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.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

I think that's a fair argument to make. I would be guessing at how well received it might be to a jury, but I do think that the onus is on the prosecuting attorney to make the case that it is a material fact that trimming cards for profit without disclosure equates to fraud. I do not think this is just a given. However, I do believe the fact that a perhaps surprisingly large percentage of the hobby still views this as a nothing burger is a significant hurdle to overcome when attempting to establish this as a material fact. Perhaps there is some precedent already established for the percentage of a population needed to sign off on something for it to be accepted as a material fact, but I think you're likely to find yourself rowing upstream if something like one-third of hobbyists disagree with this claim. If it were more like 3% of hobbyists, then it would be much easier to make that case. But I do think the percentage of people who see this as a nothing burger would matter to a jury.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

I think that's fair.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So Travis, if trimming is a nothingburger, why don't people like Brent disclose it? I would think the fact that it is so widespread but universally concealed almost per se shows materiality. But I would put on lots of witnesses too.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Travis, if trimming is a nothingburger, why don't people like Brent disclose it? I would think the fact that it is so widespread but universally concealed almost per se shows materiality. But I would put on lots of witnesses too.

I don't see Brent as someone who is in a position of needing to disclose what he may or may not think about a card. If I were running an auction house, I would make every effort possible to be a neutral third party. I would recognize that I am not a professional grader and would leave all grading and authenticity issues to the "professionals", regardless of my own personal views on them. If someone consigns a PSA 7 Hank Aaron RC, I list it as a PSA 7 Hank Aaron RC, no questions asked even if I think that left edge looks a bit suspect. If someone has an issue with that card, they can take it up with PSA. It's not my problem as it's not my job to "grade the graders". I could refer a card to PSA if the consignor agrees to it, but it's not my property either, so I can't just intercept it and confiscate the card just because BODA thinks they've found an issue with it. I also wouldn't ban a consignor for having sent me a card that later proved to be trimmed. Imagine being the guy who says, "I'm sorry Mr. Gretzky (or now, Mr. Seigel), but I cannot accept your Honus Wagner consignment. That card has been trimmed!" You might as well just pack your bags now if that's how you'd run your business. Someone would have to become a significant thorn in my side for me to want to cut them off. I suspect this is also why Brent eventually cut ties with Moser.

I realize there have been a lot of accusations thrown around about Brent, but none of them have been proven and much of it is quite clearly nonsense in my opinion. Again, I'll let the actual detectives sort that out. Until then, he's innocent until proven guilty in my book. I do business with PWCC because they have BY FAR the best platform available for buying and selling cards. I don't really care what conspiracy theories anyone else is into. If you think they are corrupt to high hell, then by all means, stop doing business with them. I'm not going to criticize you for it. But if you start preaching to me about why I too must sign off on your conspiracy theories and calling me "immoral" if I continue to do business with them, well then we have a problem and I'm probably going to tell you to go hump a cactus.