I think he is wrong on saying he is linked as a Shill Bidder for Mastro...to my knowledge that is Not True.

I like that they call out the people that everyone gets upset if you observe their deeds. Their enemies have a really hard time citing specific instances of their claims to fact being actually wrong.

But this is a good example of why SCR is so immature and insufferable at the same time at the 9 minute mark.

“I’ll tell you something right now, if this guy ever approached me at a card show or anywhere else, he’d get dealt with real quick [cuts to video clip of 2 men shooting sub machine guns into a store]”

Really? Death threats? Hard to claim the moral high ground while implying you’ll shoot everyone.

A calmer, restrained version of SCR could be a good thing, but it's not in the cards, pun intended.

It's been too long to remember the details, but:

"Under claims of violations involving the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, Forman now says Mastro made unauthorized bids to raise prices during its auctions using Forman’s account as well as those of other, unnamed individuals." (https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...-counter-suit/)

Seems that Forman's name was out there, but Forman alleged that Mastro used Foreman's account without his knowing to place said shill bids when he filed his suit against Mastro.

That's the way I remember it...allegedly he used Forman's bidder number without his consent.

Yes... allegedly

I was corrected by the evidentiary record (because, of course, there is an actual reality outside of what I think or recall). Only shilling Steve's lots, so clearly not the houses using bidders accounts without their cognizance. The house would shill things not owned by the hijacked accounts family members.

https://haulsofshame.com/blog/wp-con...l-bid-list.pdf

Steve being Steve Forman.

wtf
 

Just when I thought it would be difficult to get more cynical, a thread like this reminds me to hold my beer. Intelligent people actually have to spend time arguing with any adult -- presumably capable of critical thinking and accepting of other norms like the merits of pissing into a urinal instead of the floor -- that knowingly selling trimmed cards without disclosure is both acceptable and legal? At some point you walk past the land of "hey, we can all have differences of opinion" and enter into familiar territory of good old fashioned idiocy.

I agree. Someone here is blatantly and disingenuously misrepresenting the factual record of the Mastro case to make it appear as though he was convicted of fraud for trimming and selling the Wagner when that simply isn't true. He keeps pointing to the indictment and a rejected plea deal as if those are the same thing. It's not. He also continues to imply that the mail fraud charge that Mastro was convicted of corresponded to the trimmed Wagner, even though he knows full well that it did not. The Wagner was sold directly, in person, to Jim Copeland in 1987 as a cash deal. It was not mailed, and couldn't possibly be considered mail fraud.

No one has ever, to our knowledge, been convicted of fraud (or any other charges for that matter) for trimming and selling cards. It is what it is, and pretending as if that's not the reality we all live in is not helpful. It is just wishful thinking.

Let's get one thing straight though, since some here wish to put words in my mouth that don't belong there. I do not condone trimming cards. As I have said repeatedly, I think it is unethical and a shitty thing to do.

I see you've now backed off your claim that the Wagner was only something "brought up later." Progress. :)

Mastronet sold the Wagner in 2000.
http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_3.html

In any event, the indictment is not charging him with fraud in connection with the sale to Copeland, it's talking about Mastro Auctions marketing materials which allegedly misrepresented or concealed material facts about the Wagner. Was it a weak claim, could he have prevailed at trial? Maybe so. My only point is that the assertion was made here that the Mastro case did not involve a charge concerning the Wagner and I posted relevant documents to show that it did. Again, it was not the focus of the case, for sure.


And how do you think he was sentenced if he didn't plead guilty? Yes, initially the judge rejected the parties' sentencing proposal, that doesn't mean the substance of the plea agreement was abrogated. You can't sentence someone without a guilty plea or verdict. That's why the official press release from the government continues to refer to the substance of the plea agreement. Or maybe a new one saying the same substantive things was substituted, I would have to check the docket, but it's irrelevant.

I have never claimed the Wagner was a factor in the length of the sentence. I would have to go back and see if the record reflects that one way or the other (and I doubt it was a factor) but it's unimportant to my point.

And you still are ducking MY question, which is why, if there is no conceivable crime for selling an altered card without disclosure, did the FBI investigate for several years, issue scads of subpoenas, etc.?

That is all.

Out of curiosity, because this thread has me thinking; what is the consensus on cutting cards from a vintage uncut sheet? I'm positive that it has been done in the past, but is it widely accepted and condoned? Or is the general consensus, leave history (the cards) as it is?

It's done all the time. There are countless sheet cut cards out there. I believe the general consensus is that sheet cut cards should only receive an authentic rating, and I believe the major TPGs will not officially give a number grade to a card they find is sheet cut (but see exception with SGC and T204 Ramlys recently), but I can't speak for anyone but myself really.

Those guys give off serious “i was picked on a lot as a kid, but I’ll show them” vibes. Too bad the good they do is so catastrophically overshadowed by what asshats they are.

This is not my opinion but what I have actually done and continue to do. I have posted many times I have cut up a LOT of full sheets. I also make it clear when I sell those cards they are sheet cut.

