delete

[D.P.Johnson]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I dont know who he is, but I think the OP may have some information that he's holding back until the time is right. I do know this, gpark73 is from New Jersey. Let's see, who else is from New Jersey?

Funny how Probstein sells all these cards, they magically get bumps and then re-appear back in his auctions. Hmmmm....

I hear ya brother.
It would be interesting to see what address all these purchases are being shipped to...I think that would solve a lot of the mystery...

[D.P.Johnson]

Also....I believe that altering cards is considered fraud, so someone could theorectically contact the local D.A. in Jersey...Someone there might be bored enough to look into it...

[Theo_450]

I think the flip was doctored. Why is there no decimal in the half grade

8.5...

8 5 .......

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Theo_450

I think the flip was doctored. Why is there no decimal in the half grade

8.5...

8 5 .......

Sometimes the dust removal feature on scanners removes the decimal because it thinks it is dust.

[Theo_450]

Originally Posted by glchen

Sometimes the dust removal feature on scanners removes the decimal because it thinks it is dust.

I am still a wookie! OH, OH, the scanner removed the decimal place!!!!!!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by D.P.Johnson

Also....I believe that altering cards is considered fraud, so someone could theorectically contact the local D.A. in Jersey...Someone there might be bored enough to look into it...

ALTERING cards is not fraud. Altering and then saying they aren't, is fraud. It's a slippery slope and I abhor the altering (major altering) that goes on. However, if I trim a card and then submit it to any grading company, and they numerically holder it, I have not committed fraud. The grading company has made a mistake...and unless they KNEW it was altered and still graded it numerically, they didn't commit fraud either. I am not a lawyer but I think fraud generally has to do with deception. And you won't be prosecuted in our hobby, generally speaking, for being incompetent.

And for the record I have been told, by respected sources, that most authorities aren't jumping at baseball card trimming/altering cases. That being said, I wish they were and I wish fraudsters would get a heavier hand than they seem to.

[nsaddict]

I agree with most in regards to fraud, but don't understand why so many fingers are pointed at Probstein? The guy is only the middle-man with 8000+ feedbacks per month. Think about it, nearly 300 per day! One of the most prolific card sellers of all time! Should he be able to track and dig into every sale? Rick has had the nuts to come on this site and try to explain things. You have the right not to bid, it's that simple. If someone has concrete proof I'd like to hear it. I have no affiliation whatsover and do bid when I need a card at a price that I'm comfortable with. Same with the auction houses. To be continued for sure

[Leon]

Originally Posted by nsaddict

I agree with most in regards to fraud, but don't understand why so many fingers are pointed at Probstein? The guy is only the middle-man with 8000+ feedbacks per month. Think about it, nearly 300 per day! One of the most prolific card sellers of all time! Should he be able to track and dig into every sale? Rick has had the nuts to come on this site and try to explain things. You have the right not to bid, it's that simple. If someone has concrete proof I'd like to hear it. I have no affiliation whatsover and do bid when I need a card at a price that I'm comfortable with. Same with the auction houses. To be continued for sure

I agree with you.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by nsaddict

I agree with most in regards to fraud, but don't understand why so many fingers are pointed at Probstein?

Very well, I’ll connect the dots for you. It was learned in the Art Shell thread that a guy by the name of Joseph M Pankiewicz was buying PSA graded cards from Probstein auctions, re-subbing them for higher grades and re-listing them again with Probstein. Some cards he made $1000s of dollars on. He was also caught schilling on those very same auctions. Joseph M Pankiewicz is from New Jersey, just a few miles from Probstein. Coincidence? It was my theory at the time that the cards never really exchanged hands, that Joseph M Pankiewicz and Probstein were in cahoots with each other to make it appear (for the sake of the original consignor) that a transaction occurred, and there was also an insider at PSA they gave them magical bumps on undeserving cards.

Now we have the very same situation happening again with another eBay user (gpark73) that also happens to live in where? In New Jersey. Oh, and guess what? He’s also schilling his auctions. Look at the bid history of the Henry card in this thread. Gpark73 with a feedback score of 397 won the original auction and then he also bid on the card the second time around. Again, it’s all right there in the bid history.

So we have the same MO happening twice now with Probstein. It’s like déjà vu all over again. Do you honestly think it’s just a coincidence? If nothing else, the guy is guilty of schilling his own auctions and Probstein needs to do something about it. I am going to try my hardest the true identity of gpark73

Originally Posted by nsaddict

If someone has concrete proof I'd like to hear it.

No concrete proof, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

[Theo_450]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Very well, I’ll connect the dots for you. It was learned in the Art Shell thread that a guy by the name of Joseph M Pankiewicz was buying PSA graded cards from Probstein auctions, re-subbing them for higher grades and re-listing them again with Probstein. Some cards he made $1000s of dollars on. He was also caught schilling on those very same auctions. Joseph M Pankiewicz is from New Jersey, just a few miles from Probstein. Coincidence? It was my theory at the time that the cards never really exchanged hands, that Joseph M Pankiewicz and Probstein were in cahoots with each other to make it appear (for the sake of the original consignor) that a transaction occurred, and there was also an insider at PSA they gave them magical bumps on undeserving cards.

