Blatantly Hacked and Kudos to Rob Lifson PSA should be ashamed!
 

There are several PSA high graded cards in REA that Rob mentions that he feels they are trimmed.

This one is an obvious hack job and PSA should be ashamed of themselves!

This is embarrassing!

Kudos to Rob Lifson for being honest!

PSA should buy these and pull them, but their upper management is garbage!

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...emid=24741#pic

Dan you're such a PSA hat..er...wait you're right. Looks like PSA 8 is the new Authentic.

Good for REA.

Well Dan, it is all just opinions and you know what they say about those. On the other side of the coin, I have had a recent wake up call about my own mortality, (such is the frailty of the human condition). Knowing that my only heir will be my daughter, and she doesn't know Casey Stengal from Casey Wise, I have had a change of heart and now prefer a card to be encapsulated and graded by a TPG. And of the 3 big dogs in TPGs PSA is the best to me. Just my opinion. I would like to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to J. O. as I am sure I have insulted him in the past. Peace:)Dave. ps BTW Dan you have some fantabulous stuff for sale. VERY impressive.

I'd rather send them back to PSA and have PSA make good on their policy than put them up and have REA call them trimmed. PSA does make good when they blow it like that.

I have never heard of a collector of PSA 8 (or higher) slabs actually sending cards back to PSA because they feel they are trimmed. If PSA couldn't tell a card was trimmed BEFORE it was hidden behind plastic (and PSA are the experts), then how can a lowly collector tell AFTER it is entombed? Doesn't make sense to me :confused:

REA opined that a T206 PSA 8 Frank Chance was trimmed a few years back, and it didn't make the slightest bit of difference in the sale price. In fact, it sold for more than what those cards were typically going for back then.

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/.../2009/238.html

It's happened; I've done it myself one time with several PSA 9s and 10s (1970s cards) I felt were trimmed/short. They concurred the cards were bad, a settlement was reached, and the cards were taken out of circulation. I guess mistakes get made but they can be corrected, at least to some extent.

Nice:D

+1

Hell, it looks as if someone went at those with a rototiller.

Just a joke. No one sue me.

Dan - I thought that we agreed the other day that if a card is in a slab that it is authentic and unaltered. Why the sudden change of heart? ;)

The key thing is that when you get caught you take care of the problem quickly so that your customers keep coming back for more...or less.

Steve mentioned in another thread that it's real easy to spot trimmed cards (I assume, that's only true if the card is not in a holder). He got into the detail about how the cutting blade used 100 years ago affects the front and the back of the card. Most of us already had a sense of this, but if not - his explanation certainly explained it well. Apparently it's nothing at all like the results you get from modern blades that weren't designed like paper cutters.

So I wouldn't call it a 'mistake', although committing fraud is certainly a mistake of sorts. But if it really is simply grader ineptitude, I have to wonder why you would put a grader who isn't aware of these differences, on a $1,000+ card.

I know - everybody likes more cash.

These older labels are tricky. Whenever I see a problem with a PSA card it's always in these circa 2000-2004 slabs. I don't know if it was just one problem grader or a more relaxed mentality or they were just unaware, but it is almost always these older slabs.

It's a shame that REA accepted this consignment, I held them to the highest regard until now.

Well said. I can only speak for myself, but if I ran an AH I would not put up cards I suspected were altered in slabs. I respect REA for calling it out like they did-- that should not go unnoticed-- but I would have gone one step farther and said we don't put up fugazi merchandise.

How is it fake? REA described it exactly how it is: trimmed. You think Legendary would do that? They're altering the cards themselves and failing to disclose in their write ups. What else is REA to do? There actually is a market for trimmed, pristine cards. REA is blameless here and should be lauded for its honesty.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said "fugazi." That implies fake. I should have said trimmed. To me trimming makes a card utterly undesirable-- but that's just me; if there is a market for such cards and REA wants to cater to that market then by all means, to each his own. I will say I applaud the step they did take. As someone who personally avoids trimmed cards like the plague, were it my AH I wouldn't put them up. But again just my opinion there.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

As it was pointed out before, the last PSA card that they described as trimmed sold for MORE than the card in the perscribed condition usually sells for. Obviously one of two things happened; the buyer didn't read the descripition carefully or the buyer has the intentions to resell the card without the disclaimer.

