Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Brendan</b><p>I'm sure many of you received this email from REA. The issue of card doctoring is nothing new, but I'd like to know what everyone's thoughts are on what REA said? Reprinted below:<br /><br />'In recent weeks we have received a number of consignments of graded cards that has motivated us to adopt a formal policy regarding altered professionally graded cards that we have not previously seen a need to articulate. The altering of cards is so widespread, and “card doctors” so brazen, that REA has actually been receiving cards submitted for auction to us that are the very same cards that have been sold by REA previously – in some cases just months earlier – and which, since purchase, have been significantly altered, reholdered, and now grade higher according to the grading label. In some cases a given card has changed hands and the new consignor was not even aware it was a seriously altered card. It is our policy that when we are aware of such a problem, and we ARE looking, we will be happy to auction the card in question - but insist on providing all information describing the alterations which have occurred to the card of which we are certain. So far, the potential consignors of such cards have elected to have these cards returned rather than have a proper description provided by REA. Last week we returned a $10,000 card. The consignor couldn’t believe it was the same card that we had just sold (in a lower grade and looking quite different) in a previous auction. Only after being provided with images of the card as it appeared when we previously sold it was the consignor finally convinced.<br /><br />We’re not guessing here. We are talking about cards that we know for a fact are problems. The fact that we have to address situations such as this at all suggests a greater underlying problem than is generally recognized. And while it is bad enough that the altering of cards is an epidemic, it is particularly disturbing that some of the most sophisticated “work” on cards (including the previously mentioned $10,000 card) has actually been executed by employees of auction houses that also deal in cards. We have to ask ourselves “What is going on here?” Turning a blind eye to this issue, in our opinion, has far greater and more significant negative potential consequences than our calling attention to it and promoting discussion. We all know that there is a subjectivity to grading and that sometimes there is an honest difference of opinion regarding a grade, or sometimes even an honest mistake. We’re not talking about honest mistakes here. Active and sophisticated collectors, dealers, and auction houses know that this is a problem. They just don’t talk about it, except among themselves. In the end, the collector loses. We want to be clear that we think the major grading services do a valiant job and we can’t imagine what the landscape of the marketplace would look like without them. That doesn’t mean there are no problems. At the end of the day, we have this advice: “Buy the card, not the holder.”'<br />

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Steve Dawson</b><p>That's why I don't collect vintage cards in the "super grades". I'm perfectly happy with my PSA 4's and below <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />Steve

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>In the email, REA states that we (collectors, dealers, etc) should not be turning a blind eye to this. The email discusses a card that was previously sold by REA, doctored, sold again, and then consigned by a new owner (who was then informed that the card had been doctored). It seems that the card doctor in such cases can be determined with reasonable certainty by simply tracing the sales. My question then is why, if we are not to turn a blind eye, are names not being named? <br /><br />This is not intended as a criticism of REA - they have already done more than most auction houses and dealers would have done. I just think we can and should go further.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>I like REA even more now. <br /><br />Wow!

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I can understand for a variety of reasons (most of them legal) why REA would not want to name names. And I do appreciate how far they have already gone to publicize this problem. But I hope they go one step further and describe generically the types of problems they have seen in re-holdered cards. I would like to know, for example, if we are just talking about a dog-eared corner that has been folded back into its original position, or if we are talking about the addition of ink and other very serious alternations. Others may feel it doesn't matter - an alteration is an alteration. But I think many of us would like to know how far this has really gone.<br /><br />

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>First, I am a big, big fan of REA and how they conduct themselves and their auctions. <br /><br />But when I read the email, I was torn. I admired them for openly discussing the elephant in the room that most auction houses avoid like nobody's business. But my first reaction was whether or not the email was a pile-on after the two long threads here about the Mastro Broadleaf 460 deal about a month ago. <br /><br />Probably I'm just too cynical. Still a big big REA fan, but that thought did cross my mind.<br /><br />Joann

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>ScottIngold</b><p>"has actually been executed by employees of auction houses that also deal in cards."<br /><br />That is really scary. Which auction house's? Would be my ?<br /><br />Maesto , Mile high , Lelands ??????

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Scott,<br /><br />Pretty clear who he is referring to here.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>T E</b><p>or provide links to visual info or whatever. Grading companies involved? Auction houses?

