THE MARKEL REPORT: Are Graded Baseball Cards Being “Juiced” (Aesthetically Enhanced)?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

by Daniel C. Markel
e-mail address: dan_markel@sbcglobal.net
eBay ID: danmarkel

The Markel Report, also officially known as “The Report to the Collectors of Graded
Baseball Cards of an Independent Investigation into the Illegal Use of Trimming and
Other Aesthetically Enhancing Alteration Methods by Sellers of Graded Baseball Cards”
is now released for public viewing.


Executive Summary:

A massive three year probe by a group of concerned collectors has concluded
that misrepresentation and fraud are significant problems in the graded sportscard
collecting hobby – especially among registry set collectors. An extensive investigation
has revealed that lower grade-quality common cards that would be considered
“low pop” or scarce in high grades are being purchased, then “aesthetically enhanced”
by unscrupulous alteration methods, submitted and graded by a third party grading company
and sold to unsuspecting collectors for premium prices.



Report Recommendations:


1. Third party grading companies should not tolerate dealers who continuously
submit invoices with high percentages of altered cards.

2. Third party grading companies need to be audited by an independent group to
test the accuracy and reliability of their grading services.

3. Sellers need to be educated to understand that deliberate fraud and
misrepresentation by means of the use of electronic communication, also known
as wire fraud, is a felony.

4. Sellers need to be educated to understand that deliberate fraud and misrepresentation
by means of the use of the mail system, also known as mail fraud, is a felony.

5. Sellers of raw cards should make “super-size” scans (full monitor size) of their
cards when selling them on-line and there should be a public database to archive
these scans.

6. Raw card sellers who continuously sell altered cards, even with no proof of
prior knowledge of these alterations should be banned from on-line venues.

7. A stronger emphasis on “buying the card, not the holder” needs to be indoctrinated
into the collecting community.


Current Status:

1. Criminal complaints through various law enforcement agencies have been filed
by a number of collectors who participated in the study who were defrauded by these
dealers.

2. Civil action against these same dealers is being organized. An extensive
electronic database with over a year’s worth of eBay auction records including
scans of the raw cards purchased by these nefarious sellers was compiled and
will be used to assist victims who believe they have been defrauded.

3. To the best of this investigative group’s knowledge, these sellers are still submitting
cards to a major third party grading service. A federal law enforcement agent has
come forward to assist in the banishment of these dealers from this grading company.

4. These dealers are still active on eBay. A strong campaign to have these dealers banned
to Non-Registered User status has now been initiated.


Below are some examples of card alterations perpetrated on the collecting community.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Compare these two 1963 Topps Jim King cards below (pay close attention to the bottom corners).
Also notice how the trapezoidal cut on the left and right side of the raw card is now parallel on
the graded card. If there is any question regarding if these are the same card, notice the diagonal
surface scratch on King's left elbow and also to the right of the yellow circle. Under close scrutiny
these can be seen on the raw card scan. The fisheyes and print snow also match.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Compare these next two 1963 Topps Jim King cards below (again - pay close attention to the
bottom corners).

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Compare these two 1967 Topps Sammy Ellis cards below. Not only do the print marks match, but
there is matching surface scuffing on Ellis' pitching arm (forearm and bicep).



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an exceptionally good comparison of the same card. We were able to make a 6 megabyte
scan of the raw card – front and back - before it was sold to this devious card dealer.

Notice the tiny dots on the top border on the left front of the card above the word "SAMMY".
Even though these scans are not the same exact scale, on a proportional basis the tiny dots are
clearly closer to the top edge on the graded card. Also notice the improved corners on the graded card.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this comparison the graded card clearly has an improved corner.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice the roughness of the top edge of the ungraded card and the smoothness of the graded
card. The corner of the graded card is clearly improved.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The same is true for the rest of the top edge of the card.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Still not convinced? Compare these two 1961 Topps Tom Cheney cards below. Notice the "snow"
and the streaks on the front. There clearly many unique features to this card:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On these front blow-ups, look at the two tiny dots on the top border above the "P" on his cap.
Those same two dots are clearly positioned much closer to the top edge of the graded card.
In addition the corner on the graded card is sharper and squarer.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice the roughness of the top edge of the ungraded card and the smoothness of the graded card.
Also notice the tiny dot above and slightly to the left of the vertical line between the word "ERA"
and the number "27.00" on both cards. The same dot is clearly positioned much closer to the top
edge of the graded card.




