If you know something is bad, you can't reoffer it as authentic or unaltered no matter what its 'pedigree.' However, I don't doubt that when a card is in a holder it's harder to see all the qualities and details and many sellers aren't experts and reasonably defer to graders and TPAs.

Though, in the long run, it's good for your business if people know you're the type of seller who will point out when TPAs and graders have made mistakes on items you are selling.

My belief is, even if an item is in a holder or comes with a LOA (such as with an autograph or piece of memorabilia), the seller is responsible to the buyer for the authenticity and correct identification. Other than obviously blatant errors, the condition grade on a holdered card is a different thing, as that's a matter of opinion and the seller can't properly grade a card when it's in a holder. Some alteration no doubt will be hidden in a holder too, so that can also be a different situation.

I remember a number of years ago, an eBay seller was offering a rare and desirable "Leaf 'Hermansk'" error card (Hermanski missing a letter)." It was more than obviously simply a label error, as anyone with more than zero eyes saw that the card said "Hermanski" not "Hermansk." But the seller, who had to know the card was not the error, was selling it as the error card because that's what the label said. This is a blatant example of where the seller has to say what the item really is and point out that the grader or authenticator is in error.

+1 again. Well said, David.

In which of these situations, if any, do I need to dislose?

1. I buy a raw card I suspect is trimmed. I think if I bury it within a submission I can get it through. A TPG grades it.

2. I buy a PSA 8. I don't like the looks of it, suspect strongly it's trimmed. I put it back out for sale.

3. I buy an SGC 92. I submit it to PSA in the holder to cross, PSA rejects it for evidence of trimming. I put it back out for sale.

4. I buy an SGC 88. I submit it to PSA in the holder to cross. PSA declines on min. grade grounds. I put it back out for sale. Someone then asks me, did you try to cross it.

These are some initial thoughts I have after reading these questions. I'm not set on them and could change after some discussion.

1. You are selling PSA's opinion. The buyer should determine if they agree or not. No need to disclose your suspicion.

2. Send it back to PSA for a review. If it comes back the same then again, you are selling PSA's opinion. No need to disclose. The buyer should determine if they are comfortable with the grade.

3. Again, your selling a TPG's opinion, SGC in this instance. Maybe the card is not trimmed and PSA was incorrect. No need to disclose.

4. PSA doesn't cross a lot of cards in other TPG holders so that doesn't mean the card isn't graded properly by SGC. However, if a potential buyer asks, then be upfront and tell the truth about your attempted results.

I would add though, I would disclose any of these if a potential buyer asked me.

Pretty easy really, disclose everything no matter if the card is graded or not. This makes you a good person who cares about others.:D

Disclose nothing because it is the TPG's fault and hide behind their incompetence. This makes you a piece of garbage that only cares about yourself no matter how you rationalize it to yourself.:eek:

Just my honest opinion.

All of the above
 

I would disclose each of those scenarios. I wouldn't even wait to be asked if it had been the subject of a crossover attempt, although I cannot see myself trying to cross from SGC to PSA in the first instance.

I agree to disclose, but I see the first 2 as more grey than
black and white. I guess I am jaded when it comes to TPGs and trimmed cards. I have had too many cards kicked. Many that I bought in the 60s and early 70s, either pulled from packs or bought mail order. I don't buy that those guys were trimming .05 to .25 cards when most people weren't really condition conscience. My experience with TPGs is that if they err on an opinion in trimmed or not, that 99% of the time they are not grading a good card and 1% missing a trimmed card.

I don't see a reason to disclose 2. I am not a market player, my personal opinion is not material. Grading history on the other hand is an objective fact. On the other hand, I've never seen anyone disclose unfavorable grading history, as far as I recall.

I agree, and herein lies the problem; how many of us had a card minizero or evid trim and resubmitted it and presto, like magic it has a number

Careful you are on a slippery slope. Are you also going to say every time you think a card should have graded lower? Every time a card has been bumped?

All the time. I measure and examine cards. If I feel there is a problem, I don't send it in. If it gets kicked and slabbed the second time, I feel that they got it right. They were just looking to get additional revenue from grading. Same with cards that look under graded.

I don't resubmit cards, but if I did, yes I would state that it had been bumped. As for the other, I would give my opinion on the grade if asked and might anyway. Sorry, but these are really not tough decisions for me.

Grading is very subjective. If a TPG indicates a card is a 5, it doesn't mean it would grade a 5 two months later by the same company.

If a card cross graded to a higher grade, does that mean you have to disclose the card was bumped up? The way most people look at it, as long as the label from a "legitimate" TPG indicates a numeric grade then it doesn't matter what it was before.

What if a card was initially deemed "trimmed" or AUTH by PSA and three months later you crack it out, resubmit it and PSA assigns a "7" to the card. Does that have to be disclosed? I thought it was an accepted practice to just accept the "legitimate" TPGs assigned opinion.