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>ScottIngold</b><p>Jim,<br /><br />Please tell.... I for one am not sure. But i would assume Maestro.<br /><br />But that is just a guess based on them being the largest and the recent card that was talked about.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Not grading companies--auction houses--or should I say one auction house in particular.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Scott,<br /><br />You can e-mail me--do not want to name names on a public board.<br /><br />Jim

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>What I would like to see at a minimum (if they arent going to name names) is the scans of the cards in question.<br /><br />As for legal reasons, truth is an absolute defense.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Truth may be a defense, but proving the truth may not be so easy.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>John Kalafarski</b><p> I wonder who is the grading company in league with the auction house? I would bet that it is not SGC and most likely not PSA (although I have recently spied a PSA card that was obviously trimmed in a recent auction).

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>where did it say anything about a grading company dealing in altered cards?

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>John,<br /><br />You misread what he said--the grading companies are the good guys--(valiant)

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Mastro has had items 'cleaned' for their auctions, there's no secret about that.<br />Remember the 1893 Willie Keeler cabinet?

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Thanks REA for taking a first step in addressing this problem!!<br /><br />Now, to help everyone out, you should add a section to your home page that shows the before and after pictures of the altered card/s and what the alteration/s were. Then, you should send this information to the other auction houses immediately so that they are aware of this card/s. That way, everyone will have a better idea of which auction houses are shady and which ones are legit.<br /><br />Next, names of consignors should be kept to see who, on a consistent basis, is submitting these card/s to be sold and that list should be passed around. If a pattern develops, then all of this info should be turned over to the FBI and some heads should roll, people be jailed and lawsuits be filed.<br /><br />But then again, maybe not, because some of the attorneys on this board might make more money and I would have an even lesser chance of adding cards to my collection. UGGH. Maybe I should go back to school and become a lawyer... <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />David

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>Not many of my--I think it was 78--lots in the last REA auction contained doctored cards, but I was AMAZED at the ones that were! (any doctored cards that were sold were clearly marked as such). I think they were all sold in groups of doctored cards, not mixed in with un-doctored ones. Two things astonished me:<br /><br />1) the lack of focus on bigh grade cards among the doctorers. If they think you will want it, they will doctor it!<br /><br />2) the price that clearly marked doctored cards that were hard to come by (19th century, for instance) brought. Both the ones I knew when I got them were doctored (N300 Ewing), and ones that<br />floored me (N300 Glasscock--my favorite N300--it was skinned and rebacked). They cheerfully sold, and I cheerfully collecterd money for 19th century cards with the emtire ad panel cut off ther bottom--well, I had wanted them, hadn't I?<br /><br />REA did NOT sell all of my doctored cards. More modern ones with painted corners, or trimmed (I remember one 1935 Goudy, with HOFers on it) were returned to me. <br /><br />ALL fake asutographs (they are VERY conservative about this--all THREE of their autograph experts have to agree that the autograph is real, or back it goes) were returned. I was a little surprised at how many were real--just about half. <br /><br />REA IS SUPER! Now if I only had my cards back...<img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/BReesPB001.jpg">

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Timing on this email is nice? Coincidence?

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>I am more than a little tired of the innuendo and hidden accusations. If REA is going to state for a fact that so and so card is altered, post the images here, post the cert #'s here. If REA claims that employees of an auctioneer are altering cards, post the names and show us the cards. If the accusations are true and can be backed up, it is high time that everyone sounded off like they had a pair.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>I agree completely.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Couldn't this just be REA's way of acknowledging receipt of the e-mail that was apparently circulated a week ago about Charlie's auction?<br /><br />I know that Charlie explained his situation and defended himself well...<br /><br />but isn't it possible that the same consignor who might have sent doctored cards into Charlie's auction also sent them into REA?<br /><br />I think Charlie is 100% innocent, just like REA...<br /><br />but I am sure that whoever circulated that e-mail sent a copy to REA, which would almost FORCE them to respond.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Once you have the names which are named and the cards which are changed, then what?<br /><br />String 'em up, I say. Hang them now. No, turn them over to the FBI.<br /><br />But wait, card doctoring is not against the law, heck it isn't even immoral. Art restoration is a noble profession. So what if we name them? Then what?<br /><br />Their client list could be proprietary or protected for other reasons. Then what?<br /><br />Go ahead REA heed our name the names demand - it is well thought out.<br /><br /><br />Edited again because tonight it took me three tries to correctly spell proprietary.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Gil,<br /><br />It is illegal if the "restored" card is passed off as an original unaltered card. Its called fraud.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Is it ever fraudulent to sell a graded card?