Now we have the very same situation happening again with another eBay user (gpark73) that also happens to live in where? In New Jersey. Oh, and guess what? He’s also schilling his auctions. Look at the bid history of the Henry card in this thread. Gpark73 with a feedback score of 397 won the original auction and then he also bid on the card the second time around. Again, it’s all right there in the bid history.

So we have the same MO happening twice now with Probstein. It’s like déjà vu all over again. Do you honestly think it’s just a coincidence? If nothing else, the guy is guilty of schilling his own auctions and Probstein needs to do something about it. I am going to try my hardest the true identity of gpark73



No concrete proof, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

So much for my decimal theory.

[nsaddict]

David,

"No concrete proof, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming."

Really? To suggest overwhelming evidence that Probstein has a hand in this is totally absurd at this point. The Art Shell thread was a full year ago and nearly 100K transactions later. I agree there are some shady consignors playing the grading game and receiving great returns. The hobby should keep an eye on this for sure. The OP (Striker) has posted some great comparison pics but a heck of a lot more info would be required to make it "overwhelming" in my opinion. The New Jersey connection adds one brick to the house, anyone have more bricks to add?

[D.P.Johnson]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Very well, I’ll connect the dots for you. It was learned in the Art Shell thread that a guy by the name of Joseph M Pankiewicz was buying PSA graded cards from Probstein auctions, re-subbing them for higher grades and re-listing them again with Probstein. Some cards he made $1000s of dollars on. He was also caught schilling on those very same auctions. Joseph M Pankiewicz is from New Jersey, just a few miles from Probstein. Coincidence? It was my theory at the time that the cards never really exchanged hands, that Joseph M Pankiewicz and Probstein were in cahoots with each other to make it appear (for the sake of the original consignor) that a transaction occurred, and there was also an insider at PSA they gave them magical bumps on undeserving cards.

Now we have the very same situation happening again with another eBay user (gpark73) that also happens to live in where? In New Jersey. Oh, and guess what? He’s also schilling his auctions. Look at the bid history of the Henry card in this thread. Gpark73 with a feedback score of 397 won the original auction and then he also bid on the card the second time around. Again, it’s all right there in the bid history.

So we have the same MO happening twice now with Probstein. It’s like déjà vu all over again. Do you honestly think it’s just a coincidence? If nothing else, the guy is guilty of schilling his own auctions and Probstein needs to do something about it. I am going to try my hardest the true identity of gpark73



No concrete proof, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

This is the type of nexus I'm referring to. If this could be proven, all of the involved parties would be "screwed" (pardon my french)...

[D.P.Johnson]

Originally Posted by Leon

ALTERING cards is not fraud. Altering and then saying they aren't, is fraud. It's a slippery slope and I abhor the altering (major altering) that goes on. However, if I trim a card and then submit it to any grading company, and they numerically holder it, I have not committed fraud. The grading company has made a mistake...and unless they KNEW it was altered and still graded it numerically, they didn't commit fraud either. I am not a lawyer but I think fraud generally has to do with deception. And you won't be prosecuted in our hobby, generally speaking, for being incompetent.

And for the record I have been told, by respected sources, that most authorities aren't jumping at baseball card trimming/altering cases. That being said, I wish they were and I wish fraudsters would get a heavier hand than they seem to.

You're correct. I typed that response pretty quickly. That being said, I think if a nexus could be shown that a person is buying cards with the specific intent of altering and re-selling them for a profit (which it appears this person is doing), could potentially be considered fraud. This type of behavior if combined with shill bidding during a re-sale could certainly bolster the case...

[MBMiller25]

What do you want to bet that GPark37 is Joseph M Pankiewicz?

I know I wouldn't be shocked in the least if this GPark37 turns out to be Joe P.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by Leon

ALTERING cards is not fraud. Altering and then saying they aren't, is fraud. It's a slippery slope and I abhor the altering (major altering) that goes on. However, if I trim a card and then submit it to any grading company, and they numerically holder it, I have not committed fraud. The grading company has made a mistake...and unless they KNEW it was altered and still graded it numerically, they didn't commit fraud either. I am not a lawyer but I think fraud generally has to do with deception. And you won't be prosecuted in our hobby, generally speaking, for being incompetent.

And for the record I have been told, by respected sources, that most authorities aren't jumping at baseball card trimming/altering cases. That being said, I wish they were and I wish fraudsters would get a heavier hand than they seem to.

Leon,

Actually on some of these points, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.

You are right that trimming a card and sending it to grading company isn't fraud in itself - unless you sell the card then it probably is fraud. In the legal arena, there can be criminal fraud and civil fraud. Civil fraud is easier to prove. There is fraud by deliberate deception and also fraud by non-disclosure.

