The Response

[JP21]

I am writing this in response to the negative accusations and assumptions made over some upgrades that I received from PSA lately. As you can see by the diversification of cards that I have gotten upgrades on, that I am on ebay and other sites looking for cards that can possibly upgrade for hours every day. If I was just buying expensive Mantle cards and turning 5's and 6's into 8's and 9's, I would see why people would get upset over that. But I'm NOT doing that. I'm searching hundreds of cards a day, thousands of cards a week to find a handful of cards to buy and possibly crack out and resubmit. I submit hundreds of cards a month. I am bound to get a couple upgrades once in a while. I have been in the card business for over 30 years. I have been involved in grading cards for over 15 years. I work very hard and I have developed an eye to find undergraded cards.

To the surprise of many on this board, maintaining the original integrity of every card I buy and regrade is very important to me. I do not trim cards. I do not paint cards. I do not power erase cards. I do not do anything to a card that sacrifices the original integrity, edges, corners, surface, gloss, size, design or shape of a card to achieve a higher grade.

The Art Shell rookie PSA 8 upgrade to a PSA 10 seems to have caused the most commotion. I know it's hard for people to understand how that could happen without some sort of shenanigans going on but there were none. I literally cracked out the card, put it into a card saver and submitted it at the National last year. The card came back a PSA 10 and the owner of the card (my client) opted to sell it since he was putting a HOF Rookie PSA 9 set together. Top/bottom centering on 1973 Topps football is not black and white because of the funky design of the card. It is very possible that a first-year grader at PSA miscalculated the centering and graded the card a PSA 8 the first time. The more experienced graders that grade at the National put it in a PSA 10.

Rick Probstein deserves an apology from whoever accused Rick of being in cahoots with me for me to buy an undergraded card and resell it through him after regrading. This is so ridiculous. Rick is just like any other auction house. He makes a living from getting consignments. His job is to get the most money he can for the cards that are consigned to him. It's not his job to tell the consignor to tell him that his card may upgrade if resubmitted... there isn't an auction house on earth that would return the card to the consignor so he could resubmit it. To blame Rick for anything associated with upgrades is completely absurd.

Hopefully, this will help people understand that people who try to get upgrades on graded cards are not evil. Whoever enjoys following my every move, can put a scan as big as the moon of any one of my upgrades and I will stand behind that card and explain to any potential buyer why that card would be an excellent and legitimate addition to their collection. I don't feel that I have to explain any of my upgrades to anyone else.

I have a lot of good friends and colleagues in the industry that got a couple good laughs over these threads at my expense because the attacks were just so outrageous and ridiculous. But the attacks started to get personal and that's where I have to draw the line. My reputation as an honest, hard-working, innovative, knowledgeable and reputable sportscard dealer is very important to me. I can't stress enough that I stand behind every single card that I have ever graded and sold.

I also noticed that there is a lot of joking around. One guy wrote my name 10 times in a post after Leon said I requested my name be removed from a personal attack... It seems like a lot of you want to press people's buttons, and you feel like you can say anything you want while acting as judge and jury. This was evident when the guy agreed to change the title of his personal attack on me if I agreed to respond. Well guy, you accomplished what you wanted to accomplish by calling me a disgrace to the hobby. That was something that I didn't deserve and something that I don't deserve more of going forward. I have a long resume of accomplishments in the sportscard industry. I have hundreds of long-time customers that enjoy buying from me and selling to me. I have made a countless number of friends that are big names and small names in the industry that respect me as a reputable sportscard dealer.
I really don't feel that I need to further explain or defend anything that I've ever done in the sportscard industry.
I have not contacted a lawyer and I hope to not have to contact a lawyer, but my reputation is my most valuable asset. Going forward, I want to make it very clear that any personal attacks with my name in it will be forwarded to my lawyer. Hopefully, the fellow dealers and collectors of this board, will refrain from personal attacks going forward since I held up my end of the terms of the deal I made with Leon to respond. And Leon, you're welcome for all the extra hits to your site at my expense again. Respectfully, Joe Pankiewicz

[CardTarget]

That's a pretty solid response. I appreciate it.

How many cards did you submit at the National? How many received significant (more than a half grade) upgrades?

