Jim Crandell's personal thread

[Archive]

Posted By: shane leonard

Jim,
I could show you examples of where you have asked other collectors to share information that was with another collector. Heck, you have asked me to share with you things that were private conversations. And I did do that, because I felt you needed to know. You mentioned this statement, "You think its morally right that if another major collector tells me something in confidence that I disclose it on the boards?"
I will answer your question. Yes, I do think it is morally wrong to discuss what a COLLECTOR specifically says to you in private and you share it on an open board. However, you could have answered the question this way," one of the MAJOR collectors told me that....."

My question is there a moral difference if it is a major collector vs. a lower level collector?

These reoccuring questions that you have for Doug Allen regarding things that you don't like about Mastro or their practices. Why not call them up and ask them face to face instead of calling them out on the mat every other week on an open forum? My collection is no where near yours and I certainly have lost a little confidence with PSA and some of the auction houses that I used to do business with. If I had invested the time and money into my collection like yours, I would feel like I am owed. I just don't think I would expect it on an open forum like you request.

Regards,
Shane Leonard

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Leon--we agree 100 percent. You just said it better.

Martindl,

Thats a good point. I am trying to get at the character of the guy though and asking did he know when he was altering the cards if it directly violated the policies of SGC and PSA...and I did have some follow-ups which related to present preactices.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Shane,

E-mail me at home--I will try to help. I thought I conveyed their overall feeling but perhaps not well. Also remember that I don't talk to all of them--there is quite a lot of competition for certain cards.

I am interested in answers for the hobby from Doug Allen--not for me--just think its appropriate he answer questions about firms past and current policies publicly.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: shane leonard

PSA will refund money back to you if they incorrectly graded a card that was trimmed. I have found two cards in my collection and Joe made good on it. I see your point about spending $200K and a company giving you a $10K refund on a card that was messed up. I think this is wise for a company to refund the money. If PSA or SGC guarantees their product, why not go directly to them instead of the auction house? For customer service issues, I would be glad to handle that for all of our clients, not just the big ones.

Shane

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

I see now Jim. This is for the better of the hobby. Its not for your own personal benefit correct?

I just need to spend $200k with an auction house and then I can sit back with a sigh of relief that if one 10k card comes up to be altered I can get that 10k back. That works great than for you and the other MAJOR collectors doesn't it?

But if I spend $1500 in the auction house on one card then I fall in the boat of going by the disclaimer.

I'm pulling for you Jim, clean up the "hobby" for all the MAJOR collectors.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

My whole problem with Jim's stance is that if he doesn't care whether the cards in his collection are altered (and we know that for a fact since he sent them in for half grade bumps on the condition that any card found to be "not right" was to be returned as is) then why does he care about future cards being altered? An altered card is an altered card whether he owns it now or in the future.

The whole issue really doesn't affect me one way or the other....To me it's sort of like the tree falling in the forest. If a card is altered and nobody can tell, was it really altered?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Dave,

Give me a break! You asked me for specific examples of dealer names--I gave them to you. You asked me how exactly would return cards--I told you.

Do I want to get rid of card alteration which hurts us all--of course.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

Leon,

I actually think the issue of the legal obligation of an auction house to accept the return of a slabbed altered card might be a bit more involved than you think. Peter S and I had a spirited exchange on this question in a thread last year. To make my point let me give an extreme example-Coaches Corner. In my view they would be found to have fraudulently sold those autographs with Morales' authentication. Under the reasonable person standard, they should have known the authenticator was not qualified to render the opinion and they should have sought a second opinion from a recognized authenticator before selling the item. Now let's jump to case of slabbed cards. Just as in the case of the incompetent autograph authenticator, I would make the argument that grading companies in the very early days of grading were not adequately qualified to detect alterations. The issue had not yet received prominance (so therefore they weren't necesarily looking for it) and the alterers were probably way ahead of the grading companies in their ability to get things by. Therefore, it's my view (which admitedly is probably a minority view) that unless an auction house (1) discloses that a statistically significant percentage of slabbed cards from certain issues are believed to be altered, (2) performs its own inspection on slabbed cards using the latest technology and performed by people with appropriate expertise, or (3) resubmits the card to the grading company for the purpose of checking for alterations, a good faith purchaser of a slabbed altered card would have a colorable legal claim against the auction house. The basis would be that under the reasonable person standard the auction house should have known of the risk of alteration and taken steps (e.g., disclosure, inspection and/or resubmittal) to protect its good faith bidders.

