That's the problem. Think David Hall and Wagner. Then you litigate, I guess.

Good question. However...certain kinds of forensic testing can be legally conclusive (e.g., color was added by a substance not commercially available at the time the issue came out).

Makes sense.

Recall though that I am not a "well-reasoned lawyer." :)

That one IMO would be a turkey shoot. If it is not enough the person who trimmed the card admitted such, which contributed to him being sentenced to prison, you have (i) existent before and after photos of the card, and (ii) physical characteristics of the borders than when enlarged would be substantially identical to countless cards slabbed "A".

What I don't get is that it already was sheet cut, right? It was never issued in a pack. So even if Mastro didn't trim it it's still an AUTH? PS I've seen those Alan Ray photos I thought they were pretty grainy but maybe they can be enhanced, but again, if it's sheet cut already..

"If PSA, in fact, concludes that the card in question no longer merits the PSA grade assigned or fails PSA’s authenticity standards, PSA will either:... "

Isn't this really their 'out' here? The card could easily be deemed authentic (or not), but PSA still could 'conclude' it 'merits' the grade given, right? :rolleyes:

You're from Boston. I'm a Yankees fan. Case closed.:)

So if someone has uncut N, T, E and/or R sheets that if cut could produce "10s" of vintage superstars, is because of that a person a multi-millionaire? I'm doubtful.

I don't follow, sorry. My point, I think, is that the bigger problem with the card is not that it's trimmed but that it's sheet cut to begin with so never could have graded properly. Everyone focuses on the trimming though.

It was post-issue sheet cut, believed to be in the 1980's. There are other known cards cut from that same sheet with similar cut and coloration. Therefore to some because it was recently sheet cut, the fact that the initial cutting did not do it perfectly means that a subsequent cutting should not cause an "A" grade. So by that line of reasoning, sheet-cut cards can potentially receive unqualified "10" grades.

If you walked into PSA with a card and said this was cut from a sheet in the 1980s, they wouldn't grade it, would they? I thought Beckett caught lots of grief for doing that for certain sheet cutters who couldn't get the cards past PSA.

To my knowledge they would not. Welcome to the absurdity.

So my point stands, PSA screwed up for two reasons, the first of which (that the card was sheet cut) was a non-starter. The trim by Mastro is really a secondary issue. Had he not trimmed it, it still was not gradable.

Yes, and yes. And to go further, the Plank known to be cut from same sheet at the same time the Wagner was initially cut is graded "A". Welcome to the real world of this hobby.

So why is all the focus on Mastro and not the grading of a sheet cut card with a back that only appears on sheet cut cards (Wagners that is)?

Great question.

I don't think that's what the merit means, even by PSA's definition

I wonder if a fraud/deceit claim could possibly be asserted. At least here, the elements are:

1. That [Defendant] made a material representation (that the card met the requirements necessary to receive the assigned grade);

2. That it was false (that the grade is inaccurate due to alterations);

3. That [Defendant] made it when [he/she] knew it was false, or made it as a positive assertion recklessly, without any knowledge of its truth (that during the grading process, the grader should have or did have information indicating that the assigned grade was incorrect);

4. That [Defendant] made it with the intention that it should be acted upon by [Plaintiff] (by far the most problematic element IMO, although intent can sometimes be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the transaction);

5. That [Plaintiff] acted in reliance upon it (they purchased the card for the going price in reliance upon the assigned grade); and

6. That [Plaintiff] thereby suffered injury (because the condition of the card was not that portrayed by the assigned grade, the purchaser lost money).

That might possibly work against the grader, assuming you can satisfy the discovery rule for statute of limitations purposes. It would admittedly be difficult. At least here, the discovery rule doesn't generally apply to contract actions so you would likely be out of luck on a contract claim after the statute ran.

A fraud/deceit claim is probably not great against a buyer who then resells it, since the knowing/reckless element will almost never be there. I would guess that's more a breach of contract/warranty issue, with that seller then having a potential indemnity claim against whoever he/she/it got the card from back up the line, subject to any applicable SOL. Yes, what a mess.

Interesting argument. I would think point 3 would be the tough one to establish, all the more so because since this was the first card PSA purportedly slabbed, it would probably be easier for them to argue that at that stage of card grading graders reasonably did not have the expertise to catch things that now-a-day they do. Adding to that problem is that for actions in fraud, in certain jurisdictions the legal standard is clear and convincing evidence, a higher standard than preponderance of the evidence (at least to the extent a jury would care about the distinction).

In the matter at hand, it has been alleged the person who actually graded the card knew it was trimmed and expressed such. Whether that is true and if it is can be revealed during discovery, that is another question. If though that can be established, then the action for fraud would seem to be viable -- except though for the SOL problem, as the allegations the card was trimmed and PSA always knew that have been out there for a long time.

