This was my recollection as well but I understand next to nothing I read that is prepared by a lawyer.

Agree entirely that the feds are not going to take the time to try to clean up the hobby but they have shown us that they will pursue much smaller crimes in the hobby. Not sure their pursuit of the investigation of PWCC needs to be done in an effort to clean up the hobby. Still feel Brent could be charged.

You might want to run that by Brian Brusokas. You are aware presumably the FBI started an investigation in 2019, issued scads of subpoenas, and that Brent as a target or potential target agreed to cooperate, right?

I am well aware. Hence why I said “charged”. I don’t think this is going to end up with Brent with in court on charges of fraud for altering cards. That is why I said, specifically, what I said. You are aware that that is different from being investigated, right?

Man you are being smug today. You also said the feds would not take the time and effort, suggesting to me you were not aware they are in fact devoting a substantial time and effort.

PS, he would not be charged with altering cards, it would be with mail and wire fraud for selling without disclosure.

I copied your exact condescending phrasing, that you chose to use first. Smugness breeds smugness.

I am, again, aware, which is why I said exactly what I said. “Charged for fraud”. “Fraud for altering cards” is, very obviously, not the literal name of the crime but a descriptor of what has happened, on which we seem to agree. We are, of course, all intimately aware that Brent did not alter cards to silently keep in his personal collection.

He might also be charged with knowingly selling cards others had altered, which would also fit the statute. I have no idea if he will be charged or not, but I do think you are wrong to say the feds won't take the time or effort.

I would agree with this.

Alterations lie on a spectrum of acceptability to collectors. It would never occur to me that I might have some obligation to inform a future buyer that I wiped a fingerprint or a smudge off of a card prior to submitting it for grading. Yet, there are those in the hobby who literally wish to make such demands of others (Sports Card Radio is one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI4B8lfebdE starting around the 3:40 mark).

Likewise, it would never occur to me that if I had a card with a dinged/lifted/bent corner that I pushed back down prior to selling that this is something that ought to be disclosed. Honestly, I find even the mere suggestion to be pretty damn funny.

Everyone has a different dividing line for what they deem as acceptable and unacceptable. Nobody cares to place demands to disclose on condition improvements they deem as acceptable, only for things they deem as unacceptable. But where that line gets drawn is different for everyone. So who gets to decide for the masses?

At the end of the day, it's a dog eat dog world out there, especially in this hobby. The reality is that ~nobody is going to disclose this stuff, so you just need to educate yourself and look out for your own interests, whatever those are. If you have a card in hand and you are unable to detect any alterations whatsoever, despite having years of grading experience at one of the top grading companies, then what difference does it really make if something was indeed done to that card? At some point, we just become the old man screaming at clouds. Don't scream at clouds.

Travis what you said is the truth. People might not like it but it's just the way it is. People in this Hobby want it both ways all the time and that's not how it works. It's just not.

Not to get too political, but your admonition reminded me of this historical event:

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-kno...umps-election/

Weak slippery slope argument. Nobody condones trimming as far as I know, or recoloring, or hopefully bleaching.. So who cares if you can come up with some stuff as to which there may be less consensus?

The difference is that none of this is what PWCC did. PWCC's ring was not engaged in borderline conduct. They very clearly and intentionally altered cards, snuck them past the graders (at best), and then sold them without disclosure of their severe alterations, cutting away parts of the original item. They did not remove fingerprint smudges to spawn this controversy.

I don't think a slippery slope changes this. Am I guilty of speeding if I'm going 65.1? Is that really worse than 64.9? Am I really doing wrong? Does it matter when what I'm actually being accused of is going 112?

I agree that this is very unlikely to ever actually go to court, but I'm really not seeing a real argument how running an alteration ring and selling items on provably false grounds is not actually fraud.

You're not seeing one because there isn't one. If the BS posted by Snowman is the best the defenders can do, that's really lame.

I never expected people to really stop doing business with PWCC no matter how many mountains of evidence the Blowout gents uncovered. I did, naively, think people would stop publicly trying to claim they didn't really do anything wrong, it's arbitrary after all.

Textbook slippery slope -- I can come up with an extreme example that doesn't fit your thesis, therefore your thesis is entirely invalid.