Do you know any of the graders personally? Would they recognize you or your name on a grading submission sheet?

I think those are the answers people are really looking for.

That Art Shell isn't a 10... it COULD be a 9. I think that's what is causing the commotion. If the first grader undergraded it, the second grader went nuts.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by JP21

To the surprise of many on this board, maintaining the original integrity of every card I buy and regrade is very important to me. I do not trim cards. I do not paint cards. I do not power erase cards. I do not do anything to a card that sacrifices the original integrity, edges, corners, surface, gloss, size, design or shape of a card to achieve a higher grade.

Wow, I have a lot to say, but for right now just two questions.

1) If you didn't erase the mark on the Gehrig, who did?

2) Why didn't you address the obvious shill bidding?

[thehoodedcoder]

You may not get a response back on that. That would be incriminating himself I think.

Maybe you shoud lay out, with hard imperical evidence in a very logical fashion, why you believe he schilled his own auction.

Thanks,
Kevin

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by thehoodedcoder

Maybe you shoud lay out, with hard imperical evidence in a very logical fashion, why you believe he schilled his own auction.

Coming right up, sir

[CMIZ5290]

I have had some members contact me pertaining my dealings with Rick Probstein. As some of you know I have backed him on a couple of threads, and I have had numerous, successful transactions with him over the years. I must admit, however, the concerns I have over allegations made on this thread. Not comfortable at all. I don't even know this Joe P. guy, and quite frankly, I'm glad I don't. My father taught me years ago, if there's smoke, chances are there is a fire. This whole situation seems to be swarming into a wildfire, and maybe it's rightly so. I would like to think that Rick would come on the board and clear his name pertaining these comments and accusations. Some of the things presented on this thread do seem extremely puzzling, to say the least....Kevin M.

[pepis]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I have had some members contact me pertaining my dealings with Rick Probstein. As some of you know I have backed him on a couple of threads, and I have had numerous, successful transactions with him over the years. I must admit, however, the concerns I have over allegations made on this thread. Not comfortable at all. I don't even know this Joe P. guy, and quite frankly, I'm glad I don't. My father taught me years ago, if there's smoke, chances are there is a fire. This whole situation seems to be swarming into a wildfire, and maybe it's rightly so. I would like to think that Rick would come on the board and clear his name pertaining these comments and accusations. Some of the things presented on this thread do seem extremely puzzling, to say the least....Kevin M.

I had many dealings with Probstein in the past, but mostly he was my customer he would contact me with a list of what he was looking for and
i would go out and get it, most deals were in the thousands and pleasant
i can't imagine why he would change for the worst now that he has become
that successful!

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I have had some members contact me pertaining my dealings with Rick Probstein. As some of you know I have backed him on a couple of threads, and I have had numerous, successful transactions with him over the years. I must admit, however, the concerns I have over allegations made on this thread. Not comfortable at all. I don't even know this Joe P. guy, and quite frankly, I'm glad I don't. My father taught me years ago, if there's smoke, chances are there is a fire. This whole situation seems to be swarming into a wildfire, and maybe it's rightly so. I would like to think that Rick would come on the board and clear his name pertaining these comments and accusations. Some of the things presented on this thread do seem extremely puzzling, to say the least....Kevin M.

Agree completely. Something stinks.

[CW]

Originally Posted by JP21

I am writing this in response to the negative accusations and assumptions made over some upgrades that I received from PSA lately. As you can see by the diversification of cards that I have gotten upgrades on, that I am on ebay and other sites looking for cards that can possibly upgrade for hours every day. If I was just buying expensive Mantle cards and turning 5's and 6's into 8's and 9's, I would see why people would get upset over that. But I'm NOT doing that. I'm searching hundreds of cards a day, thousands of cards a week to find a handful of cards to buy and possibly crack out and resubmit. I submit hundreds of cards a month. I am bound to get a couple upgrades once in a while. I have been in the card business for over 30 years. I have been involved in grading cards for over 15 years. I work very hard and I have developed an eye to find undergraded cards.

To the surprise of many on this board, maintaining the original integrity of every card I buy and regrade is very important to me. I do not trim cards. I do not paint cards. I do not power erase cards. I do not do anything to a card that sacrifices the original integrity, edges, corners, surface, gloss, size, design or shape of a card to achieve a higher grade.

