|
Personally, I have no problem with that Wagner designated an "8" - let's face it, it is a near mint card. Trimmed or not. There have always been rumors surrounding that card and I personally have no problem making it an exception to the rule.
|
It's interesting how all of this has played out. For years we were told that there were original photos of the untrimmed Gretzky Wagner, yet no one would post them. Then a book comes out with 'the picture', and it's horrible and you still can't tell :confused:
Given that Mastro has now admitted to the trimming, will we finally get to see a clear, color photo of what it looked like before? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ricky Y |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Oh ok !
Thanks Leon ! Amazing card ! Any cool past stories behind this Wagner ? |
Quote:
How did you come across this card? |
Quote:
|
I'm curious if there is any legal recourse against PSA.[/QUOTE]
Lawyers who are viewing this thread please correct me if I'm wrong.. If Orlando filed for a case, PSA will only be involved if proven to knowingly grade the card with the knowledge of Mastro's trimming. PSA is not liable if they did not know Mastro trimmed it because their duty is to grade/authenticate a card in a reasonable manner. If somehow it is proven PSA breached this duty then they are with recovering the damages. But in the end it's an opinion service, and their reputation is the only thing that will be effected until proven otherwise. |
Quote:
just pass an eye test most of the time, on psa's site, they answer the question if they put a ruler to every card, and the answer is no. |
Quote:
Thanks for posting that- Sincerely, Clayton |
I don't understand the I don't care about
Qualifiers post. If not for the qualifier the card would be a 3 at best. Several examples in this neighborhood. If this were not as Wagner but say a 1954 aaron it would probably sell for less than a 3. The grade of a card is effected by imperfections to disregard them is laughable in my opinion.
|
Mastro
I know that when I first got back into the hobby in the late 90's early 2000's everyone loved them some Mastro and hated Broadway Rick on the message boards, Now, you guys want to crucify Mastro. We want Barabus or Broadway Rick. It's just a hobby, or should be just a hobby.
|
I love everyone. My analyst said I had to.
"What about Hitler," I said, "Do I have to love Hitler?" "Hitler's dead," she said. "What about Travis Bickle? Do I have to love Travis Bickle?" "That's a character from a movie. He's not a real person. Remember what I said about the people in movies? Remember we talked about that last session?" "Oh yeah, I forgot . . . Maybe you'd better explain it to me again." |
Quote:
There's no doubt it is a beautiful card. But, I don't think it is any different than any other T206 that's been trimmed; re-holdered with an "A" trimmed. I don't think it would be right to term it "handcut", like a printers scrap card or something. He claims he trimmed the "sides"? I wish we could get more details. Sounds like it may have been a strip? Or was it trimmed all the way around? If so, maybe a sheet? I hope the judge makes him explain in detail :) Sincerely, Clayton |
Quote:
Another intersting question is what if any liability they face for allowing the card to remain encapsulated at this point. The cards encapsulation is their seal of approval that the card is an 8 - now it has been legally established that it is altered, thus an A. I am not sure of their policies but I would imagine that there is a provision, or should be, that allows them to buy back cards that were fraudulently encapsulated and remove them. Again issue stems from the knowing encapsulation of the fraudlent card - I would love to see the Justice Department's position. |
Quote:
I have never cared about cards that are centered or not centered (If anything I prefer the non centered cards). I have posted about this on other threads, it isn't just regarding the Wagner. I also know I am in the minority, but every one has preferences in this hobby and factory caused flaws don't bother me. It is the after factory flaws that I want to be graded. |
Not all qualifiers are factory flaws
So what is do they bother you or not? You say one thing than say another? Sorry but trying to pretend flaws dont matter in value is so far from fact that it makes me laugh. Also the fact is this card is not a 5, so if there were no qualifier this would be a 3 at best, probably worse to pretend otherwise is laughable, so you cant try and say this is the highest graded because your wrong. How can you pretend a flaw is irrelevant to value? The facts are flaws are how cards are graded if this card was in fact an ex card the previous owner would have had it crossed to SGC, it was not an EX card so was therefore sold in the holder it was. Im not sure some understand qualifiers its not like they mean the card is this grade because of this flaw it means the card would be this grade but has one such major flaw that it is far worse than the assigned number but has most of the qualities of said grade.