REA shouldn't play the middle man for releasing altered memorabilia into the market place. I am happy they mentioned it might be trimmed, but it is a horrible practice to knowingly sell altrered cards that were inappropriately labeled. REA should be ashamed.

Jason -- or (3) the buyer doesn't care.

Is it reasonable to assume that the consignor and REA discussed this before the item was added to the catalog with its description as "possibly trimmed"? If so, then I don't see the problem - PSA slabs trimmed cards all the time, but PSA are the supposed experts on grading cards, not REA. REA simply gave their opinion on a product.

In my opinion, if REA were to begin a policy of deciding which slabbed items to auction, based on their own opinions (thus overruling the TPA's), possibly demanding that any questionable cards be cracked, then you would have a huge mess. Where would it lead? Would they then refuse to auction a '5' because they thought it should be a '4'? Basically, they would become a TPA of sorts, and that's not their business.

Before the following gets brought up (for those of you who don't have me on ignore), I believe TPA'd autographs are a different discussion.

Ashamed? What? The "#1" TPG says its good, REA thinks otherwise and is letting its bidders know to be careful and bid accordingly. They are choosing to protect and inform its bidders, integrity over commission, yet still bringing a nice card to market.

"Ashamed?" This is hilarious. REA is the only AH which provides more information than the bidding public legally deserves by disclosing its opinion that certain cards are trimmed -- and it has reason to be "ashamed?" You're on crack. Bill Mastro and Doug Allen ripped off their friends for years and until recently the majority of the posters on this board protected and defended them -- but Rob Lifson should be "ashamed" for selling an altered card in a numeric holder and telling the truth. Do you think the buyers of such cards will disclose the same when they turn around and sell them?

Dan, et al- are there other T206's in REA that they say might be trimmed, or just this one? Just curious, as I'm already bidding on a ton of the 8's and curious if I might've missed that in some of the descriptions. I'll also go back and check. I think I have a good eye, and usually try to bid only on cards with full borders...if they look short or narrow, I steer clear.

And yes, kudos to Rob & team. They're presenting it honestly and it's up to the bidders to bid or not.

So REA turns the consignor away and refuses to accept the card under the suspicion that the card is altered, what do you think the consignor will do next? Its entirely possible, and one could argue almost probably, that the consignor takes the card to another AH who is not as diligent, forthcoming and honest as REA where the card gets offered without any mention in the auction listing to the fact the card has possibly been trimmed.

I believe that some people are upset about REA delaying the inevitable. It would not surprise me if in 6 Months we saw some of these cards for sale at another AH without a "trimmed" disclaimer.

I guess then the question is: What duty does a AH have in keeping the hobby clean?

Exactly. And I would bet that REA did discuss this first--they may have insisted on it--and that the consignor was given an option of going elsewhere.

Some may think that it is not enough--that apparently these cards should not be allowed to market or maybe the auction title should have all caps "BEWARE-TRIMMED, DANGER!!!! However at some point people need to take responsibility for reading the description. Moreover, as noted, right or wrong some people do not appear overly bothered by trimmed cards and are willing to pay large for them. So as far as REA's role here, I don't see how it can be viewed as anything other than a plus. People are told there's a chance the card is trimmed, which is tolerable to some but not others. Sure we can all think of nefarious plans of resale, but that's not REA's role, fault, or responsibility.

In my opinion, at the PSA 8 level for T206s, as many if not more buyers care more about the number on the flip than whether the card is trimmed. I expect these cards will sell for strong money, as high grade slabbed cards always do. I don't know what else REA could have done other than give its opinion.

I admire REA for disclosing that they believe these cards to be altered - assuming that Scott is correct that they discussed this with the seller beforehand. I can't think of any other AH that would have the integrity to do this.

Of course the consignor was aware beforehand -- and kudos to him as well for leaving them in Rob's auction and not sending them to another AH.

