Those with long memories remember back on the Full Count Board (predecessor of Net 54) and in the early days when posters who inferred that collectors who were "good old boys" or "large quantity submitters" would get preferential treatment, would get lambasted. I remember one time posting that I believed that grading companies, despite their written policies, DID know who was submitting certain cards and although some agreed with me, many were outraged at the thought that the grading companies were ever anything other than 100% impartial. Flash forward 6 years and how many of you dissenters still think the grading companies are Ivory Snow businesses? Just wondering...;)

To me this is the bottom line:

Either SGC KNEW the cards submitted were Forman's (and depending on who you believe they were either tougher on his cards or he got a "good old boy" upgrade) or they did NOT know. That's the bottom line. Sure the Prez of SGC should have avoided even the appearance of impropriety but the bottom line is did the graders know they were his cards or not. Glyn who used to work there indicates they DID (although they graded his cards tougher), others say they had no idea whose cards were whose.
That's the bottom line.

Me, I am still trying to figure out which comic book would have sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially in the stagnant comic book market these days. :confused:

This is hysterical, someone says they have no facts when we have a statement from an employee of SGC with no bias as he says only favorable things. Amazing. Tell us James, what is YOUR basis for saying Glyn doesn't know what he is talking about?

Bob-My guess is that when the average guy mails in a submission to SGC the graders probably don't know whose it is. When someone brings a few high grade cards in for immediate turnaround my guess is that they sometimes do know whose cards they are.
Is there preferential treatment--who knows. Certainly not for me or you.

I concur
 

Glyn outright told us they KNEW they were grading Dave's cards. Of course he is going to say they were tougher on them. Something is not right. Maybe he was just getting cards graded and that's it. In any event, I personally feel some submissions are not anonymous. Finally, I have plenty of comic books I will sell you for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

#27 Detective Comics
 

Do you have a #27 Detective Comics (1st appearance of Batman) in high grade? If so I might have a buyer for you :)

Please see the below statement from Sean Skeffington, VP of Operations for SGC.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone,

We’ve been following the comments and questions on this issue closely, and while we cannot continue to address every question in this forum, we feel compelled to clarify a few issues.

Please understand that due to the nature of the dispute between Dave Forman and Mastro Auctions, we are not at liberty to make statements regarding the issue. What is important for us to communicate is that the dispute does not involve SGC as a company, and thus we cannot make any sort of statement, other than to express our hope that the two parties are able to resolve their differences.

However, in the course of the many online discussions, some questions about perceived inconsistencies in SGC’s company policies have come to light, and in the interest of transparency and trust, we feel compelled to comment.

First, in our continuing efforts to refine and improve our internal operations, SGC established a policy prohibiting any employee from submitting cards for grading. That policy was established in the second half of 2008. Prior to that, while there was no official company policy on the matter, it was a non-issue, since the number of cards submitted by employees was minimal. We established the policy on our own, to help eliminate the potential for impropriety.

Secondly, we feel it is important to note that as the owner of SGC, Dave Forman is not involved in the day-to-day operation of the company, and has never dictated grading policy or graded any cards submitted to SGC.

Lastly, as a grading company well-known for honoring its guarantee, we want to remind everyone that SGC continues to stand behind each and every card in an SGC holder. If, at any time, you feel that one of your cards is not accurately graded for whatever reason, we will be happy to review it for you at no charge, and as you all know, we have bought back misgraded cards in the past.

We feel that it is important to note that for the last 11 years, SGC has worked very hard to earn your trust and establish itself as the most knowledgeable, skilled grading company in the hobby. We are truly appreciative of the trust you have shown us, and we continue to work hard to earn that trust, every single day. While we understand many of the concerns that have been expressed here, we also ask you to remember that SGC still boasts the same commitment to accuracy, consistency, knowledge and customer service that you have all come to expect from us.

