The law is more concerned with ISIS using EBay to send money than some random guy scamming people out of a few dollars on t206s.

He has totally undermined the entire set though. If someone was building the set, they now have to realize their entire set is based on a lie.

What a disgrace, this guy low. I guess could see a crook trying to rob a bank to score a million bucks, but to destroy a set of cards, to tarnish many peoples collections for a few dollars each card sold..... shameful. Im not a t206 collector, but forgive & forget? Thats not in my vocabulary

I'm not sure that I see a difference between Topps putting legit T206 cards in their generic frame and someone else putting legit T206 cards in the same generic frame.

By generic I mean no identifier as to what's in it.

yes another guy that needs to sell cards for medication or is getting out of the hobby or doesnt need the money....again, i have posted a number of times about who cares for the reasons that someone claims to sell a card for and its only your fault as a buyer if that caused you to buy an item.


As for the issue of not making much on a fraud and why would someone do that. People like to get the 'one over' on people. Makes them feel smart and they enjoy the challenge. Its not aways about money

However he probably sold cards to pay his gas money to and from AA and then to ABC..

I can't believe any collector is defending this guy or his activities. This group pillories auctioneers for charging a few extra dollars for shipping and has vicious wishes for anyone who soaks a card to improve its appearance but has to debate this turd's activities???? This is fraud, as clear as it gets. By Larry's own admission he did it several dozen times, took a cheap T206 and a cheap Topps holder, put them together, listed them for sale on eBay as part of the Topps T206 buy-back issue, and made a profit by misleading bidders about what they were getting. Collectors value the Topps promotion more than the raw cards: the fact that buyers paid a premium over the value of a crappy T206 to get these Frankenstein items, proves it. I don't see any gray area here.

+1

The only value I see is the T206 inside the generic holder. If Topps had a master list available with the names and quantity of each T206 they inserted, and the frames were marked accordingly, you might then have an item with a perceived value above the inserted T206 value.

The perceived value is obviously above the T206 value, as shown by the spreadsheet provided by Leon and the fact that Larry continued to do this for years. I personally don't see the augmented value, but obviously some collectors do.

Agree
 

Peter,
I agree that some people do value the Topps 206 buy back above the inserted T206 value. Leon has provided the members of the board with proof of Larry's scam, and harm to this issue by taking his own time to work the spreadsheet and then provide it. I hope those affected will be made right. I also hope Topps takes needed steps to protect and document future buy back issues to prevent the fraud attached to this issue.

How could you undermine a set if Topps was not inserting a complete set of T206's in the packs? There would be no set to complete unless Topps said there were a certain number of cards to collect and each was numbered. If Topps acquired several thousand Doc White or Bunk Congalton cards but only a few Pete Cassidy or William Nattress cards how could they possibly create a set for collectors to work on? They were marketing these so that the pre-war collectors would spend their money with Topps. Merely a marketing ploy. It cannot be all stick and no carrot if you are trying to separate people from their money.

I wonder how Topps would feel if they knew about it.

How many cards are known to have been inserted into the holders and sold?

What is the ebay handle of the seller?

Sadly, it seems par for the course for this hobby.

Did this make it to Hauls of Shame yet? :eek: :p

Unlike Tiffany's, Coach, Michael Kors etc... Topps doesn't seem to give a crap about protecting their properties on ebay. there are literally THOUSANDS of counterfeit Topps cards being sold as reprints at the very least, many being represented as the real deal. If Topps would make a stink about this like the aforementioned companies it would clean up a LOT of crap very quickly. Try and list a counterfeit handbag and see how fast you get shut down.

Topps didn't lose anything in the process. Someone purchased a Topps Buyback card for the frame, pulled out what was in it, and put in a T206.

Oddly enough the OP (and who knows how many others) may have actually expanded the market. There is no difference to his cards when compared to the original inserts.

Man, this thread brings back memories. I have mentioned it in this board a few times before but will repeat it here:

I was Baseball Editor at Topps in 2001/2 and was the editor of the first two Topps206 products. For the first series in 2002, I had the pleasure of opening a package from Kit Young that contained around 250 original t206 cards (and a couple of t205s). My immediate job was to alphabetize them, and because my desk was covered in slides and crap, I went into an empty area of the office, an open carpet space where a couple of cubicles had been removed, and laid these out to sort by first letter of last name on front. Coincidentally, that was one of the few days that Cy Berger was on our floor (he was pretty much retired then and wasn't around Whitehall Street very much, at least not in our floor). But he walked by and saw me - a 27-year-old sitting on the floor sorting old cards - and he smiled form ear and ear and said something like "now that really takes me back." It was a pretty cool moment. But I digress.