I don't think most juries understand or even care about the distinction between preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence. I've tried some cases with two or three discrete claims (breach of contract, bad faith and fraud), lost some or all of the claims which only required a preponderance, yet still won the fraud claim under a clear and convincing standard. Go figure.

It doesn't feel like a fraud claim to me. It feels more like a warranty claim. I think it would be impossible to prove that PSA graded the Wagner card or any other card intending to harm some unidentified buyer somewhere down the line. The much more straightforward claim is that PSA made an express warranty that its grade was correct, intending subsequent buyers to rely on it if that's even important, and if you can prove it wasn't an accurate grade, that seems a breach of that warranty.

As for statue of limitations applying to PSA's warranty, they do not have a time limit set in their warranty for such claims. So in a court of law would statute of limitations even be a defense?

The SOL is a creature of law do yes, presumably.

I thought he was using fraud as as a way to go after PWCC. If they are knowingly submitting cards that shouldn't grade and sneaking them through, then third party authentication shouldn't absolve them. At least that's what I got from it.

I would think, if that is indeed what is happening, PSA may even be able to go after them (in addition to banning them from submitting as per PSA's terms.

I've never liked the "sheet cut " term. All individual cards are cut from sheets.

Perhaps "Post-Factory Cut" would be more accurate, "Sheet Cut" has been the industry standard term for cards cut from a sheet outside of the factory for many, many years now though.

Regardless of the term used, and i agree with both of you, I don't know why this doesn't seem to have been more a focal point of discussion concerning the Wagner card. If I am correct on my facts, the card was never better than an AUTH.

I think it's easier for people to get their heads around it being a simple trim, than the odd distinction of having been cut twice after leaving the factory.
There may also be a small bit of selective ignoring. I don't like to consider whether it was a complete sheet, or only a portion, and what was lost in the cutting. I do sometimes, but I can see someone else simply refusing the concept to avoid considering it.

I do hope that someone somewhere along the line took a picture of the uncut sheet/fragment and that it will someday turn up.
Alternately, learning that it was a scrap sheet brought home or found in ALCs trash and cut by some kid at the time would be nice.

I thought we knew a Plank was cut from the same sheet which implied to me there was a picture of it or at least an eyewitness account? Or did Alan Ray just have the Plank as well as the Wagner so it's an assumption?

From what I heard, there were other cards Ray had besides Plank and Wagner that presumably came from the same sheet. I have never heard of the existence of an image of the sheet before it was cut. There is a photocopy of the Wagner card as it looked when Ray sold it. I had a copy but when I last looked couldn't find it. I don't recall it being grainy, and I clearly recall a bow shape on I believe was the right border that is no longer there. So unless someone is to argue that image depicts a different card (which would not be a credible argument), IMO the card can conclusively be determined to have been trimmed. Then one can add to this evidence the admission by the trimmer, as well as borders that have the physical characteristics of a trimmed card.

As I said earlier, the fact that that is the cover card of the hobby and is listed in the registry as an 8 Wagner says all one needs to say about the real world of this hobby, as well as the notion that a high number grade on a tobacco or similar vintage card can be relied on to bear any correlation to the true condition of the card.

I will add, and this is from the perspective of a person who attended card shows in the late 60s and early 70s, that I have no recollection of seeing anywhere close to the number of high grade tobacco cards one sees at current shows.

Finally, simple common sense at least to me screams out how unrealistic is the idea that a card 110 years old issued as an insert in a tobacco box in an era when it was likely much more difficult to properly preserve paper items could possibly have survived as a10 (or maybe even a 9) today.

There is in my mind no doubt the card is trimmed. My thought is that it isn't particularly important given that pre-trimming it wasn't gradable anyhow. I think, unfortunately, your observation about high grade tobacco cards may be true for a lot of issues post-dating tobacco cards as well.

I noticed this before the current controversy started because it seems very odd to me. Say there is a set from the 30s and the highest graded of a given card is PSA 8 and there are 4, have been for a long time. Then in 2018 or 2019 a 5th one pops up. No one even asks where it came from. Was there a find? Some unopened product got opened? Collectors seem happy to bid on it without any discussion of provenance. Even when you watch Pawn Stars, the first thing they ask is "Where did you get it?" With cards, doesn't seem to matter.

I think over time our eyes adjust and cards that once looked a bit short start to look normal.

I think this is especially true for the E cards.

