of personal responsibility -- of which Jamie apparently doesn't believe anyone should have -- he PMed me this morning and asked me to remove his full name that I put in one of my posts. I ignored his request because I find it wrong that he could lie and obfuscate on the board like he did last night in order to protect someone who he himself believes defrauded people in this hobby -- but he doesn't want any possible future employer to see what a dishonest, clearly mentally imbalanced, possibly heavily medicated mental patient that he is. Perhaps if people like him were required to leave their full names by their posts -- without periods in between letters or an @ instead of an "a" -- then they'd be more responsible and honest with what they post out here.

Finally, Jamie, I insulted you last night not because you 'kicked' my 'butt' in the argument out here but because you are a lying, mentally imbalanced moron. Thank you for again proving that today.

cyseymour
10-26-2013, 06:28 PM
Jeff says he is guilty and ought to be prosecuted. I never said Brent was innocent, just that he shouldn't be prosecuted. If law enforcement chooses not to prosecute Brent, then obviously they agree with me and disagree with Jeff. If Brent is prosecuted and found innocent, then he still shouldn't have been prosecuted as he will have been exonerated. So for Jeff to be correct, Brent needs to be both prosecuted and convicted.

Here is what I wrote last night.

Eric72
10-26-2013, 07:06 PM
Eric I am not exactly sure what you are asking. Only a person who can allege that he/she has been harmed can bring a civil claim for damages, and to allege fraud one needs at least a reasonable factual basis for making that allegation, mere speculation is not enough. The "public" has no standing to sue, although of course a governmental body can vindicate the public interest.

Peter,

Thank you for replying in a sincerely civil manner. I have just sent you a PM to discuss this matter further, offline.

Best Regards,

Eric

Eric72
10-26-2013, 07:13 PM
Big surprise that fraud runs rampant in our hobby. Jamie Bon..eparth is exhibit A.

Jeff,

With all due respect, accusing Jamie of being a fraudster may possibly be outside of your purview. There may be members of Net54 who take exception to his methods of communicating; however, being confrontational does not make one a fraud.

Sincerely,

Eric

Rob D.
10-26-2013, 07:32 PM
Jeff,

With all due respect, accusing Jamie of being a fraudster may possibly be outside of your purview. There may be members of Net54 who take exception to his methods of communicating; however, being confrontational does not make one a fraud.

Sincerely,

Eric

I read that post by Jeff to mean that fraud runs rampant in the hobby because there are so many ignorant people who, because of their ignorance, set themselves up to be victims. But Jeff certainly can speak for himself.

calvindog
10-26-2013, 07:34 PM
Jeff,

With all due respect, accusing Jamie of being a fraudster may possibly be outside of your purview. There may be members of Net54 who take exception to his methods of communicating; however, being confrontational does not make one a fraud.

Sincerely,

Eric

I didn't say he was a fraudster. I was clearly implying when hobbyists do all that they can to make excuses for fraud, falsely deny that fraud occurred or do anything they can to stop discussions about fraud we have a problem. Purview. LOL

cyseymour
10-27-2013, 05:35 AM
I didn't say he was a fraudster. I was clearly implying when hobbyists do all that they can to make excuses for fraud, falsely deny that fraud occurred or do anything they can to stop discussions about fraud we have a problem. Purview. LOL

Yeah, me and the 99.99999999% of the earth's population who don't give a shit about this red dot are all frauds. Only you and your small group of sycophants are the real people. Btw, congrats on surviving the Waco massacre.

cyseymour
10-27-2013, 05:37 AM
But let's keep this issue going, the more we talk about it on here the more people are coming out with examples of fraud in his auctions. You're doing a great job of keeping the spotlight on the fraud in PWCC auctions.

After 6,000 page views, no new examples have arisen, which means...

Do you think that a red dot on a single card is the iceberg itself or just the tip?

..this red dot is a pretty small iceberg. You'd need a microscope just to see the polar bears.

calvindog
10-27-2013, 05:39 AM
Yeah, me and the 99.99999999% of the earth's population who don't give a shit about this red dot are all frauds. Only you and your small group of sycophants are the real people. Btw, congrats on surviving the Waco massacre.

Dude, you're bipolar. Eat more Klonopin.

PS an inmate is being raped right now.

cyseymour
10-27-2013, 05:40 AM
I have found the red dot. Brent gave it to this person.

http://i626.photobucket.com/albums/tt350/jboneparth/6777756b-270f-41c3-9134-c84571db2f86_zpsfbcd6df9.jpg

Bocabirdman
10-27-2013, 06:08 AM
Geez guys, you are no longer beating a dead horse. You are no longer even beating the wet spot where a horse used to be. Now you are just thumping the ground hoping a horse comes by and drops dead in the path of your swing. Three threads. No resolution. Neither of you is either going to convince the other. You are both partially correct and the actual truth lies somewhere in between. Give it up. This thread needs to sink from the top of the first page. Let's get back to celebrating this hobby that we all share.

Here is a scan just for the hell of it. Just in case anybody on a baseball card forum wants to .......Gasp!!!...see a baseball card.:eek:

119484

Why did this card only get a 1.5? The back is clean with no paper loss:rolleyes:

RCMcKenzie
10-27-2013, 06:18 AM
Jamie and Jeff are both good guys, but the point of the thread is worthwhile. Folks should do their own due diligence before buying cards. Study the card series you are buying. Study the prices they go for. Buyer Beware.

bobbyw8469
10-27-2013, 06:31 AM
I'm just dumbfounded that Brent is always able to find these bidders who have no earthly idea what the current going rate is for any particular card in any particular grade. Got a card that sells in the $700-$900 range?? Brent sells his for $2,000. Got a card that sells for $500-$800 within a 15 year time period? Brent sells not even a good example of the card for $1,800. How come every single one of the cards that I auction off/sell privately, fall within that mean/median range, yet he always seems to find bidders that have no concept of pricing in regards to cards and will gladly pay PSA 9 prices for a PSA 6 copy???????