I have frustratingly little information beyond the anecdote. I was not (and am not) anything close to knowlegable in t206 cards beyond being able to identify them (and separate out the couple of t205s mentioned above - which I believe got mixed back in by somebody later down the line who didn't know or possibly didn't care about the difference). I did know then about what is still my passion, which is HOFers, and I can tell you that there were not many. Honestly, I think there were no more than five. I vividly recall a Walter Johnson that the little devil and angel on my shoulder argued about for a while (the angel won - the card went into the product and not my pocket). But easily 95%+ of the cards I funneled into the product were no-name players (edited to add: no-names to me, I should say; there could well have been rarities in there, and I never even looked at the backs, a fact that I imagine kills many of you with your amazing passions for this set).

Topps definitely did not track these or keep a spread sheet (that would have been my domain and I was never tasked with it). Whether these cards were 'vetted' for things like cleaning and trimming would be a question for Kit Young (i honestly don't know, either about his reputation for that or for Topps' requirements for same). I can verify what is already known: pretty much every name on the spreadsheet Leon showed early in the thread was NOT put into the set by Topps, at least not into series 1. I think, but am not certain, that this shipment was the totality of cards put into series 1, and while I set the checklist and chose photos for series 2, I did no such sorting of purchased cards for that series or the subsequent series 3. I believe original tobacco cards were put into all three series, but at a significantly lower rate in series 2 & 3 than in 1, as my unreliable memory is telling me that 'buybacks' fell every four boxes or so for series 1, but more like every 10-12 boxes for series 2. Honestly, many others here know more about that than I do, as I was living in Europe by the time the second series came out.

So, I offer little concrete information. I myself owned one of these that I pulled from the box Topps gave me at release, a no-namer, which I sold on eBay maybe 6-7 years ago. I think it sucks what this guy did to a cool item, but little in this hobby surprises me anymore.

Feel free to ask me any questions, but I doubt I'll have satisfactory or concrete answers.

It seems the guy just bought a bunch of the 99-cent autographs and 'relic' cards that were included in the set, which were framed in the same frames (stuff like a Cristian Guzman bat sliver card or Jorge Julio autograph, practically free on eBay these days). He cut those open, threw away the card, and replaced it with a t206, somehow replacing the plastic cover (which can't be that hard to do, really).

Don't want you to think I was ignoring you, Leon. I appreciate the response.

All it takes is a little research to find the answer to some of the questions asked and debunk some of the statements being made.

He would be using the cheap autograph cards because the game used
have holes where the bat chip and uniform swatch are.
Attachment 283848

These are a couple of his recent purchases.
http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d...p2047675.l2564
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2002-Topps-2...p2047675.l2557




There is a big difference to me and I'm sure any of the people who purchased
them from him.

Here's a view of the side of one inserted by Topps and one Larry inserted.
Attachment 283853
Attachment 283854

and I'm sure Topps didn't do this to any of their cards.
Attachment 283851

I imagine Topps wouldn't be very happy if they saw this feedback either.
Attachment 283852

My mistake in earlier identifying a cheap game used card rather than an autograph card as the source of the frames for the frankencards. I did not appreciate the difference.

I forgot that the GU cards had that little hole allowing you to touch the material. Yes, it would seem he used autograph cards. I assumed that he somehow destroyed the original plastic cover and replaced it, but it makes sense that he removed and replaced the original.

Im not sure that Topps would care about the "trimmed" feedback, as they made no promises about condition, only that original cards were used. Kit Young would know more about that.

I got a pretty nice Zach Wheat 205 out of one of these Topps boxes. It was in Ex+ condition. The others were it Fr-Good condition. Maybe it was from the T-205 reprint boxes though. Should have kept the Wheat. Others were really no namers.

From my interpretation from the copyright.gov website, these cards are not copyrighted. They lack the qualifications for a copyright. To substantiate this, there are no copyright notices ( © ) on the cards while other Topps products do contain the copyright notice.

Do you know if Topps has a copyright on these? Why no copyright notice?

No Topps did not copyright the holder, at least to my knowledge, only the cards it printed to go inside. You will see the copyright on the autograph and relic minis, but the frame wasn't deemed worth bothering over, it seems (though it does have the Topps206 name on it...), and clearly the t206s themselves aren't Topps' intellectual property.

I think you've hit the key to the legality of this.

Whether or not Topps copyrighted the holder is really besides the point here.