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>If someone has doctored a card with the intent to deceive a grading company and then sell the doctored but graded card - yes, absolutely. The fact that a card doctor is able to slip a card past a grading company doesnt "cleanse" the fraudulent act.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Well JK, we are not going to try this hypothetical case in this thread. But it would be interesting, I think. However, those with a far greater understanding of the subject than I have may consider various arguements, and that is my intent here.<br /><br />Specifically to take our thought process one more rung on the ladder. Hopefully upward. Because the top end cards in our hobby are important to the overall wellbeing of our hobby; and any momentary loss in credibility there should be dealt with, as we are.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>edacra</b><p>The issue of fraud is more in line with laws concerning false advertising. It's hard to prove malice or that the sale was intentional, rather then just an error. Our standards are self governed. There are paper collectibles, such as movie posters, where restoration is considered acceptable though it will effect price. <br /><br />If there is doubt, they shouldn't sell it due to their liability not to mention just the "sanctity" of the hobby. If people get ripped off they will sour on the trade and take their business elsewhere. That's really what happened in the early 90's with the vintage market. While the market was flooded with new product anda lot of junk, it was more about the proliferation of bad business that effected the vintage market.<br /><br />I see this as a bit of a publicity stunt, and for my money, it impresses me a lot more then any honus wagner sale.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>If the restoration significantly effects the value and is known to the seller, it is illegal<br />to not disclose it to the buyer. By illegal, I don't mean you will be rooming in <br />Sing Sing for selling a 1987 Topps Barry Bonds you know is trimmed.<br /><br />My impression of Rob Lifson has always been positive, and he's always come across<br />as extremely honest to me, so I take the letter at face value. There's little doubt<br />that he knows as much or more than anyone about baseball cards, so it would be a<br />mistake for collectors to idly dismiss what he has to say about restoration.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>REA did not bring this email to the board, a contributor did. I for one applaud them, they seem to be attempting to run the most effecient clean auction house and what do they get for some of there efforts? Skeptism.<br /><br />I also would like to see the before and afters and the names of the buyers of these doctored.<br /><br />The other think I wonder is why people are questioning the timing of the announcement. We all know Rob Lifson reads this board as well as others that run or work at auction houses. It is a fresh issue and why not address it if you have evidence and proof of cards be doctored and letting your customers know that if you have proof of doctoring you will not allow the item into your auctions without proper notation.<br /><br />Like I said earlier I applaud REA for this move there is no reason the other auction houses can not do the same.<br /><br />Lee

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>If someone genuinely wants to make a difference, it is going to take more than vague and imprecise allegations against nameless persons and cliches such as "buy the card not the holder." Indeed, absent more precision, the author could be saying nothing more than in his opinion someone did something to a card that he considers alteration but the vast majority of us would not. See the earlier thread re another upcoming auction, which clearly underscored this issue. Well-intentioned or not, especially in light of the timing, it gives the appearance of self-promotion (you can trust my cards but not others). Like Adam and others, I too would like to know more specifics, but the skeptic in me thinks they will not be forthcoming.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>That's the problem with people in this hobby who are "in the know" - they all claim to know who is doctoring cards but refuse to name names - so it leaves those of us who are less informed twisting in the wind and hoping that the card we just spent good money on wasnt doctored.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Dylan</b><p>It would be cool if someone could keep a database of suspect cards that have been seen moving from holder to holder. It would be real educational actually to be able to study these cards. For one thing to be able to tell just what these card doctors are up to, and also to see keep the grading companies in check.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Josh Adams</b><p>JK, <br />I agree with you 100%. My question is, and always has been, why the reluctance by those who claim to "know" who doctors cards. If these people were really interested in the "well being of the hobby," perhaps the best thing to do is name names? <br /><br />And the database is a good idea too.<br><br>Go Go White Sox<br />2005 World Series Champions!