The Art Shell rookie PSA 8 upgrade to a PSA 10 seems to have caused the most commotion. I know it's hard for people to understand how that could happen without some sort of shenanigans going on but there were none. I literally cracked out the card, put it into a card saver and submitted it at the National last year. The card came back a PSA 10 and the owner of the card (my client) opted to sell it since he was putting a HOF Rookie PSA 9 set together. Top/bottom centering on 1973 Topps football is not black and white because of the funky design of the card. It is very possible that a first-year grader at PSA miscalculated the centering and graded the card a PSA 8 the first time. The more experienced graders that grade at the National put it in a PSA 10.

Rick Probstein deserves an apology from whoever accused Rick of being in cahoots with me for me to buy an undergraded card and resell it through him after regrading. This is so ridiculous. Rick is just like any other auction house. He makes a living from getting consignments. His job is to get the most money he can for the cards that are consigned to him. It's not his job to tell the consignor to tell him that his card may upgrade if resubmitted... there isn't an auction house on earth that would return the card to the consignor so he could resubmit it. To blame Rick for anything associated with upgrades is completely absurd.

Hopefully, this will help people understand that people who try to get upgrades on graded cards are not evil. Whoever enjoys following my every move, can put a scan as big as the moon of any one of my upgrades and I will stand behind that card and explain to any potential buyer why that card would be an excellent and legitimate addition to their collection. I don't feel that I have to explain any of my upgrades to anyone else.

I have a lot of good friends and colleagues in the industry that got a couple good laughs over these threads at my expense because the attacks were just so outrageous and ridiculous. But the attacks started to get personal and that's where I have to draw the line. My reputation as an honest, hard-working, innovative, knowledgeable and reputable sportscard dealer is very important to me. I can't stress enough that I stand behind every single card that I have ever graded and sold.

I also noticed that there is a lot of joking around. One guy wrote my name 10 times in a post after Leon said I requested my name be removed from a personal attack... It seems like a lot of you want to press people's buttons, and you feel like you can say anything you want while acting as judge and jury. This was evident when the guy agreed to change the title of his personal attack on me if I agreed to respond. Well guy, you accomplished what you wanted to accomplish by calling me a disgrace to the hobby. That was something that I didn't deserve and something that I don't deserve more of going forward. I have a long resume of accomplishments in the sportscard industry. I have hundreds of long-time customers that enjoy buying from me and selling to me. I have made a countless number of friends that are big names and small names in the industry that respect me as a reputable sportscard dealer.
I really don't feel that I need to further explain or defend anything that I've ever done in the sportscard industry.
I have not contacted a lawyer and I hope to not have to contact a lawyer, but my reputation is my most valuable asset. Going forward, I want to make it very clear that any personal attacks with my name in it will be forwarded to my lawyer. Hopefully, the fellow dealers and collectors of this board, will refrain from personal attacks going forward since I held up my end of the terms of the deal I made with Leon to respond. And Leon, you're welcome for all the extra hits to your site at my expense again. Respectfully, J.Pankiewicz

Thanks for the reply.

Quoted for posterity.

€hû¢k Wölƒƒ

[Peter_Spaeth]

Cards of course do get bumped even two grades with nothing done to them. I have seen it happen. So the question is really are there identifiable changes between the two iterations of the card.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Cards of course do get bumped even two grades with nothing done to them. I have seen it happen. So the question is really are there identifiable changes between the two iterations of the card.

The graders do not get it right every time. Seeing bumps, as well as reductions, in grades can happen without doing anything to a card however there were changes to the appearance of the two lower graded 1934 Goudey Gehrigs which would suggest these cards were simply not broken out and resubmitted.

[thehoodedcoder]

dont pollute this thread with opinions please.

put those comments on the other thread. lets discuss facts here, since this is the one with the response in it.

kevin

[barrysloate]

Pollute? We're having a discussion.

[Zach Wheat]

Wow, there are just a lot of questions that beg to be answered....

Z Wheat

[thehoodedcoder]

If Rick banned Joe from submitting to him, between the two of them we should have a great conversation about what was said and why.

