Legal issues in the hobby [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

07-13-2007, 05:46 PM

Posted By: JoannThis might be a fun thread. Or maybe not. We'll see. One of my professors is a huge baseball (Tigers) fan, and I recently brought in my cards to show him. He thought they were great. He has arranged an invitation for me to speak to the Sports and Entertainment Law Society at school about cards and the legal issues associated with the hobby. I will, of course, cover fraud as the biggest topic. But on this board we have also discussed taxes, contracts and even securities. So ... I'm looking for some help on topics I may have missed. This is for both the lawyers and the non-lawyers. What are some of the legal issues that affect the hobby? What is your analysis or opinion of the various issues? A few general questions to get it started: If you agree via email to buy a card, and the seller tells you he no longer has it or it is not for sale, has there been a breach of contract? What if you see it for sale a month later on the BST, or in the Pick Ups thread because someone else bought it? Can you do anything about it (assume it would be worth it - a higher end card)? Are the grading companies indemnifiers of either buyers or sellers? I am going to PSA's web site to see what their policy is, but is there ever a chance they could be on the hook for the PSA 8 Wagner (let's assume that it is somehow definitively proven to be trimmed - not debate whether or not it is)? If someone posts an ebay auction with a stolen scan, is there any cause of action if no one bought it? Who would the injured party be? Any and all legal issues welcome, and the more detail the better. Can you sue on contract for specific performance if you made an agreement to buy a 1/1 card, and the seller reneges? I am already mentally putting together my presentation (and hoping it will be scheduled after finals in a few weeks), but want to hear others' ideas. Thanks in advance for any responses. J

Archive

07-13-2007, 06:10 PM

Posted By: barrysloateWhile many of the issues you brought up are bona fide legal ones, the cost of collecting on most of them would be prohibitive, and they would just die out. For example, if somebody buys a $75 card from you on ebay, and then reneges, how much effort will you put in to collect it? You are likely going to let it slide. I think a more interesting topic is: despite the numerous laws that govern fair trading, the baseball card hobby seems to be impervious to them. We all know it's the wild west, so I might discuss how laws are constantly broken and in most cases little is ever done.

Archive

07-13-2007, 06:34 PM

Posted By: Josh AdamsJoanne, Starting where Barry left off, I suggest comparing UCC-2 to the purchase and sale of baseball cards. From what I remember, Section 2 deals with the sale of goods, I believe there's a pretty good law review article in there somewhere! I'm sure you will get some more ideas from the esteemed attorneys on this board. So far, sounds like a cool presentation. Best of luck! Go Go White Sox 2005 World Series Champions!

Archive

07-13-2007, 06:38 PM

Posted By: barrysloateJoann- I am of course not an attorney, but it seems to me that whatever laws do govern the business of this hobby, so few of them are ever enforced.

Archive

07-13-2007, 06:44 PM

Posted By: P SpaethThe PSA question could be a good law school exam question. Is the act of grading a card an ongoing representation or warranty, such that there would be no statute of limitations issue vis a vis a new buyer even though the Wagner was graded 16 years ago? Does PSA owe a duty of care for purposes of a possible negligence claim to the world or only to the person submitting the card? With all the rumor and innuendo out there, does any buyer assume the risk it is trimmed? Or in the same vein, is any reliance on PSA unreasonable? Suppose PSA has only a limited warranty (they will only pay up to X dollars on an overgraded or shouldn't have been graded at all card). Is the limitation effective?

Archive

07-13-2007, 06:51 PM

Posted By: peter chaoBarry's pretty accurate. Once in a while a case concerning baseball cards or memorabilia will get into Small Claims Court here in the Bay Area. However, if an attorney brought an action in the Superior Court the action would be laughed out of Court by the Judge. One notable exception in recent memory was the furor over Barry Bond's home run ball. However, at the time people thought the ball might be worth a million. I knew one of the attorneys involved in the litigation and asked him about it. He said the Court took the case seriously only because of the value of the ball and the publicity surrounding it. Good luck on your presentation. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Peter

Archive

07-13-2007, 07:05 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesEven if PSA was totally vis a vised regarding an ongoing representation of warrantee, I'd like to hear how college law students would prepare a case on a subjective assessment (wadaya mean trimmed? Don't gimme that sheet! It's cut from a sheet.) against the foremost expert grading company.

Archive

07-13-2007, 07:05 PM

Posted By: barrysloateOne question I've always had, and this relates to what Peter S. said, is suppose you bought a professionally graded card ten years ago for $100. Today that card is worth say $1000, but when you go to sell it you discover it was altered and never should have been holdered in the first place. So you now decide to press charges against the grading company. Assuming you could win the case, would you only get back your $100 cost or would you be entitled to current market value? Or would you get your cost plus some modest interest?

Archive

07-13-2007, 07:06 PM

Posted By: P SpaethIt contained an interesting discourse on the law of property, abandoned property, etc. The bottom line was the Judge ruled they should split the proceeds. <a href="http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~econ438/fall05/popovhayashi121802dec.pdf" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~econ438/fall05/popovhayashi121802dec.pdf</a>

Archive

07-13-2007, 07:37 PM

Posted By: P SpaethLemme give you my typical answer: it depends. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> It probably does depend to some extent on the terms of any warranty PSA might have, is it based on cost or is it based on value. But in terms of general principles of fairness, you are really only out $100, right? Damages often are assessed as the difference between the actual world and the "but for" world. In the actual world you have a worthless card. "But for" the misgrading you would not have had a $1000 card; you would have the $100 because you wouldn't have bought the card in the first place. So your damages are $100 plus interest.

Archive

07-13-2007, 07:48 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI didn't think it would be the $1000, but I was curious how it would be determined.

Archive

07-13-2007, 08:00 PM

Posted By: randOutstanding points on the grading company's warrantee years after purchase. I would like to hear more about the sickening constant trend on ebay with New members with "0" feedback lifting scans. What's Ebay's responsibility?

Archive

07-13-2007, 08:03 PM

Posted By: DaveWJoann, What an interesting topic. I think with regards to your first issue, a sale that was denied, it would be hard to show damage. You haven't paid anything, you just lost a "made" deal. You would have to show that the price was a substantial deal for you, and that you were damaged by that loss of deal. Difficult to prevail, as many have said. I think another topic that may fringe on the legal arena is insurance. Should a collector insure the collection? In the case of a loss, how do you establish value? Let us know how this turns out, please. Dave

Archive

07-13-2007, 08:08 PM

Posted By: P SpaethJust a guess, but there is probably something in ebay's terms and conditions of use that limits or excludes their liability for transactions among users.