OP: I took cards submitted in Topps packs, that were intended to and did interest people in buying Topps cards, and made hidden changes to trick customers into thinking they were buying the original inserts, for my own economic gain.

Response: The inserts didn't contain a copyright mark. You're good.

It's fraud. An open and shut case of fraud. Who gives a damn about copyright?

Copyright only means something if i was going to sell my own holders that look and resemble the style of the ones with t206 cards but everyone knows that they arent from topps...there could be an argument from topps that i couldnt do that.. When you are sellling something alleging they are topps holder t206s and they aren't thats fraud...

It's exactly the point here. You're arguing the ethicality of it. You're right! You win! Nobody is disputing that. I'm arguing the legality of it, and you couldn't be any more wrong. And I'm not arguing in a way to defend Larry. My point (which you and others have conveniently and deliberately twisted) was in response to whether or not Larry could face criminal action. It's my belief that he couldn't. There are certainly other consequences like being publically shamed, losing respect and trust in the hobby world, being banned from here, etc. But, as I said earlier, I'm finished discussing it. I simply wanted to know if the cards were copyrighted. I think we got the correct answer.

[QUOTE=vintagetoppsguy;1690847][QUOTE=T206Collector;1690836]Whether or not Topps copyrighted the holder is really besides the point here.Yes David you're right and every lawyer on the board who has posted that it's illegal fraud is wrong. Read the wire fraud statute which has been posted here and tell me which element is not met. Or you can just ignore it because your beliefs trump the actual law.

According to the authorities I have spoken with you are wrong. But what do they know anyway? :cool:

They don't know shit and neither do I or Kenny or Paul or Adam or anyone I am leaving out to whom I apologize. David knows the law much better than we do.

The point of my post was on the legality of the conduct -- which is in violation of several laws, state and federal, as well as criminal and civil... just maybe not copyright law.

I don't think anybody said "you're good." There are plenty of cases that are considered fraud within our hobby that are certainly not illegal. I would put this up there with trimming or recoloring cards and reselling them without that disclosure.

Are those things illegal? If the answer is no, are they automatically "good"?

Thanks for the education, Peter. I was always under the impression that an attorneys job was to represent their client, and it was the judge's job to interpret the law. I learn something new every day. :rolleyes:

Everyone knows attorneys are never wrong (double eye roll) :rolleyes::rolleyes:

That is a dumb comment (attorneys research and interpret the law every day in order to formulate arguments) and your willful arrogance is astonishing, truly. Do you really think you know more about what constitutes illegal fraud than all the lawyers on this Board? Again, tell me what element of the wire fraud statute is not met and we can have a real discussion.

Maybe next you can argue the earth is flat. For all I can tell you might believe it.

Yes, they are illegal, if you sell them without disclosure. You might try reading the Mastro indictment, for one thing.

I should read the indictment, clearly.

So, simple question: It is not illegal to take the graphite end of a pencil and write on a t206 card (though many here might like it to be) and then list that on eBay without mention (because the writing would be pretty obvious). But to take the eraser end of the pencil to one that previously marks on it and list it on eBay without mention is punishable by law?

Well now you are into a gray area whether that would be a material alteration that needs to be disclosed. We could argue about whether it is or isn't. But for a clear-cut case like trimming, yeah. There is also a California statute specifically on point that I recall but cannot immediately locate it.

If the seller lists it as unaltered, and does so with the intent to defraud, then yes.

ETA: subject to Peter's caveat. If the buyer relies on any representation that the card is unaltered and that factors into the decision to purchase, or the price, then it is fraud.

Keep in mind a lot of this is theoretical discussion . I am not going to get arrested for going 56 in a 55 MPH zone. Larry Harris is not going to get prosecuted here, the authorities have better things to do. And so on. But is what he did illegal, and could he be prosecuted? Absolutely.

So intent matters? The OP could theoretically argue that the premium from the Topps pack was more the frame (as a presentation piece) than the card and frame in its entirety. Topps was putting random cards into frames with zero correlation between the two, so OP was just doing same. The argument would become how natural the assumption that these came in packs as such would be (I imagine).

None of us believes that about the OP's intent, of course, but I think this is a pretty gray area as well in that the Topps206 holder is not too far differentiated from a generic topholder (seems closer to that than to a slab, at least). I don't know how easy it is to remove and replace the cover.

Sorry if I'm annoying anyone here. I'm enjoying the back and forth quite a bit.