SUMMARY

These are some of the better examples of card altering work sold on eBay, however I have roughly
60 more pairs of before and after scans taken from eBay auctions which show evidence of improved
ascetics of the graded card compared to the same ungraded card. I am also convinced that this is
a majority report of what these dealers sell. I have a lot of anecdotal evidence to support this claim
as well. There are hundreds of instances where raw cards were purchased but the scans were
marginal to tell if the card was trimmed but the perp managed to get a 1 to 2 bump on the graded
card. In my vast experience, most eBay sellers of raw cards overgrade the cards they sell - not
undergrade.

[Jay Wolt]

Dan - was curious in your findings, are these cards sold by a variety of dealers
or is the majority being sold by 1 or a few, and if so, who are they?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Dan -- outstanding investigation. I hope you do something with your findings.

[botn]

Dan, Over the top work! You have done a great service to the hobby and I hope this will open collectors' eyes.

As posted on the other board, according to VCP, the seller on the graded cards in Dan's investigative report is ebay id scottsusor. Wonder if he was the submitter on those cards as well.

Thanks,

Greg

[Leon]

Dan was nice enough to follow my wishes and post this on the post war side of Net54 before it was posted over here. I told him that after about a day and a half we could move it over, as I do try to keep post war stuff in that area (at least to start with), but this is so important and such a great thread I jumped the gun a little and moved it here. It is definitely worthy of a front page spot even if it does expose the less honest part of the hobby. Of course it needs to be brought out but it would be better if it didn't exist. Great job Dan and thanks again for being so cordial. regards

[Rich Klein]

However; IIRC; any mention of his name brings poofing of threads on the PSA Boards. Very interesting -- and since I don't know all the details -- I won't say more than that.

I'd love to hear,.... The Rest of the Story

Rich

[HRBAKER]

Buy the Holder, not the Card,..............oops I mean..............

Great work btw!

[Peter_Spaeth]

It has always concerned me that so many high grade slabbed cards appear slightly short in the holder, as do the ones in Dan's post. For years I have listened to BS from dealers about cutting variances, natural shorts, etc. I increasingly believe that if a card has that telltale short look in a holder, that's because it probably has been microtrimmed.

[Rich Klein]

PSA has already poofed a link to this thread on their board. Geez, now I'd really love to hear the rest of the story -- sure sounds suspicious to me

Regards
Rich

P.S. And that's why this board is so good; in that there is very little censorship and almost no threads are banned or poofed. I'd love to hear an explanation as to why this thread left PSA so soon.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Rich, I don't think there is any conspiracy theory here, my guess is that PSA doesn't deem it to be in its self interest to have discussions on its own board questioning its own product.

[calvindog]

Somewhere in California Joe Orlando is pressing the "poof" button on his computer trying to make this thread go away. Alas, this is not his board.

[Rich Klein]

Trust me on this one; as an avid reader of the PSA boards; the person Markel is talking about is not allowed to be discussed on the boards. My instinct; tells me it's something more; something similar to WIWAG.

A really good company does not practice suppression; instead; it lets these stories play out their courses. (It's called dropping off the front page )

I will say; in my years at Beckett; almost no thread ever left the message boards; even when we were all called "Idjits" or worse. That was something I was always impressed with Beckett and the moderators

Rich

[calvindog]

If PSA is deleting threads relating to any discussion of Scott Susor, perhaps such actions suggest that Susor once worked at PSA. Anyone know? Joe, you're reading this thread, care to chime in?

[Anthony S.]

Things that make you say "hmm".....http://www.sgccard.com/boards/ubbthr...1709859&page=6

[Exhibitman]

So who are the guilty parties? An expose only works if the crooks are exposed. As Louis Brandeis said: "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants"

[Peter_Spaeth]

I see this less as an expose of specific parties than an expose of flaws in the system of which this sampling is just a microcosm.

[stone193]

If one thinks of the volume of graded cards that pass thru their doors every year, it's not in their interest to let anyone have a 'deal' since we know it's gonna eventually leak out and affect the reputation of the entire company.

If they are giving "deals?"

Then they're bigger idiots than I could ever fathom.

As is goes for freedom to express ideas? It's not in their interest to let this go nuts for an entire weekend - tho it would be entertaining.

And, as it goes for freedom here? Start badmouthing some of the banners that are on the top of my screen and we'll see?