Based on what was said on the board, there have to be opposing view points between the two of them or one of the two of them is down right lying about something.

Or am I missing something?

Kevin

[Sean1125]

I don't have the cahonas to crack most cards but I've had reviews go from

SGC 6---> PSA 6.5----> SGC 7
PSA 4---> SGC 5
SGC 5---> PSA 5.5

Really goes both ways... I am sure many members here know Johnny Adams, I believe his entire business model is based on cracking cards and I know for a FACT he does not alter them - I believe if Joe had the same model then it is in the realm of possibilities.

[barrysloate]

I think one of the biggest problems is the tremendous inconsistency with grading. If a card can get resubmitted and get a two and even three grade increase then I would no longer have much faith in third party grading. They need to do a better job.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I think one of the biggest problems is the tremendous inconsistency with grading. If a card can get resubmitted and get a two and even three grade increase then I would no longer have much faith in third party grading. They need to do a better job.

Better some innocent inconsistency than doctoring. With all the threads and all the pics I can't recall now which cards are claimed to be Joe's.

[barrysloate]

I don't see it as so innocent Peter. Graders have a tremendous amount of power. A bump of even one grade, say from a 7 to an 8, on an expensive card may create thousands of dollars of added value. Therefore, they need to be really accurate and really consistent every time, something they clearly are not.

[Thirteen]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I think one of the biggest problems is the tremendous inconsistency with grading. If a card can get resubmitted and get a two and even three grade increase then I would no longer have much faith in third party grading. They need to do a better job.

I completely agree Barry. I'm an Engineer and the biggest problem I see is a flawed grading process. It's obviously big money to get those bumps so I can see why people resubmit and don't blame them. But 2 grade bumps should not happen in my opinion. Didn't they add half-grades to add even more differentiation between condition? Fix the process.

[Bocabirdman]

*

[CMIZ5290]

guys, back on topic? Again, I would like to see Rick come on and answer questions pertaining what really started this thread in the first place...

[Bocabirdman]

*

[markf31]

Originally Posted by JP21

The Art Shell rookie PSA 8 upgrade to a PSA 10 seems to have caused the most commotion.

The commotion with the Shell card was a direct issue regarding just the grading of the card. I think the bigger issue and the issue that more people are concerned about is the apparent trim, doctoring and resubmission of cards like the 34 Goudey Gehrig.


Mark Fox

[thehoodedcoder]

I mailed Greg on ebay and the card was pulled in a matter of minutes.

I'm sure there will be more information coming from that direction.

Kevin

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by thehoodedcoder

I mailed Greg on ebay and the card was pulled in a matter of minutes.

I'm sure there will be more information coming from that direction.

Kevin

? Kevin, what are you referring too?

[thehoodedcoder]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

? Kevin, what are you referring too?

The gherig card on ebay greg bissineau had listed.

Kevin

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by thehoodedcoder

The gherig card on ebay greg bissineau had listed.

Kevin

Gotcha....bad, bad situation. Looks extremely funny to me....

[calvindog]

Wow, someone is going to get a call from a lawyer who has not yet been contacted.

[hammer]

Lets see cracks cards and does nothing to them but gets a higher grade sure i am going to believe this spin. Anybody in this type of business would sell his grandmother for a higher grade. As my father always said when their is money to be made their is hankypanky. No I do not believe in Santa Clause.

[brob28]

Originally Posted by markf31

The commotion with the Shell card was a direct issue regarding just the grading of the card. I think the bigger issue and the issue that more people are concerned about is the apparent trim, doctoring and resubmission of cards like the 34 Goudey Gehrig.


Mark Fox

I can't agree more, TPG can be inconsistent regarding grade, but the apparent changes to the Gehrig should be addressed.

[sylbry]

Originally Posted by JP21

I have a long resume of accomplishments in the sportscard industry. I have hundreds of long-time customers that enjoy buying from me and selling to me. I have made a countless number of friends that are big names and small names in the industry that respect me as a reputable sportscard dealer.

