Card doctoring video

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

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?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Again, though, if it's so OK, why does nobody disclose it? Why do they all, other than Mathis, deny it?

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

[G1911]

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 .

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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 .

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.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

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