Finally - with respect to PSA or any grading company - with the volume they do - mistakes are gonna be made - to make it foolproof would just plain cost too much per submission.

I don't think the sky's falling.

This is gonna happen with all the companies: just take a look at these two Beckett graded cards - same individually numbered card - better grade but definitely "enhanced" - just look at the 'shoe' on the left side - ya see just little bit less of it on the better graded example:

[J.McMurry]

"It has always concerned me that so many high grade slabbed cards appear slightly short in the holder, as do the ones in Dan's post. For years I have listened to BS from dealers about cutting variances, natural shorts, etc. I increasingly believe that if a card has that telltale short look in a holder, that's because it probably has been microtrimmed. "

That statement, along with the fact that the examples shown were commons of a post war set, sickens me.

Tell me guys, if a card does not fit the holder,is that absolute proof that the card has been altered? because I have several cards in BOTH companys' holders that are smaller than the holder area.

I can say that I have never purchased from a Scott Sucksor or whatever.

[Leon]

"And, as it goes for freedom here? Start badmouthing some of the banners that are on the top of my screen and we'll see?"

Yes, you will see that nothing happens. Trust me. Maybe you haven't been around here long enough. I have. best regards

[Peter_Spaeth]

J.M. I don't think it's absolute proof, no. But the typical card was to my knowledge cut to size, especially when they became standard, and so one would expect the percentage of natural shorts to be relatively low. For high grade cards, in my experience it is relatively high.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Thanks everyone for the interest. Good work Greg (BOTN) in figuring out who the main culprit is: eBay Power Seller "scottsusor". This party bought all of those raw cards on eBay and later re-sold them in graded holders on eBay.

CLARIFICATION NOTE: The rationale for not initially disclosing whose card doctoring was displayed on the first part of this thread was to make the reader first determine that those cards were altered before finding out who the culprit was. The reason for this approach is due to the slobbering love affair many PSA collectors have for this seller. All attempts to warn these folks of this kind of nonsense in the past, even with scans, were for the most part futile.

There have been some very interesting and hysterically funny developments over the past 24 hours. As of 5:00 pm today, I'm quite certain eBay buyer/seller "scottsusor" has no idea that he has been the main focus of a large scale investigation for 3 years and doesn't know we have mounds of visual evidence against this party nor has he seen this thread. He was given negative feedback on the '61 Topps Cheney by me at noon today and in return filed a complaint through eBay for a revision of the feedback with claims of being libeled by me. Can we all yawn together at the count of three for him challenging me in a lawsuit? Anyway the feedback stated:

Sells altered PSA graded cards without disclosure. STAY AWAY! AVOID!

After receiving this frivolous threat through eBay requesting to resolve the feedback, I came up with this idea to propose to him: I'll remove the negative if he signs a sworn affidavit stating he doesn't alter cards, etc. I haven't heard back. If he does sign it, he should get an easy perjury charge with the local courts instead of dealing with the Feds who are backlogged on other fraud cases. If he refuses, it makes him that much more guilty.

UPDATE NOTE: Over 60 hours have passed with no reply to my request for him to sign a sworn statement guaranteeing that he hasn't altered cards and then re-sold them. I think it's safe to say at this point he knows he's been exposed.


See our e-mail exchanges below. This speaks volumes regarding the credibility of this seller. (Bold text added for emphasis. E-mail, phone and mailing addresses deleted).



Hello Scott,

You know, I do realize now that I might have been somewhat
hasty in giving you that negative since it is possible
that those two cards were altered before you received
them.

Here's what I'm willing to do. If you sign a sworn affidavit
that is legally binding in a court of law and give me a legally
binding copy of that affidavit stating to the effect that
any of the raw cards you've received as a buyer the past 5 years
either through the mail or at shows are always in your possession
until they are sent to a grading company. Furthermore you will
swear that while these raw cards are in your possession you or
anyone else has not altered the paper stock of the cards before you've
submitted them to PSA.

If you are willing to do this, you have my word of honor that I
will change the negative feedback to a positive. This has to be
done by the August 31st of course and I'm sure you'd like to do
this sooner than that. If cost is an issue, I will be willing to help out.

I have to agree on the way the document is worded before you
sign off on it. No weasel language.

Let me know.

