Fraudosynthesis

[JollyElm]

Ran across this auction today, and it made me coin a new term...

Fraudosynthesis
Leaving a card out in the sun for a long time, and then attempting to convert the inevitable color fading into the energy of big-time dollar signs by calling it a ‘missing ink’ variation.

And there's this...

See also: Sunblather - trying to convince someone that an obviously sun-bleached card is a rare, missing ink variation.


https://www.ebay.com/itm/11543171453...IAAOSwmR1giXZ1


The Bench was obviously a 'normal' card that got graded an 8, but then the mean, old sun threw his rays at it for a free Hollywood bleach job and VOILA! it arrived in its present state...

s-l1600-2.jpg

But the seller insists this is a MISSING YELLOW FACTORY INK ERROR card. And, of course, the survey says, "NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Wouldn't the first question anyone on the planet asked be, "If PSA graded the faded card itself an 8, wouldn't/shouldn't there be, at a minimum, a PD (print defect) qualifier on the label to account for what it looks like??????"

Think I'm wrong? Grab it for a cool $2,500 and be the envy of your friends.

[bnorth]

Yes that card is faded. Maybe Mathew will come and defend it with one of his "burner" accounts.LOL

[Kutcher55]

Yeah good call out. Yet another scumbag seller with a 99.9% positive feedback. Should be banned for that nonsense.

[Kutcher55]

Here’s another one:

The Faketioneer: puts a card up for auction and when the gavel price fails to meet expectation simply doesn’t ship and ghosts any message attempts by the buyer.

[BobC]

All one has to do is look at who the seller of that card is, and that should tell you all you need to know about staying away from that auction.

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by BobC

All one has to do is look at who the seller of that card is, and that should tell you all you need to know about staying away from that auction.

Not so much. The guy had 179 stars and a perfect rating and nothing but positive review comments.

[D. Bergin]

I quite enjoy the subliminal message placed strategically in all their Ebay listings.

Their listings look like an AI bot in a dystopian 70's Sci-Fi movie trying to convince you they are a real person.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Not so much. The guy had 179 stars and a perfect rating and nothing but positive review comments.

Then you likely have never dealt with or talked/communicated with the seller. How long did he last on here before getting banned..............................?

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by BobC

Then you likely have never dealt with or talked/communicated with the seller. How long did he last on here before getting banned..............................?

Yeah, I didn't even mention that aspect of it. I was hoping the people hitting the link would see his name and immediately react, "Holy hell!!! That guy again???!!!!!!!"

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Then you likely have never dealt with or talked/communicated with the seller. How long did he last on here before getting banned..............................?

He has been banned on here several times under multiple accounts. He has posted several lies about me on here. One of the village idiots on here still believes the lie about me being in prison.

I seen a item I really wanted recently untill I noticed it was an account linked to one of his still active fake accounts on here.

[BobC]

Kutcher55, not putting you down at all. Consider yourself extremely lucky to be able to say nice things about the seller. Trust me and the others when saying you should be happy in not having dealt with him. Just do a search here on the forum looking for posts that mention "toppsaholic" in them. You'll get the drift pretty fast.

Oh, also believe it was him that was here on the forum as "RealToppsaholic" as well. That was after he was on the forum initially as "toppsaholic" and got banned pretty quickly. And he could have been, still could be, here on the forum under other usernames as well for all I know.

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by BobC

Then you likely have never dealt with or talked/communicated with the seller. How long did he last on here before getting banned..............................?

There must be some confusion here. I’m not talking about a net54 seller. I’m talking about an eBay seller. I recently won an auction from him. The settling price was low. I paid right away and it has been five days since the close and he hasn’t shipped. Two days ago I sent him a polite note asking if he would ship the card. I got no response and I left it at that.

The guy had no red flags. I’ll probably just wait out the shipping date and put in for a refund after the ship date expires. Not worth starting a war over.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Yeah, I didn't even mention that aspect of it. I was hoping the people hitting the link would see his name and immediately react, "Holy hell!!! That guy again???!!!!!!!"