I might add that I have discussed this point from the legal perspective. From the business perspective, I agree with Jim C that an auction house (for their good customers at least) would irrespective of any legal obligation accept the return and then seek restitution from the grading company.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Dan,

Just to make it clear, that is the case with everyone that resubmits--your card goes up in grade to an 8.5 or as I told Joe--hopefully some 9s-- or it is returned to you.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Corey,

That was an interesting, thoughtful post.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

Jim-

It all boils down to your just *issing in the wind. Each time you bring this up, does/has it got you anywhere? Is Doug going to magically decide to open up Mastro's books the 34th time you ask to be let in on this private information?

It just gets really repetitive Jim, and yes, its each time Doug's name is brought up with anything...you immediately start up again. You can take this anyway you want to (I know you will). I'm just saying you may as well let the issue die at this point. And no I'm not trying to be hard on you Jim...I'd still just as likely be willing to grab dinner with you when your in Alpharetta at some point...I just feel like we wouldn't get through the appetizer without Doug's name being brought up.


Dave

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Jim, would you send them to PSA for the bump if the cards were subject to being cracked out if found to be altered?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Dave,

Aha--this is why it is different this time--I have my own thread. You have my word I will not bring up Doug's name on any other thread except my own.

And if you are sick of hearing about this you don't have to open my thread.

And I still will buy you dinner in Alpharetta and you will see I can talk about a lot of different things.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Carrying weight….I agree.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that a person so openly outraged by altered cards wont even start cleaning house with his own collection. If this so called 15% number of graded cards is altered then one would stand to think that Jim has quite a few cards that may be altered.

Wanting to make changes to any system or business takes sacrifice, passion and a complete dedication to your cause and mission. Not addressing issues in your own camp, with your own collection certainly does say to me or anyone else that Jim really doesn't want to make a change.

Think about it folks, Jim isn’t broke he has tons of coin in these cards and these grading companies/auction houses opinions and practices. What better way to get answers than to step up point out major issues within in your own collections and hold the people responsible in a court of law. If that’s a little to extreme hit the press (TV, papers, magazines etc.) we all witnessed first hand the press this recent Mantle/SGC issue received.

Imagine the headline on this story…”Passionate collector’s dreams/investments destroyed due to shady and unsavory business practices by major auction houses and leading grading companies…”

It may sound a bit cliché but making the world a better place really does start at home.

To be blunt with Jim it’s really a case of man up or go away quietly.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

“Agree with me or not, my goal is to stem the flow of newly altered cards into the hobby.”


Translation: So that the mess I stir up doesn’t effect the value of my cards that I will sell one day back into the hobby. The very same hobby I’m trying to hold everyone else responsible for cleaning up.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Jim is like the cop out busting the pot smoking hippies, meanwhile his kid is at home smoking a doobie in the laundry room.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Wonka,

Have no plans to sell my cards now or ever--but don't let the facts get in the way.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Wonka,

Did not read your previous attack but wish you would go away quietly--you never have anything positive to add--just snide comments so please stay off my thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

So your cards will never be sold ever Jim? So then what do you care if they are altered value really is nothing at this point.

Fact is someday Jim your cards will be sold, and if your sitting on tons of high grade cards that are altered they will end right back up in the very hobby you're on your soapbox pointing out issues with.

Then I guess your altered cards will be someone else's problem...which makes it a bit better for you....

[Archive]

Posted By: John

It may be your thread Jim..but not your board. I’ll take my cues from the moderators on where I post and don’t post Jim but thanks for the advice.

Actually Jim, if you would read my posts above I think I made a few valid points, perhaps ones you don’t like but valid points nonetheless.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I am going to be tenacious with this question...just as tenacious as Jim is when he's questioning someone.

Jim, would you send your cards in to PSA for the bump if you knew they were going to crack open cards they found to be altered?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Wonka,

In my opinion you have never made valid points--your sole purpose is to try to insult, ridicule and embarass and I would appreciate it if could leave this thread to the discussion of serious issues and take your Jim Crandell bashing somewhere else.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

EDan,

Not sure--would have to think about that.

Probably yes...as I do not think would affect that many of my cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I am no lawyer but I do watch Judge Judy when I can so I at least have that going for me. I do have to respectfully disagree with you. As you start your case you say

"I would make the argument that grading companies in the very early days of grading were not adequately qualified to detect alterations."

Stop right there. If they weren't adequately qualified to detect alterations then they shouldn't be in business. I doubt a judge would say an authenticating company didn't know how to authenticate, charges customers to authenticate, then isn't liable for authenticating.

I do agree that an auction house should use best judgement all of the time but I still don't agree with your first premise. I don't know what the legal term is but "motion to suppress denied". (that's the only term I remember )......take care

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Jim; I’ve been told you’re a smart guy…but I have to wonder. Pointing out what I see to be inconsistencies in your posts and way of thinking is what a discussion board is all about. I’m not sure how you seem to feel these are just attacks. Is there some mild venom in my post directed toward you I wont deny that, and for the record you're no Boy Scout.

Do I take shots at you? Sure do and here's why, partly because you’re a big target and you bring it on yourself.

I’ll also go on a limb and say you crave it, in fact I would say your more thrilled about having your own thread drawing attention to you and that excites you more than cleaning up the hobby or chatting with Doug Allen or whoever.

Do you take shots at me and others yes you do. So get over it read what I’m asking you and or pointing out, and respond without a burying your head in the sad sand.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Jim, you are a PSA hall of famer so I'm certain that PSA would make an exception for you when you send all your cards in for the bump and look for alterations. IMO that is putting your money where your mouth is and will help you in your efforts to clean up the hobby more than anything else you can do. You may take a hit in your wallet and your registry, but you will walk on water when you talk about cleaning up the hobby.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

Leon,

I said:

I would make the argument that grading companies in the very early days of grading were not adequately qualified to detect alterations."

You said:

"Stop right there. If they weren't adequately qualified to detect alterations then they shouldn't be in business. I doubt a judge would say an authenticating company didn't know how to authenticate, charges customers to authenticate, then isn't liable for authenticating."

I say:

1. If they were adequately qualified to detect alterations, then why is everybody so concerned about graded cards from certain issues being altered and why in fact have so many of such cards been found to be altered?

2. Who said the grading company isn't liable? I agree they would be. The issue I was addressing was whether the auction house would be liable also.

[Archive]

Posted By: Alan Elefson

Jim-
No one on this board (or any serious vintage collector) will ever take you seriously unless you do exactly as Wonka suggested in his first post on this thread. If you were to have your entire collection reviewed and a certain percentage was found to be altered, I would love to see PSA's response. That act alone would serve to clean up our hobby/business a thousand times more so than the constant harranguing of Mastro by yourself on this board. To paraphrase what Wonka said, if the press were to learn that your collection (I am not sure of the dollar figure, but I am guessing it is quite high) has altered cards that were graded by "professional" grading companies and those companies will not admit to their mistakes, the uproar will reverberate through the collecting community until PSA (and other grading companies) change their practice. This would also stem the flow of newly altered cards (an area you say you are most concerned with) as grading companies would be forced to improve their practices or risk having to pay up for their mistakes.
The only thing that might hold you back is the discovery of altered cards in your collection, and the possibility that you will not be made whole on cards that were incorrectly graded. If you are not willing to accept this risk, please stop saying you are doing this on behalf of the entire hobby/business. You are only doing it for your own gains. If that is the case, fine, but please do not continue to post claiming you are fixing things for all of us.
Alan Elefson
aelefson@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think Jim's thread will easily pass 100 posts, quite soon at that.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

you said:

"I say:

1. If they were adequately qualified to detect alterations, then why is everybody so concerned about graded cards from certain issues being altered and why in fact have so many of such cards been found to be altered?

2. Who said the grading company isn't liable? I agree they would be. The issue I was addressing was whether the auction house would be liable also."




To address question 1. This statement has no connection with the liability of the auction house, imo. It's more a testament to the fact that mistakes have been made....not by the auction houses but by the authenticator(s). Regardless of this statment I still say if they aren't qualified then they shouldn't be in business and ARE SOLELY liable for their actions.

To address question 2. Almost every auction house has a disclaimer that you agree to abide by when signing up to bid. If you don't agree with it then you don't bid. If you sign then you are waiving your right for liability where the venue is concerned. Maybe I am off base here but that would be my thought process. I signed.....so I abide...
take care

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Sorry Dan, Alan--not going to do it--if that makes you think the less of me fine--I have addressed this issue hundreds of times. Not one major collector or even mid-sized collector has done this and I am not doing it.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Barry,

It will eventually get into the thousands!? as almost every time I post it will be on this as I stay off others. I just wish others would not come on here to ridicule or attack me--thats the purpose of having my own thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Okay. Thanks for answering Jim. I know you've answered the question a million times so I'll ask it again in about 9 months.

<-----------Winking smiley

[Archive]

Posted By: Alan Elefson

Jim-
I understand (and am doing my best to respect) your feelings on the matter, but please also try and do the same for those of us who disagree with you.
Alan Elefson
aelefson@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

This thread is going to be controversial no matter how you slice it. But I agree we could do without the personal attacks.

I do think the grading companies have to take the onus of the responsibility if a card is misgraded, and not the auction house. There's nothing wrong with a little good will on the part of the seller, but the issue isn't always black and white.

How many times have the grading companies disagreed, where one company deems a card trimmed and the other one gives it a numerical grade? It might become really difficult to objectively determine who got it right and who was wrong.

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRShanus

"To address question 1. This statement has no connection with the liability of the auction house, imo. It's more a testament to the fact that mistakes have been made....not by the auction houses but by the authenticator(s). Regardless of this statment I still say if they aren't qualified then they shouldn't be in business and ARE SOLELY liable for their actions."

It has everything to do with the liability of the auction house, which is predicated on them reasonably being expected to know grading companies were not qualified in the early years, thus creating a current duty to either disclose, inspect or resubmit.

"To address question 2. Almost every auction house has a disclaimer that you agree to abide by when signing up to bid. If you don't agree with it then you don't bid. If you sign then you are waiving your right for liability where the venue is concerned. Maybe I am off base here but that would be my thought process."

Respectfully, I do think you're off base here. By that reasoning, Coaches Corner has no liability for all the bogus autographs they've sold. I have a big problem with that one. Disclaimers are all well and good but IMO the law still would require an auction house to either (1) disclose info it had that it reasonably should be expected to know its good faith bidders do not have, which info is material to the decision whether and how high to bid, or (2) take reasonable actions to protect its good faith bidders, in the absence of which those bidders would be incurring risks they reasonably did not expect to incur.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony N.

I would like to point out that before Jim's thread over a year ago it was not common knowledge that Mastro did work on cards, and thanks to his efforts Doug said they no longer do so. Whether you like his methods or not, Jim has brought about some change and certainly does bring some thought provoking topics to the board.
Since he's agreed not to hijack other threads perhaps the same courtesy could be extended to him on this one.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

We are going to politely agree to disagree on these matters. You never answered my question pertaining to signing the terms and conditions with the auction houses either. As a lawyer you have to agree that if you sign the terms and conditions, and are legally allowed to sign, then you are taking responsibility for what it says and agree to it?.......take care

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Coaches Corner unquestionably knows they are selling bad material. The controversy surrounding their business certainly hasn't escaped them.

When I sell a graded card I assume it was done right. Not all are, but I have to go by that premise if visually a card looks okay. But to say it's understood that the grading companies got it wrong rather often in the early days doesn't get them off the hook; and it doesn't obligate an auction house to question all early certs either.

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

Hi Jim,
I don't mean to hijack your thread but I have a comment related to a statement above.

It's one thing to have a policy that is acceptable to both buyer and seller. When the seller is intentionally misleading his customers, I don't think they can hide behind it.

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRShanus

Leon,

First, what is in the terms and conditions that specifically absolves the auction house of disclosing material info about a lot that its bidders would not otherwise be expected to know?

Second, EVEN IF there is such language, that does not mean it would necessarily be enforceable. The law will not enforce certain contract language that is deemed to be against public policy, and I would strenuously argue that any language that gives an auction house free reign to commit fraud would be unenforceable.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Lets forget about Coaches Corner for a minute as they have too many issues to be taken seriously at this point.

I was going to let this go but your last statement has me going. Who says an auction company has free reign to commit fraud? By selling a graded card from a professional grading company they are committing fraud? That's crazy.. With everything we know I still don't think auction houses have a legal obligation to question professionally graded cards....Sorry, I can't buy that one... No way do I think you would win this in court either.....even though you do write extremely well. ...take care

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRShanus

"When I sell a graded card I assume it was done right."

Point is maybe you shouldn't make that assumption, at least with certain issues. What would be the big deal of adding a disclosure to the effect: "a statistically significant number of graded cards from certain issues have in fact been altered and all bidders buy such cards at their own risk"? The only reason an auction house would not want to make such a disclosure is because it might lower the price the card sells for, thereby indicating that the auction house was in fact concerned it was imparting new material info to its bidders.

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRShanus

"Lets forget about Coaches Corner for a minute as they have too many issues to be taken seriously at this point."

Sorry, but can't. When you're making a point you have to look at the implications of where that might take you, and IMO the implications of your point on this issue could absolve CC.

"I was going to let this go but your last statement has me going. Who says an auction company has free reign to commit fraud? By selling a graded card from a professional grading company they are committing fraud? That's crazy."

Where do I say selling a graded card from a professional grading company is fraud? What I'm saying is that selling such a card from certain issues WITHOUT either disclosing the risk of alteration, inspecting it to confirm it was not altered, or resubmitting it only as regards to the alteration issue could be found to be a fraudulent action. Disclosure is SO easy to make (see my post to Barry). WHY not make it other than out of concern you will realize less for your consignor, at which point you've just given support to the fraudulent allegation.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

How would an auction house define a statistically significant number? That could be enough to scare anybody away.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

Once I pay off Leon for some cards.....Iam going getting my new piano and WILL spend worthy time to my life. COntinuos bashing is silly. I hope some here find some new purposes in life because cards are not always fun while they should be.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

"Point is maybe you shouldn't make that assumption, at least with certain issues.

What would be the big deal of adding a disclosure to the effect: "a statistically significant number of graded cards from certain issues have in fact been altered and all bidders buy such cards at their own risk"? The only reason an auction house would not want to make such a disclosure is because it might lower the price the card sells for, thereby indicating that the auction house was in fact concerned it was imparting new material info to its bidders."


Or the other reason is that is an absurd disclosure to make. Where are these statistics you are referring to? Have PSA, SGC and GAI published the number of cards they have bought back? All you have is a grading company issuing an opinion on the condition of a card and applying whatever their criteria and assuming the associated liability, deciding to place a numerical grade on the card. Judging an encapsulated card as altered is also nothing more than an opinion, and in many cases one that is even more subject to error. There are statistics for how many cards are graded but none for those bought back or for those where an unspecified number of people have opined about the originality and authenticity of a card once encapsulated.

If the day comes where dealers have to start to give an outside opinion (and guarantee) on the opinion asserted by a grading company then there is really no point in having cards graded. Wouldn't this be like having a publicly traded company have an audit by a CPA firm and then have them hire another CPA firm to have them audit the audit process? Where do you stop? A bit silly, really.

[Archive]

Posted By: MikeU

"Re: Jim Crandell's personal thread February 27 2008, 3:38 PM
Leon,

Thank you--glad we stumbled on a situation that works for all.

This is why I disagree with you.

For sake of argument lets say I did $250K of business with XYZ Auction House and I bought a card for $10K that is a PSA 8. I then take it in to show Dave Forman--he looks at it and says this is beyond the shadow of a doubt a trimmed card. The president of the auction house comes to SGC listens to Dave and agrees. So that I will keep doing business in the future with him he writes me a check for $10K. Then he goes to PSA and attempts to get a refund.

I would maintain that an auction house would likely do that under these circumstances and that it is a good decision to do it.

But I may be wrong?"

Truth be said, if you were my client, I would write you the check. It would be that simple. Likey, I would be very dissapointed that you feel comfortable in transfering the burden of responsibility from the guilty party to an innocent bystander. As a big client, I probably would not even make you aware of this feeling, as every customer is managed uniquely and I would take this into account.

Since you are not my client, I can tell you I think it is complete BS that you would go after the auction company soley and leave the problem with the grader to them. If you truly believe this, you are absolutely full of *hit when you talk about caring about cleaning up the hobby from a utilitarian perspective.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

"Before Jim's thread over a year ago it was not common knowledge that Mastro did work on cards and thanks to his efforts Doug said they no longer do so........Jim has brought about change and certainly does bring some thought provoking topics to the board".

Thank you Anthony--I think you are one of the few to acknowledge that yet confronted with 1)a guy who admitted he takes creases out of cards and 2)a guy who got it out of him that he did this is totally iognored by the likes of Wonka, BoxingCardGuy, Dave from Alpharetta, Corey and others who ignore this and say I should (not anyone else)put my net worth at risk by having my collection regraded. Corey at least makes coherent arguments--the others act like I am the bad guy and are just outright crappy to me. Then you have others who used to be my friends like Al that just fawns over Doug Allen and acts offended that I am actually questioning him on his business and Marc who I used to think was a smart guy but is proving not to be.

I say BS--I should get the congratulations and appreciation of people for bringing this to light. If others tried as hard to push dealers/auction houses to disclose their policies and push them to be a more honest, transparent company instead of mocking those of us that are trying to effect change the hobby would be a better place.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Mike,

<<I think it is complete BS that you would go after the auction company soley and leave the problem with the grader to them.>>

Don't lose sight of the fact that in this case, Jim "suspects" that the auction house had a little something to do with the alterations. That's what makes the lines a little blurry.