Dan



From: Scott & Doreen Susor
To: Dan Markel
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 3:31:02 PM
Subject: Re: Message from eBay Member Regarding Item #310156210162

Hello Dan,

While highly doubtful due to PSA's rigorous grading
process, it certainly is possible that the cards in question
are trimmed. As PSA people always say, humans grade
the cards and humans make mistakes. It is also possible
that they were cut shorter than standard at the Topps factory,
but not short enough for PSA to reject due to not meeting
the minimum size requirement.

All I can do is what I've done, to offer you a full refund on
the card/cards that you are unhappy with.

Also, if those cards are indeed trimmed, you may have
concerns that I trimmed those cards before sending them
to PSA. I can assure you that I did not. I would never
send in a card that I knew for sure to be altered. That
said, I have sent many cards in to PSA over the years
that PSA rejected due to evidence of trimming. I did not
trim any of them. I have gotten better over the years in
knowing what to look for, and there is much more to look
for than just the card being undersized, but I have to admit
that I'm still not perfect as I still get one rejected as
trimmed here and there.

The worst purchase of cards I ever made was a bunch
of 1957, 1958 and 1959 Topps cards several years ago.
This was before I knew what to look for as far as trimmed
cards goes. I sent them all in along with a few others of
the same years and something like 70% got rejected
with evidence of trimming! I was stunned, dismayed and
embarrassed. I contacted Joe Orlando at PSA and he
explained in detail what the problem with those cards
was and helped me to understand what PSA looks for,
and what I should look for in pre-grading, for evidence of
trimming.

Some cards are just done so well that I can't even tell
with close eyeball inspection plus magnification that the
card has been altered, and I guess that would also be
true for PSA graders. But I can tell you that a lot of
trimming is going on out there in the raw card world by
a lot of different people. I buy quite a few cards on eBay
myself, from various sellers. In my pre-grading process,
I end up discarding about 1 out of every 7 or 8 cards I buy
as not being trimmed or at least looking like it even if it
hasn't been. I don't think its necessarily the people selling
the cards that did the alteration but somebody did it before
it got to them, probably as part of a complete set that the
seller bought to break and sell.

Again, if you want to return the cards you are unhappy
with for a full refund, please do, and I will send your refund
either via PayPal or by mail if you prefer.

Scott Susor
P.O. Box
Houston, TX 77255

If you'd like to discuss this further on the phone, please
feel free to call me at

Regards,
Scott





----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Markel
To: Scott & Doreen Susor
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: Message from eBay Member Regarding Item #310156210162

The reason is that a local long time dealer/collector named Dan Markel wanted to see this '61 Cheney PSA 8 very badly and upon inspecting it declared without question it is trimmed and same with the '64 Osteen PSA 8 that was recently purchased from you.

From: Scott & Doreen Susor
To: mondo.cards@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:47:39 PM
Subject: Re: Message from eBay Member Regarding Item #310156210162

Not to my knowledge. PSA is very good at detecting
altered cards. Why do you ask?

----- Original Message -----
From: eBay Member: mondo.card.company
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:17 PM
Subject: Message from eBay Member Regarding Item #310156210162

eBay eBay sent this message to Scott Susor (scottsusor).
Your registered name is included to show this message originated from eBay. Learn more.
This member has a question for you.

Do not respond to the sender if this message requests that you complete the transaction outside of eBay. This type of offer is against eBay policy, may be fraudulent, and is not covered by buyer protection programs. Learn More.
Dear scottsusor,

This card you sold me wouldn't happened to be trimmed would it?

- mondo.card.company

Answer the question

1961 TOPPS #494 TOM CHENEY Pirates PSA 8 NM-MT
1961 TOPPS #494 TOM CHENEY Pirates PSA 8 NM-MT
Item Id: 310156210162
End time: Jul-25-09 19:50:00 PDT
Buyer:

mondo.card.company (1014)
100.0% Positive Feedback
Member since Jan-11-99 in United States
Location: TX, United States
Listing Status: This message was sent while the listing was closed.

[J.McMurry]

Thanks for the reply Pete,

The only negative to this board is that it's making me increasingly paranoid.

I'm only collecting one graded set actively,and thats a mid 50's football set in a grade 7/7.5, Seeing this stuff keeps me awake nights.


looks like I picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Dan, where did the "before" scans come from?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Peter,

The two Jim Kings were sold around Jan. and Feb. 2007 by eBay seller "excuzme". I saved the scans directly to my hard drive, and also had them backed up on several networks managed by an IT group who could prove they pre-existed before the graded cards showed up on eBay.