LOL

Didn't know if you were specifically posting about it because he was the seller, or if that was just a coincidence. Great catch either way!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

There must be some confusion here. I’m not talking about a net54 seller. I’m talking about an eBay seller. I recently won an auction from him. The settling price was low. I paid right away and it has been five days since the close and he hasn’t shipped. Two days ago I sent him a polite note asking if he would ship the card. I got no response and I left it at that.

The guy had no red flags. I’ll probably just wait out the shipping date and put in for a refund after the ship date expires. Not worth starting a war over.

As I said, do a search and check out "toppsaholic" being mentioned here on the forum. He also came on the forum and posted as "RealToppsahoilic" for a while as well. We know exactly who, and what, he is, and how he can in certain instances operate. Understand that you are only talking about him as an Ebay seller, but a lot of people have had interactions with him on Ebay, and through this forum. Again, consider yourself lucky if you don't have any transaction or communication issues with him, and pray it stays that way. No idea what triggers him, just know that you don't want to be the person to do that. And I sincerely hope your transaction with him as the seller goes through with no hitches or issues, for your sake.

[Kutcher55]

Ok got it but how do you know the EBay seller I referenced is Toppsaholic? It’s probably some other a-hole. But I agree with your point that I should not engage the guy and just get my refund and move on.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Ok got it but how do you know the EBay seller I referenced is Toppsaholic? It’s probably some other a-hole. But I agree with your point that I should not engage the guy and just get my refund and move on.

Because if you go to the Ebay auction link that Darren (JollyElm) provided, it clearly shows the seller's username is "toppsaholic". If you go back and search through posts/threads by forum member "RealToppsaholic", you'll see he even notes that he is Ebay seller "toppsaholic". And now, go back again to the Ebay auction and you'll also see that the seller "toppsaholic" has a positive feedback rating over 20,000. Do you really think any new Ebay seller is going to get such a high number of positive feedbacks in only a couple years or so since the original "toppsaholic" was on Ebay and our forum? Plus, I don't think Ebay even allows someone else to adopt a former username, ever. At least I've never heard of that before as it would cause issues were someone to do an Ebay search for that particular username one would think. Trust me and the other posters, that is the same guy/seller.

[Kutcher55]

Aha. I was taking about a different eBay seller. But yeah those eBay star ratings are pretty much worthless. They just have little interest in banning anyone who generates revenue for them except in the most extreme cases.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Aha. I was taking about a different eBay seller. But yeah those eBay star ratings are pretty much worthless. They just have little interest in banning anyone who generates revenue for them except in the most extreme cases.

There you go Jason, now you get it. He'd been on the forum here for a while, and has been all over Ebay for years. Not sure how he sells things now, but one of his usual Ebay things in the past was to list items at some absolutely ridiculous prices that no one in their right minds would ever pay. He always appeared to be looking for some uninformed newbies he could take advantage of. If you ever contacted him to ask a question that he perceived and took the wrong way, look out. He would start sending you a series of harassing emails through Ebay, attacking your intelligence and knowledge, and basically accusing you of having attacked, insulted, and denigrating him. He was well-schooled and extremely adept at knowing Ebay's rules and policies on communications, and would always be just this side of going over the line in his posts to get himself in trouble with Ebay. I wondered if his tactic wasn't to try and get someone answering him back in such a manner that he could then immediately report them to Ebay so he could get them banned/kicked off.

He would sell some stuff apparently at real reasonable prices as well, so as to actually have some sales and get positive feedback. But for the stuff he'd put up on Ebay at ridiculous prices, or that there was some issue with the item or description (like this supposedly yellow ink error card that Darren originally posted), send him a question and ask about it or voice your concern, and look out.

If you are really adventurous and up for a challenge, go to that Ebay listing Darren posted and contact the seller and tell him you think he erred in the description of that card and it isn't an actual printing/ink error, but looks more like fading from having been left out in the sun too long, and therefore isn't worth the price he's asking. I really wouldn't advise it though. LOL

[BobC]

Interesting follow-up to the Ebay auction Darren pointed out, and a possible insight into the seller's latest marketing tricks. Because I took a look at the original Ebay auctions for toppsaholics' sun faded '75 Topps card of Bench, I am sooooo lucky to have now received a special 70% off offer to now buy the PSA 8 sun damaged card for only $500. A quick Ebay search shows normal 1975 PSA 8 Topps Bench cards sell for about $100-$150, so neat gimmick by the seller to try and trick someone into still drastically overpaying for a now damaged card.