Explain no more. Must be just a misunderstanding. You know, sort of like that guy... oh, what's his name. Um... I just had it. Mustard... Mustang... Master... Mastro! Yeah Bill Mastro! Now he was a well accomplished and well respected man who had countless long-time customers. How's he doing these days?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by JP21

I am writing this in response to the negative accusations and assumptions made over some upgrades that I received from PSA lately. As you can see by the diversification of cards that I have gotten upgrades on, that I am on ebay and other sites looking for cards that can possibly upgrade for hours every day. If I was just buying expensive Mantle cards and turning 5's and 6's into 8's and 9's, I would see why people would get upset over that. But I'm NOT doing that. I'm searching hundreds of cards a day, thousands of cards a week to find a handful of cards to buy and possibly crack out and resubmit. I submit hundreds of cards a month. I am bound to get a couple upgrades once in a while. I have been in the card business for over 30 years. I have been involved in grading cards for over 15 years. I work very hard and I have developed an eye to find undergraded cards.

To the surprise of many on this board, maintaining the original integrity of every card I buy and regrade is very important to me. I do not trim cards. I do not paint cards. I do not power erase cards. I do not do anything to a card that sacrifices the original integrity, edges, corners, surface, gloss, size, design or shape of a card to achieve a higher grade.
The Art Shell rookie PSA 8 upgrade to a PSA 10 seems to have caused the most commotion. I know it's hard for people to understand how that could happen without some sort of shenanigans going on but there were none. I literally cracked out the card, put it into a card saver and submitted it at the National last year. The card came back a PSA 10 and the owner of the card (my client) opted to sell it since he was putting a HOF Rookie PSA 9 set together. Top/bottom centering on 1973 Topps football is not black and white because of the funky design of the card. It is very possible that a first-year grader at PSA miscalculated the centering and graded the card a PSA 8 the first time. The more experienced graders that grade at the National put it in a PSA 10.

Rick Probstein deserves an apology from whoever accused Rick of being in cahoots with me for me to buy an undergraded card and resell it through him after regrading. This is so ridiculous. Rick is just like any other auction house. He makes a living from getting consignments. His job is to get the most money he can for the cards that are consigned to him. It's not his job to tell the consignor to tell him that his card may upgrade if resubmitted... there isn't an auction house on earth that would return the card to the consignor so he could resubmit it. To blame Rick for anything associated with upgrades is completely absurd.

Hopefully, this will help people understand that people who try to get upgrades on graded cards are not evil. Whoever enjoys following my every move, can put a scan as big as the moon of any one of my upgrades and I will stand behind that card and explain to any potential buyer why that card would be an excellent and legitimate addition to their collection. I don't feel that I have to explain any of my upgrades to anyone else.

I have a lot of good friends and colleagues in the industry that got a couple good laughs over these threads at my expense because the attacks were just so outrageous and ridiculous. But the attacks started to get personal and that's where I have to draw the line. My reputation as an honest, hard-working, innovative, knowledgeable and reputable sportscard dealer is very important to me. I can't stress enough that I stand behind every single card that I have ever graded and sold.

I also noticed that there is a lot of joking around. One guy wrote my name 10 times in a post after Leon said I requested my name be removed from a personal attack... It seems like a lot of you want to press people's buttons, and you feel like you can say anything you want while acting as judge and jury. This was evident when the guy agreed to change the title of his personal attack on me if I agreed to respond. Well guy, you accomplished what you wanted to accomplish by calling me a disgrace to the hobby. That was something that I didn't deserve and something that I don't deserve more of going forward. I have a long resume of accomplishments in the sportscard industry. I have hundreds of long-time customers that enjoy buying from me and selling to me. I have made a countless number of friends that are big names and small names in the industry that respect me as a reputable sportscard dealer.
I really don't feel that I need to further explain or defend anything that I've ever done in the sportscard industry.
I have not contacted a lawyer and I hope to not have to contact a lawyer, but my reputation is my most valuable asset. Going forward, I want to make it very clear that any personal attacks with my name in it will be forwarded to my lawyer. Hopefully, the fellow dealers and collectors of this board, will refrain from personal attacks going forward since I held up my end of the terms of the deal I made with Leon to respond. And Leon, you're welcome for all the extra hits to your site at my expense again. Respectfully, J.Pankiewicz

I've highlighted the section I have a question about in red.

My question is this. What caused the reduction in the severity of the ink drag mark on the back of the Camille Henry card? And similarly what caused the reduction in blue ink spatters on the front of the O'Rourke?

Both cards are shown before and after in this thread
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=174534

Are you saying the cards are unaltered?

Steve B

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by JP21

To the surprise of many on this board, maintaining the original integrity of every card I buy and regrade is very important to me. I do not trim cards. I do not paint cards. I do not power erase cards. I do not do anything to a card that sacrifices the original integrity, edges, corners, surface, gloss, size, design or shape of a card to achieve a higher grade.

Can you imagine your wife asking "did you cheat on me?" and answering:
To your surprise I do everything I can to maintain the integrity of marriage, I do not condone cheating nor do I promote it. I do not host parties for swingers, I don't participate in porn sites nor do I condone prostitution. I do not do anything that sacrifices the original integrity of our vows...all a bunch of BS, just like this response. He isn't denying erasing anything or removing any marks, as long he doesn't "power erase" cards, whatever that means.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Power erasing is actually erasing large portions of the border of a picture to improve the centering, such as on a 57 Topps, an art form mastered by certain card doctors in the 90s. I think PSA became hip to it so not sure it is still going on.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Oops. Nevermind

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

Can you imagine your wife asking "did you cheat on me?" and answering:
To your surprise I do everything I can to maintain the integrity of marriage, I do not condone cheating nor do I promote it. I do not host parties for swingers, I don't participate in porn sites nor do I condone prostitution. I do not do anything that sacrifices the original integrity of our vows...all a bunch of BS, just like this response. He isn't denying erasing anything or removing any marks, as long he doesn't "power erase" cards, whatever that means.

Good point on the "power erase" observations. Beside what Peter just wrote, he didn't deny using an ordinary eraser by hand to remove that "4" on the Gehrig card.

[Exhibitman]

Peter, Peter, cardboard dealer
Had a card that was a tweener
Cracked it out and did resend
Two grades higher??? Nuf ced!

[the 'stache]

10,000 + views in a little over 24 hours. Wow.

[UOFLfan7]

To the OP:

I truly hope that you don't go through with contacting a lawyer and attempting to sue any members here for nothing more than voicing their opinions, most of which they have backed up with some very convicting evidence. Now, I assume that if you were to file a lawsuit that it would be a defamation lawsuit. Allow me to explain something about that lawsuit, not only is it one of the hardest lawsuits to prove, but it almost always cost the person who files the lawsuit more than it costs the person he is filing it again.

Defamation, despite what many people think, is not just using somebody's name is a bad/wrong manner without their consent or permission. It also can't be files in cases of opinions...for example, if I were to say Leon was a no-good, lying, cheating, wife-stealing, nerd, (Just an example Leon, not my actual opinions on you haha!) he couldn't file a defamation lawsuit against me as those statements are entirely my opinions and I am entitles to whatever opinion I want to have. Now if I were to make a statement such as, Leon stole three-thousand dollars from Wells Fargo...he is defiantly not to be trusted (wants again, just an example), then he would have a legit case unless I had concrete proof to prove me statement. However, even in that case, it would be a hard lawsuit to win as Leon would have to prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that not only was my statement false...but that is also hurt his reputation, self-esteem, business, and in some way effected his life negatively. Now, I do not believe you are a public figure (I could be wrong as I personally don't know you), and I'm going to assume you are a private individual which does give you one advantage if you were to file a defamation lawsuit. You would not have to prove that the person who defamed you acted with malice, whereas a public official would have to. However, with that being said, I do not advise you to think that it means it would be easy for you to file a defamation lawsuit as it absolutely does not.

So with all that being said, you sir do not have any case here at all based on what I have seen. You can contact your lawyer, however I would advise against it as you would be wasting your own time and your own money. I am not going to judge whether or not you are in the wrong here, but I do, once again, advise that you take no action against any member here on this forum. Also, if you think you have a different lawsuit, you are misguided in your thinking. The only lawsuit you could even attempt to claim, based on your complaints, is a defamation lawsuit and once again, it would be near impossible for you to walk away from that with a win.

Now, to back up all that I have said, here is the condensed version of the legal definition of Defamation:

Defamation:
Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.

The probability that a plaintiff will recover damages in a defamation suit depends largely on whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure in the eyes of the law. The public figure law of defamation was first delineated in new york times v. sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). In Sullivan, the plaintiff, a police official, claimed that false allegations about him appeared in the New York Times, and sued the newspaper for libel. The Supreme Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. It held that a public official alleging libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The Court declared that the First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." A public official or other plaintiff who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that defamatory statements were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false.

Where the plaintiff in a defamation action is a private citizen who is not in the public eye, the law extends a lesser degree of constitutional protection to defamatory statements. Public figures voluntarily place themselves in a position that invites close scrutiny, whereas private citizens who have not entered public life do not relinquish their interest in protecting their reputation. In addition, public figures have greater access to the means to publicly counteract false statements about them. For these reasons, a private citizen's reputation and privacy interests tend to outweigh free speech considerations and deserve greater protection from the courts. (See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 [1974]).

Distinguishing between public and private figures for the purposes of defamation law is sometimes difficult. For an individual to be considered a public figure in all situations, the person's name must be so familiar as to be a household word—for example, Michael Jordan. Because most people do not fit into that category of notoriety, the Court recognized the limited-purpose public figure, who is voluntarily injected into a public controversy and becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. Limited-purpose public figures, like public figures, have at least temporary access to the means to counteract false statements about them. They also voluntarily place themselves in the public eye and consequently relinquish some of their privacy rights. For these reasons, false statements about limited-purpose public figures that relate to the public controversies in which those figures are involved are not considered defamatory unless they meet the actual-malice test set forth in Sullivan.

Determining who is a limited-purpose public figure can also be problematic. In Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 96 S. Ct. 958, 47 L. Ed. 2d 154 (1976), the Court held that the plaintiff, a prominent socialite involved in a scandalous Divorce, was not a public figure because her divorce was not a public controversy and because she had not voluntarily involved herself in a public controversy. The Court recognized that the divorce was newsworthy, but drew a distinction between matters of public interest and matters of public controversy. In Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 99 S. Ct. 2675, 61 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1979), the Court determined that a scientist whose federally supported research was ridiculed as wasteful by Senator William Proxmire was not a limited-purpose public figure because he had not sought public scrutiny in order to influence others on a matter of public controversy, and was not otherwise well-known.

If that is a bit too hard for you to understand, here is a simpler definition with less detail.

Defamation (of character)
n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error.

Once again, to the OP, I make no judgement on whether or not you have disgraced this hobby, editing and trimming cards, erasing pencil marks, schilling, etc. Just giving you legal advice.

I would also like to apologize to Leon, as well as to the other forum members, for the rather long, drawn out post, but I felt the need to post this as the OP's threat to contact an attorney worried me a bit. Nobody here wants to waste their time and money dealing with a pointless lawsuit that would benefit neither party involved.

[Leon]

UOFLfan7- I don't mind if you say all that stuff but you need to have your full first and last name in the post. (or edit out your comments)....thanks

and I should add that there are 2-3 other board members that will have their names put in their posts in this thread, by tomorrow morning, if they don't do it themselves. Otherwise they can edit their comments out. No harm no foul....

[UOFLfan7]

Originally Posted by Leon

UOFLfan7- I don't mind if you say all that stuff but you need to have your full first and last name in the post. (or edit out your comments)....thanks

and I should add that there are 2-3 other board members that will have their names put in their posts in this thread, by tomorrow morning, if they don't do it themselves. Otherwise they can edit their comments out. No harm no foul....

Done

[Peter_Spaeth]

Lol. I didn't know proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" governed in defamation cases. Damn educational forum you have here, Leon.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Lol. I didn't know proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" governed in defamation cases. Damn educational forum you have here, Leon.

One of my favorite Hitchcock movies. Probably top 3.

[npa589]

Originally Posted by calvindog

One of my favorite Hitchcock movies. Probably top 3.

Though not my favorite Hitchcock film, I always thought The Rope was terrific and overlooked with regard to his many other masterpieces. If only Joe would offer an additional response to tighten how apropos that movie title would be for this situation...

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Lol. I didn't know proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" governed in defamation cases. Damn educational forum you have here, Leon.

No extra charge Peter. You get all of that and more!!

[Leon]

To the OPs statement, it left a lot to be desired.