The '61 Cheney and the '67 Ellis were originally mine. I made high resolution scans of those cards (about 6 megabytes each) - front and back and asked an attorney in Dallas to list them on eBay along with about 70 other cards between Oct. 2007 to early this year. Susor bought about 30 of them and typically sits on them for 12 to 18 months. We have since then bought back 5 and all appear to be altered to various degrees. The '61 Cheney are the '67 Ellis are the best examples. I have a '64 Osteen that was micro-trimmed. I'll show scans later.

The other 40 were also tracked and several were bought back from "good collectors" with no signs of alteration. Frank Bakka was one of them.

[ScottFandango]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Trust me on this one; as an avid reader of the PSA boards; the person Markel is talking about is not allowed to be discussed on the boards. My instinct; tells me it's something more; something similar to WIWAG.

A really good company does not practice suppression; instead; it lets these stories play out their courses. (It's called dropping off the front page )

I will say; in my years at Beckett; almost no thread ever left the message boards; even when we were all called "Idjits" or worse. That was something I was always impressed with Beckett and the moderators

Rich

please rich get real....what happened to the Brady Rookie threads...the card that went from 8.5 to 9.5 by getting shorter? wont mention names here but most know who im talking about......

beckett killed their board on purpose cause they saw more and more of those...

[sox1903wschamp]

Dan M: Great work and I appreciate it. This one is exposed and maybe it will throw a scare into others who alter cards. I think this thread has more merit then the Towle thread who openly admits to his practices. Towle takes stuff off and that of course is open to debate but this is plain deceitful and it might give everyone who collects slabs a trip the the medicine chest for some pepto .

[carrigansghost]

Great work in tracking these cards. I cannot thank the board members like yourself that are trying to make this a hobby again enough.

Rawn

[stone193]

I just want to insure that we're being fair here and that they are indeed the same cards:





If ya look at the Topps #176 baseball - there's a white speck next to the 1 in #176 - not present in the other.

If ya look at the S in Sam - in one there's a white speck in the bottom of the S - not present in the other.

When sheets are being printed at mass speed - the slight anomalies are going to be reproduced in many of the sheets - thus the individual cards might look very similar if not exactly the same.

I have a group of 78T Bradshaws and they all have a black print dot on the border in the exact same place.

Now - I'm not sure about fisheyes and whether they will be exactly the same.

I just don't think these two cards are the same.

But, that's not to say that some are the same - but - perhaps - not this one.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by ScottFandango

please rich get real....what happened to the Brady Rookie threads...the card that went from 8.5 to 9.5 by getting shorter? wont mention names here but most know who im talking about......

beckett killed their board on purpose cause they saw more and more of those...

The Beckett message boards still exists; however; many of the old threads disappeared when the "new" website was created. This included good and bad threads. Since the ownership that created the whole problem with the BMB are no longer running the company -- I don't want to speak ill of those no longer there. But note a couple of things

1) I said almost no thread was ever taken off. Sean C used to be a moderator (he still may be for all I know) and can talk about his hands-off policy (or his hands-on if there was one)

2) Like I said the BMB went through some changes last year when the new web site came up; I like much of the new web site; but frankly, I'm in the minority there and many of the posters have disappeared.

3) I usually did not read the football message board; so I can not specifically talk about the Brady card and what happenend. However; I do remember that the seller of that card (I think was Kevin Burge) has been the subject of many threads on BMB and almost none of them were eliminated

4) I stand by what I said

Regards
Rich

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Stone - First off, thanks for coming over.

Regarding those two white specs you are concerned about, I can assure you those are extraneous to the card itself. I've just re-scanned that card and those are just loose specs of lint.

[Sean_C]

To respond to Rich's post:

I was and still am a moderator over on the Beckett boards. We do have a much more aggressive policing policy that Leon has here, but far less restrictive than the ones over on the CU boards (the post over there referencing this thread has been poofed already). We would not delete the threads about questionable BGS cards (those in the hobby that know me know that I've been complaining about altered cards in all TPG holders, and specifically BGS grading sheet-cut cards for years), and in fact, I posted multiple times when the thread about the altered Brady card was first posted.