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Robert Lifson</b><p>For those who are unhappy that REA is not naming names, there are legal issues that make this not desirable. We are not interested in lawsuits, and are operating in what we think is the most intelligent manner all things considered. If anyone has the interest and financial ability to indemnify REA, REA employees, and me personally from legal action and related legal expenses, we would be happy to name names. We are not interested in being embroiled in legal battles and would prefer to try to continue to try to make a difference in the best way that we think we can. The primary audience for the recent email was not this board, which includes many of the most knowledgeable and active of all collectors. There are thousands of less knowledgeable and active collectors that are on our mailing list who do not read the net54 board. <br /><br />With reference to Leon’s suggestion that this email was somehow directed at Mastronet because of its timing: Mastronet has auctions up and running or closing over 100 days of the year. We did not reference when the Mastronet auction was closing in deciding to send out this email and only realized it closed last night from this board. It would not have made any difference with reference to our timing, which was related to the receipt of two problematic packages of potential consignments on the very same day: that day being yesterday. In fact, the email specifically references that the altered cards being discussed have been received here in recent weeks. The fact that Mastronet’s catalog has been up online and out for at least that long and had to go press even earlier obviously precludes these very cards from even possibly being in their recent sale. We have been sending out emails for years. Statistically it is not surprising that we would someday send out an email on the very day of another auction’s close. This suggestion that this was an attack on Mastronet and not an attempt to educate the public is extremely not well founded. <br /><br />We will be sending images of a card (before and after) that was recently received for auction to a board member who knows how to post images. This is not the card that was referenced by our recent email but because we have both before and after scans of it, at least it can provide some tangible evidence for those that do not believe there is a problem with previously sold cards being doctored and then these very same cards being resubmitted for auction. Since its sale by REA from an original owner collection in April 2006, this particular card has been reholdered three times to the best of our knowledge. It is our understanding that it is currently in a PSA holder. The card has gone from a PSA1 MK (as when sold by REA) to an SGC 1.5 to a GAI 3 VG to a PSA 2 GD (with no qualifier). The “after” scan does not do the substantial work that has been done on this card justice, as having the card in hand provides much greater detail and it looks so much better it is almost hard to believe it is the same card. The card has lost its well-deserved “MK” qualifier and gone up grades in appearance due to the relayering and flattening of the paper where the card has creases. There may have been other things done to the card, we no longer have it in hand. The potential consignor of this card had no idea that anything was done to it. In this case he purchased it directly from the buyer at REA. This card has been returned to the consignor per his request. <br /><br />Lastly, the portion of the email that was posted was only part of the email. The first and third topics as well as the introduction and close were not posted here, and they provide a larger context of the communication. We are trying to make a difference. The fact that we are not communicating everything that we are doing to make a difference does not mean that we are doing anything else. This will be our only post regarding this topic. <br /><br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Robert Lifson<br />President<br />Robert Edward Auctions LLC<br />www.RobertEdwardAuctions.com<br /><br />

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Well, clearly Rob knows who doctored that one particular card...<br /><br />since it was sold by REA to the "doctor" and then purchased by the recent consignor from that very same "doctor."<br /><br />If the recent REA consignor truly is innocent... then the "doctor" is pretty easily identifiable.<br /><br />Not by us, but by Rob.<br /><br />Unless... someone on this board knows who purchased the card from REA the first time... since that someone is apparently the "doctor."

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Im back with "then what"<br />Doctoring is not a new subject for us. Our archives supplemented by articles in publications such as VCBC and others discuss the capabilities and prevalence of this tactic.<br />My interpretation of this is:<br /><br />Any card can built from raw materials which will pass grading company scrutiny. Will it pass REA inspection and analysis? I do not know. Will it pass my expertise = yes. Will it pass yours = I think so (with perhaps very few exceptions).<br /><br />Now what? And don't tell me that naming names is any more than a rubbernecking slow down.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>I received the scans of the 1933 Goudey Lajoie from Rob Lifson. I am posting it here per his request.<br /><br />PSA 1MK becomes a GAI 3<br /><br /><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~kingyao/REALajoieBefore.jpg"><br /><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~kingyao/REALajoieAfter.jpg">

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>First of all thanks for coming on and clarifying a few things. Now, please show me exactly where "I" said you were referring to Mastro Auctions. Nothing personal but you are wrong. You are obviously defensive...but that is no crime and I still appreciate your knowledge. I was in fact, insinuating, about the many auctions running right now. Just as you question motives so do I. This board is great for that issue. I get my motives questioned, you get yours, and everyone else in our hobby gets theirs questioned too. No one is above reproach. I was not pointing to any "one" company , on purpose. You did that. kindest regards<br /><br />edited to not be redundant

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>Was that card bleached and pressed? It's hard to tell in the after scan how much the crease is flattened. I'll assume it is the same card, but from the scans it's hard to find marks consistent between the two. This is going to be interesting, I think. Looking forward to what you guys think about it.<br /><br />--Chad

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>or Rob......why did the card get the MK qualifier from PSA? I don't see anything immediately on the front..........

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>All I did was post the scans I received via email. Other than that, I know as much as anyone else on the board

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>ScottIngold</b><p>Well..... Since Rob was obviously defensive about Maestro. Does this mean there is something shady going on there ?<br />Do people still have the same confidence ?<br />Just obvious questions that i now have ?