Just seeing a seller offering such a huge discount should be an immediate red flag a seller is way out of line in their pricing, and/or up to some deceptive marketing technique. In other words, you probably want to be very careful with such sellers, or stay away from them entirely.

[JollyElm]

And here he goes again...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/12538831824...UAAOSwOzleVIGR

GREEN TINT PSA 6 EXMT MISSING INK ERROR 1962 TOPPS #320 HANK AARON GRADED *TPHLC

s-l1600-3.jpg

Only a cool $5,695.00 for this one of a kind beauty. Both a green tint and missing ink variation card that you can build a dream on.

I gotta say, though, how can you NOT admire the craftsmanship involved with these inventions? He actually covers the label with something before soaking it in the sun, so the bright red remains unscathed (but be sure to ignore the bleached out areas plaguing the rest of the holder from spending too much time catching rays). Well played, well played, indeed.


Thought experiment:
If you slathered a holder in high-SPF sunscreen and left it on the beach, would the card inside fade??

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

And here he goes again...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/12538831824...UAAOSwOzleVIGR

GREEN TINT PSA 6 EXMT MISSING INK ERROR 1962 TOPPS #320 HANK AARON GRADED *TPHLC

Attachment 522860

Only a cool $5,695.00 for this one of a kind beauty. Both a green tint and missing ink variation card that you can build a dream on.

I gotta say, though, how can you NOT admire the craftsmanship involved with these inventions? He actually covers the label with something before soaking it in the sun, so the bright red remains unscathed (but be sure to ignore the bleached out areas plaguing the rest of the holder from spending too much time catching rays). Well played, well played, indeed.


Thought experiment:
If you slathered a holder in high-SPF sunscreen and left it on the beach, would the card inside fade??

I would bet they got put out in the sun BEFORE they got graded. He is far from the only seller to sell such cards at a huge mark up. One of the hobby "icons" usually has several listed.

[commishbob]

LOL @ a 'green tint' Aaron.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

And here he goes again...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/12538831824...UAAOSwOzleVIGR

GREEN TINT PSA 6 EXMT MISSING INK ERROR 1962 TOPPS #320 HANK AARON GRADED *TPHLC

Attachment 522860

Only a cool $5,695.00 for this one of a kind beauty. Both a green tint and missing ink variation card that you can build a dream on.

I gotta say, though, how can you NOT admire the craftsmanship involved with these inventions? He actually covers the label with something before soaking it in the sun, so the bright red remains unscathed (but be sure to ignore the bleached out areas plaguing the rest of the holder from spending too much time catching rays). Well played, well played, indeed.


Thought experiment:
If you slathered a holder in high-SPF sunscreen and left it on the beach, would the card inside fade??

His gimmick is even better than that though. He shows the card as originally listed at $8,500, but is now offering some lucky buyer a whopping 33% discount, down to $5,695. Meanwhile, a quick Ebay search of undamaged '62 Topps cards of Aaron shows a normal PSA6 of this card will likely sell in the $400 range. Neat marketing trick, huh?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I would bet they got put out in the sun BEFORE they got graded. He is far from the only seller to sell such cards at a huge mark up. One of the hobby "icons" usually has several listed.

Would PSA really ignore sun damage like on this Aaron card, or the earlier Bench card? You would think if they were submitted to them with sun damage/fading that they would at least throw a qualifier on the flip.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Would PSA really ignore sun damage like on this Aaron card, or the earlier Bench card? You would think if they were submitted to them with sun damage/fading that they would at least throw a qualifier on the flip.