I would venture to say PWCC lost a substantial amount of business/buyers and consignors since being exposed and removed from ebay.

It doesn't seem to stop them from selling a ton of cards for high prices. Some surely did stop working with them, but they retain a very strong customer base and certainly aren't really blacklisted by hobbyists.

It wouldn't be an internet thread without one!

What is the language of the statute you are referencing though? And how do we even determine what things must be disclosed? And who determines it? Surely this stuff is not spelled out in the letter of the law (unless I'm wrong, and there is an explicit law on the books that reads something along the lines of "alterations made to sports cards must be disclosed when reselling"). It seems to me that it would have to be open to some fairly liberal interpretation in order to arrive at the conclusion that altering a baseball card with the intent to profit from it is somehow a crime. When taken to the extreme, selling a car without disclosing to the buyer that you replaced the headlights could be construed as criminal behavior, no? How is this any different from failing to disclose that someone flattened out a lifted corner with the back of their fingernail on a baseball card? This is certainly a form of "alteration" that many in this hobby find to be dishonest and something they think ought to be disclosed. How would a court of law distinguish between which things are criminal if not disclosed and which things aren't necessary to disclose? The ability to profit from it surely cannot be the dividing line. I cracked a Lebron James SGC 9 RC out of its holder and wiped off a noticeable fingerprint on it, then subbed it to PSA and it came back in a 10 holder. I later resold it without disclosing that it previously had a fingerprint and was in an SGC 9 holder. Does that make me a criminal?

Even on the other end of the spectrum though with respect to some of the more egregious alterations like trimming. There are countless people in this hobby who believe that if it isn't detectable by an expert senior grader with decades of experience, then those differences simply do not matter. Just read the comments on Instagram whenever Cardporn posts a trimmed card. The comment section is tattooed with people saying, "what difference does it make?" And it's not like someone has been defrauded by purchasing a trimmed card in a PSA holder. There will always be another buyer for it. Everyone knows the 00000001 Wagner was trimmed or "hand cut". But nobody cares. The next time that card trades hands, it's still going to break the record and will always outsell any other Wagner. If I were PSA, I would do the best I could at detecting alterations while being open and honest about the fact that some alterations simply aren't detectable and that the grades they assign to cards reflects their best judgment and leave it at that. Then just let the market decide what the value of their opinion/service is worth instead of them pretending like they are some unpenetrable wall through which alterations cannot cross.

If I sold broken headlights, but told the buyer they were working fine and had my pal at an auto put a sticker on them certifying they were in 10/10 amazing condition, it would not be legal.

I'm not a lawyer, although I did take a business law class once about 23 years ago.

I suspect that "fraud in the inducement" could potentially be used here.

I think if one to were to do anything to a sports card, that at a minimum, is grounds for being rejected by a respectable 3rd party grader (based solely on their written description of what deems a card not worthy of a numerical grade), it would constitute an alteration. If that alteration was done to enhance the value or appearance of the card and it is not disclosed and sold, it probably meets the definition of fraud. On the flip side, "respected" TPG pass altered cards all the time either in error or by design.

But they very much do. I guess that's my point. As I mentioned above, just go look at the comments under any trimming scandal post by Cardporn on Instagram. You will find opinions all across the spectrum, including countless collectors with the "who cares, what difference does it make if it can't even be detected" viewpoint. The reason I use the slippery slope argument here is because it is in fact a slippery slope discussion with respect to alterations in this hobby. Sure, the majority may not condone trimming. But is that the only dividing line we have to distinguish between which alterations are and are not allowed? Majority vote? Perhaps it's a fair one. I don't know. But my point is that I don't think it's as straightforward of a debate as many would like it to be. And if we start putting trimmers behind bars, what's to prevent half the people on this board from being charged with removing T206s from a scrapbook by soaking them and then later reselling them without disclosure?

I realize that it may not come across this way, but I do understand and respect your viewpoint on this. I think trimming cards for profit is a slimeball thing to do. But I probably wouldn't vote to convict them of a crime for it if I were on a jury unless someone could clearly demonstrate to me that it is in fact a crime. And that case has not yet been made to me.