There are 14
 

There are fourteen PSA 8's in the REA auction that all include the phrase "very slight trim" along one of the edges. Please look at link below for additional details:

http://bit.ly/17xXapJ

Still don't know how Reulbach is not one of them, it almost looks miscut top to bottom....

I'm sorry, but this is horrible in my opinion (I know many people do not agree). These cards are obviously trimmed and it IS their responsibility to turn these cards away.

I admit, 4 out of 5 auction houses would sell these cards without any sort of disclaimer, but is this acceptable? Just because the status quo is "it's good if it came from PSA" doesn't mean it's an acceptable practice to dump your trimmed cards onto another person. Yes, the buyer MAY not care, but somewhere down the line these will change hands and change hands again and they will eventually end up in the collection of someone who does care. If REA's policy is, "we said they were trimmed so our hands are clean" then I will stick to my guns and say, they should be ashamed.

What would you have the AH's do - crack the cards out and send them back to the consignor?

And if they are so blatant that YOU can tell, right through the plastic, what do you have to say about the guy(s) who slabbed them?

REA is advertising the problem, which is a good thing for the hobby. Such negative advertising for PSA (and this resulting thread, which is further good stuff) is the only way we can ever humiliate them into NOT slabbing trimmed cards. We can only hope that ALL AH's will begin doing this, and that consignors will allow it.

Reject the consignment.


No, a good thing would be to take these cards out of circulation.


I really do not hope that all AH's start accepting trimmed cards just so they can say they might be trimmed. A one line disclaimer tucked in the middle of a drawn out item description is hardly something we can begin to "hope" for.

You evaded answering my question - your second point above indicates that you WOULD have the auction house crack the card out of its holder. Is that true?

My comments were based on dealing with the situation realistically, not having AH's become the police of the hobby - that's not their job and it's impractical.

It may not be there job, but it IS there responsibility to prevent forgeries and altered items from circulating throughout the market.

We need to start holding auction houses such as REA accountable for profiting off of altered items. The ONLY reason any of these cards will receive a bid is because of the "PSA 8 NM-MT". Yes, there is a market for trimmed cards, but not at the prices these cards are currently at. PSA will only be held accountable when ethical dealers step forward and have these cards re-evaluated - I am not seeing that here.

if the auction house is positive, knows for sure these are trimmed cards, they should turn them away. it's their duty. just as it is their duty to turn away an autograph they know to be bad that is slabbed in an abc or xyz company holder. you dont say you know the autograph to be bad, but let the sale go on anyway, and if you only suspect the autograph to be bad, but dont know for sure, it isnt proper to list it as "suspected" fake, it's not fair, you either know it is a fake or not.

so the AH either knows these are trimmed or not, and if not, should list it like normal and all is well. if they know it's trimmed, should turn the lot away. but suspecting them to be trimmed isn't anything. all lots are available for inspection by the public at anytime during business hours. so there you go, the buyer should either inspect it firsthand or if they buy the lot but don't like the cards, take it with the authentication company, but the AH should only get involved if they know for sure that a card is one way or the other. otherwise they could suspect they were trimmed, but what if they actually weren't? not fair.

If the AH says evidence of trimming, it seems like they are saying that it is trimmed in their opinion? so why are they allowing it to be sold in the graded holder? If they aren't sure, then they shouldn't say evidence, evidence is evidence. Do auction houses say that there is evidence the autograph is a fake, but still allow it to be sold? I have shown auction houses fake autographs in a slabbed holder, and the AH's pulled the item. Would they say in the listing that there is evidence it is a fake, but still allow it to be sold, no way.

They also didn't say they suspect it to be a fake either, because if they don't know for sure, they shouldn't say anything.

Jason,

REA has put the choice in your hands the bidder to decide if you agree or not.

If you do not agree and think REA is incorrect then bid, if you agree with REA that they look suspect then don't bid and be thankful that they had the integrity to bring to your attention.

Cheers,

John

My opinion is if any trimming is disclosed in the auction description, that's fine with me. Would it be better to reject the cards? Perhaps, perhaps not. I understand the sentiments and reasoning behind those who wish they were rejected. But if the auction house is accurately describing the condition of the cards they are offering, I'd have a very hard time classifying that as unethical behavior.