|
I find it interesting that a while back in the Black Swamp find, PSA realized they mislabeled the wrong Wagner cards and aggressively fixed the problem before any sale was made. See this thread:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=153481 Now that a indisputably trimmed, multi-million dollar card has been sold and their liability is now enormous, PSA's silence is deafening. If you look at PSA's Sport Collecting Glossary, here's what they have for "trimmed" A card that has been altered by cutting or shaving the edges. The most obvious reason for this is to improve the condition of corners, by removing the worn areas. Cards are also trimmed to correct centering problems. Cards that have been trimmed have very little value. See this link: http://www.psacard.com/Resources/Lingo/T I also now understand the current owner doesn't even seemed bothered about the card being trimmed. This hobby (or what ever it is) never ceases to amaze me. |
[QUOTE] The real question is will Kendrick, the only person with standing to bring a claim, sue the company. The article seems to indicate that he will not.
[QUOTE] I don't think that statement is accurate at all. IMO, those with standing to sue are everyone who got bid up and purchased the card based upon the false impression that it was actually an 8. The grader's statement makes it real ugly -- sort of in the category of fraud per se. In that regard, PSA certainly can't claim that it didn't expect buyers to rely upon the grade it gave because reliance upon the grade is precisely what it has been selling since day one. Every purchaser who spent more than they would have had the true condition of the card been disclosed has a claim IMO. There may be defenses to the claim, like the Statute of Limitations, but I'm not seeing them working so well with respect to this particular card. It will be interesting to see what transpires. |
Many collectors collect trimmed "A" cards because they can buy a card that looks like an 8 for way cheaper than what an actual 8 would cost.
How many collectors would buy a trimmed card graded an 8, knowing for a fact it was trimmed (so technically it's an "A") for 8 money? If the owner doesn't care, and is just going to keep it, no problem there. I just don't see it retaining the price paid just because of the story behind it. Beautiful card, no doubt. But Mastro said he trimmed it. It's no longer a mystery. Just my opinion- Sincerely, clayton |
Late breaking news:
Mastro's wife has now admitted she trimmed her wagner a couple of times, too. |
Quote:
Several years ago, my answer would have been none or next to none, but since then I've learned - particularly the ones of the PSA registry ilk: "the label lovers", my answer is a significant number of people. There are people who are well aware that they bought a significant number of doctored cards and they too seem unphased about it. I know it's twisted beyond any rational comprehension, but these people do exist and they impact the market significantly. |
Kenny
Every prior purchaser sold it at a hefty profit. No damages, no claim. They benefited from the fraud on the back end.
|
Quote:
Sincerely, Clayton |
I just hope Bill is spending some quality time with his priest today.
|
I don't think we'll know if Kendrick cares about the card being trimmed for sure until after he sells. Think about it, if you were him would you say anything negative like the card is now garbage or should be re-slabbed as an "A"? Certainly his offering an opinion like that could negatively impact it's value when his time to sell arrives. If I was him I'd say the same things he's now saying - because I would not want to loose my ass on my $2.8 million investment. My guess is he's not sleeping very soundly when it comes to thoughts of selling the card. It may or may not sell for more, but IMO this information certainly increases the chance that it will sell for less. Kind of rambling here but my point is: Kendricks opinion about how this information will not have negative impact on the card is certainly not an unbiased reflection on how the hobby will respond in the next sale so those who are using his opinion as a barometer of the hobbies pulse are slightly misguided.
|
[QUOTE=Kenny Cole;1116889][QUOTE] The real question is will Kendrick, the only person with standing to bring a claim, sue the company. The article seems to indicate that he will not.