Mail fraud. Wire fraud. Federal statutes. We analyzed these in great detail when the scandal broke. They potentially apply to an infinite range of conduct that constitutes fraud so long as it involves the mail or wires. Fraud is a very broad concept involving intentional misrepresentation or concealment. There is a reason Congress made the statutes very broad so as not to limit them.

I guess snowman wasn't around for that debate.

There you go again trying to ski that slope. If law enforcement understands the hobby largely views scrapbook removal as legitimate, they won't prosecute, end of story. Laws are always bounded by discretion and common sense. In more technical terms, they would determine they could not prove concealment of a MATERIAL fact.

If this is indeed the standard, then some remarkably large percentage of collectors who submit cards for grading are guilty of criminal activity because massive numbers of ultra-modern collectors are polishing out surface scratches on modern chrome cards or at the very least sending them off to a submitter who does this for a fee on their behalf, referring to it as "prepping the cards for grading". I believe the TPGs say it's a no-no, but it's very much so the standard operating procedure for probably nearly half of the hobby, and the only reason the other half doesn't do it is because they simply don't know it's a thing.

So is this the modern equivalent of rubbing out a light gum stain or is it more nefarious? It sounds somewhat at a lower level of evil to me than trimming, but I don't have that much modern.

It's the modern version of that, and openly admitted to by almost all when done with water and a microfiber cloth. Some object to using car wax or polish. As an emerging thing, standards are not really set and known, like trimming has been for decades.

So would it be fair for me to state your argument as being that it is a material fact that trimming a card for profit is tantamount to fraud because the vast majority of the hobby views it as such? But that other forms of "alteration" (be it cleaning, flattening out a bent corner, polishing a surface, soaking, etc.) are less clear and thus may not amount to being considered fraud as they do not reasonably meet the requirement of being a material fact since there appears to be a much wider spectrum of viewpoints on the matter?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but rather to make sure I can phrase your viewpoint in a way that you would sign off on.

If this phrasing passes the smell test, then I would ask whether you think the rest of the world (non-collectors) also shares this viewpoint. Surely, it is the majority opinion of the hobby. But is that enough to establish it as a material fact? This seems to be your argumnet. Because as we've discussed many times, a jury will ultimately be responsible for determining whether or not this behavior meets the criteria, not you nor anyone else arguing this case. If you believe that the majority of juries would conclude that card trimming for profit = fraud if not disclosed, then I believe this is where our disagreement lies. I do not think they would accept your argument that it is a material fact. I believe this viewpoint is a niche viewpoint that is primarily found within this hobby. Any defense attorney worth his salt could easily just point to nearly every other hobby or industry out there where this sort of behavior is widely accepted. The data also appears to support this, as there has never once been a case where someone was even charged with a crime, let alone found guilty of a crime for card trimming. And as you've pointed out many times, it's not because it has never been investigated. Perhaps this will change in the future. Maybe one day someone will be charged and convicted of card trimming for a profit. But until then, I think the more reasonable viewpoint to hold is that it is in fact not a crime.

I guess I would want to know if those making that argument even have the ability to see an alteration that is pointed out to them let alone one that is not. And how much of their argument is based on the fact that a TPG slabbed the altered card.

I think materiality would be assessed in terms of the customers of the seller, not the world at large. So I do think it's a question of how the hobby views the particular alteration, not the New York City collective phonebook. In other words, context matters. Think of Magie and Magee. Who the hell outside the hobby would care? But that alteration clearly would be material in context.

As to part one, generally I would agree with that. I would define a material alteration as one a significant portion of potential buyers would deem important to their buying decision. It's not precise, but the law rarely is. So if most people wouldn't care if they weren't told about putting down a corner, not material. If we reach a point where most people don't care if a card has been trimmed, well, I would give up on the criminal law at that point.

And in vintage there are a large number of submitters who take time to prepare their cards making them look as nice as possible short of trimming, recoloring, rebuilding corners. My guess is that in both of our examples fraud is being committed if there is not disclosure at the time of sale, even if whatever steps were taken are not detectable.