Peter_Spaeth
10-27-2013, 07:53 AM
I am with Bobby -- there do seem to be quite a number of prices that are not just high, but so off the charts as to be inexplicable. I wish I had an answer for how this happens.

MikeGarcia
10-27-2013, 10:18 AM
Geez guys, you are no longer beating a dead horse. You are no longer even beating the wet spot where a horse used to be. Now you are just thumping the ground hoping a horse comes by and drops dead in the path of your swing. Three threads. No resolution. Neither of you is either going to convince the other. You are both partially correct and the actual truth lies somewhere in between. Give it up. This thread needs to sink from the top of the first page. Let's get back to celebrating this hobby that we all share.

Here is a scan just for the hell of it. Just in case anybody on a baseball card forum wants to .......Gasp!!!...see a baseball card.:eek:

119484

Why did this card only get a 1.5? The back is clean with no paper loss:rolleyes:

Because of the tiny pinhole.....hold it up to a bright light.....happened to me a couple times too

Bocabirdman
10-27-2013, 10:29 AM
Because of the tiny pinhole.....hold it up to a bright light.....happened to me a couple times too

I have looked at that card countless times and never saw it.......:)

cyseymour
10-27-2013, 03:37 PM
Thank you, Superman, for saving the hobby. Now here is your cape.

http://i626.photobucket.com/albums/tt350/jboneparth/e509e1a2-e536-48ca-a4ba-31bff2e9df84_zpsae8fe6fe.jpg

calvindog
10-27-2013, 03:44 PM
Well, even if he isn't small time, this is just how I feel about him. I went to his website and the photo of him smiling with his significant other. You can tell that they really love each other, and I'm sure that there are all these people in his life who really love him.

When you think about the amount of suffering it would cause to imprison him, it is scary. Based on where he lives, I am guessing that he would go to San Quentin. I have seen a documentary on that prison and it is really scary. There is a tremendous amount of violence in those environments.

The trouble is that when someone is the victim of violence like that, it creates a tremendous amount of trauma and suffering that can stay with them for many years, decades, and their entire life, even. It is a very sad thing and people who experience it often never fully recover.

I myself did volunteer work in a prison when I was a college student. The prisoners are very friendly to you and will smile, but what goes on behind the scenes is really ugly. I was counseling a gang leader in Springfield, and during my time with him, he and his "friends" beat up a rival gang member very badly. That guy had to be transferred to another prison and was in very bad condition. So the dynamics that go into play there are intense.

Now, I understand that Mastro & Co. did millions of dollars worth of fraud and their sentences will be well deserved. It was a tremendous and courageous effort on behalf of Jeff and many others, and I admire that tremendously. But the situation with PWCC seems far from that right now. The best evidence we had right now is just a hockey card scan missing a print dot.

Now, I realize that most likely more went on, but if the only concrete evidence of fraud we had is that hockey card, as well as some scans that are slightly brighter than usual, then to send him away to a place like San Quentin just for that would be incredibly cruel. And that I why I've found myself so upset about this issue.

Freak.

cyseymour
10-27-2013, 05:02 PM
Freak.

Yeah, I'm freak for caring about real people, while you're normal for obsessing about red dots. Go tell it to your little minions.

Peter_Spaeth
10-27-2013, 05:06 PM
Hysterical, click on this thread and Brent's banner ad shows above it.

ullmandds
10-27-2013, 05:06 PM
Yea Pete...I've been noticing that for days...Oh the irony!!!!

calvindog
10-27-2013, 05:41 PM
Well, even if he isn't small time, this is just how I feel about him. I went to his website and the photo of him smiling with his significant other. You can tell that they really love each other, and I'm sure that there are all these people in his life who really love him.

When you think about the amount of suffering it would cause to imprison him, it is scary. Based on where he lives, I am guessing that he would go to San Quentin. I have seen a documentary on that prison and it is really scary. There is a tremendous amount of violence in those environments.

The trouble is that when someone is the victim of violence like that, it creates a tremendous amount of trauma and suffering that can stay with them for many years, decades, and their entire life, even. It is a very sad thing and people who experience it often never fully recover.

I myself did volunteer work in a prison when I was a college student. The prisoners are very friendly to you and will smile, but what goes on behind the scenes is really ugly. I was counseling a gang leader in Springfield, and during my time with him, he and his "friends" beat up a rival gang member very badly. That guy had to be transferred to another prison and was in very bad condition. So the dynamics that go into play there are intense.

Now, I understand that Mastro & Co. did millions of dollars worth of fraud and their sentences will be well deserved. It was a tremendous and courageous effort on behalf of Jeff and many others, and I admire that tremendously. But the situation with PWCC seems far from that right now. The best evidence we had right now is just a hockey card scan missing a print dot.

Now, I realize that most likely more went on, but if the only concrete evidence of fraud we had is that hockey card, as well as some scans that are slightly brighter than usual, then to send him away to a place like San Quentin just for that would be incredibly cruel. And that I why I've found myself so upset about this issue.

Freak!

Sean1125
10-27-2013, 05:55 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Needs-moar-drama.jpg

Iron Horse
10-27-2013, 08:39 PM
Bump :D
since his auction has started lol
got my bids in

cyseymour
10-27-2013, 09:06 PM
Jeff,

This thread could go on forever if you refuse to let it go. I don't want to waste much more time with this. You might be a lawyer, but this was not your best legal work.

If you're still looking for the red dot, then there is a place you can always find one - your asshole.