Quote:
|
First, be careful using the term standing. They may not have an ultimately successful claim for which relief may be granted, but as prior owners of the card who would in some fashion argue that they were impacted by the fraud, they would likely have standing. True they would have to prove damage to sustain the claim, but depending on how they framed their pleadings they should beat any standing claim as such.
As for your assertion that only Mr. Kendrick suffered harm, how is that so unless and until he can show it is worth less than what he paid for it--otherwise he too has a profit (or net zero), and what evidence would you propose he use to show that? |
As stated in my post #80, I see this more as a no damages issue than a technical standing issue, but I think we are all on the same page and it comes out to the same thing. The point is that any past owner may have paid a price inflated due to fraud but also sold at a price inflated due to fraud, so they suffered no harm. Put another way, on the front end they were the victim of fraud but on the back end they were the beneficiary.
|
Quote:
|
I do recall reading that Mr. Kendrick put the Wagner on display at Cooperstown and later at the Diamondback's stadium for the 2011 All-Star Game. If he now continues to publicly display it - especially where money is paid to view it, in my opinion he legally has an obligation to either have the card re-labeled by PSA as AUTH or put an obvious disclaimer on the exhibit stating the card has been trimmed. Of course and even more so the same is true if he decides to resell the card.
|
If deep down Kendrick no longer wants the card and intends to sell it, he instead should give it to PSA and have them reimburse him as per their policy and take the card out of circulation.
If they chose not to pay for whatever reason, it would be huge egg on their face, so to speak. I wonder what would happen to it in that event...my understanding is that trimmed cards bought back by PSA are destroyed. No doubt this particular trimmed card would still be worth quite a bundle to some. Very interesting scenario. Or perhaps he could negotiate with PSA, who seeking to avoid a huge payout, might agree to make him whole on his purchase when sold as "trimmed" at auction. |
Quote:
|
One would think that at some point psa has to take a position in light of mastro and his admission. I know they tend to play ostrich but with david hall having publicly stated that he examined the card and it was good, it seems eventually they have to deal with this. Then again they have not dealt with the Doyle, right?
|
Nor have they dealt with the cello pack fiasco.
|
from article last year
PSA has not publicly commented on the allegations in the indictment or in our book and newspaper articles. Orlando and David Hall, the president of Collectors Universe, PSA’s parent company, have not responded to requests for interviews.
But a mole who attended PSA’s invitation-only lunch at the National says the indictment and the allegations about the card were the main topic of discussion. Also, our spy tells us, the chicken Marsala was quite good. Our mole says about 150 collectors and dealers attended the lunch, held Friday at the convention center. Hall, he says, got up and said he had to address the “800-pound gorilla in the room” – the indictment. “He asked for a show of hands and said, ‘Anyone here see the Wagner?’ A bunch of hands go up. Then he asked, ‘Has anyone seen it outside its holder?’ And he is the only one with his hand up. “He takes out a magnifying glass and says ‘I have examined every aspect of that card. The only question we had was if it should be a PSA 7 or a PSA 8. We never considered that it had been altered,” our spy says. Hall, according to our source, told his audience that they should question Mastro’s motives; Mastro might have agreed to say the card is trimmed as part of a deal with prosecutors. “He was suggesting you can’t believe Mastro, because now he will do anything to save himself,” our spy says. Hall, according to our mole, also said Bill Hughes, the member of the grading team who told us he knew the card had been trimmed, has denied making those comments. Hall, our spy says, claims Hughes says it is an “out and out lie” that he knew the card had been trimmed. Hall, our source added, also said PSA stood by its grade and would compensate the owner if it is proved that the card had been trimmed. But he didn’t say if the company would pay $300, the fee it charges to grade cards worth $10,000 or more, or the $2.8 million current owner Ken Kendrick paid for it in 2007. |
an agreement could have been made between the owner of the card and the authentication company already with confidentiality and we would never know.
kendrick doesnt seem mad at psa. i would be. |
Quote:
No previous owner has legally protectible stake. Feel free to further develop your argument. The difference between Kendrick and the other owners is that he has not yet sold the card. The prior owners made a profit. Kendrick's financial fate, on the card, is uncertain. In order to prove a harm Kendrick could probably obtain appraisals from auction houses. He would demonstrate a harm by showing that the appraised value of the trimmed card is below the appraised value of the PSA 8. I am addressing the merits of the claim just how it may be proven. |
Thanks for the definition of legal standing. I had no idea--I just like to talk about legal matters with no working understanding of the operative terms.