I can't and won't post our guidelines for deleting threads or suspending users, other than to say that reposts of deleted threads would obviously be deleted, and ones that contained personal / private information and conversations) would be edited or removed if editing would destroy the point of the thread (similar to what Dan did removing some of the contact details in his posting of his communication with Scott, although we would have probably removed all of the back and forth communications with Scott as well and left the rest of the post). There may have been very specific reasons why a thread would be deleted, and if it were done by the actual staff of Beckett and not the moderators, it was likely due to a complaint by one of the people mentioned in the thread (IE: Scott contacting Leon or Dan and making threats because of the content of this thread).

Posting a well documented, thoroughly explained example of an altered card like the Brady would not get the post deleted on it's own. Someone coming along and making accusations as to how/why the card was graded ("person on the inside", payoffs, collusion, etc.) that were not not substantiated by demonstrated facts would probably get the individual post deleted, the poster banned and possibly cause the thread to get locked if it got out of hand.

Beckett certainly didn't kill "their board on purpose cause they saw more and more of those..." . No business ever intends to drive away customers (well, except maybe eBay... ). The changes to the board and site were intended to attract more posters / customers, not drive them away. Sometimes things work, sometimes they don't. What I can say though is that I do see a lot more direct interaction now between Beckett staff members, writers, etc. and the posters on the board now than we had in old days; not from any type of moderating / supervisory type role, but in generally just talking about the hobby and interacting with collectors, which I see as a positive.

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

The Beckett message boards still exists; however; many of the old threads disappeared when the "new" website was created. This included good and bad threads. Since the ownership that created the whole problem with the BMB are no longer running the company -- I don't want to speak ill of those no longer there. But note a couple of things

1) I said almost no thread was ever taken off. Sean C used to be a moderator (he still may be for all I know) and can talk about his hands-off policy (or his hands-on if there was one)

2) Like I said the BMB went through some changes last year when the new web site came up; I like much of the new web site; but frankly, I'm in the minority there and many of the posters have disappeared.

3) I usually did not read the football message board; so I can not specifically talk about the Brady card and what happenend. However; I do remember that the seller of that card (I think was Kevin Burge) has been the subject of many threads on BMB and almost none of them were eliminated

4) I stand by what I said

Regards
Rich

[Rich Klein]

[QUOTE=Sean_C;744168]To respond to Rich's post:

but far less restrictive than the ones over on the CU boards (the post over there referencing this thread has been poofed already).

AND the posts talking about how this thread was "poofed" were eliminated immediately. I know to some PSA supporters you may not believe this; but I truly do have an open mind on people. I think in many cases PSA does a good job, but to me, you also should admit and fix your flaws rather than just denying they exist.
To me; the fact that these threads were poofed on PSA so quickly -- and I suspect because of S.S. from Houston; tells me there is something more here. Like I said; I dont know Dan, I don't know S.S. -- but when a company is so quick to the gun to elminate any mentions of a person our their boards; a reasonable person would suspect something is up.

Regards
Rich

[WhenItWasAHobby]

eBay ID "scottsusor" is still running auctions. Is there any way we can shut this party down with what we have? I filed a complaint with eBay yesterday and didn't even get a response back nor a case number. It only said expect a reply back in 24 to 48 hours.

The majority of those cards running is his auctions right now are very suspect in my opinion. Perhaps someone can organize contacting his prior winners through his feedback left for buyers and warn them of his repugnant business practices.

[ScottFandango]

threads were zapped before the new board started ... WAY BEFORE....

and it wasnt Burge as you said....

it sounds like "BGSFAD"....a guy, when mentioned, most of the time those threads were wacked over there...he has since changed his ID since he developed such a negative connotation with his "BGSFAD" ID

[Rich Klein]

OK; I go from memory on these -- and I thought it was KB -- I'm sorry that it was BE. Needless to say; I'll stick with what I said; Beckett is much more liberal about letting posts go (as Sean verified) than PSA is.

Rich

[Sean_C]

Hi Scott.

The reasons threads would have been removed before the new boards are the same as they are now, nothing has really changed in terms of how threads are handled.

Let's try to keep this focused on the topic of altered cards, and not hijack the thread with how other sites may police their boards. If you have any additional questions, feel free to PM me, and I'll answer what I can.

Originally Posted by ScottFandango

threads were zapped before the new board started ... WAY BEFORE....

and it wasnt Burge as you said....

it sounds like "BGSFAD"....a guy, when mentioned, most of the time those threads were wacked over there...he has since changed his ID since he developed such a negative connotation with his "BGSFAD" ID

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

Peter,

The two Jim Kings were sold around Jan. and Feb. 2007 by eBay seller "excuzme". I saved the scans directly to my hard drive, and also had them backed up on several networks managed by an IT group who could prove they pre-existed before the graded cards showed up on eBay.