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>edacra</b><p>I'm not of the mindset that REA should name names - but will relate (for the umpteempth time) the story of the autograph dealer busted by the feds who operated for years and years at the front of every major show in the country, and through scd advertising. <br /><br />The moral of that story is, any dealers that knew, really did have the responsibility to name names rather then just spread the word there was a bogeyman out there. <br /><br />The other message? You CAN name names through legal channels and let authorities investigate these issues. I assure you, if someone took a hit for selling altered cards, it would do more to curb this practice then REA tattling on a message board about a few cards.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Rob just sent me the back scan to post here:<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~kingyao/REALajoieback.jpg">

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>crystal clear now..........<br /><br />As for auction houses, at least one has admittedly said they have used restoration on photos that were sold in their auction--consigned by a board member. So.....<br /><br />

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>I am not an expert...<br /><br />but I would say that the card was:<br /><br />Power erased... Soaked (washed)... and Pressed.<br /><br />

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>If Rob is so terrified of being sued for providing names then why put out a 500 word essay in two paragraphs on what he is noticing and what he is doing about it? I think it is admirable that he is doing it but why not just do it behind the scenes, as he has been doing, and conduct his auctions as he sees fit? Making a pronouncement only rattles the cages of collectors and leaves them with more questions, and uneasiness.<br /><br />As for who is altering cards? Well virtually every dealer is doing it to some degree or another. There are many collectors on here that are doing it. Again, what constitutes altering a card? Rob may think that simply erasing a stray pencil mark is altering. He has not given nearly enough specifics. There was just a thread recently about a smaller auction in which cards went from lower holders to higher holders. Are those cards altered? Would Rob consider what was done to those cards to be alterations? <br /><br />I don't think anyone on here was implying that cards Rob has rejected were part of the Mastro auction that ended last night but I too find the timing of Rob's email interesting. I also find Rob's comment that he did not know Mastro was ending last night to be...odd. Being in the auction business I would figure he would know about every auction that is ending if nothing more than for pure curiosity.<br /><br />Greg<br />

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>First of all, I am pleased to see at least one of the altered cards posted. I wish we had an "after" back scan too so we could see what had been done to the pencil markings. I also like the idea of a registry of such cards, although it would be of limited utility since the owner would presumably crack it out anyway. Nice effect on the pop reports, by the way; here's a Lajoie that shows as 3 Lajoies in the pop reports. <br /><br />I am not surprised to see a GAI grade higher than the other services. That service is simply not as picky as the others and I think we are starting to see that manifest in pricing. At least that is the case with boxing cards. <br /><br />As much as I hate to defend PSA, if the latest manifestation of the card had crease removals only and is graded on its attributes, I do not see the net grade of 2 as that bad even if the pencil marks are still there. Frankly, a PSA 2 is a pretty ****ty card given that they don't have separate categories for poor and fair. Their standard is: "A PSA Good 2 card's corners show accelerated rounding and surface wear is starting to become obvious. A good card may have scratching, scuffing, light staining, or chipping of enamel on obverse. There may be several creases. Original gloss may be completely absent. Card may show considerable discoloration. Centering must be 90/10 or better on the front and back." That's one roughed up card. I can understand where a good crease removal "operation" might still get the card a 2 if the only other alternative is a 1. The basic problem here is removals versus additions. A well performed crease removal on a card that is a beater anyway is not something I expect a grader to pick up, so I do not fault PSA if that is the only alteration made. If there was rebuilding or recoloring involved, that is something different. That said, it is still a scummy fraud to perpetuate on the public and I am glad REA caught it. I have to wonder when this card will resurface with a lesser auction house in another holder.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>I certainly understand the argument against naming names - namely (pun intended) the possibility of legal action as Rob mentioned. <br /><br />However, if you truly want to change the hobby for the better, I have a few comments:<br /><br />First, somebody has to be willing to take that risk - otherwise nothing will change and things will only get worse. <br /><br />Second, if you have the proof, such as your scans, the truth is a defense to any legal action you are likely to face - moreover, if true, I think its highly unlikely that you will be sued at all for naming names as the doctorer in question is not going to want to risk the consequences if he/she loses.<br /><br />Finally, as suggested above, report what you know to the authorities. I believe that as long as your complaint/report is in good faith and not malicious that there is a limited privilege in most states against liability if you report possible criminal conduct and it turns out not to be the case.<br /><br />

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>I can't imagine how anyone could safely name names.<br /><br />What is provable is the person who bought the card initially, and the person who owns it now. Who can say who is responsible for what happened to the card inbetween? Rob descibes this card having been submitted four times. Who knows when these things were done to the card? How could you prove that?<br /><br />I can definitely understand why naming names is not an option. Rob's email is definitely a "buyer beware" kind of warning - we need to trust who we're buying from and we need to trust the people who are assessing the card's condition. But most importantly, we need to be very careful when assessing a card for potential purchase.<br /><br />Makes sense to me.<br /><br />-Al

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Isn't it REA which also sent an email to everyone several months ago about allegations (from Bonds himself) about "fake" Bonds GU equipment, yet did not pull the auction?