Your premise is that no past owner of the card can legally sue-- he has no right to a day in court because he no longer owns the card. In my humble opinion, I believe that premise to be false. He can sue, but he likely will not prevail, at least under the facts as we know them, because he cannot prove at least one essential element of his claim (and there also may be affirmative defenses such as SOL). As in virtually any civil action, a Plaintiff must show that a defendant's conduct caused him damage and then attribute some amount to that damage. If you don't you lose, but that doesn't mean you were barred from asking in the first place because you lacked standing. Now if I tried to sue claiming that the whole fraud ordeal negatively impacted me and/or my collection in some measurable way then yes, I would agree that there is insufficient nexus between me and the alleged wrongdoers to provide standing. A more interesting scenario presents if the buyer of a PSA 5 Wagner were to argue that he overpaid because the market was artificially inflated by the existence of an "8" that turned out to be bogus, or conversely, if the seller of that same PSA 5 argued that he could have sold for more had there been no 8 on the market because his would have been the highest graded. These people would have a colorable claim (if the facts were right and they could prove them) that they had a legally protectible stake or interest and thus have standing. They would probably lose on the standing issue, IMO, but it wouldn't shock me to see a lawyer at least advance the argument. In sum, current ownership of property does not define exclusive standing in cases like this, again IMO. Had the owner previous to Kendrick sold it to him at a loss and could show that the fraud had something to do with that loss-- a tough row to hoe, no doubt-- then the fact that he no longer owns the card would not prevent him from suing on the basis of standing. Again, we're dealing in hypotheticals and I don;t foresee any lawsuits from past or current players in this melodrama, but stranger things have happened I'm sure. |
Sorry to get so heated about this one. I think it is frustration from work bleeding over.
I like the argument about the purchaser of the PSA 5. Who knows. |
Another two cents. To the poster who asked whether Kendrick would have to show that any loss or diminished value was not attributed to other market conditions I would answer yes. The Plt must (nearly) always show that the damage he claims was caused by Df's conduct, although the evidence needed and the degree of certainty can be contested issues. However, I think there is a good argument that in this case, the Wagner card lives in its own market--that the hobby generally and the overall economy do not have much impact on driving its sales, for the buyer pool consists largely of people who have no great concern about such factors.
Lawyers are often very creative, although maybe not this one. Even if the card has appreciated, particularly if only by some small amount, I could see someone asserting that Kendrick has suffered damage by the now confirmed statements that his Wagner card was trimmed. The argument could be made that the card historically ALWAYS sells for at least x% more upon resale, and that if it doesn't now: 1) it's because of the fraud and 2) the difference is Kendrick's damages-- he should have made more profit. Don't get me wrong, I see this as a tough one and damages cannot be deemed speculative, but I make the point only to show that the more creative ones out there could probably stir up something. Moreover, I also believe that if he can prove any compensatory damages he could also ask for punitive damages-which greatly expands the stakes. Granted, Kendrick has expressed no interest in selling or concern about this latest Mastro news, and there may be PR and personal reasons why he will just leave this alone, but it's sometimes fun for us on the outside to ponder the possibilities.:) |
Quote:
|
I think all previous owners have standing to sue. And here, if you can prove any detriment whatsoever from the fraud, you are entitled to at least nominal damages, even if you can't prove entitlement to compensatory damages. Since its a tort action, nominal damages for fraud gets you to the jury on punis. Viola!!!
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:23 PM. |