We appreciate your patience with our response. We also appreciate your understanding that due to the nature of this situation, we are not at liberty to discuss specifics regarding the dispute between Dave Forman and Mastro. If there are any additional questions that we can answer to help restore your confidence, please do not hesitate to call our offices.

Sincerely,

Sean Skeffington
VP of Operations

Jay's probably correct IMO. For example, when the infamous N167 was purchased on eBay and subsequently graded by SGC, I'm sure they knew who had purchased the card. An N167 Ewing doesn't come in every day. I'm not implying that SGC gave any preferential treatment, just that I agree with Jay that in some instances, the owner of a card is probably known.

Sorry
 

No, sorry. My comics are of the worthless variety, but I'm more than willing to sell them for hundreds of thousands of dollars:)

a guess
 

I have to guess that SGC does know who some of the submitters of cards are, especially very rare ones, how could they possibly not? I can safely say that I don't know ANYONE, including myself, that has EVER gotten any preferential treatment with respect to a grade. SGC still has the best graders in the business, imo, and they will still get my business....not because they are a banner advertiser, but because they are the most consistent and best in the business. No doubt there have been questions raised that deserve some answers but the grading dept is as good as it gets...along with their ops dept. :)


I should add that I think my friends at Beckett do an outstanding job also......I have my fingers crossed on a JSA item they have of mine right now.....

What if a grader for any company wanted their cards graded, then they can't submit to their own company?

What would the fallout be if Foreman bought some raw cards and sent them to PSA?

I fully understand and respect the appearance of possible favoritism or impropriety but I have to assume that the graders are collectors also.

I don't have a problem with any grading company grades employee cards.....as long as the cards are graded the same as everything else submitted...not graded harder or with a closer inspection, not easier....just the same as everyone else.

Out of all of this, the most annoying item was someone's cards were graded at a different standard.

Place in the label that it was "So And So's Card from their personal collection" to be completely open if that card ever hit the open market.

Thank you for clarifying.

As long as I am playing the ass**le cynic in Jeff's absence (:))
1. If there was no issue then why change the policy?
2. Does the policy apply to family members?
3. I also note that Sean does not dispute anything Glyn said.

Thanks Sean and Brian for the clarification. I am not cynical like the East Coast guys, but here are other questions that can be raised:

1. How many cards did SGC grade on behalf of David Forman from the time he took over the company until one year ago?

2. Is there any way to identify cards graded on behalf of SGC owners or SGC personnel?

3. Did the graders know that they were scrutinizing cards that belonged to their coworkers in the next cubical?

4. Did SGC owners and SGC personnel have to fill out submittal forms and place cards in CardSaver I's?

and (to add to Wesley's list):

5) Were cards owned by Forman's brother (who is reported here to be a seller of cards) graded by SGC?
6) Did the graders know that these were his brother's cards before grading (a follow-up on Glyn's comment)?

As to the issue of the actual graders at SGC, I have (like others) disagreed on occasional grades received in the past but have always found the guys who grade to be top-notch and very cordial when I have met them at the National.

I gotta believe that when I walk up to the SGC booth at a show, fill out an invoice and give them my cards that the grader may/can see me - especially when a grader comes out and asks a question.

Anonymity is not the issue, favoritism is. One might argue that anonymity guarantees non-bias treatment, but I say that professionalism is more likely to lead to equitable grading. It comes down to trust; everything else is like living is Neverland (apologies for the MJ reference). I trust the three big grading companies.

Not sure I have any more of an issue with Dave having cards graded by his own company, SGC, than his having cards graded with PSA. My trouble is that Dave should not be dealing cards any longer. If he did submit cards to SGC I would like to believe they were graded in accordance with SGC's polices. My fear is that he was supposed to have divested his collection or at the very least stopped selling cards so it begs the question as to how far he went. Yet this clearly is not the case and not what the public was lead to believe. It is Dave's company. As I asked yesterday, what are the checks and balances that are in place? What prevents Dave from grading his own stuff?