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Al,<br /><br />The way you could prove it with the goudey would be by the submission records and by the purchase records. Hypothethically lets say:<br /><br />Buyer 1 - buys a psa 1 MK (records from REA or Ebay reflect this purchase)<br /><br />Buyer 2 - has records showing he bought a PSA 2 (for example, a printout of the ebay page or notification that he won). Comparison of the marks on the physical card to the scan of the psa 1MK reveal its the same card.<br /><br />It becomes fairly obvious that the alteration occurred between the purchase by buyer 1 and the sale to buyer 2.<br /><br />On the otherhand, if buyer 2's records reflect that he bought a psa 1MK from buyer 1, and buyer 2 still owns the card, then its fairly easily provable that the alteration occured while the card was owned by buyer 2.<br /><br />

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>bruce Dorskind</b><p><br /><br />Robert Lifson has set a standard which the other auctioneers must<br />live up to. If you fail the integrity case, it does not matter how<br />many auctions you hold or how many millions of dollars of<br />cards you sell.<br /><br />One need look no further than what has happened in the<br />coin and stamp business. More than a few "major dealers"<br />have served time with Uncle Sam because they committed<br />fraud. One, a former aide to Al Gore, even commited suicide<br />because he could not escape his evil and fraudlent ways.<br /><br />My view is that anyone who knowingly alters a card and<br />sells it a higher grade is committing a crime. He or she should<br />face the justice sytem. Hopefully, they will be convicted and<br />face hard time at a very tough Federal Institution.<br /><br />I also would urge law enforcement organizations to conduct<br />under cover operations and rid the country and the hobby<br />of these criminals. <br /><br /><br />Bruce

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Josh Adams</b><p>What "crime" are they committing again? If it's fraud, I think that's a teneous claim at best. <br />I think the problem here is that after someone alters a card, a third party service, be it PSA, SGC, GAI, etc., has one again certified the card. Maybe it's not easily noticable such as removing wrinkles, but I have a tough time calling it "fraud." What exactly is the misrepresentation? That the card once had wrinkles, a pencil mark, and now it doesn't? <br />I dont' know, seems like a stretch.<br />Flame away!<br><br>Go Go White Sox<br />2005 World Series Champions!

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Eric B</b><p>How many here have specifically asked if a graded card was altered? It seems to me that the only way to get in trouble is if you know it is altered, then someone asks, and then you say "No". By getting it graded, you avoid getting asked the question.<br /><br />It's seems quite simple to me. Getting your own card altered, then getting it graded, is not illegal. And then selling it is not fraud if nobody asks if it was altered.<br /><br />I'm not saying it's right. I specifically stopped collecting expensive baseball cards years ago because I was afraid I could not tell an original from a fake. Now if an "expert" grading service can't either, what can you do?<br /><br />edited to add my name

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>A few questions:<br /><br />1) How does Rob know that the 33 Goudey Lajoie went through so many gradings?<br /><br />2) What truly determines an alteration to a card which would deem the person performing the alteration or knowing they are selling a card which has undergone an "alteration" as having committed a crime? <br /><br />3) Is performing an "alteration" to a card really illegal? Cannot be as much so as a personm selling a graded card which he/she knows has been "altered."<br /><br />4) Assuming the grading companies are great at what they do and cards are passing their scrutiny, where does this leave us? If professional graders cannot tell a card has been altered and we have to go back to prior images to identify a change in the card, what good is grading? <br /><br />Greg

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>With due respect to Bruce, I don't think the problem is going to be resolved by private lawsuits or law enforcement. For one thing, the whole subject matter of what constitutes alteration, as Greg points out, is too subjective. For another thing, even in areas that aren't so gray, noone is going to ADMIT they trimmed or recolored cards or rebuilt corners or took out big ugly creases (looking here for examples of alterations that noone would defend as acceptable), and anyone accused of selling an unacceptably altered card is going to have any number of excuses at his disposal to any charge of intent, including most powerfully that a third party grading service generally accepted in the industry didn't see the problem. Plus there is the added layer of complexity that with the ever increasing prevalence of auction houses, the people doing the best job of doctoring cards aren't the ones selling them.<br />

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>* post deleted because it did not add anything of value to this discussion.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>I thought this thread would garner a lot more discussion as this kind of thing--doctoring cards and third party grading--is the 800 pound gorilla. It seems like the sentiment seems to be moving towards an acceptance of pressing and washing but not trimming, or, more generally, any doctoring that can get by a third party grader. One more reason for me to be more convinced that third party graders should be in the business of authenticating and not grading. I can't help to think, more and more, that the grading scale is leading to a bit of madness. It's actually been a long journey for me to come to this point. When I left the hobby, grading hadn't really started yet, and when I came back 2 and a half years ago, it was obviously in full swing. After a couple of years of paying attention here and buying and selling cards myself, I must admit I'm anti-grading scale and pro-authentication. Which, naturally, leaves me in a collecting wilderness. <br /><br />--Chad

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Chad, if you are anti-grading scale, why don't you just ignore the grade on the holder? Isn't it that simple?