Peter,

I will never forget an encounter I had in the mid-80s with an experienced collector/dealer who was looking for a particular '33 Goudey card for his personal collection. He was a high grade collector. He finally found the card at a show that I attended and showed it me. I remember taking note that while the condition was very nice, it clearly looked like a card 50+ years old. In my mind it was an ex-mt plus to maybe as high as nr-mt. It was not higher, and that was based on the more lenient grading standards of that era. I remember at the time asking Alan Rosen if he could find me a very high grade '33 Goudey set (minus Lajoie) and what he would charge. After thinking for a moment he told me how difficult it would be to find such a set and how expensive it would be, but if he had one he would charge $4k.

That was the hobby then and what at least my expectations were as to what a high grade card would look like. Compare that to what one sees today at shows/auctions coupled with the tremendous price differential between grades and perhaps one can understand my skepticsm that such cards haven't been worked on.

I had that conversation with Mike Wheat back in the 90s. He was baffled as to where all the high grade PSA prewar cards were coming from. He said he had handled countless thousands of cards and only on rare occasions had he seen cards as nice as the slabbed ones that seemed to be in abundance even then.

And yet nearly every time a high grade high demand card comes up at auction, it sets a new world record. It's a disconnect that no matter how many times we discuss it I just can't accept. Are the only people who recognize that something isn't right here the posters of Net54? Is everyone else oblivious?

I've asked this question naively a few times how cards stayed so pristine that are 50 to 100+ yrs old, and although I have been told cigar boxes and in between pages of large books/encyclopedias, I have a hard time accepting the fact that so many back in the day were treated like this.

This is the human trait card doctors and their enablers have tapped into -- wishful thinking.

I guess I have different DNA, or something, because I have to be completely frank: I wouldn't touch that stuff. Recognizing I couldn't tell the difference between a genuine 8 and an altered 8, I'm running for the hills. To each his own.

I agree. I haven't ever been in a market for such cards but I have been attending shows since 1976 and I never, ever saw T206, Goudey and other prewar cards in the conditions we are seeing now, and I lingered over the eye candy at all of those shows. I don't think it is a N54 thing so much as it is a memory thing: those of us who were around the hobby 30+ years ago know how excruciatingly rare it was to find really nice prewar cards. Now there are literally tens of thousands of T206s in PSA 7 and better. Are we more aware of them due to the Internet, or are there just a lot more of them that there used to be? I don't know the answer but the situation stinks on ice.

I sold my high grade prewar in the 90s -- just didn't trust it any more. Was seeing too much nonsense. 4s-6s work just fine. I probably should do the same with 50s and 60s, but I think I've deluded myself into thinking I have a pretty good eye.

I am fairly positive some cards were kept pristine by being lost and/or not handled. However, I don't think that number scratches the surface of how many we see today. Apparently there are more high grade vintage cards being made every day.
IMO, There was no need to try to redefine what the hobby already accepts and doesn't accept, concerning alterations, and I told Brent that. He should also, immediately, distance himself from any known card doctors or trimmers (really from day one but it seems that ship has sailed). It is a shame too because I still feel PWCC is doing some great stuff that will help the hobby mature.
People have also taken a lot of things out of context. Brent feels trimming is bad. He feels flattening a card and trimming it is bad. He feels using a solvent is better than water as water can be more damaging, he states. I told him that the hobby has tacitly accepted water but nothing else. SO there you have it, a conversation that probably didn't need to happen but ...it has.

I hate to state the obvious, but if Brent felt all those things were bad, he would not be doing business with certain people with whom he is doing business. He surely knows what they do.

Let me state that more strongly. If Brent felt all those things were bad, he would have stopped doing business with certain people a long time ago. God knows he's been called out on it multiple times. But he didn't.

Additionally, if Brent believed/thought these things...it'd be nice to hear it from him!

In my 3 rather short years here I have read numerous posts concerning PWCC.

I obviously don't know all the details involved or how many stories go back further than then, but from what I have personally read here alone is enough for me to steer clear of them. I am a low $$/profile collector so I know I am not missed one bit nor do I affect their bottom line but I believe, and have always believed, that dealing with questionable entities or people does nothing to make them change their behaviour.

Were I he, at this point, I would keep quiet. He only makes his case worse with the spin he tries to put on things that people see through.

To be clear, altered cards are so rampant that they probably infect everyone. If you inadvertently sell some, well, it sucks but I wouldn't blame you. But it's something else to knowingly accept cards from people who you know or have strong reason to believe are doing the altering. And in my opinion and to some extent knowledge, many sellers are doing just that and have been. There are people who would excuse that on the basis that the card is slabbed, so it's all PSA's fault, but I don't buy that for a minute.

does it really matter where the spin comes from?

:)

Speaking of spin, an oldie but goodie. Posts 76 and then 78. Brent claiming he had never heard before the Net 54 thread of anyone questioning his scans, and me pointing out that just months before he had posted a long defense of his scans against claims of manipulation on the CU Board. Sigh.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=177348