Jamie Bon.epar.th

cyseymour
10-27-2013, 09:09 PM
Check your asshole to find the red dot, Jeff.

http://i626.photobucket.com/albums/tt350/jboneparth/lichtmanarrow_zps0bc7ca75.jpg

calvindog
10-27-2013, 09:37 PM
Jamie when the meds have kicked in:



Now, I understand that Mastro & Co. did millions of dollars worth of fraud and their sentences will be well deserved. It was a tremendous and courageous effort on behalf of Jeff and many others, and I admire that tremendously.

And:

Jeff,

I was very upset last night.

Kind regards,

Jamie Bo,nep,arth


The other posts he made are clearly when Jamie is off his meds.

Meanwhile, the more this thread is seen, the quicker it will rise to the very top of a google search when a future employer wishes to confirm how utterly insane you are.

Runscott
10-27-2013, 09:49 PM
I don't want to waste much more time with this.

We all believe you. Really.

Peter_Spaeth
10-29-2013, 11:58 AM
Bid History: Details


Bidding Details

Bidder Information
Bidder: u***r( 2057)
Feedback: 100%Positive
Item description: Item Title: 1956 Topps Mickey Mantle #135 PSA 8 NM-MT (PWCC)
Bids on this item: 18
30-Day Summary
Total bids: 342
Items bid on: 99
Bid activity (%) with this seller: 5%
Bid retractions: 5
Bid retractions (6 months): 29

jhs5120
10-29-2013, 12:03 PM
Bid History: Details


Bidding Details

Bidder Information
Bidder: u***r( 2057)
Feedback: 100%Positive
Item description: Item Title: 1956 Topps Mickey Mantle #135 PSA 8 NM-MT (PWCC)
Bids on this item: 18
30-Day Summary
Total bids: 342
Items bid on: 99
Bid activity (%) with this seller: 5%
Bid retractions: 5
Bid retractions (6 months): 29

Did you email Brent about this, or just wanted to share it with us? :)

calvindog
10-29-2013, 12:47 PM
http://youtu.be/5uTYXlLxpZw

Peter_Spaeth
10-29-2013, 01:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MVplfdNC6E

Cardboard Junkie
10-29-2013, 01:23 PM
ha ha ha ha....!!!!!

Peter_Spaeth
10-30-2013, 05:55 AM
The current high bidder on PWCC 52 Topps Mantle. I don't get how someone retracts 28 bids in 6 months, but perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Bid History: Details


Bidding Details

Bidder Information
Bidder: -***o ( private )
Feedback: 100% Positive
Item description: Item Title: 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle #311 PSA 6 EXMT (PWCC)
Bids on this item: 1
30-Day Summary
Total bids: 81
Items bid on: 25
Bid activity (%) with this seller: 60% Help
Bid retractions: 0
Bid retractions (6 months): 28

slidekellyslide
10-30-2013, 08:41 AM
The current high bidder on PWCC 52 Topps Mantle. I don't get how someone retracts 28 bids in 6 months, but perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Bid History: Details


Bidding Details

Bidder Information
Bidder: -***o ( private )
Feedback: 100% Positive
Item description: Item Title: 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle #311 PSA 6 EXMT (PWCC)
Bids on this item: 1
30-Day Summary
Total bids: 81
Items bid on: 25
Bid activity (%) with this seller: 60% Help
Bid retractions: 0
Bid retractions (6 months): 28

I sell about 500-1000 items on ebay per month (non baseball) and get a lot of bid retractions from people who bid multiple times. They are doing it to see what the high bidder's max is, and once they go over it they retract their bid. Sometimes these bidders will bid at the end of the auction and sometimes they won't. It's not shill bidding because I own the items...I don't think we can say every time we see activity like this that it is shill bidding, there just seem to be a lot of idiots out there who bid like this. And ebay has made it easier for these idiots to do this too with the "Increase your bid" button. I have ebay connected to my iphone so I hear it when it happens.

Wayward99
10-30-2013, 09:24 AM
I sell about 500-1000 items on ebay per month (non baseball) and get a lot of bid retractions from people who bid multiple times. They are doing it to see what the high bidder's max is, and once they go over it they retract their bid. Sometimes these bidders will bid at the end of the auction and sometimes they won't. It's not shill bidding because I own the items...I don't think we can say every time we see activity like this that it is shill bidding, there just seem to be a lot of idiots out there who bid like this. And ebay has made it easier for these idiots to do this too with the "Increase your bid" button. I have ebay connected to my iphone so I hear it when it happens.

Agreed - I've only been selling for a little over a year (all baseball cards, different eras) and I've seen some head-scratching activity - including one bidder, the first bidder mind you, place 10 separate bids in rapid fashion on the same item. As mentioned above I think the 'Increase your bid' button, as well as starting items at $.99, skews some of the metrics when it comes to analyzing bid activity on a given item or with a particular seller (% bid with seller, as an example). The number/volume of bids can be very high with $.99 auctions and eBay's bid increments.

That said, in almost all instances where I've had a bid retraction on an item I've blocked that bidder; the few exceptions have been when a bidder immediately reached out to me to apologize for a fat finger, or when it was the first bid/early bid with an inconsequential dollar amount and the bidder put in a new bid that was conceivably more in line with their original intention (ex: $5 instead of the original $50). That's just been my experience and approach since I know that bid retractions on the surface leave a sour taste in people's mouths.

bobbyw8469
10-30-2013, 09:33 AM
That said, in almost all instances where I've had a bid retraction on an item I've blocked that bidder; the few exceptions have been when a bidder immediately reached out to me to apologize for a fat finger, or when it was the first bid/early bid with an inconsequential dollar amount and the bidder put in a new bid that was conceivably more in line with their original intention (ex: $5 instead of the original $50). That's just been my experience and approach since I know that bid retractions on the surface leave a sour taste in people's mouths.