I have seen several faded cards sent in and none of them ever got a qualifier from PSA or given a worse grade from SGC for the fading. What one of the many beyond silly qalifiers would PSA use so they could give the card a higher grade than it really deserves?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I have seen several faded cards sent in and none of them ever got a qualifier from PSA or given a worse grade from SGC for the fading. What one of the many beyond silly qalifiers would PSA use so they could give the card a higher grade than it really deserves?

Great question, and now that you've asked/mentioned it, not sure. Never have heard of or seen a qualifier for sun damage before, though it is pretty well known what leaving a card out in direct sunlight over a period of time can, and will, do to it. Initially a "PD" qualifier popped into my head, but then quickly realized sun damage/fading has got nothing to do with a printing defect issue.

In thinking more about it, this does seem to point to a not often or ever widely discussed issue of how TPGs overall seem to ignore the effects of time and aging, and what it can do to a card and its presentation. The TPGs tend to stick to a strict technical grading of cards, ignoring aging and other natural issues. Makes a ton of sense from their standpoint though as if they do grade and encapsulate a card, they can't completely control how that card will fare once in that holder. Images and paper/cardboard can deteriorate over time, even if a card is encapsulated.

By a TPG ignoring such aging/fading issues in giving cards a technical grade, I can see it being a kind of a CYA move on their part. By not setting a precedent of grading cards like that, they don't unintentionally set themselves up for potential liability issues down the road if the image on an encapsulated card were to deteriorate over time, and the graded card's owner came back at the TPG on their supposed grading mistake guarantees. I know that TPGs rarely, if ever, seem to pay anyone for grading errors. But being proactive and not factoring in natural aging and deterioration in their grading standards and criteria seems a savvy move on their part to further reduce or protect against any such potential liability.

N172 Old Judge cards immediately come to mind as the poster children for such thinking. Very often you'll come across OJ cards where the image is so faded and blurred over time that you barely even see or make out the player and/or printing on the card at all. Yet it may still have a 3-4-5, or possibly even higher, technical grade. Meanwhile, another OJ with a sharp and beautiful image and printing gets a 1 or a 1.5 technical grade because there's glue residue, or some paper loss, on the OJ's blank back. I'll take those kind of 1's and 1.5's all day long.

Just another reaffirmation of the old saying, "Buy the card, and not the holder!"

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Great question, and now that you've asked/mentioned it, not sure. Never have heard of or seen a qualifier for sun damage before, though it is pretty well known what leaving a card out in direct sunlight over a period of time can, and will, do to it. Initially a "PD" qualifier popped into my head, but then quickly realized sun damage/fading has got nothing to do with a printing defect issue.

In thinking more about it, this does seem to point to a not often or ever widely discussed issue of how TPGs overall seem to ignore the effects of time and aging, and what it can do to a card and its presentation. The TPGs tend to stick to a strict technical grading of cards, ignoring aging and other natural issues. Makes a ton of sense from their standpoint though as if they do grade and encapsulate a card, they can't completely control how that card will fare once in that holder. Images and paper/cardboard can deteriorate over time, even if a card is encapsulated.

By a TPG ignoring such aging/fading issues in giving cards a technical grade, I can see it being a kind of a CYA move on their part. By not setting a precedent of grading cards like that, they don't unintentionally set themselves up for potential liability issues down the road if the image on an encapsulated card were to deteriorate over time, and the graded card's owner came back at the TPG on their supposed grading mistake guarantees. I know that TPGs rarely, if ever, seem to pay anyone for grading errors. But being proactive and not factoring in natural aging and deterioration in their grading standards and criteria seems a savvy move on their part to further reduce or protect against any such potential liability.

N172 Old Judge cards immediately come to mind as the poster children for such thinking. Very often you'll come across OJ cards where the image is so faded and blurred over time that you barely even see or make out the player and/or printing on the card at all. Yet it may still have a 3-4-5, or possibly even higher, technical grade. Meanwhile, another OJ with a sharp and beautiful image and printing gets a 1 or a 1.5 technical grade because there's glue residue, or some paper loss, on the OJ's blank back. I'll take those kind of 1's and 1.5's all day long.

Just another reaffirmation of the old saying, "Buy the card, and not the holder!"