Archive

07-13-2007, 08:10 PM

Posted By: MisunderestimatedThese are some of the more interesting legal issues that occur to me offhand. I would be interested in knowing more about them myself if I weren't rather averse to doing legal research in my spare time: -- While hardly limited to baseball cards -- auction law is especially significant in the hobby. This is especially true where state laws differ and, of course, on eBay. I haven't actually ever looked at whatever auction law you agree to when buying-selling on eBay but I would think an audience of future lawyers might find that especially interesting. As I understand it there are a number of higher profile cases where eBay has been sued for one thing or another based on what is sold on eBay (large class actions). e-commerce on the scale of eBay is a relatively recent phenomena and there is minimal specific statutory law so the stakes for applying laws drafted prior to the advent of eBay to eBay and similar "markets" are very high. As the prior posts suggest one of the biggest issues is determing what if any damages there are in a given case of fraud or breach of contract. Cards and other collectibles can be very difficult to place a clear value on -- and this difficulty along with problems of collecting the damages once they are ascertained are among the major the reasons I beleive that so few claims are ever actually brought.

Archive

07-13-2007, 08:13 PM

Posted By: P SpaethLiability You will not hold eBay responsible for other users' actions or inactions, including things they post. You acknowledge that we are not a traditional auctioneer. Instead, the Sites are a venue to allow anyone to offer, sell, and buy just about anything, at anytime, from anywhere, in a variety of pricing formats and venues, such as stores, fixed price formats and auction-style formats. We are not involved in the actual transaction between buyers and sellers. We have no control over and do not guarantee the quality, safety or legality of items advertised, the truth or accuracy of listings, the ability of sellers to sell items, the ability of buyers to pay for items, or that a buyer or seller will actually complete a transaction. We do not transfer legal ownership of items from the seller to the buyer, and nothing in this agreement shall modify the governing provisions of California Commercial Code § 2401(2) and Uniform Commercial Code § 2-401(2), under which legal ownership of an item is transferred upon physical delivery of the item to the buyer by the seller. Unless the buyer and the seller agree otherwise, the buyer will become the item's lawful owner upon physical receipt of the item from the seller, in accordance with California Commercial Code § 2401(2) and Uniform Commercial Code § 2-401(2). Further, we cannot guarantee continuous or secure access to our services, and operation of the Sites may be interfered with by numerous factors outside of our control. Accordingly, to the extent legally permitted, we exclude all implied warranties, terms and conditions. We are not liable for any loss of money, goodwill, or reputation, or any special, indirect, or consequential damages arising out of your use of our Sites. Some jurisdictions do not allow the disclaimer of warranties or exclusion of damages, so such disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you. Regardless of the previous paragraph, if we are found to be liable, our liability to you or to any third party is limited to the greater of (a) the total fees you paid to us in the 12 months prior to the action giving rise to the liability, and (b) $100.

Archive

07-13-2007, 08:15 PM

Posted By: P SpaethRelease If you have a dispute with one or more users, you release us (and our officers, directors, agents, subsidiaries, joint ventures and employees) from claims, demands and damages (actual and consequential) of every kind and nature, known and unknown, arising out of or in any way connected with such disputes. If you are a California resident, you waive California Civil Code §1542, which says: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor."

Archive

07-13-2007, 08:17 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldI always liked thinking about the various attorneys in the Hall. I think the next attorney to go into the Hall will be Tony LaRussa. He played, although he'll go in as a manager. I think I know the rest of them, but won't post the names just yet so folks can respond with them. One is in N172 as a player, a couple in T206, one's Cracker Jack as a player...

Archive

07-13-2007, 08:20 PM

Posted By: randMy point is/was if ebay is notified throughout an auction that the seller is bogus, shilling, ect.. and they do not remove the listing, then the buyer gets screwed out of $1000's...i would think there should be some accountability even though they protected themselves in their rules. alot of people, including myself have lost $100's and $1000's by getting scammed, especially through paypal.

Archive

07-13-2007, 08:21 PM

Posted By: P SpaethHugh Jennings be one.

Archive

07-13-2007, 08:23 PM

Posted By: P SpaethBranch Rickey be another as I recall.

Archive

07-13-2007, 08:26 PM

Posted By: Pennsylvania TedMiller Huggins is probably the most known....although most people do not know he was a lawyer. A smart lawyer at that, since he chose BB as a career, instead of practicing law. TED Z

Archive

07-13-2007, 08:27 PM

Posted By: Scot Reader Joann, I think it is great that you are speaking on this topic. Maybe your talk will inspire one or two members of the audience to become collectors--perhaps even Net54 participants. Are you speaking at Detroit College of the Law by any chance? A good friend of mine was a professor there for a couple of years (now tenured at Loyola Law School in Chicago). Scot

Archive

07-13-2007, 08:43 PM

Posted By: SteveThe fascinating John Montgomery Ward is the one usually forgotten

Archive

07-13-2007, 08:43 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldJennings, Rickey, Huggins, and Ward are correct, times 4. Still one more in T206, me thinks. And I don't consider this a hijack, lawyers to be and lawyers would like knowing about these guys.

Archive

07-13-2007, 08:46 PM

Posted By: JayJohn Ward was a lawyer. John Tener became the governor of PA, was he a lawyer?

Archive

07-13-2007, 08:49 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldBanker, Jay. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_K._Tener" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_K._Tener</a> But remembering Tener is great! I love thinking about who these guys were, and what they did, so much more than pop report numbers. Frank.

Archive

07-13-2007, 09:12 PM

Posted By: Cobby33Joann- I'll send you my last Remedies exam to answer this question of yours <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> If you agree via email to buy a card, and the seller tells you he no longer has it or it is not for sale, has there been a breach of contract? What if you see it for sale a month later on the BST, or in the Pick Ups thread because someone else bought it? Can you do anything about it (assume it would be worth it - a higher end card)? How about- can specific performance be ordered if the seller still has the card?

Archive

07-13-2007, 09:14 PM

Posted By: Cobby33I don't think LaRussa ever took and/or passed the Bar (exam).

Archive

07-13-2007, 09:23 PM

Posted By: Ken McMillanAlbert Pujols said he also failed the all star manager's exam....<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

07-13-2007, 09:27 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldCould be correct about Tony and the bar exam... Specific performance... gotta read that reported case about Nap Lajoie, where the Phillies seek specific performance to get Nap to quit Cleveland and go back to Philly... the court issued a restraining order, but not specific performance. Nap ignored it, and would not ride the train to or through Pennsylvania to avoid contempt. The case is in the old NE Reports. Maybe not, it is at 202 Pa 210, 51 A. 973 (Sup. Ct. 1902). <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2ghtpy" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/2ghtpy</a>

Archive

07-13-2007, 10:26 PM

Posted By: Cobby33That's good knowledge!

Archive

07-13-2007, 10:39 PM

Posted By: MisunderestimatedOrator Jim O'Rourke was a lawyer too. He graduate from Yale Law School way back before you even needed to go to law school to become an attorney. Many attorneys simply served an apprenticeship with a lawyer before they became lawyers (such as Abraham Lincoln).

Archive

07-14-2007, 12:48 AM

Posted By: AdamI don't remember where I heard this, but wasn't there some case involving someone suing PSA for losing, I think, a T206 Magie that was submitted for grading? Anyone have a copy of that opinion?

Archive

07-14-2007, 05:03 AM

Posted By: barrysloateThat T206 Magie was submitted by one of our board members and occasional posters, but he will have to come on and discuss the details if he chooses. He did win his case.

Archive

07-14-2007, 05:24 AM

Posted By: JoannThanks so much for the input and comments so far. I find some of these questions fascinating. Barry - I think you bring up a really good wrap-up point. After all the legal discussion I can end by talking about how almost none of it is ever brought into play in the real world, and some of the reasons for it. I think people will find that very interesting - there will be so many issues covered, and to think that in a way it's all for naught is a real-life reality. Especially good point to make on students, I think. I didn't realize that ebay specifically invokes UCC Section 2 provisions to remove themselves from responsibility in the transaction. I suppose it would be a real mess if buyers were somehow allowed to say that, on ebay, ownership passes when they pay the money. Fraud, especially on ebay, will be a big part of the topic, and pointing out this kind of contractual provision will be on point. Anyone remember when one ebay seller listed a lot of T206's with a BIN of $30K, and they didn't own the cards? The website that had them for sale came on this board to let everyone know that the auction was phoney. That will come up too - as I recall ebay didn't take that auction down either. I will definitely bring up Peter S points about PSA and negligence theory. The audience (students) may not have had all of the classes related to some of the advanced topics, but I can count on the fact that they have had first term Torts. I'll also mention the vintage players as lawyers, but I'm not sure they would recognize names. Probably as part of the cards show-n-tell. And as one more interesting note. This professor told me (I haven't seen it yet) that the case involving the Barry Bonds home run ball is now in the Property casebook we use for our Prop I and Prop II classes. Keep them coming. Thanks again. Joann

Archive

07-14-2007, 06:11 AM

Posted By: barrysloateGood luck Joann with your presentation. I have this morbid fear of speaking in front of a group of people, even though I was a teacher for three years and taught myself how to deal with it. How many people will you be addressing?

Archive

07-14-2007, 06:52 AM

Posted By: P SpaethI suppose another out for PSA on the Wagner or analagous situation (leaving aside what their published policy may be and just talking general legal principles) would be to say that their certification is not a representation or warranty of authenticity but rather an opinion -- in their opinion, a card is authentic and in a certain condition. So to prevail then, one would either have to show the opinion was knowingly false (enter Bill Hughes?) or, if a negligence theory is viable (and I am still not sure PSA really has a duty of care towards the world at large in the context of grading a card for a small fee), that it was rendered without the exercise of due care.

Archive

07-14-2007, 06:58 AM

Posted By: Pennsylvania TedI am sorry my dear, all this legal "mumbo-jumbo" would put me to sleep (or at least have me yawning). I think you would better hold the interest of your audience if you follow Frank Wakefield's suggestion.... talk about famous BB figures who were schooled as lawyers. Or, at least throw this into the "mix". Starting with Miller Huggins, who in my opinion was the most successful lawyer in the BB scene. He was a very scrappy ballplayer, who was a very effective lead-off batter. He was an innovative base-stealer and had a great glove. More important, though, was his impact on the BB scene when he came to the NY Yankees. He, not only started out as their Manager; but, also as their chief scout. How many know this......it was Huggins' eye for talent that brought Babe Ruth to New York in 1919. And, the rest is BB history. TED Z

Archive

07-14-2007, 07:00 AM

Posted By: P SpaethWasn't Ruth's talent kinda obvious? Not like he was a sandlot kid in 1919 or anything.

Archive

07-14-2007, 07:12 AM

Posted By: Pennsylvania TedMiller Huggins started as a ballplayer in 1904 and became a Manager in 1913 (St Louis). As a manager, he closely followed Ruth's career from the beginning. TED Z

Archive

07-14-2007, 07:41 AM

Posted By: leonWith all due respect (and there is a lot of it) the legal mumbo jumbo might put you and I to sleep but it's what lawyers do....and her audience is law students. .....Glad you are going to make our dinner...even if only for afterwards cocktails......

Archive

07-14-2007, 07:45 AM

Posted By: AlanTed - Why can't you make the dinner ?

Archive

07-14-2007, 08:04 AM

Posted By: Pennsylvania TedI don't want to switch the topic here.....it's not fair to Joann. I'll address your question in Leon's Dinner thread. TED Z

Archive

07-14-2007, 08:26 AM

Posted By: Peter SpaethThe legal mumbo-jumbo puts me to sleep sometimes, even though it's what I do. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

07-14-2007, 08:38 AM

Posted By: Tony GordonTo find additional legal issues run a search on Westlaw or Lexis with "baseball cards" as your search phrase -- with your law school access to Westlaw and Lexis you should be able to come up with quite a bit of case law along with law review articles. Great topic! Good luck!!

Archive

07-14-2007, 10:25 AM

Posted By: peter chaoJoann, Add Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis who was an early pioneer/executive to your list of baseball people that had a legal background. He was inducted in the HOF in 1944. Peter

Archive

07-14-2007, 10:48 AM

Posted By: P SpaethThe case of Fleer v. Topps, discussed a while back, had some interesting discussion of whether Topps had monopoly power over a narrowly-defined baseball card market.

Archive

07-14-2007, 11:21 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisOK....let's get "lawyer-ese"....here are some classic BB card related topics that I think would go over pretty good. American Caramel vs ATC over the rights to portray Eddie Plank (based on my theory why the T206 Plank is rare). Bowman Gum Co. vs Leaf Gum over the rights to portray Satchel Paige in theur 1949 sets. Sy Berger of Topps vs Bowman Gum Co. over the rights to portray Ted Williams in their 1954 sets. Sy Berger (Topps) vs Fleer over the rights to do a multi-card BB set story on Ted Williams in 1959. Just some suggestions....whatever topic(s) you choose ....here's wishing you the best. TED Z

Archive

07-14-2007, 11:24 AM

Posted By: barrysloateTed- that would really put a room full of lawyers asleep.

Archive

07-14-2007, 11:43 AM

Posted By: Bob CasmerJoann, I've got another question for you related to both Ebay and contract performance. What would be your recourse, if any, in the following case where you were the auction winner. Someone listed a series of auctions on Ebay and while they were ongoing, negotiated with various individuals to sell their entire lot of cards, including the ones he had listed for auction. You also communicated with the seller, via email, where he attempts to get you to also bid on the entire lot of his cards, all while the auctions are still running. When you decline to bid on his entire lot off Ebay, he tells you he's probably going to pull the auctions and sell the entire batch of cards off Ebay, as one lot, so don't bother bidding on the lots. Meanwhile, you had already bid on several of his auctions before any of these online conversations/emails occurred. Surprisingly, the various auctions end and you end up the high bidder on several of them. For whatever reason, the seller never ended the auctions. You assume he never followed through with selling the entire lot offline and contact him about payment for the items. He emails back in a very angry manner and tells you he sold everything offline as one lot, just like he said he was going to do. He further says he tried to go to Ebay and cancel the auctions but, THEY must have someone screwed up because they never cancelled them. He also claimed that he went out of town right after he attempted to cancel the auctions so that he never saw they were not cancelled. While the dollar amount of the cards in question was not extremely high, about $1,000, they did involve cards that you had been looking for over some time to complete sets off and in a couple cases, you had never seen a couple of these cards offered anywhere, shows, auctions or Ebay, in several years. Thus, though not considered 1 of 1 items, there were nonetheless, extremely difficult to obtain from elsewhere, in your experience. Ebay claims that every bid is a legal, binding contract so does a seller in this case have an obligation to complete the sale to the high bidders who entered into the auction contracts or, does the seller have the ability to negate an Ebay auction by communicating to the bidders that they aren't going to complete the auction but, then fail to properly cancel it. Of course when questioned about the items, the seller claimed they were already sold and gone so he wouldn't send them. He also quit responding to emails about the situation. I'ld welcome your thoughts on this one. Thanks. Bob

Archive

07-14-2007, 11:45 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisThe let's go back to my "plan A" and talk about lawyers who are BB HOFer's. ......OR........ Let's have a legal debate why the current "genius lawyer" in BB didn't put his star player up to bat with the bases-loaded in the 9th in the ALL STAR game ? ? TED Z

Archive

07-14-2007, 11:48 AM

Posted By: barrysloateTed- we are baseball card collectors. Joann will speak to a group that likely doesn't collect baseball cards. They are more interested in the legal issues of collecting. Big difference.

Archive

07-14-2007, 12:02 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzBarry, I believe Ted's topics would be of substantial interest to aspiring lawyers or talent agents, although other than factual distinctions, it looks like the same issue repackaged over time. The rights to protect and control the use of one's image seems germane and important to professions where these people may be working one day. I do not know the level of audience sophistication or what depth Joann would care to provide, but I don't think Ted's ideas are off base. Bob, your question was directed to Joann, but I believe you would have a cause of action under the facts of your scenario, although the practical obstacles outlined by others may prove it unwise to proceed, and specific performance will not be available if the cards in fact are now gone from this seller.

Archive

07-14-2007, 12:21 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusJoann, Interesting thread. Here's an issue I've been wondering about, especially with all the discussion about altered cards. Suppose someone buys a graded slabbed card at an auction, sends it in to another grading service for a cross over and is told the card is altered. Let's say too, so as to simply the issue, that the evidence that the card is altered is legally irrebutable. What recourse, if any, does the buyer have against the auction house and/or the consignor? And, let's also assume that in the terms and conditions of sale the auction house stated not only that all sales are final but they will not be responsible for any misrepresentations/errors made by any reputable grading service. At first glance it would seem the auction house has protected itself. However, given that in my view at least the auction house knew or reasonably should have known that some statistically significant percentage of graded slabbed cards will not withstand re-examination, do they have an additional disclosure obligation that goes beyond merely saying they will not be held accountable for grading company misrepresentations/inaccuracies? Will it be found that unless and until they have a disclosure along the lines of "Not only will we not be responsible for grading company misrepresentations/inaccuracies, we explicitly want to alert bidders that in our view some statistically significant percentage of graded slabbed cards are in fact altered and as a result have a market value (if the alteration is known) substantially less than its nonaltered value"? Or, can the auction house argue that bidders know or reasonably should know this and therefore no additional disclosure is required? I raise this issue because I feel it is only a matter of time before people who have bought at auction for staggering sums graded slabbed cards find a number of the cards are altered, and will look for legal recourse wherever they can find it.

Archive

07-14-2007, 12:28 PM

Posted By: D.C. Markel......I've got a good lawyer joke! Ah wait -- nevermind. The problem with lawyer jokes is that the lawyers don't think they are funny and everyone else doesn't think they are jokes.

Archive

07-14-2007, 12:30 PM

Posted By: P SpaethI don't see any liability unless you can prove the auction house/consignor actually knew or was reckless in not knowing the card in question was altered and that the opinion expressed by the grading service was wrong. Otherwise they are not selling a guarantee of authenticity just an opinion. EDITED TO ADD The mere fact that the auction house/consignor know that SOME cards are improperly slabbed would not create liability in my opinion, one because the same thing is known generally by buyers who assume that risk, and two because unless it was so obvious the auction/house consignor knew or was reckless in not knowing, it really says nothing about the particular card in question. Now here is a question I find increasingly interesting: does a seller have an obligation to state if a card in a holder has been rejected by another company? Generally there is an obligation to disclose "material" facts. Why isn't that material?

Archive

07-14-2007, 12:46 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusIn my view that info is material and therefore should be disclosed. To go back to the question I raised, here's another twist. Why couldn't it be argued that (i) because there seems to be a consensus that the percentage of altered cards in graded slabs is 15% or higher (yes, I know some think it is much lower but at least from the posts on this board I think that number reflects general consensus), (ii) the economic loss from buying such a card could be staggering, and (iii) auction houses can cost effectively take reasonable measures to substantially lower the risk, that auction houses will be found to have acted recklessly unless and until they themselves conduct their own examination of such cards, which shall include examination under halogen and black lights?

Archive

07-14-2007, 12:51 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldAn area to discuss could be the legal issues involved in 21st century internet baseball card transactions. Or, lawyers in the Hall of Fame. Or both. Or those 2 plus the legal issues in baseball... Delehanty's league jumping and contract breaking (read Sowell's book July 2, 1903, a GREAT baseball book) which explains why the leagues formed as they did, and then the National Agreement. And it get's you to the beginning of the Reserve Clause. The Players' Association. You can see why baseball "outed" Ed Reulbach (who'd be in the Hall but for the owners putting him out), Curt Flood's case, free agency. Some of those law students may well end up in sports law, or being an agent. An lawyer friend of mine who has been an agent for a few players, an umpire, a few drivers, suggested I read License to Deal, about baseball agents. He says the players flock to whoever tells the biggest lies.... I'd stick a bit of it all in there, but not too much of any of it. Might even add a minute about why the area behind home plate is screened off... the real reason is because back there a patron is safe, if we sit anywhere else we assume the risk of thrown or batted balls, players falling into the stands, or a bat or part of it. If a patron doesn't want to take that risk, he should buy a seat in the safe, screened area. There are turn of the century cases in the old reports about that... The clubs provide a screened area to avoid liability, that is the real reason. Frank.

Archive

07-14-2007, 12:52 PM

Posted By: barrysloateCorey- if I had to assume legal liability on 15% of the slabbed cards I sell, I would go out of business. It would be early retirement for me.

Archive

07-14-2007, 12:57 PM

Posted By: P SpaethI tend to agree with you on the first point from a strictly legal point of view ("materiality" is defined as something a reasonable buyer would consider important to the total mix of information and the fact that a major grading service had rejected a card would seem to pass that definition) but I can't see it ever happening, can you? A catalog description stating FYI this PSA 8 was rejected by SGC, or vice versa? No chance. As to your second point, take it to its logical extreme. Why impose such a duty of independent verification only on an auction house? Why not every seller, or at least every seller who you could prove is reasonably knowledgeable about graded cards? It isn't crazy, to be sure, but I think unless and until the whole concept of third party grading is completely discredited, I can't see a tribunal imposing that duty of independent inspection -- otherwise it would mean a seller has essentially no right to rely on the industry standard third-party verification. So I think, just my opinion of course, that unless the visible evidence in the case of a particular card was such that the seller knew it was altered, or set off red flags such that it was reckless not to look into it further, you would not see liability imposed in the case of a subsequent finding by another grading service that a mistake had been made. Now whether in those circumstances the grading service itself could be liable of course leads back to the Wagner hypothetical discussed earlier. EDITED TO CORRECT TYPOS

Archive

07-14-2007, 12:58 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusMy questions don't assume you would have to have legal liability. Rather they raise the issue of what disclosures/actions, if any, you might have to take to avoid it.

Archive

07-14-2007, 12:59 PM

Posted By: P SpaethWhere will you retire? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

07-14-2007, 01:00 PM

Posted By: P SpaethI am not sure any boilerplate disclosure would negate liability for actual fraud, that is knowingly selling an altered card.

Archive

07-14-2007, 01:10 PM

Posted By: Bob CasmerTodd, I agree with you as to the inability to get specific performance in my case. What I thought might be a more interesting question for Joann to raise would be the involvement of Ebay and their rules. The seller clearly enters into a "contract" with the bidders on his auctions. In subsequent emails to the bidders he informs them of his intentions to terminate the auctions and sell the items elsewhere. (He did not make this communication through Ebay channels either.) He then fails to properly terminate the auctions and ends up with various people thinking they won the auctions but, according to the seller, they didn't. Had the buyers just dealt directly with the seller and not through an Ebay auction, I agree he terminated the auctions and there was no binding deals. What happens though when you insert Ebay into the equation as a third-party go between? Can he legally terminate the auction without properly doing so through Ebay? If he can, then what good is Ebay's claim that their auctions are binding contracts? Does this somehow make Ebay liable to the buyers if they can't enforce what Ebay all along claims is a valid contract? And finally, assume one of the auction winners decides to take the seller to small claims court. As you suggested, if the seller doesn't have the item anymore you can't get specific performance. Furthermore, assume the buyer never paid the seller when it was found out the items were already sold to someone else. Now the buyer isn't out any money so he/she doesn't need to sue to recover their funds either. So what would you be able to take the seller to court for? If nothing, what good is Ebay's claim that these auctions are binding contracts? Bob

Archive

07-14-2007, 01:14 PM

Posted By: barrysloateBrooklyn <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

07-14-2007, 01:22 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusFirst, I would argue that in regard to cards slabbed in the early days before the grading companies had the equipment and people with the experience/expertise to detect alterations, the grading industry has been sufficiently discredited to make the risk of alteration sufficiently great that it would be reckless to sell such a card without either current re-examination or very explicit disclosure. Second, I would also argue that people reasonably hold a national auction house to a higher standard than, say, a 15 year-old kid selling on eBay, so therefore there would be different legal standards for the two based on what a reasonably prudent buyer would reasonably expect. For example, if Sotheby's was saying that a painting was a Renoir, a buyer would reasonably assume they wouldn't say it unless they took all reasonable steps to ascertain that. On the other hand, if I saw a "Renoir" in an eBay auction that some guy said he found in his grandfather's attic and that he knew it was Renoir because it looked like his style based on his high school art class chapter on Renoir, I don't think a buyer's reliance on that information would be deemed to have been reasonable.

Archive

07-14-2007, 01:26 PM

Posted By: P SpaethCorey why do you think cards in the "early" days are less likely to be properly authenticated? What advances in technology have there been since 1992 vis a vis detecting trimming, recoloring, rebuilt corners, etc.? EDITED TO ADD As far as people go, Mike Baker was not at PSA at its very inception but joined pretty soon thereafter, and many folks believe him to be the best there is in terms of people working for the major grading companies. I agree as to the 15 year old kid, I believe in my post I stated I saw no real difference between imposing a duty of independent inspection on the auction house and any reasonably sophisticated seller (such as folks here, for example).

Archive

07-14-2007, 01:34 PM

Posted By: barrysloateCorey- what if Sotheby's had a full plate tintype of a baseball player and they claimed, for example, that it was Jim Creighton. What would be their liability in that case? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

07-14-2007, 01:53 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusPeter, Fair point in regard to the grading companies, though one could argue that the experience component of detecting alterations wasn't around in grading's early years; in addition, possibly the companies themselves have better equipment today than they did then. But the thrust of your point, at least as regards PSA (assuming what I read is correct that they have inexperienced graders, perhaps working without adequate equipment) is correct; therefore I would argue that it is reckless to sell any slabbed graded (PSA) card without current re-examination or explicit disclosure, or at least those cards that show a high percentage of alteration (e.g., T206's (but not, say, 1997 Upper Deck)). In regard to the seller, sorry, I did miss your qualification that the individual seller was to be experienced. Two points. First, that fact would have to have been known to the buyer before he/she bought the card. Second, even if it were known, even experienced sellers wouldn't be reasonably expected to have the equipment needed to detect alterations, as well as the experience in using it, not to mention the access to information and outside expert corroboration, that a national auction house would. Therefore, I continue to believe even experienced sellers would be held to a different standard than a national auction house. EDITED To add that even with Mike Baker on the PSA payroll, inasmuch as there have been posts saying that experienced card doctorers submit their cards to PSA when they know the experienced graders are away, I still think PSA has a ways to go before people have confidence that all PSA submissions undergo "state-of-the art" examination.

Archive

07-14-2007, 01:56 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusBarry, Reread our article. I think it's pretty clear that I believe the buyer would have an auction for fraud.

Archive

07-14-2007, 02:20 PM

Posted By: P SpaethCorey these are all good points but the essence of what you are saying (simplifying slightly of course) is that, for vintage cards, third party authentication is meaningless. Perhaps that is so, and certainly there are adherents of that view on this board and elsewhere, but I doubt that at this point -- given the general acceptance of third party grading -- a tribunal would agree with that. If third party grading is meaningful, I can't see a tribunal imposing a general duty to independently examine a card on an auction house -- not to mention of course the practical difficulties of examining edges inside a slab etc. etc.

Archive

07-14-2007, 02:27 PM

Posted By: Kevin Saucier"But the thrust of your point, at least as regards PSA (assuming what I read is correct that they have inexperienced graders, perhaps working without adequate equipment) is correct" Can anyone find that article written by Orlando not so long ago where he states the common misconceptions about grading (no lights, loupe, etc.) Kevin

Archive

07-14-2007, 02:47 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusPeter, Perhaps there's a middle ground a bit less harsh than saying third party authentication is meaningless (which by the way is not my position)-- that perhaps it's not the end-of-all-ends some make it out to be and therefore a bit more explicit disclosure about the alterations risk (as opposed to the risk that, say, an 8 is really a 7) is a standard we can impose on an auction house. Such a disclosure would be merely a warning to give grading its proper balance, and I'm not sure such a warning would be interpreted by a tribunal to be equivalent to saying third party authentication is meaningless.

Archive

07-14-2007, 02:50 PM

Posted By: P SpaethDisclosure is generally a good thing, but how meaningful would it be, really, to put in the fine print somewhere (or in a letter for that matter as REA did) a disclosure that third party authentication is no guarantee of authenticity and that the slabbed cards you bid on may in fact be altered? Does that really give anyone meaningful information? I tend to think not.

Archive

07-14-2007, 03:02 PM

Posted By: P SpaethAs to your other point, if the auction house is not entitled to rely on the third-party opinion but instead is held to a duty to independently authenticate, then at least in this context how "meaningful" is the third-party opinion? It seems to me, because it is difficult to articulate partial duties, one must either take the position that the third-party opinion absolves the auction house of duties except in the case of red flags; or the auction house has a duty to independently authenticate certain types of material, in which case the third-party opinion has no legal effect.

Archive

07-14-2007, 03:04 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusWe might agree to disagree on this one. I think if a guy is prepared to fork over $75k for a PSA 9 T206 Johnson portrait, then happens to read a warning that there is a not insignificant possibility the card is altered, he might think twice. Certainly no harm in having the disclosure, right? In fact, seems to me, that any resistance by an auction house to having it might be indicative of their concern that people might actually notice it and be influenced by it, thereby lowering the profitability of the auction!

Archive

07-14-2007, 03:04 PM

Posted By: barrysloateThe hobby has evolved to the point of near total dependence on the decisions of the grading companies. That's why roughly 90-95% of the cards that go to auction are graded, and that number is likely to increase. Therefore, my opinion is if one of the big three (or four) slabs a card as authentic, and it turns out not to be, then they are the ones who have to make restitution. If it were the responsibility of the auction house, and especially a small one like my own, I could easily be put out of business if the most expensive card I sold turned out to be altered and it was simply impossible for me to detect (and I had already paid my consignor). I would be forced to turn back consignments left and right out of fear of what my legal exposure might be. If the hobby wants to live with grading, they have to die with grading. That's my position.

Archive

07-14-2007, 03:06 PM

Posted By: P SpaethCorey, no harm in the disclosure, I agree with you there. I just think most people buy with that general knowledge and that at that level of generality the disclosure doesn't say much. Maybe I overestimate buyers' sophistication.

Archive

07-14-2007, 03:14 PM

Posted By: Kevin Saucier"I could easily be put out of business if the most expensive card I sold turned out to be altered" Curious, would your busines do better if you made an effort to rule out alterations? Isn't this what REA does? Kevin

Archive

07-14-2007, 03:15 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusPeter, As to your last post, I'm not saying an auction house to absolve itself of liability has a duty to independently corroborate; I believe I've also said explicit disclosure would be an adequate duty. I would also argue that statistics can in and of itself establish the necessary red flag to necessitate the disclosure duty (i.e., the belief that a statistically significant percentage of slabbed vintage cards are altered as a matter of law could establish the red flag).

Archive

07-14-2007, 03:23 PM

Posted By: barrysloateYes Kevin, absolutely, but what if I simply couldn't detect it? Some of these alterations, as you know, are incredibly sophisticated. And that is exactly why I pay that $100 fee to the graders- because they are supposed to have the skills that I don't.

Archive

07-14-2007, 03:30 PM

Posted By: Kevin Saucier"And that is exactly why I pay that $100 fee to the graders" ouch!

Archive

07-14-2007, 03:31 PM

Posted By: P SpaethCorey -- establishing a duty based on a BELIEF that a signficant percentage of graded cards are bad? Seems awful speculative to me. Not to mention the evidentiary issues in proving the existence of such a "belief" or "perception."

Archive

07-14-2007, 03:57 PM

Posted By: barrysloateKevin- I hear you, but I am going to put you to task: What do you think would be the proper resolution for this situation? If I can't trust the graders, and I don't have the skills myself, should I turn down every card consigned to me above VG or worth more than $500, so that my risk is cut to virtually zero?

Archive

07-14-2007, 04:13 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellMy strategy from now on is that any card over $1,000 I buy they have to send it to Kevin Saucier who will then give me his opinion. If I choose not to buy the card based on what Kevin tells me, I will pay Kevin's fee and the cost of postage/insurance. I haven't told Kevin this yet but based on prior conversations he has volunteered to look at my cards anytime so I assume this is fine.

Archive

07-14-2007, 04:20 PM

Posted By: barrysloateJim- I think that is great. But if he deems a graded card altered, who do you go to for restitution?

Archive

07-14-2007, 04:22 PM

Posted By: Kevin Saucier"Kevin- I hear you, but I am going to put you to task: What do you think would be the proper resolution for this situation? If I can't trust the graders, and I don't have the skills myself, should I turn down every card consigned to me above VG or worth more than $500, so that my risk is cut to virtually zero?" Sure you can trust the graders, I think they get it right most of the time. I didn't know that if you spent $100 per card it was looked at closer than if you spent $10. Doesn't seem right. I thought the $100 just gave it a faster turn around time. Am I wrong? Trying to get a better understanding is all. As an auction house, I would assume you wouldn't turn down any card that was sellable. Kevin Saucier

Archive

07-14-2007, 04:25 PM

Posted By: D. C. Markel"'But the thrust of your point, at least as regards PSA (assuming what I read is correct that they have inexperienced graders, perhaps working without adequate equipment) is correct" Can anyone find that article written by Orlando not so long ago where he states the common misconceptions about grading (no lights, loupe, etc.)'" I have the article. It's on page 14 of the June 2007 SMR. I have seen this article misquoted several times on various message boards. In short, the article states that graders don't measure EVERY card and don't look at EVERY card under magnification. It clearly states that they use those tools, but not on EVERY card. Do you need to "loup" a modern card with a crease or dinged corner or measure a card that appears to have wide borders for that issue? Of course not. The article also debunks the myth that evidence of trimming is detected by a simple measurement with a ruler. Again, people read a lot more into this article than what was written and concluded that PSA graders don't use loups nor measurement devices, which is false.

Archive

07-14-2007, 04:29 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellBarry, As I no longer buy at auctions(at least expensive cards), I would make my purchase contingent upon Kevin's seal of approval. If a seller refused my terms, that would tell me a lot about the card to begin with. With collectors increasingly nervous about shelling out big money for a high end card, this would give me an edge in the marketplace.

Archive

07-14-2007, 04:41 PM

Posted By: Kevin Saucier"Do you need to "loup" a modern card with a crease or dinged corner or measure a card that appears to have wide borders for that issue?" IMO...yes.

Archive

07-14-2007, 04:58 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusPeter, You tell me on this one. Can a duty of mere disclosure be established by it being evidentiarly established that the baseball card collecting universe recognizes that the percentage of slabbed graded altered cards is statistically significant, even though there is no known legally recognizable study that quantifies a precise percentage? EDITED for spelling

Archive

07-14-2007, 05:02 PM

Posted By: barrysloateKevin- I've always wondered the same thing. You would assume that for $100 your card would get a much more thorough look, even though part of that money goes to fast turnaround and the fact it is valued in excess of 5K. And you are correct, I never turn down valuable cards that are already graded.

Archive

07-14-2007, 05:09 PM

Posted By: Kevin Saucier"Kevin- I've always wondered the same thing. You would assume that for $100 your card would get a much more thorough look" Wonder if anyone knows the answer to this. If they all get the same look regardless of price, maybe this can save you some money.

Archive

07-14-2007, 05:12 PM

Posted By: Peter SpaethCorey, we are probably in uncharted legal waters here, but if I were a court I sure would be reluctant to do that, and that is assuming you could prove this "perception" which by the way is hardly "universal" I would think. And I am not sure how you would prove this "perception" anyhow consistent with the rules of evidence. Is it a proper subject of expert testimony? Possibly but possibly not. So how else would you prove it, print out a series of Net 54 threads and try to offer them into evidence not for the truth of the matter asserted (which would be inadmissible hearsay) but for the state of mind of the posters? And how far would that go really towards proving a "universal" "perception"? Have some collectors testify? As to what, their own perception or their perception of the general perception? I am not trying to be a wiseass here but it isn't as easy as you think to "prove" things sometimes.