I think the issue is that for whatever reason, as proven by the spreadsheet, people are paying at least in part for the item as a whole originating from Topps. There may be no logic to it, and Larry's frankencards may be just as good as the original items from Topps, but for whatever reason people want these as sold by Topps. and not as assembled by Larry Harris. I personally would just want the T206 within, and think the frame is stupid, but that's just me.

Yes - typically, criminal liability does not attach unless the person has an intent to defraud. If someone put a raw T206 into a Topps holder years ago for their personal collection, and then sold it a decade later having forgotten that they didn't pull it straight from the product, that would not be criminal fraud.

Judges will sometimes tell juries that intent can rarely be proven by direct evidence; however, the Jury can look at all the circumstances of a person's actions to determine his intent. I think we all agree that the intent was pretty clear here.

Of course, the OP could 'attempt' to argue that, but the evidence would tend to negate that argument, IMO. From one of the listings:

"1909-11 T206 Topps Buyback Red Ames Hands at Chest TOUGH COMMON Piedmont Sweet Caporal 150 back. I just acquired a huge lot of Topps Buybacks with Hall of Famers, Southern Leaguers, and tougher backs."

He must have meant assembled, not acquired.

"But I never said that the one I was selling was part of that lot!"

And you see, having helped create this product as a Topps employee, I think Topps' intention was NOT that the framed creation be worth more than the card within. They wanted to include these cards that they purchase don the secondary market, which happened to be smaller than most of the cards in the pack. Each pack contained a single mini that floated loose, but the other minis (the autos, GU, and originals) were out into frames more as a way to assimilate them into the other cards in terms of size (and make it a bit harder to detect by simply feeling a pack).

I've seen a lot of fraud in this hobby (as have we all), but I've also seen too many collectors get angry at others (manufacturers, dealers, ebayers) for reasons of their own greed and overly-heightened expectations. I think this case is a confluence of the two.

Topps' intent is irrelevant in my opinion. Topps' original intent way back when was to sell chewing gum, not expensive collectibles. Does that matter any more? If collectors value the cards in frames from Topps more than the T206s themselves -- and the spreadsheet and all the money Larry made prove this -- then he committed fraud by lying about the origin and nature of what he was selling.

I will post this example from the New Jersey Criminal Code - a fourth degree crime is punishable by up to 18 months in State prison, even if it rarely is.

NJSA 2C:21-2 Criminal Simulation. A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if, with purpose to defraud anyone or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud to be perpetrated by anyone, he makes, alters or utters any object so that it appears to have value because of antiquity, rarity, source, or authorship which it does not possess.

No mention of the existence of a copyright as an element of the offense.

Anyone in NJ buy any of these?

What does it mean to utter an object????

You are right that it is irrelevant in terms of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the OP, but I'm pointing out that Topps, as a company, agrees with your opinion on the matter. The t206 within the frame was the whole point for Topps, and I'd bet that several that were directly inserted had been previously trimmed and/or otherwise altered (again, someone should ask Kit Young if there were stated standards in this area - maybe he'd remember, though I doubt he'd share).

I guess my point is that Topps doesn't give a crap about anything being argued here, and they didn't copyright the frame for a reason, that's all.

To publish, sell, offer for sale or present in some way. One "utters" a bad check when it is turned over for payment, for example

I guess that would mean voice impersonation, like if I can do a spot-on impression of Morgan Freeman and then use at voice in a radio spot for my product without mention that it's an impersonation?

Right; it's equally illegal to pass off a fake Rolex as a real one whether or not Rolex cares.

Only in Jersey.:D

Adam once posted that statute. It is Calif Business and Professions Code sections 21670-21672. http://law.onecle.com/california/business/21670.html My recollection is that there are other states that have adopted similar laws.

Gentlemen - We need to move on to your closing arguments, please. Defendant's team followed by the prosecution's team. Larry is anxiously waiting on a ruling here.


:)

So if the card was assembled in New York and uttered in New Jersey and then purchased unwittingly in California, the perp will go to Leavenworth. Have I got that right?

Dang you, and your vigorous defense! :)

A better analogy here would be a real Rolex watch sold within a real Rolex box, but mismatched (the box was originally made and sold with a Rolex, but a different one than the one being resold). That's the level of fraud we are dealing with here. But, yes, it is still fraud.

Wow, that's pretty clear cut. I had no idea such sports card-specific statutes existed anywhere.