What actually happened was the grading companies used to label some cards missing ink. Turns out they just labeled a lot of faded cards as missing color. So now they just ignore the fading. I don't remember the grade. I sold a SGC graded 1958 "Blue" Hank Aaron card on here with full disclosure. The label did not mention anything. That was after I believe each of the big 3 had previously labeled some of them "Blue Front" before they figured out they all are faded.

I also had a real missing yellow ink card graded at the same time. It is graded a SGC 5.5 and is an amazing card. Sadly they won't even label real mmissing ink cards correctly now because of all their mistakes. Once you have owned a few real missing color cards and a few faded it is very easy to tell them apart.

Here are 2 examples of faded blue Aaron cards being listed at beyond silly prices for actually being altered faded cards.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/12501287182...sAAOSwhedhmagm
https://www.ebay.com/itm/37379913003...sAAOSwxIxhmak-

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

What actually happened was the grading companies used to label some cards missing ink. Turns out they just labeled a lot of faded cards as missing color. So now they just ignore the fading. I don't remember the grade. I sold a SGC graded 1958 "Blue" Hank Aaron card on here with full disclosure. The label did not mention anything. That was after I believe each of the big 3 had previously labeled some of them "Blue Front" before they figured out they all are faded.

I also had a real missing yellow ink card graded at the same time. It is graded a SGC 5.5 and is an amazing card. Sadly they won't even label real mmissing ink cards correctly now because of all their mistakes. Once you have owned a few real missing color cards and a few faded it is very easy to tell them apart.

Here are 2 examples of faded blue Aaron cards being listed at beyond silly prices for actually being altered faded cards.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/12501287182...sAAOSwhedhmagm
https://www.ebay.com/itm/37379913003...sAAOSwxIxhmak-

Exactly what I'm getting at. Because of all the potential errors they may have been making, makes sense for TPGs to just disregard and ignore missing or faded colors so they can't be hit with liability for a grading mistake. Also raises the question if it is really that hard or impossible to determine if a certain ink(s) on a card is truly missing, or if it is just faded. You would think it should be fairly easy to tell as in the case of a missing ink the other colors on a card should look normal, at least somewhat bright, and consistent. Whereas, if color loss is due to age, fading, or sun exposure, you would expect the entire card and all the ink/colors on it to have suffered similar fading or loss, right? Wonder why TPGs apparently couldn't consistently tell the difference?

[savedfrommyspokes]

Not the result I was hoping to find, but this card did sell in the same condition 3 years ago via PWCC.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Not the result I was hoping to find, but this card did sell in the same condition 3 years ago via PWCC.

I do not know for sure but I doubt Mathew is doing anything to the cards. He just buys weird stuff and lists it at crazy prices with some BS descriptions from what I have seen.

Here are 3 cards. Two left the factory the way they are in the picture, one didn't.

[jchcollins]

Heavily faded cards are ugly, even if they were to be some kind of rare factory anomalies. That's what I don't get.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Heavily faded cards are ugly, even if they were to be some kind of rare factory anomalies. That's what I don't get.

Some like that 62 Topps Aaron are ugly. Then some like the 58 Aaron when turned blue are amazing.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Some like that 62 Topps Aaron are ugly. Then some like the 58 Aaron when turned blue are amazing.

Kind of along the lines of some T205 cards where the gold borders seem to turn green. No specific reason or known cause, just speculated as an age, fading, ink, or exposure issue.

[cannonballsun]

He's been trying to sell a missing red ink 1963 Post Cereal Mantle for about a couple of years. He has gradually gotten the price lower.

[JollyElm]

As a postscript to all of this, I finally heard back from PSA. Of course, they pretty much ignored my simple, straightforward questions (about the Bench card) and their reply basically said that they can confirm that the cert. # is legitimate, but they cannot comment on what may have occurred after the slab left their facility.

[jchcollins]

Kind of as a companion topic to all of this, I've never understood why print quality and color are not treated with the same discernment at PSA and SGC as pure technical issues with the cardboard itself.