+1. I always block bid retractors, especially when they are high bidder for a couple of days, they think they are going to win, so they retract their bid with the "entered the wrong amount" excuse, and do not rebid.

vintagetoppsguy
10-30-2013, 09:33 AM
I sell about 500-1000 items on ebay per month (non baseball) and get a lot of bid retractions from people who bid multiple times. They are doing it to see what the high bidder's max is, and once they go over it they retract their bid. Sometimes these bidders will bid at the end of the auction and sometimes they won't.

I can understand why a bidder would do that based on what you're saying(although I think it's unethical). However, you have to realize how that makes you look as a seller. I beilve you, Dan, that you're not shilling your own items, but to an eBay bidder it may look otherwise.

I rarely sell anything on eBay anymore but, if I were a volume seller and I had bidders retracting their bids, I would ban them as bidders.

You have to look at this from a buyer's perspective. If I'm high bidder on an item and another bidder places multiple bids to expose my proxy and then retracts his last bid, to me I feel like I have been shilled up. When that happens to me as a bidder, I retract my bid as well because I think the seller is up to something.

slidekellyslide
10-30-2013, 09:45 AM
I can understand why a bidder would do that based on what you're saying(although I think it's unethical). However, you have to realize how that makes you look as a seller. I beilve you, Dan, that you're not shilling your own items, but to an eBay bidder it may look otherwise.

I rarely sell anything on eBay anymore but, if I were a volume seller and I had bidders retracting their bids, I would ban them as bidders.

You have to look at this from a buyer's perspective. If I'm high bidder on an item and another bidder places multiple bids to expose my proxy and then retracts his last bid, to me I feel like I have been shilled up. When that happens to me as a bidder, I retract my bid as well because I think the seller is up to something.

I have had a few people accuse me of shill bidding in these instances...I just give them the ebay ID of the person who did it and tell them to contact ebay.

And I love the "entered wrong amount" excuse of people who bid 20 times and then retract their bid.

edited to add: I have also recently found out there are local dealers intent on wrecking some of my auctions...my brother and I recently started attending the state surplus auctions...it can be tricky listing some of the items you get there, we had to re-list a few items multiple times before finally getting a real bidder. Ebay needs to make it much harder to set up an account with them.

calvindog
10-30-2013, 09:47 AM
I have had a few people accuse me of shill bidding in these instances...I just give them the ebay ID of the person who did it and tell them to contact ebay.

And I love the "entered wrong amount" excuse of people who bid 20 times and then retract their bid.

Dan, agree with all that you wrote -- it's certainly not the auctioneer's fault in all these instances (if any).

By the way, do you doctor your scans or look the other way as your consignors shill bid?

slidekellyslide
10-30-2013, 09:53 AM
Dan, agree with all that you wrote -- it's certainly not the auctioneer's fault in all these instances (if any).

By the way, do you doctor your scans or look the other way as your consignors shill bid?

I don't know how to doctor a scan, but I did have one consignor (a friend) who would give me an item or two per month to list and I noticed he was bidding on his own item...I put the brakes on that quickly.

thecatspajamas
10-30-2013, 10:00 AM
I can understand why a bidder would do that based on what you're saying(although I think it's unethical). However, you have to realize how that makes you look as a seller. I beilve you, Dan, that you're not shilling your own items, but to an eBay bidder it may look otherwise.

I rarely sell anything on eBay anymore but, if I were a volume seller and I had bidders retracting their bids, I would ban them as bidders.

You have to look at this from a buyer's perspective. If I'm high bidder on an item and another bidder places multiple bids to expose my proxy and then retracts his last bid, to me I feel like I have been shilled up. When that happens to me as a bidder, I retract my bid as well because I think the seller is up to something.

I've been in that very uncomfortable position of some wacko's crazy bidding strategy making me look bad as a seller several times. So far, it's worked out okay in that I was able to give enough information to whoever was accusing me of shill bidding to satisfy them that it was indeed just a wacko and not me, and I've actually gained a couple of good hobby friends over the course of working things out. In every case though, I banned the wacko from any further bidding, just as I would ban someone from my physical store who came in shouting "HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY" at the top of their lungs the whole time and rubbed everyone's head as they left. Some things you just have to put a stop to because they are disruptive and make everyone uncomfortable, even if the wacko actually makes a purchase and technically hasn't broken any rules.

calvindog
10-30-2013, 10:06 AM
I don't know how to doctor a scan, but I did have one consignor (a friend) who would give me an item or two per month to list and I noticed he was bidding on his own item...I put the brakes on that quickly.

Wow, that must have taken you months to accomplish.

PS -- do you love your significant other? If so, how much? Like a little or a lot?

calvindog
10-30-2013, 10:07 AM
In every case though, I banned the wacko from any further bidding, just as I would ban someone from my physical store who came in shouting "HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY" at the top of their lungs the whole time and rubbed everyone's head as they left.

What if it was Fat Albert?

thecatspajamas
10-30-2013, 10:11 AM
What if it was Fat Albert?

I would probably be a little more lenient, but even Al needs to keep his hands to himself ;)

slidekellyslide
10-30-2013, 10:13 AM
Wow, that must have taken you months to accomplish.

PS -- do you love your significant other? If so, how much? Like a little or a lot?

Well, I certainly don't want to end up in San Quentin if that's where these leading questions are taking me.

glchen
10-30-2013, 10:26 AM
Dan, it gets worse than San Quentin. As someone earlier in this thread aptly stated:

The road to hell is paved with apologists.

Don't ask me what that means either.

thehoodedcoder
10-30-2013, 10:54 AM
blahzy blazy blah blah blah.

do something about it. start a civil suit against ebay for schill bidding.

kevin

tschock
10-30-2013, 11:06 AM
Bid History: Details


Bidding Details

Bidder Information
Bidder: u***r( 2057)
Feedback: 100%Positive
Item description: Item Title: 1956 Topps Mickey Mantle #135 PSA 8 NM-MT (PWCC)
Bids on this item: 18
30-Day Summary
Total bids: 342
Items bid on: 99
Bid activity (%) with this seller: 5%
Bid retractions: 5
Bid retractions (6 months): 29

Peter,

Sincere question here. How do we know in this case that this bidder retracted bids on this auction or any of Brent's auction? I don't think we can be certain of that unless his bid activity with this seller was 100%. (Or it easily could be my lack of understanding on how to interpret the information)

From Brent's own post. "Anyone who retracts a bid in our auction is flagged by eBay trust and safety and their account is labeled with the improper action." - http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=1196475#post1196475

I'm not being an apologist here, or implying that bid retractions are acceptable. As others have pointed out, it does bring into question a seller's "integrity".

I just was questioning whether we could determine if any of the retractions (in this case) were on PWCC auctions, and thought as a lawyer, you would appreciate how Brent's remark doesn't address someone that is allowed to continue to bid with many retractions, as long as they aren't retractions on PWCC auctions. :)

HRBAKER
10-30-2013, 04:25 PM
That is important but less so. Still unsettling that his auctions seem to attract a significant number of bidders who think that bid retractions (anywhere) are an acceptable sort of behavior IMO.

calvindog
10-30-2013, 04:39 PM
Jeff, why even discuss it unless you're willing to fund a civil lawsuit to stop it? Can you give me one intelligent reason? I know this is a tough question so I'll just sit here and wait for your response for as long as it takes.

HRBAKER
10-30-2013, 04:46 PM
Jeff, why even discuss it unless you're willing to fund a civil lawsuit to stop it? Can you give me one intelligent reason? I know this is a tough question so I'll just sit here and wait for your response for as long as it takes.

OK, Jeff - you got me. It's the picture with his wife.

calvindog
10-30-2013, 05:17 PM
OK, Jeff - you got me. It's the picture with his wife.

Damn, you got me. And here I thought the board was filled with mentally-deficient imbeciles.

HRBAKER
10-30-2013, 05:26 PM
Damn, you got me. And here I thought the board was filled with mentally-deficient imbeciles.

You know the real reason, I might want to consign some day. ;)

thehoodedcoder
10-30-2013, 05:57 PM
to jeff:

complaining about it and not doing something is worthless.

you can waste your time doing that. i will not. its really simple.

fund it? fund gives the impression of a lot of money.
you don't have to be a millionare to file a civil suit. you can walk right down to your township building and file one for 20 to 30 bucks. it would be worth me giving you the 20 bucks, if that is to much, to shut the conversations up. let me know where to mail my check.

all of you can do the same. so stop bitching and for the price of burger king for lunch you can take action.

if not its just blah blah blah.

kevin

Rob D.
10-30-2013, 06:04 PM
Sweet. Looks like there will be a doubleheader to watch tonight.

HRBAKER
10-30-2013, 06:07 PM
Jeff,

Can you get Continuing Ed credit in this thread? :)

Leon
10-30-2013, 06:11 PM
Jeff,

Can you get Continuing Ed credit in this thread? :)

Well, since you don't HAVE TO be a millionaire to file a civil suit, can you be a millionaire and still file one? Maybe Jeff L knows? I am thinking the $20 is sounding pretty darned good about now..I think he's bitten off more than he can chew, but what do I know?

calvindog
10-30-2013, 06:34 PM
fund it? fund gives the impression of a lot of money.
you don't have to be a millionare to file a civil suit. you can walk right down to your township building and file one for 20 to 30 bucks. it would be worth me giving you the 20 bucks, if that is to much, to shut the conversations up. let me know where to mail my check.


kevin

So after you file a civil suit, what about the lawyer's time to take depositions, make discovery requests, buy transcripts of depositions, trial time, etc?? I mean I get that you bill probably $20 an hour, but some lawyers I understand charge as much as $1000 an hour. Pretty much the market sets our relative values as human beings. Blah blah blazy blah.

Peter_Spaeth
10-30-2013, 06:37 PM
So after you file a civil suit, what about the lawyer's time to take depositions, make discovery requests, buy transcripts of depositions, trial time, etc?? I mean I get that you bill probably $20 an hour, but some lawyers I understand charge as much as $1000 an hour. Pretty much the market sets our relative values as human beings. Blah blah blazy blah.

Who needs a lawyer? Pro se is the way to go.

Republicaninmass
10-30-2013, 07:39 PM
How does Pro Merkle Bono work?

thehoodedcoder
10-30-2013, 08:31 PM
So after you file a civil suit, what about the lawyer's time to take depositions, make discovery requests, buy transcripts of depositions, trial time, etc?? I mean I get that you bill probably $20 an hour, but some lawyers I understand charge as much as $1000 an hour. Pretty much the market sets our relative values as human beings. Blah blah blazy blah.

sounds like nothing but excuses to me. the 20 bucks is the filing fee in small claims court. enough claims for a single case or series of events will get compiled into a class action suit.

represent yourself. do the leg work, get others to do the same thing. let your continued conviction that you pour into threads like this over and over again on this site drive you to do it yourself.

every post you put on this thread is another 5 to 15 minutes you could have done something productive with.

kevin

Peter_Spaeth
10-30-2013, 08:47 PM
"enough claims for a single case or series of events will get compiled into a class action suit."

Why do people here insist on lecturing on subjects they know nothing about? Do you know the first thing about class action law?

HRBAKER
10-30-2013, 08:50 PM
"enough claims for a single case or series of events will get compiled into a class action suit."

Why do people here insist on lecturing on subjects they know nothing about? Do you know the first thing about class action law?

Peter,

That's not important, it's the internet!

Peter_Spaeth
10-30-2013, 08:54 PM
Peter,

That's not important, it's the internet!

Yeah we've got Jamie on criminal investigations and indictments, and now Kevin Q on class actions. Good stuff.

calvindog
10-30-2013, 08:55 PM
"enough claims for a single case or series of events will get compiled into a class action suit."

Why do people here insist on lecturing on subjects they know nothing about? Do you know the first thing about class action law?

He knows how to place an order at the Burger King drive-through window -- that's enough knowledge to handle the intricacies of class action law according to him.

thehoodedcoder
10-30-2013, 09:07 PM
"enough claims for a single case or series of events will get compiled into a class action suit."

Why do people here insist on lecturing on subjects they know nothing about? Do you know the first thing about class action law?

you clearly do not. i explained it perfectly. the fact that you think my explanation is lacking even in the slightest means you do not not.

companies, particulary ebay and paypal over the last 12 months if you have paid enough attention, have done everything they can to mitigate the class action suit against them by getting people to enter into agreement for binding arbitration.

let me guess, you didn't write the letter into them and gave up your rights to be a part of a class action, correct?

if we are assigning roles, jeff would be at the podium and peter would be sitting in a folding chair in the audiance, amongst a sea of empty chairs, right?

kevin

slidekellyslide
10-30-2013, 09:10 PM
let me guess, you didn't write the letter into them and gave up your rights to be a part of a class action, correct?



kevin

What are you going to spend your 25 cent check on?

HRBAKER
10-30-2013, 09:11 PM
you clearly do not. i explained it perfectly. the fact that you think my explanation is lacking even in the slightest means you do not not.

companies, particulary ebay and paypal over the last 12 months if you have paid enough attention, have done everything they can to mitigate the class action suit against them by getting people to enter into agreement for binding arbitration.

let me guess, you didn't write the letter into them and gave up your rights to be a part of a class action, correct?

if we are assigning roles, jeff would be at the podium and peter would be sitting in a folding chair in the audiance, amongst a sea of empty chairs, right?

kevin

I'll make the Burger King run!

Peter_Spaeth
10-30-2013, 09:18 PM
Damn, I guess in the twenty years I have been litigating class actions I haven't learned a thing, because Kevin here knows much more than I do. Oh well. Time to check my malpractice insurance.

thehoodedcoder
10-30-2013, 09:25 PM
Damn, I guess in the twenty years I have been litigating class actions I haven't learned a thing, because Kevin here knows much more than I do. Oh well. Time to check my malpractice insurance.

answer just one thing:
are you telling me that if a company has a large number of civil cases for a particular series of events they would not push to have those cases settled as a class action instead of fighting them individually?

if you are a lawyer, listening to you blabber on this thread is even worse than it was before. someone with the facilities to do something, talking time by.

kevin

Peter_Spaeth
10-30-2013, 09:39 PM
answer just one thing:
are you telling me that if a company has a large number of civil cases for a particular series of events they would not push to have those cases settled as a class action instead of fighting them individually?

if you are a lawyer, listening to you blabber on this thread is even worse than it was before. someone with the facilities to do something, talking time by.

kevin

A class action typically is the last thing a defendant wants because the exposure potentially is so high once a class gets certified. Defendants typically spend a tremendous amount of effort to oppose class certification, on the theory that most plaintiffs will not pursue their claims individually and it will be much cheaper to settle or defend those suits that do get filed. There are circumstances where a defendant might want to consolidate separate cases depending on whether that procedural vehicle is available, but that is different from a class action.

HRBAKER
10-30-2013, 09:41 PM
A class action typically is the last thing a defendant wants because the exposure potentially is so high once a class gets certified. Defendants typically spend a tremendous amount of effort to oppose class certification, on the theory that most plaintiffs will not pursue their claims individually and it will be much cheaper to settle or defend those suits that do get filed. There are circumstances where a defendant might want to consolidate separate cases depending on whether that procedural vehicle is available, but that is different from a class action.

Peter,

You sound just like a real lawyer. :)

calvindog
10-30-2013, 09:42 PM
A class action typically is the last thing a defendant wants because the exposure potentially is so high once a class gets certified. Defendants typically spend a tremendous amount of effort to oppose class certification, on the theory that most plaintiffs will not pursue their claims individually and it will be much cheaper to settle or defend those suits that do get filed. There are circumstances where a defendant might want to consolidate separate cases depending on whether that procedural vehicle is available, but that is different from a class action.

blahzy blah blah blah. blabber.

thehoodedcoder
10-30-2013, 09:45 PM
A class action typically is the last thing a defendant wants because the exposure potentially is so high once a class gets certified. Defendants typically spend a tremendous amount of effort to oppose class certification, on the theory that most plaintiffs will not pursue their claims individually and it will be much cheaper to settle or defend those suits that do get filed. There are circumstances where a defendant might want to consolidate separate cases depending on whether that procedural vehicle is available, but that is different from a class action.

if the risk is known, then it can be smarter to consolidate. it is not unheard of. hence my comment. someone with attention to suits being filed against a particular defendant can also easily bring class action on behalf of the class. whether the defendant pushes for it, or an entity involved in a civil case brings it to a class action......with enough people filing civil suit the chances of it becoming a class action from civil suit goes up.

enter binding arbitration into the conversation where you agree not to file suit in court of law against the defendant. now you have no chance of having what most consider a fair hearing, nor the ability to join a class action suit.

nothing i said is inaccurate. thank you for confirming this.

kevin

Peter_Spaeth
10-30-2013, 09:48 PM
Kevin, there is a whole plaintiffs' bar out there that wants to bring any claim it possibly can on behalf of a class, because that's where the money is. But your terminology about cases being "compiled" into class actions is not accurate. All it takes is one plaintiff to bring a class action.

thehoodedcoder
10-30-2013, 09:50 PM
Kevin, there is a whole plaintiffs' bar out there that wants to bring any claim it possibly can on behalf of a class, because that's where the money is. But your terminology about cases being "compiled" into class actions is not accurate. All it takes is one plaintiff to bring a class action.

you singled out one word in everything i said? i agree. i said that a person can file on behalf of the class.

"someone with attention to suits being filed against a particular defendant can also easily bring class action on behalf of the class"

it is actually ok to admit i was not wrong.

kevin

Peter_Spaeth
10-30-2013, 09:53 PM
Kevin, believe it or not, all it takes is one plaintiff to get a class certified. The class members then get notified and usually they are then bound by any settlement or judgment unless they opt out or object. So there doesn't need to be any interest beyond the one plaintiff. It's legalized blackmail.

thehoodedcoder
10-30-2013, 09:57 PM
Kevin, believe it or not, all it takes is one plaintiff to get a class certified. The class members then get notified and usually they are then bound by any settlement or judgment unless they opt out or object. So there doesn't need to be any interest beyond the one plaintiff. It's legalized blackmail.

i am aware. i have bought and sold stock so i get the notifications. your a lawyer so you are trying to jerk my words to prove a point about me not knowing how it works. its 12:00pm on a work night. had i known that you would use every exact word against me i would have worded it slightly more perfect for you.

my original comments still stand. you are a lawyer, with the facilities to do it, and you are on here talking about it day in and day out? am i the only one that doesn't make sense to?

kevin

Peter_Spaeth
10-30-2013, 09:59 PM
i am aware. i have bought and sold stock so i get the notifications. your a lawyer so you are trying to jerk my words to prove a point about me not knowing how it works. its 12:00pm on a work night. had i known that you would use every exact word against me i would have worded it slightly more perfect for you.

my original comments still stand. you are a lawyer, with the facilities to do it, and you are on here talking about it day in and day out? am i the only one that doesn't make sense to?

kevin

As I have said, I have discussed these issues with law enforcement. I can't just go out and file a lawsuit, I need a client, a defendant, and a claim, no? Some of these matters are not all that conducive to civil class actions, in my estimation.

thehoodedcoder
10-30-2013, 10:02 PM
As I have said, I have discussed these issues with law enforcement. I can't just go out and file a lawsuit, I need a client, a defendant, and a claim, no? Some of these matters are not all that conducive to civil class actions, in my estimation.

that shouldn't be hard with how rampant the problem is right? your talking about all of the things you need every day? are you saying that the items you need are not existant? then what in the world are you talking about on here?

you basically just admitted you have nothing solid.

kevin

RGold
10-30-2013, 10:41 PM
I'm starting to lose any respect I had for Harvard Law. Kevin is beating you up like a church mouse. :D:D:D

drmondobueno
10-30-2013, 11:20 PM
As I have said, I have discussed these issues with law enforcement. I can't just go out and file a lawsuit, I need a client, a defendant, and a claim, no? Some of these matters are not all that conducive to civil class actions, in my estimation.

Hello, Peter. I am going to stick my neck out here and ask a few questions. This whole ebay/shill/seller thing has me uncomfortable. My problem, I know. So I am asking. So feel free to shut me down if I make no sense..

I buy a card. There is bidding activity from a potential buyer that bids up the price of a card. I end up winning but only after a run up with several incremental bids. It appears there may be shilling going on. So who do I look for ? The shiller? The seller for "letting it happen"? Or is ebay accountable for not providing tools to stop this type of activity? I hated dealing with hypotheticals when I was involved in the financial industry but dont know any way to get a better idea...oh yeah, I live in California and the seller is in...pick another state...

Keith Temple

Runscott
10-30-2013, 11:33 PM
Keith, Kevin, Ronald,

Would you prefer that we ignore problems we see, unless we can legally prosecute? The law isn't perfect and ebay is shielding its sellers in order to maximize profit. But despite this, we can still point out problems that we see and let our forum members react as they deem appropriate.

For instance, as a result of this discussion I might decide that Brent's actions are fine, and bid or consign with him. Or I might decide that he's a cheat who is using ebay's policies of shielding fraud, to make as much money as he can while he can. But at least we have discussed it...in a DISCUSSION FORUM... which to me seems very appropriate.

slipk1068
10-30-2013, 11:39 PM
Keith, Kevin, Ronald,

Would you prefer that we ignore problems we see, unless we can legally prosecute? The law isn't perfect and ebay is shielding its sellers in order to maximize profit. But despite this, we can still point out problems that we see and let our forum members react as they deem appropriate.

For instance, as a result of this discussion I might decide that Brent's actions are fine, and bid or consign with him. Or I might decide that he's a cheat who is using ebay's policies of shielding fraud, to make as much money as he can while he can. But at least we have discussed it...in a DISCUSSION FORUM... which to me seems very appropriate.

+1

drmondobueno
10-31-2013, 12:02 AM
Keith, Kevin, Ronald,

Would you prefer that we ignore problems we see, unless we can legally prosecute? The law isn't perfect and ebay is shielding its sellers in order to maximize profit. But despite this, we can still point out problems that we see and let our forum members react as they deem appropriate.