I had originally viewed this almost entirely from the point of view of Topps, who had no copyright on the product or interest in the OP's sales. I now think that the civil liability in terms of fraud/misrepresentation is clear, and the NJ statute quoted above points to criminal liability as well. However, and as has been pointed out, the civil damages are pretty small (unless someone has a massive collectin of these, which has been devalued considerably at this point), and there ain't a DA anywhere that wants to touch this particular prosecution.

I may discuss it with my older brother when he comes to town tomorrow, as he is a former Colorado DA himself, and see what he thinks about it. He will likely yawn and say "Who the hell cares," which is why I'm glad to have an online community like this to go back and forth with.

Once more, with feeling.

18 U.S.C. § 1343: Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

But Peter, that only applies if what Larry did is fraud. As David has so eloquently explained, all the attorneys are wrong because we don't know the law and it isn't fraud because ... he said so. :)

I'm done with his nonsense. Maybe he can go argue with someone that the earth is flat as I said before. I have encountered people like this before -- the more you show them they are wrong, and the more people who oppose them, the more fiercely they cling to their position. It's a waste of time.

But they could care, and that would make some difference. I'll leave it to the lawyers to explain, but I have a couple examples from collecting experience.


There was a company in the early 90's, maybe 92-93 that made 3-D cards. Not like the Kelloggs, but they'd take three of the same card, laser or die cut them and reassemble the bits with some spacers to give a 3-D effect. Sold as singles in a nice package through Toys R us and maybe a couple other big retailers. Most cards were fleer and Donruss, all the major card companies objected, and he was out of business very quickly.

Another one was smaller and local. Licensed photos mounted to foamboard, laser cut, and mounted to a nice base with a nameplate and "serial #" Pretty limited production, and shut down pretty hard as well.

So there's two examples of making a "better" product out of a licensed product that were shut down. I don't recall if there were any criminal accusations.

Steve B

Peter - you are up against the:

"I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV" crowd here ... they obviously don't understand the meaning of the word fraud.

jeff

D.A. Jim Trotter: Now, uh, Ms. Vito, being an expert on general automotive knowledge, can you tell me... what would the correct ignition timing be on a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet, with a 327 cubic-inch engine and a four-barrel carburetor?
Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Does that mean that you can't answer it?
Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question, it's impossible to answer.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Impossible because you don't know the answer!
Mona Lisa Vito: Nobody could answer that question!
D.A. Jim Trotter: Your Honor, I move to disqualify Ms. Vito as a "expert witness"!
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Can you answer the question?
Mona Lisa Vito: No, it is a trick question!
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Why is it a trick question?
Vinny Gambini: [to Bill] Watch this.
Mona Lisa Vito: 'Cause Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Well... um... she's acceptable, Your Honor.

Is this something hat they could even get a copyright for? I assumed it would require a design patent to protect it, but I stopped practicing IP law very shortly after I started--criminal defense work was more interesting and more plentiful.

Yeah, a HUGE issue in our country :(

There is one way to satisfy the wronged parties in this fiasco and go out with a clear conscience with your honor intact.

Larry did call me to let me know there was a "problem" with the
buyback he sold me and if I returned it he would issue a refund. While
I do give him credit for contacting me I still think he's only sorry that
he got caught.

I'm sure you know this already Pat.....

but you might want to get your money first before sending back the card!

bing. Go.

I guess he wasn't too ashamed about cheating people or being dishonest.

For anyone looking to bid on this Reulbach he has listed on ebay

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-1911-T...MAAOSwoBlaZIMD


He bought it in an authentic holder for $20 popped it out and soaked
it before listing it.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T20...p2047675.l2557

http://www.flippertools.com/tools/eb...d=282791975802

Wow, that's a listing that would make Battlefield look honest.

I was wondering why this thread got drudged up. Wow, that is just sad and hard to believe.

That aint the only one..... look at the Frank King T206


https://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-1911-T...cAAOSwO~VadVwv



https://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-T206-P...p2047675.l2557

There's probably more... should the fact that it was soaked be disclosed or is soaking an acceptable alteration process?

He bought an altered card and is selling it with no mention after he cracked it out. That has to be some kind of wrongdoing. What a maroon..

The second one shown right above doesn't bother me as much as the somewhat fraudulent one where he knows it's altered and not mentioning it. A lot of the cards we own have been soaked whether we know it or not. It's not a big deal to me on that....to others it is a big deal.

He is denying that this is what he is doing after I asked through ebay messaging. Not surprised. He even went as far as to say ask Leon about me. A crook is a crook.

He just keeps on cheating people and lying about it. If it was pwcc or
probstein doing the things he's done the responses would rival Franks monster thread.

He changed the post description. He now says the card is trimmed