A hidden wrinkle is a hell of a lot less obvious to eye appeal than a badly faded card, yet I've seen examples where an ugly faded Mantle can still get a PSA 6, whereas a beautiful example of the same card with a hidden wrinkle gets a 3 or a 2. That just makes zero sense.

Likewise with focus issues. The '69 Topps Nolan Ryan #533 is a good example here. Due to focus issues, this card can often be found with Nolan having strange looking lips, overlapping pupils, or 4 eyebrows. But if this is the only thing wrong with the card, it can also easily be found this way in fairly high grade - like PSA 6 and 7. Makes no sense. I'd rather have the card moderately OC or with some other minor flaw, trading that for a well-focused image.

TPG's have harshly judged centering as a "factory" issue for at least a generation now. I know they have the OF qualifier, but in practice I rarely see this used. The criteria behind judging how a card is made at the factory either OC or OF is not really different. In terms of "color quality", at least to my knowledge there is no standard for this, and many graders seem to be at least somewhat incompetent at recognizing even badly faded cards.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Kind of as a companion topic to all of this, I've never understood why print quality and color are not treated with the same discernment at PSA and SGC as pure technical issues with the cardboard itself.

A hidden wrinkle is a hell of a lot less obvious to eye appeal than a badly faded card, yet I've seen examples where an ugly faded Mantle can still get a PSA 6, whereas a beautiful example of the same card with a hidden wrinkle gets a 3 or a 2. That just makes zero sense.

Likewise with focus issues. The '69 Topps Nolan Ryan #533 is a good example here. Due to focus issues, this card can often be found with Nolan having strange looking lips, overlapping pupils, or 4 eyebrows. But if this is the only thing wrong with the card, it can also easily be found this way in fairly high grade - like PSA 6 and 7. Makes no sense. I'd rather have the card moderately OC or with some other minor flaw, trading that for a well-focused image.

TPG's have harshly judged centering as a "factory" issue for at least a generation now. I know they have the OF qualifier, but in practice I rarely see this used. The criteria behind judging how a card is made at the factory either OC or OF is not really different. In terms of "color quality", at least to my knowledge there is no standard for this, and many graders seem to be at least somewhat incompetent at recognizing even badly faded cards.

I guess if somebody is buying the grade and not the card, that can be annoying. By my own standards, I weight color, focus and centering (which are easier to see from a picture than the technical irregularities the TPG's evaluate) much more than wrinkles and other surface irregularities. So I guess I am happy they spend their time on those things, so their grade gives me a good baseline before I look at it.

For example, this to me is a really nice 3.5. I don't need a TPG to grade it on eye appeal, I know what I like. But if this was being sold raw it would be very tough for most of us to know it has a major flaw. To me the technical grade of the card is what is important.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

By my own standards, I weight color, focus and centering (which are easier to see from a picture than the technical irregularities the TPG's evaluate) much more than wrinkles and other surface irregularities. So I guess I am happy they spend their time on those things, so their grade gives me a good baseline before I look at it.

It's true that color and focus issues should be more obvious when looking to buy even at scans online - but if grading is supposed to at least loosely correlate with eye appeal, to me it is deceptive when certain factory issues are judged harshly by graders, and others are largely overlooked. Fading I guess is different.

Agreed I can pick most of those things out by myself, but it goes to the continued necessity of the adage "Technical grading is not eye appeal" being used as a disclaimer.

That's a super nice '66 Mantle!

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

It's true that color and focus issues should be more obvious when looking to buy even at scans online - but if grading is supposed to at least loosely correlate with eye appeal, to me it is deceptive when certain factory issues are judged harshly by graders, and others are largely overlooked. Fading I guess is different.

Agreed I can pick most of those things out by myself, but it goes to the continued necessity of the adage "Technical grading is not eye appeal" being used as a disclaimer.

That's a super nice '66 Mantle!

Yep, and if I was born a Buffett I'd be a billionaire.

And thanks on the Mantle. If I post a hi-res photo some people on here could probably find the flaw right off, but it took me a couple weeks. Maybe the extra .5 is because of eye appeal, I don't know.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk