Article about Collecting and Fraud in the Hobby

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

So would it be fair for me to state your argument as being that it is a material fact that trimming a card for profit is tantamount to fraud because the vast majority of the hobby views it as such? But that other forms of "alteration" (be it cleaning, flattening out a bent corner, polishing a surface, soaking, etc.) are less clear and thus may not amount to being considered fraud as they do not reasonably meet the requirement of being a material fact since there appears to be a much wider spectrum of viewpoints on the matter?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but rather to make sure I can phrase your viewpoint in a way that you would sign off on.

If this phrasing passes the smell test, then I would ask whether you think the rest of the world (non-collectors) also shares this viewpoint. Surely, it is the majority opinion of the hobby. But is that enough to establish it as a material fact? This seems to be your argumnet. Because as we've discussed many times, a jury will ultimately be responsible for determining whether or not this behavior meets the criteria, not you nor anyone else arguing this case. If you believe that the majority of juries would conclude that card trimming for profit = fraud if not disclosed, then I believe this is where our disagreement lies. I do not think they would accept your argument that it is a material fact. I believe this viewpoint is a niche viewpoint that is primarily found within this hobby. Any defense attorney worth his salt could easily just point to nearly every other hobby or industry out there where this sort of behavior is widely accepted. The data also appears to support this, as there has never once been a case where someone was even charged with a crime, let alone found guilty of a crime for card trimming. And as you've pointed out many times, it's not because it has never been investigated. Perhaps this will change in the future. Maybe one day someone will be charged and convicted of card trimming for a profit. But until then, I think the more reasonable viewpoint to hold is that it is in fact not a crime.

I think materiality would be assessed in terms of the customers of the seller, not the world at large. So I do think it's a question of how the hobby views the particular alteration, not the New York City collective phonebook. In other words, context matters. Think of Magie and Magee. Who the hell outside the hobby would care? But that alteration clearly would be material in context.

As to part one, generally I would agree with that. I would define a material alteration as one a significant portion of potential buyers would deem important to their buying decision. It's not precise, but the law rarely is. So if most people wouldn't care if they weren't told about putting down a corner, not material. If we reach a point where most people don't care if a card has been trimmed, well, I would give up on the criminal law at that point.