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Card alteration is not all individual sellers with spoons, card baths and pressing devices. Some of this is done as a business. With salaried professional craftsmen, invoices and letterheads. Check out some of the photographic and other paper restorations being conducted daily by organizations such as the Chicago Conservation Center.<br /><br />Not at all a back alley operation next door to the fake passports, driver licences, etc. business.<br /><br />It is not my intent to take down the grading companies here. But if the challenge is currently greater than it was in the past, then there are increased costs associated with producing a product of the caliber which collectors want to buy. Certainly the end user must absorb the costs associated with a continually expanding state-of-the-art in fraud production.<br /><br />The grading companies simply need to gear up to meet the challenge, once given assurance that the collector will cover the tab. But will the collector do that? Or do we want a continuance of fantasy grading?<br /><br />This just keeps going on. Do we currently have fantasy grading? For how long have the grades shown in holdered cards been questionable?<br /><br />I got to stop here. This can not be our status, correct?

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>Unfortunately, a lot of people don't, and a lot of these people pay a lot of money for highly graded cards which has created an incentive for doctoring. You can understand how this comes back to collectors like me who really don't care about the numerical grade, no? I'll buy a grade card I want because I'm buying the card and not the holder, but how do I know what's in the holder anymore? And cards get broken out of holders, too. At this point I'd rather have a third party grader spend more of their time and expertise trying to ferret out if a card is authentic and unaltered than if it's a 5 or a 6. <br /><br />--Chad

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I've been away for a few days and while Leon apprised me of this email this is the first chance I have had to read this thread. What I find most troubling here is how these cards are getting holdered in the first place. About ten years ago the hobby was in the dumps because too many cards were being altered and too many collectors were finding their prized possessions were not what they were supposed to be. It does not surprise me that the practice of card altering occurs because there is simply too much money to be made selling baseball cards. In order to restore the integrity of the hobby and bring back serious collectors, the birth of the grading and authenticating service came about and it brought new collectors back in droves. Now Rob Lifson states that many of the cards consigned to him in holders have been tampered with, and I certainly don't doubt his assertions. But why on earth have these cards been put in holders in the first place? If Rob is able to detect it, why aren't the grading companies seeing the same thing? The big boys in the grading industry should be setting a standard above and beyond what any of us are capable of finding. If they can't cull out the doctored cards, then the hobby may be heading back to the dark ages and many of the big spenders may once again leave and not come back. This is certainly a very troubling trend.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Is it your interpretation that REA has detection capabilities relating to alterations, that the grading companies do not have (or do not use effectively)?<br /><br />It is unclear to me if that is the case, or if circumstances existed which allowed REA to track the progression of short term grading changes on a rare card.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I don't think it is fair to expect grading companies to track how other grading companies have evaluated particular cards. They make no claim to doing that. But we can expect them to detect alterations to cards since one of their primary functions is to varify that a card is authentic and unaltered.<br />JimB

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Cat</b><p>It seems to me REA detected the "altering" because they had before and after scans since they were asked to consign the card both prior to and after the changes. The grading companies usually do not have the same advantage. We need to be realistic with expectations. I can never tell if someone has taken a crease out of a card. Obviously grading companies often cannot determine this either.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Rob may indeed be able to determine if a card has been altered but his email made mention of a specfic card which was sold in his auction in a lower graded holder only to be consigned back to him in a higher holder. He recognized the card, which gave him a huge advantage, and one not afforded any grading company, in determining the card was altered. <br /><br />I would still like to know how he knew the card was graded as many times as it was and what it graded each time.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I understand the grading companies can't be right all of the time the same way that a doctor can not render the right diagnosis every time either. But Rob cites a $10K card, which would put it under every grading company's highest tier. If I am paying $100 to get a card graded, I expect them to spend a significant amount of time examining it and to use every test at their disposal. I know they can't afford that attention with every $50 common but they really need to get the big ticket items right. There is just too much at stake.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Is there enough at stake to pay them extra for the extra scrutiny which is sought?