I think that's a fair argument to make. I would be guessing at how well received it might be to a jury, but I do think that the onus is on the prosecuting attorney to make the case that it is a material fact that trimming cards for profit without disclosure equates to fraud. I do not think this is just a given. However, I do believe the fact that a perhaps surprisingly large percentage of the hobby still views this as a nothing burger is a significant hurdle to overcome when attempting to establish this as a material fact. Perhaps there is some precedent already established for the percentage of a population needed to sign off on something for it to be accepted as a material fact, but I think you're likely to find yourself rowing upstream if something like one-third of hobbyists disagree with this claim. If it were more like 3% of hobbyists, then it would be much easier to make that case. But I do think the percentage of people who see this as a nothing burger would matter to a jury.

I think that's fair.

So Travis, if trimming is a nothingburger, why don't people like Brent disclose it? I would think the fact that it is so widespread but universally concealed almost per se shows materiality. But I would put on lots of witnesses too.

Great points! And to take it a step further...............

Wouldn't/shouldn't that go for cards that have been soaked as well then. Last I looked, water is a chemical - H2O. Or what about people who erase light pencil marks. I've heard people who think doing those things are okay, and rationalize like heck to justify (in their own minds at least) what they are doing is technically not an alteration or type of restoration to a card, so they believe there is nothing they need to disclose. I've got news for people who believe doing things like that are okay, but then criticize others for not always disclosing other types of alterations or restorations they may have done to cards. No one appointed you to be in charge of deciding what is or isn't considered a card alteration or restoration for the rest of us. So for those of you who pick and choose what YOU want to believe is or is not an alteration or restoration that needs to be disclosed, yet complain about others that don't disclose everything either, you can end up coming across to many people as nothing but hypocrites.

I don't see Brent as someone who is in a position of needing to disclose what he may or may not think about a card. If I were running an auction house, I would make every effort possible to be a neutral third party. I would recognize that I am not a professional grader and would leave all grading and authenticity issues to the "professionals", regardless of my own personal views on them. If someone consigns a PSA 7 Hank Aaron RC, I list it as a PSA 7 Hank Aaron RC, no questions asked even if I think that left edge looks a bit suspect. If someone has an issue with that card, they can take it up with PSA. It's not my problem as it's not my job to "grade the graders". I could refer a card to PSA if the consignor agrees to it, but it's not my property either, so I can't just intercept it and confiscate the card just because BODA thinks they've found an issue with it. I also wouldn't ban a consignor for having sent me a card that later proved to be trimmed. Imagine being the guy who says, "I'm sorry Mr. Gretzky (or now, Mr. Seigel), but I cannot accept your Honus Wagner consignment. That card has been trimmed!" You might as well just pack your bags now if that's how you'd run your business. Someone would have to become a significant thorn in my side for me to want to cut them off. I suspect this is also why Brent eventually cut ties with Moser.

I realize there have been a lot of accusations thrown around about Brent, but none of them have been proven and much of it is quite clearly nonsense in my opinion. Again, I'll let the actual detectives sort that out. Until then, he's innocent until proven guilty in my book. I do business with PWCC because they have BY FAR the best platform available for buying and selling cards. I don't really care what conspiracy theories anyone else is into. If you think they are corrupt to high hell, then by all means, stop doing business with them. I'm not going to criticize you for it. But if you start preaching to me about why I too must sign off on your conspiracy theories and calling me "immoral" if I continue to do business with them, well then we have a problem and I'm probably going to tell you to go hump a cactus.

I agree with you Bob. I think the honesty in fully disclosing what one did to a card prior to it being submitted would be great. If a seller is ok with taking out a wrinkle then tell us and let us decide if we care. Not sure I have ever seen anyone disclose anything. Everyone defers or relies on the holder to cleanse whatever steps were taken. I guess to some, as Travis pointed out, it does exactly that.

That sort of negates a major point of grading and authentication doesn't it?
If I know I'm probably not sending it in, if I have no clue, that's what I'd pay an expert for.

That PWCC’s trimming and fraud ring did NOT exist is the conspiracy theory, the one that flies in the face of mountains of evidence. Finally we get to the actual point, pretending PWCC is innocent and the thousands of provably trimmed cards from his buddy Gary and others, many of which Brent himself bought before trimming, are a frame up.

Authentication is part of it...however with the proliferation of altered cards it seems like it is all a TPG is supposed to address however they other part of the process is assigning the grade.

Travis has made it known that some of his positions are not popular. I respect that. Obviously he benefits from the relationship with PWCC, which is his choice and I am certainly not condemning him for it, but it is going out there when you call 3 years of uncovering thousands of obviously altered cards by a few guys by means of hunting and pecking. What Brent has been accused of could not be further from a conspiracy.

As I have posted countless times, Brent admitted, both in emails and conversations, to knowing what Gary does. They had a decades long partnership dating way back to when Brent was just a kid in Northern California with the ID huigenser and Gary was looking for someone to sell his cards on ebay. Just ignore Travis he is willfully clueless at this point and knows nothing about the history here. I am done arguing with someone who thinks the earth is flat.

I'm not saying that these things did not happened. What I question is the extent to which we actually know what many think we know. Much of what is believed to be true from BODA and crew has been built on top of unproven assumptions (some of which are demonstrably faulty). I'm not talking about the cards or alterations themselves. Most of the cards they posted were clear examples of cards that have indeed been trimmed. I'm talking about the logic they use in tying the various parties involved to each other and to those sales.

I have posted this elsewhere before, but eBay's masked user ID algorithm randomizes your masked ID. BODA's method of tying sales to particular users is flawed. Saying they know a card was purchased by Moser because the buyer ID is listed as 'm***1' is a GIANT assumption. I web scraped all of PWCC's and Probstein's eBay feedback profiles and created a database of all the different user IDs that show up there (if anyone wants the data, send me a PM, I'd be happy to share it). There are countless disparate 'm***1' masked eBay IDs buying cards on eBay. In addition, the username 'garymoser123' would have 132 different permutations that eBay uses at random for their purchases (12 Permute 2 = 132). I believe at one point in time, they did use permutations of the characters in usernames for this (however, as noted below, at some point in time, at least 3+ years ago, they switched to using completely random characters for everyone). Moser purchases a card and it shows as 'm***1' today, but it's 'g***e' tomorrow and '2***y' the next day. If you don't believe me, just go to eBay and log out, then look up your own eBay purchases and see what masked IDs eBay lists you as. You'll have a different masked buyer ID for each purchase. I demonstrated this fact in another thread here regarding a shill bidding operation that I uncovered a while back (here's the link to that thread if you care to read about it: https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=2132185). The relevant portion of those posts is that the shill bidding account I found had the numerous masked eBay IDs that all pointed to the same user account ('rywag5421') when you clicked on them (note that the revealed characters in the masked ID aren't even always present in the ID itself - in other words, they are completely random characters):
y***y (357)
6***r (357)
8***0 (357)
r***g (357)
1***4 (357)
5***1 (357)
3***w (357)
1***g (357)
a***6 (357)
5***9 (357)
4***w (357)
0***4 (357)
1***1 (357)
4***a (357)
4***y (357)
0***1 (357)
r***y (357)
y***9 (357)
1***0 (357)
5***8 (357)
8***w (357)
5***2 (357)
3***a (357)
g***4 (357)
g***2 (357)
9***1 (357)
1***y (357)

If we knew the feedback scores along with those masked IDs, that could be helpful, but most of the purchases BODA digs up were from years ago and are taken from VCP, which stores the buyers' masked eBay IDs from the corresponding sales on their website. BODA finds a trimmed card, looks up the masked IDs, then starts connecting the dots. Then they post their "findings" and it just builds and builds. Mountains of evidence built on top of completely random eBay user IDs. If you don't see how this is problematic, then I can't help you. Perhaps at one point in time eBay's masking algorithm used to be less random, using only characters from the actual user ID instead of truly random characters, but even if that were true (which it most definitely has not been true since at least the time that this case was broken wide open by BODA) then we still would have far too many disparate users with the same masked IDs to be able to narrow them down without the feedback scores, which VCP does not track.

Here's what we know: thousands of trimmed cards have been sold/laundered through PWCC over the years. We know that Brent accepted consignments from Gary for a long time until he severed that relationship due to blowback (or I accept that to be true rather). But everything you think you know about which cards were bought by whom, prior to them being trimmed, is all built on the demonstrably false assumption that eBay buyer ID 'x***y' = eBayUserXYZ. And all of these accusations about Brent having bought some specific card and then Moser having trimmed it on his behalf and then resold it through PWCC are built on top of these faulty assumptions of tying random eBay IDs together in some network graph that doesn't actually exist. It reminds me of how schizophrenia often gets portrayed in movies by showing these massive network graphs with photos and news clippings all strung together with push pins and strings on walls.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that EVERYTHING they've uncovered is completely random nonsense. Some of it is not. There are other ways to tie some of this stuff together, and they've definitely uncovered stuff that is worth looking into further. But MUCH of what BODA and everyone who follows those threads believe to be true is in fact built upon truly random masked eBay IDs. This is one of the main reasons that I dismiss the majority of accusations about certain individuals that stem from those threads, and why I don't take people at their word when they tell me what they think I *should* know from what BODA has "uncovered".

This is why I say I will wait for the results of the actual investigation from the actual detectives. The FBI can get their hands on the real underlying data behind all of these transactions, not just some random masked user IDs. Then they can begin to sort out who actually did what. But without this data, all we have are conspiracy theories. Sometimes conspiracy theories turn out to be true. But I need better evidence than "this card was bought by 'b***h' which means Brent Huigens bought it and we know he had Gary Moser trim it because this other card was bought by 'g***m' and as you can see, it was trimmed, and that's Gary Moser's masked eBay ID, and those two serial numbers are only 53 digits apart, so we know Brent bought cards for Gary to trim!" Note, this isn't a strawman depiction of the arguments made in those threads. This is quite literally how many of the arguments/connections are presented by BODA. Such arguments are complete and utter nonsense without the actual user IDs behind those completely random masked IDs.

That type of question probably has little to do in terms of actual grading, and is more likely there as a type of CYA protection for the TPG asking it. Think about it, if the FBI decides to investigate a TPG for the possibility of their acting in collusion with others to potentially defraud the public, they (the TPG) can simply point the FBI, or whomever may be investigating, to that question and the submitter's response. While certainly not 100% conclusive, it does document that the supposed party the TPG may have been thought to possibly be colluding with was specifically asked, and affirmatively denied, knowingly giving altered or doctored items to that TPG to grade. It helps to substantiate a TPG's position that they are not knowingly working with anyone to intentionally defraud the public.

There is a fair point hidden in this simping for Brent. Probability is not absolute truth. It's possible that some of the thousands are actually innocuous coincidence. That all of them are, well, it's hard being a ride or die PWCC shill these days. May we all have such strong supporters as Brent has in you.

'It's not a crime or wrong, and even if it was, he didn't do it'. I suppose the 'innocent and it's not even wrong anyways' has probably been true at some point in time for someone. Usually it's an indicator of falsehood. We know that you will not "wait for the results of the actual investigation from the actual detectives", as you were just arguing that there's nothing wrong about what he's been accused of anyways. Why do you have to defend trimming, alteration, and fraud if he's innocent?

Something is not a conspiracy theory because there isn't an indictment. Just calling anything counter to ones story a conspiracy theory is lying. We all know where the mountains of evidence clearly point. We all know that, while a small number of these cards may have matched the accounts via eBay's masking randomly doing so, the odds are astronomically low that thousands of trimmed cards just all happened to magically match up. It's also completely ignoring all of the other evidence, as you well know. You know the tons of serial numbered cards all had the same serials, provably the exact same card.

We all know exactly why Brent had to drop Moser after the evidence became insurmountable. If it wasn't Moser consigning his trimmings, and all of those thousands of cards weren't their fraud ring (the odds of which are beyond minuscule), Brent, of course, wouldn't have had to drop his old buddy Moser. We all know Moser (with a long hobby history of fraud and alteration) was absolutely routing his altered cards through his old buddy, many of which just coincidentally happen to match up with Brent's second eBay account. But I'm sure all of those matches are just the eBay masking coincidentally making them match. Thousands of times, over and over and over again.

One could just say they don't give a crap if he ripped off a bunch of people, business is good and so they will keep doing business with that person. Conspiracy theories aren't needed.

To me this is like arguing Seattle isn't a rainy city because some of the days counted as rainy were actually just cloudy.

Even worse, it's like arguing Seattle isn't a rainy city because some of the days counted as rainy were actually just cloudy, and that it's a conspiracy theory to consider it raining as the water hits your face.

If it helps to convince you, we refuse to use umbrellas up here in the pacific northwest, because we refuse to concede that it rains enough to require them.

I don't think you're quite grasping the scale of the errors being made by BODA that I'm accusing them of making. It's not as if most of the cards bought by a 'b***h' masked user ID are probably Brent's with a few random purchases here or there being possibly misattributed. What I have proven is that EVERY SINGLE MASKED EBAY USER ID IS COMPLETELY RANDOM ON EVERY SINGLE LISTING. In other words, you cannot attribute ANYTHING to ANYONE on ANY purchase simply by having the masked buyer ID of a sale. Do you understand this? Do you understand the implications of this?

Let's back engineer what's happened here... BODA looks up Brent's known account on eBay. They find a card purchased by that account and can accurately trace it to a sale because of feedback that Brent left for that transaction. On the other party's feedback page, BODA finds Brent's exact feedback post and sees that it is attributed to masked eBay user ID 'b***h' (or whatever it is). BODA then says, "AHA! Now I know Brent's secret masked eBay user ID!!!" and then they start hunting. They scour sold listings and VCP for all purchases made by 'b***h' and then they look for matches for those cards to see if they can find any that have been trimmed. The problem is that only 1 in a million of those listings they scour are actually Brent's. These are COMPLETELY RANDOM eBay IDs. 'b***h' will be attributed to you just as often as it is to me, to Peter, and to Brent. These codes are literally assigned at random.

I'm not saying Brent has never trimmed cards or that he is not involved in some sort of way whatsoever. I'm saying you cannot arrive at these conclusions using masked eBay IDs. That matters.

Here's a conspiracy theory for you that I think is at least equally as likely, if not more so, as Brent being some sort of trimming operation ring leader. I think it's quite likely that the vast majority of all high-end vintage cards graded by PSA in the early days (serial numbers beginning with 0s or 1s) have been trimmed and furthermore that the graders at PSA knew about it. I'm talking *almost all of them*. I think that it's quite possible that nearly all of PSA's business in the early years came from card trimmers. They were the early super adopters, and they sent floods of cards their way. There are countless stories posted across the internet of PSA graders meeting with card trimmers at shows in the early days and discussing how to improve their alterations so that they looked as accurate as possible. I haven't seen proof of these conversations, but I do believe they most likely did occur in some form or another. I don't think PSA was ever above board until scandals started landing on their doorsteps and they found themselves under a spotlight. Out of the many thousands of cards I've seen that had serial numbers starting with a 0 or 1 and a grade of EX or better, I don't think I can ever recall a single one of them being either accurately graded or unaltered. It really is that bad. The early days of PSA were an absolute joke. How many years did they allow Moser (and other known trimmers) to continue to submit cards to them? I think that there are so many altered cards in all of these slabs that you could probably find an altered card almost half the time simply by playing 'pin the tail on the donkey' with high-end or high-grade vintage slabs. I think that you could take ANY random masked eBay user ID and find a trail of altered cards associated with that random ID. That's how widespread I think this problem is. I openly acknowledge that I have no proof of this and that it is in fact a conspiracy theory. But based on my observations, I think this is very plausible. I think everyone on this board, including myself, with high-end or high-grade vintage cards likely has a plethora of altered cards in their collections. Maybe Brent was involved in this too in the early days? I don't know. But I honestly think it's all such a mess that almost none of this shit matters anyhow. This entire hobby is absolutely FLOODED with altered cards. Literally millions of them. That's what I think.

I cannot speak to the process of randomized scrambled user ids on eBay. When I have looked at my own as a buyer it always appears the same scrambled letters in VCP but does have different scrambled letters when viewing purchases in feedback but in all of those instances the scrambled letters are the same.

So even if the Moser id is was inaccurately attributed to the before images the cards compared clearly showed cards which were altered and sold by PWCC.

If this were a nothing burger as Travis believes why is the FBI still digging into PWCC's business? Are we to believe that this is merely a witch hunt? And if so, was it not suggested that PWCC has written a bunch of checks to buy back altered cards?