The '61 Cheney and the '67 Ellis were originally mine. I made high resolution scans of those cards (about 6 megabytes each) - front and back and asked an attorney in Dallas to list them on eBay along with about 70 other cards between Oct. 2007 to early this year. Susor bought about 30 of them and typically sits on them for 12 to 18 months. We have since then bought back 5 and all appear to be altered to various degrees. The '61 Cheney are the '67 Ellis are the best examples. I have a '64 Osteen that was micro-trimmed. I'll show scans later.

The other 40 were also tracked and several were bought back from "good collectors" with no signs of alteration. Frank Bakka was one of them.

Well Dan at least as to the ones YOU personally owned and HE bought, it is difficult for me to think of another explanation. Was he also the buyer of the Jim Kings?

What puzzles me a bit in reference to this seller (and I have heard accusations against him before) is that it's always commons that are involved. One would think if a person had the skill to get trimmed cards past PSA and the inclination, he would also work on higher value cards? Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Sean_C]

I don't know how far things will go with eBay removing Scott. What I'd suggest Dan would be to either contact the FBI and/or USPS postal inspectors office (mail fraud) to see if they want to pursue it, or send an email to O'Keefe and see if he might want to run a story about it. Either way, I think it'll get more accomplished than waiting for eBay to do something.

[Rich Klein]

You may feel it's easier to go unnoticed.

I just checked the PSA pop reports (and if I'm off by a few I apologize)

The key is going for 9's -- because if you hit a 9 -- you get serious competition by the registry people

My quick math (and again I say I could be off) is that the 67 Sammy Ellis card has 12 9's or better out of 108 cards which is an 11 percent ratio.

The 1961 Cheney (which is a reasonably difficult card in itself) is nine 9's or better out of 133 which is about 7 percent.

If you hit the 9's on these cards -- you make some pretty serious money.

RIch

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Peter,

Yes, Susor bought those two Jim Kings directly from "excuzme". I communicated with that dealer recently and he told me that he keeps a log of all of his sales so these two purchases should documented and the scans were saved for our database. There is an extensive visual database of Susor's eBay purchases the over the last 2-1/2 years.

As far as stars versus commons, the PSA Registry has made low population commons more valuable than stars. From a raw buyers end, you can buy a $5 or $10 common and bump it to make an outrageous profit. Here's an example from the Network 54 post-war forum post by Jim Crandell (davalillo). In fact even after reading "The Markel Report" early yesterday, Crandell and I exchanged several e-mails and still doesn't think Susor alters cards. Amazing.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=110886

Susor recently sold a '59 Billy Pierce AS PSA 8 for $3001. We have a good scan of what looks to be the identical raw card with a clearly rounded batwing type corner that in the graded card looks squared up and sharp. Under Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Law, this could potentially be a $9003 judgment against Susor if the buyer decides to pursue it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

To me, the evidence is compelling, particularly when combined with the fact that the same guy bought and sold the cards.

[calvindog]

Yeah, I would have to agree with Dan and Peter: this one is a slam dunk. Disgraceful. Whatever happened to people wanting to work hard to make money instead of stealing it?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Yeah, I would have to agree with Dan and Peter: this one is a slam dunk. Disgraceful. Whatever happened to people wanting to work hard to make money instead of stealing it?

Who says doctoring cards is not hard work?

[judsonhamlin]

Hey Jeff - Those kind of people keep you and I employed.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Sean_C

I don't know how far things will go with eBay removing Scott. What I'd suggest Dan would be to either contact the FBI and/or USPS postal inspectors office (mail fraud) to see if they want to pursue it, or send an email to O'Keefe and see if he might want to run a story about it. Either way, I think it'll get more accomplished than waiting for eBay to do something.

Um....both, probably make that all 3 (Okeefe, FBI, Postal Inspector) are already aware of this thread, I assure you. I am not quite sure this rises to the top of the priority scale, but that is their call. They know about it.

edited to add that I am actually not positive all of those people mentioned are aware of this thread. I have known all to read the board frequently and would be surprised if they aren't aware of it, or at least will be soon.

[Zach Wheat]

Wow, very enlightening. Great Job Dan.