What I have noticed is that even though I say when I sell sheet cut card or cards I know or believe to be altered when the buyer resells them they ALWAYS forget to note the card(s) are altered/sheet cut.

You can only control your own sale.

My guess is most people think it's fine for strip cards and cereal boxes and the like but not so much for a regular Topps sheet or Goudey sheet. The more interesting question to me is the hypothetical scenario in which one comes into possession of both an original uncut sheet from the factory and the original paper cutting machinery used at the factory so that they are capable of creating genuine fresh factory-cut cards from their uncut sheet.

I would not consider those legit, I guess. Since we're talking hypotheticals, suppose someone found Goudey sheets and the original cutting machinery stashed away somewhere tomorrow. Hard for me to accept that a card cut in 2023 should be regarded the same as a 1930s card. Would it have value, of course, but the circumstances should be disclosed. And if that's the case, via Socratic method I think one reaches the same conclusion for any subsequent cut.

Anyone can buy the same cutters used at the factory. I can't remember who because it was a long time ago but someone did actually buy the actual blades used from one of the major manufacturers before.

I've seen that claim too, maybe the claim was that he bought it out of a Topps auction or something. I think it was one of the guys named on Blowout in "the scandal."

I guess then the question is whether the problem is that the cutter wasn't an employee of the factory or that not enough time has elapsed since the cards were factory cut -- in which case the question is how many years would have to elapse after the cut before the cards would be considered legitimate. Or is it that too much time elapsed between printing and cutting, in which case the question is how many hours or months or years or whatever would have been okay?

This was many years ago I heard about the blades. What most can't seem to comprehend is printing cards is just a crap low paying job with equipment anyone can buy or use with very little training. It is far from anything special or restricted in any way shape or form. I have many friends/relatives that actually worked for one of the major card companies for many years.

There's a whole range of sizes, and yes, most are readily available, even back to the early 1900's Some small shops probably still use cutters that old.

The place I worked for had a foot press that cut round corners that was made around 1910. And the leather guy I shared a shop with for a while had a similar press.
Paper cutters are readily available, but ones like the factories used aren't small. They'd fit pretty well in a garage, though.

Sorry, I intended to address your question earlier, but got sidetracked. I will concede that someone at the FBI (Brusokas?) clearly shares your view that this behavior amounts to fraud, or they wouldn't have even bothered pursuing it.

My argument since the beginning though was that they would eventually discover that their views are not shared by the majority. I forget who it was, but one of the larger hobby content creators recently shared that they ran a poll with their audience and were shocked to learn that 30% of their followers thought it was perfectly acceptable behavior and saw nothing wrong with it whatsoever. And those are people *in this hobby*. Add in the percentage of collectors who are on the fence about it, and those who think it's unethical but not criminal, and then extrapolate that data to people *outside* the hobby, and it becomes quite clear that getting a jury to buy your argument and actually convict someone of fraud is an uphill battle.

It's no different from trimming if not disclosed. This is how the majority of vintage PSA 10s were born. And I agree with Mathis in that this is also likely where Fogel's black diamond PSA 10 52T Mantle came from.

Much of the non-Mastro conversation in this thread sounds familiar.

Discussions about card doctors and the alterations they perform (and, by extension, the altered cards) seem similar to late '90s conversations regarding PEDs.

Fans were excited, nearly everyone was making money, and some players were able to have (or continue) careers they otherwise wouldn't. To those who cared to look a bit more deeply, though, it was clear something was wrong.

At the time, baseballs were soaring over the outfield walls with alarming regularity. It was normal, even acceptable, to a large portion of baseball fans. However, there was ample evidence some of the players were cheating to gain an edge. Among other things, their bodies exhibited traits (such as an increased head size) that simply wouldn't occur naturally.

The long-term impact to the sport still isn't fully known. Steroid use continues to be a relevant (and divisive, at times) issue.

That sure sounds familiar. Let me try something.

Collectors were excited, nearly everyone was making money, and some dealers were able to have (or continue) careers they otherwise wouldn't. To those who cared to look a bit more deeply, though, it was clear something was wrong.

At the time, vintage cards were getting high grades from the TPGs with alarming regularity. It was normal, even acceptable, to a large portion of baseball card collectors. However, there was ample evidence some of the submitters were cheating to gain an edge. Among other things, their cards exhibited traits (such as a decrease in size) that simply wouldn't occur naturally.

The long-term impact to the hobby still isn't fully known. Card doctoring continues to be a relevant (and divisive, at times) issue.

Uncanny, isn't it?

For what it is worth a Ringer Podcast Called Sport Cards Nonsense interviewed Evan yesterday. It is about 15 minutes generally at the start of the podcast.

The hosts are not genially vintage guys.

^ The only part that matters. If it pays, it's fine!