Greg

.

.

.

.

This is what I have been trying to get out through out this thread and perhaps it was lost in the length of Sean's comments.

Dave does not impact any grading, he does not grade, therefore if you trust the graders then it is a non issue.

Peter, I am not saying I know any facts that is the problem, just because Glyn made one comment about the issue does not mean that all the facts have been presented. I assume we won't hear anything further from Glyn so as to avoid him opening up any other pandora boxes. I don't believe Glyn was doning anything else but commenting on his view of things and certainly was not trying to do harm although some may have turned it into that.

I agree there are a lot of other questions but since we don't even have the most basic facts
1) what did Dave have graded
2) did he sell cards he had graded
3) what he bought
4) what he sold

I don't see how anyone can come to the mind set that Dave and SGC did wrong.

As I said I will stand by SGC because even if a grader did happen to know a card was Dave's I don't think they would have acted any different and that is what I expect, want and pay for.

James G

Depending on the level of detail in the Complaint, we MAY know soon at least what lots Dave purchased that he didn't pay for. I doubt we will ever know what he sold, or what he had graded, or the true extent of what he bought.

To me, creating the appearance of impropriety, even if there wasn't any actual impropriety, is sin enough, particularly in this business. I am sure others will share that view and others like yourself will not, which is fine.

I've waited a day and a half to make any comment on this thread as it would most likely be perceived to be self-serving; that being said, there are a few points I'd like to make:

First, I've been representing Dave on this issue with Mastro/Legendary since March of 2009; my thoughts about Bill Mastro and Doug Allen have been pretty much consistent for at least 3 years now and are probably in line with about 90% of the people in the hobby. Of course, as Dave's lawyer I'm biased towards his position; but my point is that since becoming his attorney my position on Mastro and Doug have not changed one iota. I wish other posters' biases and motives could be as transparent. Unfortunately, the news about the lawsuit has provided the opportunity for many to take shots at Dave due to personal problems they may have with him having nothing to do with SGC or, in other instances, to support Mastro/Doug despite being either financially involved with them or otherwise a part of some of their mess over the years.

Second, the lawsuit was filed on June 25. Today is July 6 and I have yet to hear from Mastro's attorneys about the suit despite having been in touch with them since March. Dave has also not been served with a copy of the lawsuit. I learned about the lawsuit from Mike O'Keeffe who provided me with a copy of it -- it was clearly given to him by an interested party (can you guess who?). Needless to say, it is more than troubling to learn about a lawsuit from a reporter (as well as from a number of apparently hand-picked hobbyists who also alerted me) instead of from attorneys. Make from that what you will but I will say that this is a curious way to try to settle a dispute - assuming that settling the dispute was the desired goal with the lawsuit. And remember: we didn't bring a lawsuit against Mastro; we're defending it. Unless we did everything that Mastro wanted, we had no choice in the matter here; they sued Dave without warning, not the other way around.

Next, I'm not going to litigate the legal issues on this board despite the great desire here for such a show. There's no point in it. And while there are a number of “judges” here who have already pronounced their verdicts based solely on a newspaper article written by a guy who before yesterday hated cards more than he hates bin Laden, you'll excuse me if I don't feel the strong desire to make my arguments to them. Needless to say, the article hardly provides all the information required to come to any fair conclusion. And again, there are unrevealed biases here and opinions should be taken with a grain of salt -- many (but not all) of the people bashing Dave and SGC here have made clear to me their dislike for him well before any of the legal issues arose.

Finally, anyone who has any intimate dealings with SGC knows that Dave has been nowhere near the grading room for months and months and months and is not a daily presence in the running of the company. I'm not going to get into a defense of the company, however, because I'm Dave's lawyer and I otherwise don't know how the operation works there. All I can say is take a look at SGC's track record, their customer service, their product since Dave took over. You might even want to compare it to the track record for integrity that existed/exists at Mastro/Legendary. Regardless, if you have any questions, call the guys at SGC. I've submitted cards to both SGC and PSA so what do I know but I think SGC's product has been generally favored on this board and those reasons still exist regardless of Dave's problems with Mastro and Doug.

As for perceived conflicts of interest, there are real and perceived conflicts of interest all over this hobby. With SGC cards, however, the proof is in the pudding. If cards are overgraded, doesn't SGC have a track record of buying them back? (Although I don't know many people that complain of having overgraded SGC cards) The argument that suddenly even the appearance of impropriety is awful, if extended logically, would knock out every auction house and grading company in existence. In the end, you have to trust the grading of your cards...and as I've said before, call SGC up if you have any questions, they do answer their phones -- even without dogs barking in the background.

Jeff I appreciate your remarks and perspective, but with all due respect I disagree with you on appearance of conflict. For one thing overgrading is not the only potential problem with slabbing cards, and even then, it is subjective. But leaving that aside, assuming Dave does buy and sell cards, which you haven't denied I don't think, I for one don't want a grading service run by a card dealer whose grading service is grading his cards. It just raises too many questions, where basically we have to take his word (or those of his employees) that it is all on the up and up. And it may well be, but it is unnecessary.

And your statement that there are other conflicts, while perhaps true, does not excuse this one. Joe Orlando is not, to my knowlege or anyone else's, buying and selling cards.

Jeff
 

While I know you have many fascinating things to say about this case; as a lawyer who is aware of facts that we are not; I think you have the right to stay out of this thread :)

And I was out at dinner with wife and her friends last nite -- Had to go; she was very antsy after being home bound since Tuesday when her knee got scoped. Which is why I missed your show last nite. Why does ABC need that Imus guy anyway for. ;)

All I ask; is when it is legally prudent for you to do so; to post the suit (and counter-suit if there is one) with a link. :p

Regards
Rich

WOW! again, this is some crazy info. You are defending Dave, that is great. But did he win lots he hasn't paid for or not? That is the main question here I think. Why else could Mastro Inc sue him? dan.

Anyone can sue anyone at anytime.

And Mastro still isn't paying consignors... but they are certainly pointing the finger at others for all sorts of things.

Dave is still selling and buying cards on ebay, it appears.

http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAP...ab=AllFeedback

Interesting that his grading company of choice is PSA. Who grades those Frasier DVDs?

Is he upgrading those PSA graded cards by walking down the hall?

Ugh :(

Maybe Jeff can speak & take questions at the Net54 National dinner. :D:D:D

I was hoping Doug would.

Brian
 

Since you made this statement can you please list the names here of the folks you are referring to? As far as I am aware every person that contacted me has been contacted and has had arrangements made to be paid or has been paid. I am sure there might be more out there but since you are the one posting then I would like to know. This will help them get paid quicker (which I totally agree that they should have already been paid). Thanks much

Yes but everything he seems to have sold has been in a PSA holder.

It certainly is silly to have his name clearly on that id and to be buying cards with it certainly isn't the best looking thing but that doesn't mean he has done anything wrong per sa.


James G

Got my usual , "please consign with us email today" from Legendary...aside from the really poor taste in my mouth about their trustworthiness, the email had two different spelling errors...maybe they should use some of their stolen money and pay for a spell check program.

Joshua

I think the transactions pretty clearly show he is not. He is repeatedly selling PSA-graded cards in PSA holders (ie. NOT using his "influence" to get those cards slabbed with higher SGC grades).

I don't have nearly enough facts to want to get into this debate, but if this Ebay feedback does anything for me, it encourages me.

Cheers,
Blair

The complaint filed by Mastro states that Forman amassed a staggering $805K in debt between 2006 and Aug 2008. Since Aug 2008 (the Dec 08 auction) Forman's net consignment proceeds were just over $569K according to the complaint. It does not give a complete list of the items making up the $805K in purchases nor does it identify all of the items Forman sold in auction totaling just over $569K but it does list the following 4 items:

T210 Jackson PSA Authentic (Lot 589 in the Dec 08 Auction)

T205 Cobb SGC 84 (Lot 718 in the Dec 08 Auction)

M110 Complete Set SGC graded (Lot 329 in the Dec 08 Auction)

49B Robinson SGC 98 (Lot 226 in the Dec 08 Auction)

The complaint also states that Forman had an unpaid $200K debt with Mastro Auctions in Aug 2007 at which time an agreement was made to extend him additional credit at 10% interest.

Don't know about you but if someone is unable to satisfy a debt for 200K what makes you think it is a great idea to extend the credit like to over $800K? The 10% interest was enough of an incentive? I don't buy that. There is more to this story then we are getting.

Greg

Is the complaint viewable online?

Non-Sport Fiasco
 

Just wanted to mention that the "Fraudlent" dealings go back even further.

Sometime in 2007, Mark Finn, a prominent & highly respected Non-Sport collector bought a lot from Mastro that included original artwork from the 1941 R158 Gum Inc. Uncle Sam Home Defense Set. When Mark received the lot, the most desirable high number artwork was missing.

A complaint was filed by Mark, he was banned by Mastro. The missing original artwork showed up in a subsequent Mastro auction. Mark filed a complaint with the FBI.

Check out the Nonsport Forum for the complete thread.

Who knows how many little guys were ripped off in this fashion over the years?

As a disclaimer, Mark Finn is a friend of mine - We have bought from, Sold to & Traded many cards, from each other over the years.

When will someone like Mark be made whole by Mastro or Legendary?

I too will proudly vouch that Mark is a stand up guy. Dan Mckee

Maybe you can help Leon
 

Leon - I emailed Mark Finn about your offer to help.

He should be emailing you with all the particulars.

Anyone out there with a similar Mastro auction problem?

If, as appears to be the case, a large portion of Mastro's claim is interest, in theory that should make the dispute easier to settle. And (easy for me to say, of course), it probably SHOULD settle. That said, settlement dynamics are not always perfectly rational, at least early in a case.

Does Leon have Doug's phone in his pocket? Why can Mike O'Keeffe get in touch with Doug but not Mastro/Legendary customers?

The solution is simple. People who own, run, or work for grading companies should stick to grading - not price guides (PSA -SMR), or prices realized (on the SGC home page). Becasue as soon as they stress the monetary aspects - they should not be allowed participate in bidding on any graded cards. They are indirectly generating "buzz" and it is self serving and a conflict of interest. Let the people who advertise in their magazines do that.

Here is the definition of a shill from Wikipedia.

A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists. The term plant is also used. Shill bidding, found on many auction sites such as eBay, is punishable by law[1] and may result in fines and or prosecution.

Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions because of the frequently fraudulent and damaging character of their actions. However, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates "buzz", the shill's actions may be legal. For example, a person planted in an audience to laugh and applaud when desired (see claque), or to participate in on-stage activities as a "random member of the audience", is a type of legal shill.

he bought or sold these items?

I have not seen the complaint, but it looks like Dave Forman consigned those cards for Mastro to sell on his behalf.

Those are 4 consignments that Mastro sold on behalf of Forman.

Just conjecture, since I have absolutely no facts to back this up, but what about the possibility of Forman shilling for Mastro? It’s not inconceivable that they were working together with an agreement that Forman would re-consign whatever he, unfortunately in their eyes, won while bidding up lots. This could have been ongoing and lead to the massive “paper” debt in his name. Now that the Feds are involved and the books had to be opened, the excuse of a deadbeat bidder needed to be fabricated in order to disguise the shill scam. Any thoughts?

Nice Jackie!! Too bad the graders were harsher on Dave than the rest of us or it might have received a 100. :)

I think not Mr. Mitt. This has every appearance of a genuine dispute, to my eye.