Look at the "Hall" collection of T206 cards graded by PSA. I would have to believe that most people that have seen that collection of cards would have to believe many of the cards were obviously trimmed, yet it is just accepted by the general collecting public that the cards are legitimately graded because PSA assigned the cards numeric grades.

What about the McNall/Gretzky Wagner? How come that card gets a pass?

I don't think you have to disclose previous information/events that were wrong. If you resubmit a card because the first label misidentified the card (calling a 1957 Topps a 1958, for example), you don't have to disclose that resubmission. Similarly, if the original grading was clearly wrong and you get it regraded to get the correct grade, I don't think you have to disclose that. If you got an autograph in person at a Tri-Star show and have the in-person Tri-Star COA and photo of the guy signing it, but PSA rejects it, I don't think you have to disclose the letter. It may beg the question of why the person would choose to try to get the additional PSA letter, but, believe me, people do that. On the PSA forum, a collector had a game used jersey with team LOA and a photo match and was asking about getting an additional PSA/DNA authentication, and I foolishly asked what was the point paying to get a PSA/DNA letter. The wrong forum to ask that question :)

The very few times I’ve sold some cards, I’ve done everything possible to point out every flaw, especially the hard to find ones like surface wrinkles. But when it comes to pointing out changes in grades (not that I play that game), I would not feel that necessary to disclose. I liken it to real estate. I’m obligated to disclose material issues when I sell. But if I have an appraisal on my house that is well lower than my asking, do I need to disclose that? Should I? Would you? They are just educated opinions like grades, after all.

Seems the general consensus (of at least those who have posted here) is that if the card sits in a slab, then we are ethically exonerated from disclosing anything we know and/or suspect about the card -- everything shifts to the TPG. As sad as that is, I respect that as the general state of things. That said, its not for me.

The situation I posted about earlier in this thread is scenario #4 of Peter's hypotheticals. I bought the card for $13k+, from a "reputable" broker and self-acclaimed T206 expert, after the card sold in a second-rate auction for mid $11k. It sat in a BVG 7 flip and from pictures the card looked gorgeous, and I took comfort in the fact that it was sold by one auction house and now being offered by a bigger-time broker (admittedly, the fact that it was in a BVG flip did bother me however). Anyway, the card arrived, and although it looked a tad "short" to me (but T206s can be that way), it truly is an amazing looking card. I promptly took it to SGC at the Chantilly show to get crossed over. I asked for a minimum grade of SGC 80. When I went to pick it up in person, the guy told me he was sorry but that they could not give it the minimum grade I wanted. I was immediately alarmed, but I did not ask, because I didnt want to hear that card had been tampered with, so I took it home and hoped that maybe SGC just got it wrong. I started to hate the card.

Over the next year I took it with me to card shows to show off and to passively get a consensus. Everyone hated that it was in a BVG flip and I heard from many people, including two major auction houses, that while it is a very pretty card, "it had to remain in its current flip." I took all that as code for :this card has been trimmed." I never tried to cross it over because, again, for me ignorance was bliss ethically, and while I may have sniffed the notion of selling or trading it, I never got aggressive because I just did not feel comfortable. In full disclosure, never once did anyone other than two friends tell me they thought it was trimmed and I never had a TPG tell me that and I do not know for certain that it was trimmed; but of course there are plenty of ways to imply that and I heard them all, and logic tells you something is wrong when a card of that caliber is sold at a lesser AH and was sold in a BVG flip and not crossed over by the AH or the big broker before he tried to resell it.

Anyway, finally, a few weeks ago, I emailed the broker (who I hadnt talked to or done a deal with since I bought this card) and offered the card back to him for a discount (this is a card that by all rights has gone up substantially since I bought it). He accepted, he paid me promptly, I sent the card to him, and its all over.

In those months before I determined to get rid of the card to the broker, I considered just listing it on ebay, or consigning it to a lesser auction house, etc., but the thought of someone paying big money for a card that was likely trimmed but sitting in a 7 case, was too much for me and I didnt want to get mixed up any fallout that could occur -- life is just too short.

I firmly believe that if you know something about the card, like its been submitted before or elsewhere and came back a different grade, or you know a card has been cracked out, washed/mark erased etc and resubmitted, and you do not disclose it, then you are a piece of shit and I have no interest in ever doing business with you.

Ryan Hotchkiss

I have bought a card from a board member who (sometimes deservedly so) gets a lot of crap, and he 100% disclosed that the T206 Wajo pitching Tolstoi SGC 82 I was buying had once sat in an SGC 80 flip and he had it bumped. I think that was a stand up act, and frankly, I think the card is still undergraded in an 82 flip!!