Just my opinion.

I don't see what good would be accomplished if REA rejected these cards. The consigner would simply list them with an AH that didn't ask questions or make disclosures. The cards would still be in circulation, and some of us could unknowingly end up with them. This way we have the ability to make an informed decision whether or not to bid on them.

Travis, I think cards and autographs are so different that they have to be treated very differently by AH's. Example - REA is not saying that these cards are fakes; rather, they are saying that they have been incorrectly authenticated. It's the TPA's job to grade them correctly, not REA's - the TPA failed. If it were a fake card, that's very different (to me, anyway), and should be handled the same as a forged autograph;i.e-pull it.

Also, there is a big difference in skills required to tell if a card is trimmed, versus whether or not an autograph is a forgery. REA could much more easily do the former and feel confident expressing their opinion. On the other hand, if they said "this PSA authenticated Ruth looks like it might be fake to us", they are basically saying that they are now Babe Ruth autograph experts, and that PSA is not. If it comes to that, they should follow Lelands' path. If they ever get to that same point with slabbed cards, they really don't have the option of starting their own card-grading service. That would be a disaster for an auction house. Cards and autographs are not quite apples and oranges, but close enough to go in separate bags.

But that would be done behind the scenes, with you and I never being aware of it. What incentive would that give PSA to stop doing it, when there are still so many 'sharp corner' collectors going for the highest-ranked set registry?

I see your point of view, though.

No doubt what REA did was admirable to a degree and far better than not saying anything.

Could they have chosen to pass on the items-- sure. I personally would have, but that is just me. It is true then that the owner would have just moved on, where they would have doubtless wound up for sale with no mention. Considering that scenario, what REA did was a service to the hobby, in that these particular cards have now been "outed" to some extent in a widely read, rather high-profile hobby catalog.

Yet much of the debate regarding what REA did, and could have done further, belies the responsibility of the owner.

I once had several cards I suspected were trimmed. I brought then down to PSA and told them as much. PSA bought them back and destroyed them. I put the ethical onus primarily on the owner of such a card, when he hears they might be trimmed. It would bother me too much to own a trimmed card, and would bother me more to pass it along to another. Have PSA review the card for the alleged trimming and render their final opinion-- they may say it's good and disagree with whoever says it looks trimmed, or they may agree a mistake was made and honor their policy.

they have only been outed and a service done to the hobby if you believe rea over psa. but how do we know who to believe?

,

I'd say the chance is trim-to-none.

Rob did not one thing wrong here, it's clearly stated at REA's web site about these issues.

I'm glad the issues are stated, but the fact that he is allowing these into enter the marketplace is kind of astonishing.

What if Pepis decided to consign his massive collection of fraudulent packs?

This is no different.

What if REA took the consignment and wrote, "In our opinion these packs might be tampered, but that's just our opinion, others might disagree." It would be gross negligence on their part. Yes, they wrote a little disclaimer and won't be held liable, but it is extremely unethical.

These cards are like currency to fraudulent sellers. They are trimmed cards that got past PSA. Everyone here KNOWS that these cards will exchange hands more than 2 or 3 more times within the next decade, will they always carry a disclaimer? No. Will potential buyers know that these are trimmed? Probably not. And will it eventually end up in a collection of someone who cares about the integrity of the card... Yes, of course it will.

REA is acting as the middle man for compromised cards, they are doing the hobby a disservice by allowing these cards to enter into the market.

Kudos to them for going above and beyond the typical AH by including a disclaimer, but that SHOULDN'T be the highest standard of integrity in this hobby.. everyone here loves REA (I do too), but everyone here KNOWS they could have (and should have) done more.

Jason

From the responses given, no they don't.

So no one has a problem with these cards entering the market as is? Wow.

+1..

"He" didn't allow anything to enter the marketplace. PSA did that when they graded them.

Jason, what we have here is differences of opinion between PSA and REA/consignor (whom I tend to agree with). What do you expect to happen here? Do you believe the consignor should send them back to PSA for re-evaluation? Ok, but what if PSA sticks by their opinion? What if they say the cards are fine? Then what is the consignor supposed to do? And who's to say that wasn't already done?