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Probably not, Gil.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>I do not believe that creases are removed from a card without a trace, even if that trace can not be detected by close visual observation. I guess that to date close visual observation has been the technique employed by grading companies for evaluation of this potential.<br /><br />Part of me would applaud an unwillingness by the hobby to pay for enhanced grading company scrutiny, because any such action will bring into question all of the important cards which were previously graded.<br /><br />But part of me recognizes that a vote for business as usual will result in just that, with a likely corresponding erosion in the faith of highly graded cards.<br /><br />So what?<br />My vote is to perform an investigation in order to determine if a problem may exist. Choose some important graded cards and determine the adequacy of the holder values.<br />

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I can appreciate that a number of collectors would resent paying the grading services even more money to have their cards examined. However, if you were the consignor that was told by Rob Lifson that his $10,000 card was altered, might you change your opinion? In that situation would you have been willing to pay an extra $50 to find out the card was bad and then simply not purchase it?

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>bruce Dorskind</b><p>And It Needs To Tough, Severe and Costly<br /><br />While some wil argue that ultra severe penalities do not deter the evil<br />from committing crimes, I would argue to the contrary.<br /><br />Selling a false painting, restoring rare antique furniture and<br />presenting said piece as an original are crimes punishable<br />by severe fines and jail time.<br /><br />We are far far too liberal in this country in our treatment of<br />criminals. I would like a private funded army of secret shoppers whose<br />express purpose was to go to questionable dealers and card doctors<br />and catch them in their evil acts. The work should be coordinated<br />with the police, secretly video-recorded. Once these crooks<br />are brought to trial we can file briefs supporting the case.<br /><br />We also should blast their pictures in every industry trade publication<br />and web site... they should be treated with the same dignity and<br />respect as rapists, terrorists and child molestors.<br /><br />In fact, I think we should establish a $500,000 reward fun for <br />the arrest, convinction and imprissonment of these sold<br />called card doctors. <br /><br />We can also destroy the business of any auction house which<br />knowingly employs said staff. Auction houses have to be licensed by<br />the state and we can sue to have their license revoked for aiding<br />in the creation of fake material. We can inform all the major insurance<br />companies..they in turn can refuse to insure items sold by these<br />auction houses of ill repute.<br /><br /><br />This problem can inflict grave damage on the hobby and the best way<br />to end the plague is to eradicate it is as quickly as possible.<br /><br />Bruce Dorskind<br /><br />America's Toughest Want List<br /><br /><br />

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>You said:<br /><br />"We also should blast their pictures in every industry trade publication<br />and web site... they should be treated with the same dignity and<br />respect as rapists, terrorists and child molestors."<br /><br />While I agree we might need to be more harsh on fraud and deceit I think what you just said is crazy. I am going to be more angry if someone hurts my 9yr old daughter, or my wife, or kills someone, than if they take a crease out of a card...(which I have already said I believe there are different levels of)..Did you say that for shock value? I hope so.....good luck....

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>This reminds me of the Patriot Act. It really would have had virtually no effect on folks in planes on 9-11. But it does touch us. It is a "feel good" thing... I'm waiting for a new round of legislation with "Liberty" in its name, how could a fellow be against a Patriot act or Liberty act???<br /><br />At any rate, if you step back and look at this, REA is talking to folks who're up in arms about cards that have been enhanced, to make them feel better. Will REA have liability if they auction a "doctored" card without disclosing it, now that they have this new position???? Not willingly.<br /><br />So it is nothing. REA will respect you in the morning.<br /><br />In my mind, a T206 with flour paste and scrap book paper on its back is altered, and if I soak that stuff off then I've "unaltered" the card. That paste and paper did not become part of the card, as Led Zeppelin said, almost, the card remains the same.

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Yeah, Leon, I have to agree with you. As a criminal defense lawyer I'm fairly certain that the federal sentencing guidelines will not soon be equating card doctors with muslim fanatics seeking to blow us up (or rapists for that matter). In addition, our country is, in fact, very tough on criminals -- just ask Jeff Skilling who received a 24 year sentence last week. Also, who will fund the 500K rewards?

Interesting email from REA
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I like George Carlins philosophy on criminal punishmnet; the punishment should not fit the crime and that death penality is misapplied. Murder is generally a drime of passion and not well thought out. Crimes like Enron, WorldCom, Silverado (for those old enough to remmeber) should get the death penalty. If the death penalty was given to the leaders of thos companies, how much longer do you think white collar crime would go on if you killed off a few excutives who actually have something to live for?<br /><br />I think I got most of that skit right. I haven't heard it in a few years and forget which record it is on.<br /><br />Jay - owns all of Carlin's records and DVDs<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.