You are welcome to call him, or anyone, a crook but your full name needs to be in your post per the rules. thanks

You seem to put a lot of blame on the broker. You can say otherwise, but your choice of words indicates that you do. Why is it his fault? Did he have the card graded or did he buy it already graded? And just because it was short doesn't mean it was trimmed. SGC didn't have the advantage of looking at the raw card as BVG did. Maybe it was just cut short and SGC was cautious by not crossing it over?

One wonders what percentage of significant submissions these days are bumps/crackouts/crossovers.

In retrospect there is no doubt in my mind the broker knew what he was doing. 100%. (and bc my post is not about the broker, my prior post did not mention the assurances/explanations he gave me of the card, why it was sold in the auction it was sold in, why it was in a BVG flip, why he did not try to cross it over, and why he was reselling it so fast and for a relatively small profit; believe me, I had many questions and I dont just drop that kind of money without getting comfortable). But that is his right. Look, for all I know, everything he told me was correct (although I don't believe that to be the case).

The blame is on me 100%. I could have said no thanks. No gun was to my head. I made the decision to buy the card and I was under no duress or compulsion - in fact I was excited. The point of my post is not to blame someone, but rather to state my opinion that I believe that its on me to disclose something negative I know about the card if/when I ever go to sell or trade it. I didnt want to do that in this case, so instead I unwound the deal at a loss. That's me. Each to their own.

I was wondering how long it would be before someone started putting fakes
in these. The seller kind of skirts around the fact that it's a fake.

Attachment 425030
Attachment 425029

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T20...gAAOSwZzNfphkZ

Ha Yeah, saw that in my searches. Could send it to PSA and they would probably grade it a 9 with those corners. :D

Marked "AS-IS", no returns, and Unknown for Original/Replica. Still wouldn't get them out of an INAD case because they list it as a 1909-1911 card. I reported it for being counterfeit. Enough reports and they'll take it down.

But yes, it's a less obvious reprint/counterfeit than the last two outed in PSA slabs...

IIRC: The issue with grading any of these cards is you are grading the modern card NOT the card within the holder.

We're going to assume for a second that all the cards in those holders are what they are supposed to be. (So this does not apply to the Cobb example a couple of posts ago)

So, if you have a "9" because the card was issued in 2002 in that way and the modern card looks good it is a "9"

The issue is, the card inside may be a 3 or a 4 but you are grading the modern card. I don't think any of the grading companies yet have devised a way to break that down, simply because -- well to properly grade the card WITHIN the holder you kind of, sort of, have to break it out of the holder and then re-insert it and what if something goes wrong during that process.

So. I don't know the answer but an 9 may be a legit 9 but not for what is inside. Also thankfully this process is not very common but if it ever became more common, then all the TPG's would have to think carefully about what to do.

Rich

Beckett would grade the card inside the holder. For example:
https://img.comc.com/i/Baseball/1909...&size=original
1909-11 T206 - [Base] - Piedmont 350 Back 2002 Topps 206 Framed Buyback #FROB - Frank Oberlin [BVG*3.5*VERY*GOOD+]
Courtesy of COMC.com

How about you selling a PSA 9 in one of those ancient PSA slabs and strongly suspect that the card wouldn’t get a 9 today. Hell it could be a 7 today. Do you need to comment on that? I’d say no. As it’s only my opinion and not a fact. I’ve been wrong before on grading. Might be wrong here.

I think that eventually got changed to the way you posted which is better. But still, a really tough question for all concerned.

I don't think you need to. Personally I do and always have.

In our Pre War auction that starts Wednesday we have lots of old slabs upon which we've commented. I feel if we're brutally honest with cards that appear over-graded people will tend to believe us when we mention a card appears under-graded. Plus it never looks like we're trying to sneak something past an unsuspecting buyer.

Seein' how Leon & 'His Ownself' are Talking about it...
Things can Only get Bettar ~ ;)

Larry & Not that my forgiveness is needed ~

You have my Admiration Sir!!! : )

It's obvious Larry was only ashamed he got caught he's still altering cards and selling them on ebay.

He bought this Turner EPDG on May 24 2020 for $143.50 soaked it in bleach or some other chemical solution re-colored the corners and sold it as a BIN for $175.00 on August 12 2020.

[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...20EPDG%201.jpg[/IMG]


[IMG]https://photos.imageevent.com/patric...20EPDG%202.jpg[/IMG]

Definitely the same card.

If he bought it for 143.50 and sold it for $175.00, that seems like a lot of effort to net only about $13 profit after fees.

If you read this lengthy thread,a nd the first one, you will see it was/is his MO. He is the Happy Meal fraudster. Once he got booted from here he called me for a while, to get back on, but I didn't want to hear it. Sounds like the FBI might need to give him another call. I know it's small time but I doubt a Special Agent would think it's funny that he is doing it again after he was already told to stop.
.

Hey Pat
Nice find., Just curious why it took over a year to post about it? It's always good to out fraud but just curious

I just found it while doing some research Leon and although he doesn't have anything listed on ebay right now he was still selling on there recently.