Archive

07-14-2007, 05:18 PM

Posted By: Kevin Saucier"As I no longer buy at auctions(at least expensive cards), I would make my purchase contingent upon Kevin's seal of approval." I better go buy seal <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>. Jim, as I tell everyone...I try my very best to give an accurate opinion based on objective findings but don't claim to be an expert. I have no loyalty to any company and will tell it like it is based on what I know, for better or worse. Sometimes an opinion can't be made at all for one reason or another. On a good note, I do measure, use loups and various lights on all cards. Many thanks for your support. Kevin

Archive

07-14-2007, 05:31 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusPeter, Not saying it is easy though I can say this. Auction houses are making considerable sums from the sales of slabbed graded cards. In my view a statistically significant percentage of them are altered, and I hardly feel I am alone in this view. In time the s**t will hit the fan and some buyers will discover that what they own are worth substantially less than they paid. They will then look to recoup their losses. If I was running an auction house, I would be hiring legal counsel to advise me whether I should be making additional disclosure and/or undertaking additional measures to safeguard my company from potential exposure. Bottom line -- I am far from persuaded current disclosures/actions (or lack thereof) will provide the necessary legal safeguard. Perhaps I am wrong. I feel reasonably confident, though, one way or the other we will eventually find out. EDITED to add my name

Archive

07-14-2007, 05:35 PM

Posted By: Peter SpaethCorey I agree it will hit the fan eventually. No question. And I would also counsel making as many disclosures as possible to protect myself, particularly as I don't think they would deter sales one iota.

Archive

07-14-2007, 05:44 PM

Posted By: leonIS that SGC will look at a higher value card with more scrutiny than a lower valued one....I could be wrong but it seems like common sense....They are getting 5x-10x the fee and have more liability....If I were them I would be more careful. As for legal issues I would go into them but then I would have to learn about them first. I think Joann has gotten her monies worth in this thread....

Archive

07-14-2007, 05:48 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellCorey, If you own vintage high grade cards chances are that you are able to sell them for substantially more than you paid for them--the returns on buying high grade sports cards have been spectacular in the last decade. Any correction in prices will likely be minimal relative to how dramatically they have risen. Part of this I think is the envy that some holders of ungraded vintage sportscards have of collectors who have bought a lot of graded cards. They are frustrated that they missed the boom in graded sportscard values and are wishing them down(like our friend Joe). Tough question for many to answer is how could you have been right there in the middle of it and not benefitted financially at all. Its like working for Google and never buying any stock.

Archive

07-14-2007, 05:58 PM

Posted By: leonI will actually agree with your post but, quite honestly, it is more about the value of the cards going up than the holders. Don't get me wrong I do agree that many times the highest graded cards have gone up faster but my collection is far from high grade and it's gone up dramatically since I bought it. I have personally gotten most of my most valuable cards graded myself after buying them raw.....

Archive

07-14-2007, 06:14 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellLeon, We'll have to compare return on invested capital and if mine is higher maybe you won't think I'm a moron anymore. I would say in general that high grade graded cards have far outperformed ungraded.

Archive

07-14-2007, 06:15 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusJim, You don't know me but many on this board/in this hobby do. You have every right to disagree with my views and believe that I express them out of sour grapes. But trust me when I tell you I have no envies/frustrations that I missed the boom on anything.

Archive

07-14-2007, 06:17 PM

Posted By: barrysloateJim- if the owners of ungraded cards are envious of collectors who have graded ones, which I tend to doubt, wouldn't they just go out and get them graded? Seems like it's never too late if you choose to do so. And vintage cards have increased in value across the board. Great rarities like E107 have multiplied as much as any high end T206 or Goudey. They just don't exist in NR MT condition.

Archive

07-14-2007, 06:26 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellCorey, I didn't suggest that you did have them--its obvious though that some do. Barry, I said high grade vintage sportscards--most collectors of ungraded cards on this board do not own them in high grade. For example I bought a high grade 41 Play Ball psa 10 from Dave Forman in the early 90s for about $250. Its a pop 1 and probably would sell for $20,000 today. While that may be extreme, almost every prewar 8 I bought 10-15 years ago is at a minimum 5-10 bagger and in many cases substantially more.

Archive

07-14-2007, 06:33 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanIt will be impossible ever to compare the rates of returns on graded v. ungraded due to the obvious fact that ungraded cards are more difficult to slot into categories of comparison due to their lack of grade! Unless you can track exact card for exact card, there's no point.

Archive

07-14-2007, 06:34 PM

Posted By: barrysloateBut as we've said before many vintage cards simply do not exist in high grade yet have likewise skyrocketed. Compare the price of an Old Judge California League player from ten years ago to today. It's probably increased 20 fold, and that would apply for a PSA 2.

Archive

07-14-2007, 06:34 PM

Posted By: leonI take back the "moron" comment about you. I did edit it out but I know someone else still had it in a post. I should have been nicer but you would have to be in my shoes sometimes. I love the hobby and don't think I am the way some folks portray me to be. I can assure anyone I don't run this board for the millions I make off of it <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>. And yes, I will compare notes with you on values....My guess is almost anything (pre wwII, anyway) bought more than about 2 yrs ago has done very well. best regards

Archive

07-14-2007, 06:54 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellBarry, I just don't think its true across the board. Leon, We differ on card restoration although I believe I did read that you said that you believe now that any alteration prior to grading is wrong. I do appreciate you clamping down on the personal attacks. These two or three posters come out of the blue and the only thing they do is attack me without addressing any issue.

Archive

07-14-2007, 07:00 PM

Posted By: JoannJim, I would like to politely ask you to refrain from derailing this thread. I am finding it both helpful and fascinating, and would like any remaining life it has left to be spent on topic. To take a law-based discussion on the potential liabilities in the graded card arena and turn it into a statement regarding the motivations of some of the posters (envy over the money that graded collectors are making, and frustration over having missed out) is inflammatory enough to turn this into yet another flame war. Please allow this thread to go on the course it had been following. Thanks. Joann

Archive

07-14-2007, 07:09 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI'm responsible too Joann, so I will cease and desist (legalese!)

Archive

07-14-2007, 07:40 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellOkay Joann--will do.

Archive

07-14-2007, 09:18 PM

Posted By: P SpaethJim, I dare you to crack that card out and resubmit it. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> On a serious note, and hopefully getting back to the subject of the thread, I do think that while there has been a tremendous increase in demand for (and therefore price of ) cards, there exists a serious potential to derail all that if (through litigation or otherwise) what is now largely fear innuendo and speculation becomes proven -- namely that a whole hell of a lot of big dollar high end cards are altered. I think that when you start seeing lawsuits, and I believe you will, the legal principles and results that emerge from the first few cases could have very important implications for auction houses, dealers, grading services, and collectors.