Well I have no special insight into the government but my supposition is that the US Attorney thought they didn't have enough ADMISSIBLE evidence to guarantee a win, rather than that too many people on a jury would not see the problem. But I don't know. Again, though, if it's so OK, why does nobody disclose it? Why do they all, other than Mathis, deny it?

Selling a sheet cut card cut by a scammer years later without disclosure is also fraud. If it wasn't material, there would be no reason not to cop to it when selling - and yet they rarely do.

Like trimming, I think it's bad. Ruining items for profit is not the act of a collector but a profiteer. It sucks when it turns out the cool miscut on eBay one buys was actually made by some asshole at home.

It sucks more when they are historical sheets, unique or nearly unique and instructive about the history and process of the card creation. A majority of T card uncut material that survived into the profiteer era has already been destroyed or further cut up (T204, the alleged Wagner/Plank panel, T25 panels, etc.). The interest of profiteers and hobbyists is fundamentally opposed here. The tiny bits remaining are only protected, at most, until their owners pass and the sheets sell to be destroyed. It really sucks when history is destroyed for a few bucks.

The same reason you don't see hardly anyone else here and on Blowout voicing their opinion despite a large percentage of collectors saying they see nothing wrong with it in anonymous polls. They see the public outlash and don't want that pointed in their direction. Hell, just look no further than this very thread to see people calling me names and accusing me being a trimmer despite the fact that I've made it very clear multiple times that I do not condone this activity and consider it unethical.

What's interesting though is that in other hobbies, alterations and restorations are disclosed with pride. In the casino chip collecting world, the words "cleaned and oiled" will often even result in a slightly higher price than chips which haven't been restored.

I know nothing about cleaning or oiling casino chips, but trimming -- actually removing part of an original item -- seems to me in a different category altogether. In any event, at least historically, most alterations have been viewed negatively by most people with respect to sportscards. People prefer to differentiate cards by how well they have withstood the rigors of time, not by the skill of the card doctor.

A large public outlash would very strongly suggest that alteration is material. Yes, it is the scammers who are the victim when people say they should be held accountable for their frauds :rolleyes:.

It's extraordinarily hard for me to believe that if you took, just for example, a PSA 8 mid 60s Mantle and sold it alongside another of the same card and grade but disclosed it had been trimmed, there would not be a significant price disparity.

Mathis on the interview circuit now. I haven't listened to it but it's been summarized as a lot of rationalization.


https://open.spotify.com/episode/6Ql...SvWU4XRkF4DQGg

It’s extraordinarily hard for anyone who isn’t a shill for the fraudsters to understand, because it is obviously and completely false. It only makes sense when one has a vested interest in supporting fraud and must conclude this.

I'm vaguely familiar with the Wagner/Plank Sheet, but do you have a link to the post that summarizes this story. Also correct me if I'm wrong, did Rosen ever find an uncut sheet of 52 topps and then cut them himself? I can't remember. Thank you,

I quit reading at some point but could someone please tell this idiot that not everything is an opinion. a fact is not a god damn opinion you f’ing moron.

I tried to do that Glyn, what Bill was accused of is laid out right in the indictment, so denying it is not a matter of somehow having a different opinion, it's just wrong on the facts.

The definition of fraud, and mail and wire fraud, is also a matter of fact.

Of course, when one asks whether it SHOULD be applied to prosecute card doctoring, then one is in the realm of opinion.

The Wagner/Plank sheet is a part of hobby myth at this point. Pat made a great thread to try and peer through he mist to see what could be actually ascertained not too long ago, as if the questions of this sheet could be resolved it would be immensely valuable to research projects about the printing and layouts: https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...6+Wagner+sheet. This thread has a lot of good questions, contains what is known (alongside some digressions into other uncut sheets like the T204 Ramly sheet that was destroyed), and a lot of myth, conspiracy theories that the cards are outright fakes, and in some parts outright demonstrable lies about the sourcing of material. Michael O'Keefe's book "The Card" presents Rob Lifson's view of the Wagner and Plank cards and their discovery.

The short version is that the top slabbed Wagner (the same one Mastro pled guilty to trimming without disclosure that some people really want to deny) and Plank came from a sheet, supposedly. This is almost certainly a misnomer, as the find does not indicate a full sheet of cards based on what we know of T card printing. Presumably it is actually partially panels or strips. They must have been cut down from something. Almost everything said specifically relies on a single witness' testimony at each part, and so the truth is largely a mystery with everybody's agenda dictating their outcomes. There probably was some sort of uncut material here to birth these cut out cards.

Something that I still struggle with when it comes to cards that need disclosures. For a while we refused to sell them because of their potential impact on the hobby down the line. I finally decided that I have to be ethical but I can't enforce ethical behavior on others. I'm sure people are out there doctoring legit cards they bought from us, so if I can't prevent that what's the difference on a trimmed or recolored card as long as I disclose it.

Of course it still gives me pause, but I can only be responsible for my own actions.

Logic issue here. Why would there be "public outlash" if the hobby was OK with it?

That's all you can reasonably do, I agree.