For instance, as a result of this discussion I might decide that Brent's actions are fine, and bid or consign with him. Or I might decide that he's a cheat who is using ebay's policies of shielding fraud, to make as much money as he can while he can. But at least we have discussed it...in a DISCUSSION FORUM... which to me seems very appropriate.

Scott,

The reason I asked my rather naive-looking question is because of the discussion on this thread. I am new to the hobby and am struggling with what I need to do personally about this. I have bought cards from many board members this last year and have yet to have any problem with a BST transaction, thank you all very much. I have also purchased cards from a few ebay sellers mentioned in this thread (and others), as well as a few auction houses. While my purchases are nowhere near the dollars seen in these examples, I am really wondering if I have paid inflated prices because of the condition of the marketplace.

So is the seller a cheat, or is the marketplace rigged so a guy like me won't know he's been had until...now. Be the seller an AH with a solid reputation, or an ebay site with questionable scan practices and shilling apparently all too frequent for any comfort...I am thinking about going back to building bamboo rods and forgetting all this. Too bad, as it has been a lot of fun.

My question to Mr. Spaeth was not intended as confrontational, and if taken that way, my apologies.

glchen
10-31-2013, 12:06 AM
Keith, Kevin, Ronald,

Would you prefer that we ignore problems we see, unless we can legally prosecute? The law isn't perfect and ebay is shielding its sellers in order to maximize profit. But despite this, we can still point out problems that we see and let our forum members react as they deem appropriate.

For instance, as a result of this discussion I might decide that Brent's actions are fine, and bid or consign with him. Or I might decide that he's a cheat who is using ebay's policies of shielding fraud, to make as much money as he can while he can. But at least we have discussed it...in a DISCUSSION FORUM... which to me seems very appropriate.

Scott, the problem is that the arguments around this get too personal. People are basically calling each other idiots if they don't agree w/ the opposing opinion. There's no "I respect your opinion, and let's agree to disagree." Instead it's more like, "you are an idiot who doesn't know what the #%#$%$ you're talking about, so just shut the %$#%$# up before you embarrass yourself further."

calvindog
10-31-2013, 05:18 AM
Scott, the problem is that the arguments around this get too personal. People are basically calling each other idiots if they don't agree w/ the opposing opinion. There's no "I respect your opinion, and let's agree to disagree." Instead it's more like, "you are an idiot who doesn't know what the #%#$%$ you're talking about, so just shut the %$#%$# up before you embarrass yourself further."

Maybe if the people who sell widgets for a living respected the professional opinions of people who are dispensing information gleaned directly from decades of practice in that professional field instead of claiming that their lay opinions of said field are instead more accurate there wouldn't be the problem you talk about.

Maybe if the people who sell widgets for a living didn't fabricate their opinions for reasons of greed or dishonesty in an attempt to protect the fraudsters -- and instead actually gave honest opinions -- there wouldn't be the problem you talk about.

Respect is a two way street.

HRBAKER
10-31-2013, 05:42 AM
Maybe if the people who sell widgets for a living respected the professional opinions of people who are dispensing information gleaned directly from decades of practice in that professional field instead of claiming that their lay opinions of said field are instead more accurate there wouldn't be the problem you talk about.

Maybe if the people who sell widgets for a living didn't fabricate their opinions for reasons of greed or dishonesty in an attempt to protect the fraudsters -- and instead actually gave honest opinions -- there wouldn't be the problem you talk about.

Respect is a two way street.

+1

Peter_Spaeth
10-31-2013, 06:55 AM
i'm starting to lose any respect i had for harvard law. Kevin is beating you up like a church mouse. :d:d:d

lol.

markf31
10-31-2013, 06:56 AM
Maybe if the people who sell widgets for a living respected the professional opinions of people who are dispensing information gleaned directly from decades of practice in that professional field instead of claiming that their lay opinions of said field are instead more accurate there wouldn't be the problem you talk about.

Maybe if the people who sell widgets for a living didn't fabricate their opinions for reasons of greed or dishonesty in an attempt to protect the fraudsters -- and instead actually gave honest opinions -- there wouldn't be the problem you talk about.

Respect is a two way street.

+1

It's hard to respect someone when they spew nonsense about a topic that they, in reality, know absolutely nothing about, attempt to defend their own blatant ignorance on the subject and charade as an expert on that topic. That is being stupid and/or ignorant. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.

Peter_Spaeth
10-31-2013, 06:58 AM
that shouldn't be hard with how rampant the problem is right? your talking about all of the things you need every day? are you saying that the items you need are not existant? then what in the world are you talking about on here?

you basically just admitted you have nothing solid.

kevin

You just keep revealing your ignorance. There are all sorts of meritorious individual claims that do not work as class actions because of very precise and technical requirements you obviously don't know anything about. But keep it up, you are impressing my friend Ron. :D

jhs5120
10-31-2013, 07:08 AM
On a seperate note, has anyone seen some of the bidding activity in the HYEE auction?

Do they accept consignments?

Peter_Spaeth
10-31-2013, 07:11 AM
Keith not taken as confrontational at all. I think the answer in terms of a fraud claim, like in most circumstances, depends on the facts of your case, what information do you have based on bid history, etc. suggesting you have been defrauded. Fraud has to be proven by clear and convincing evidence, and alleged with particularity. This is why civil lawsuits are imperfect, as someone alluded to. It can be a catch 22 -- the evidence is in the hands of the fraudster, but without it you don't have enough to state a claim that isn't speculative. Now if Mastro's bidding records are released, for example, and it's pretty clear you were run up on a particular card -- different story.

As far as a claim against anyone for inflating the overall market, it would seem very difficult to prove that any particular card you may have bought was overpriced for that reason, as there could be a host of explanations. Then again, I tend to think like a defense lawyer, so don't take my word for it.