In Texas the elements of a cause of action for fraud by nondisclosure are:

(1) the defendant failed to disclose facts to the plaintiff;
(2) the defendant had a duty to disclose those facts;
(3) the facts were material;
(4) the defendant knew the plaintiff was ignorant of the facts and the plaintiff did not have an equal opportunity to discover the facts;
(5) the defendant was deliberately silent when it had a duty to speak;
(6) by failing to disclose the facts, the defendant intended to induce the plaintiff to take some action or refrain from acting;
(7) the plaintiff relied on the defendant's nondisclosure; and
(8) the plaintiff was injured as a result of acting without that knowledge.

Reservoir Syst., Inc. v. TGS–NOPEC Geophysical Co., L.P., 335 S.W.3d 297, 306 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied)

The key issue is if trimming or some other type of alteration is a material issue. In the case of consumer fraud, courts have ruled that a "deception is material, in that it is likely to influence the consumer’s purchasing decision". To me, if someone trims a card that clearly will improve the appearance, then it's a material change, since knowing that the card has been significantly altered will influence my decision to purchase the card.

You are right in that law enforcement has been reluctant to prosecute these types of cases. I've learned that lesson the hard way. I believe the biggest problem with doctored graded cards are chain a custody issues since the card passes through so many hands.

With all of this said, it appears the most effective avenue for exposing these kinds of activities has been this forum, Net54Baseball.com and once again I commend you for moderating this forum and not backing down on the fraudsters when they get exposed. Keep up the fantastic work.

[D.P.Johnson]

Great post Dan Markel.
While it's nice we share some of this fraudulent actiity on here, I think it's also important to bring it to law enforcements attention when we discover it. As you know, the "squeaky" wheel will eventually get some attention. It doesn't take much to make a phone call to the local D.A. and/or A.G. to report this type of fraud. And, who knows...maybe one of "bored" investigators or interns or whatever will take some interest in it and get the ball moving on some of these scumbags...

[Leon]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

Leon,

Actually on some of these points, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.

You are right that trimming a card and sending it to grading company isn't fraud in itself - unless you sell the card then it probably is fraud - depending on the severity of the trimming. In the legal arena, there can be criminal fraud and civil fraud. Civil fraud is easier to prove. There is fraud by deliberate deception and also fraud by non-disclosure.

In Texas the elements of a cause of action for fraud by nondisclosure are:

(1) the defendant failed to disclose facts to the plaintiff;
(2) the defendant had a duty to disclose those facts;
(3) the facts were material;
(4) the defendant knew the plaintiff was ignorant of the facts and the plaintiff did not have an equal opportunity to discover the facts;
(5) the defendant was deliberately silent when it had a duty to speak;
(6) by failing to disclose the facts, the defendant intended to induce the plaintiff to take some action or refrain from acting;
(7) the plaintiff relied on the defendant's nondisclosure; and
(8) the plaintiff was injured as a result of acting without that knowledge.

Reservoir Syst., Inc. v. TGS–NOPEC Geophysical Co., L.P., 335 S.W.3d 297, 306 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied)

The key issue is if trimming or some other type of alteration is a material issue. In the case of consumer fraud, courts have ruled that a "deception is material, in that it is likely to influence the consumer’s purchasing decision". To me, if someone trims a card that clearly will improve the appearance, then it's a material change, since knowing that the card has been significantly altered will influence my decision to purchase the card.

You are right in that law enforcement has been reluctant to prosecute these types of cases. I've learned that lesson the hard way. I believe the biggest problem with doctored graded cards are chain a custody issues since the card passes through so many hands.

With all of this said, it appears the most effective avenue for exposing these kinds of activities has been this forum, Net54Baseball.com and once again I commend you for moderating this forum and not backing down on the fraudsters when they get exposed. Keep up the fantastic work.

Hey Dan
That was possibly the best post I can remember, from someone disagreeing with me. And actually, if someone trimmed a card, got it numerically graded, and then sold it..... it certainly would/could be fraud. (if that is what you were saying?) Those elements look like fairly low barriers to proving fraud. Thanks for posting them. Thanks for the kind words on the forum too. The other mods and I appreciate it.

[MikeGarcia]

....The only seller I've ever seen who adds the phrase '' likely trimmed'' to the title of a graded card auction is Rick Probstein ; if he/they are suspicious they share that to the buyers.... with the volume though , it is certainly possible that something gets past them...
.... you can search his ''sold'' and/or ''completed'' graded sportscards for the keyword '' trimmed''....

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Leon

And actually, if someone trimmed a card, got it numerically graded, and then sold it..... it certainly would/could be fraud.

For the life of me, I don't, nor have I ever, understood this statement. At some point, either in a collector's lifetime or not, these cards will get sold. Therefore, according to this logic, altering a card at any point is condemning someone (whoever that end seller may be) to a fraudulent act.

Therefore, the argument for it to be ok to alter a card that you (not you, Leon, but anyone) intend to keep is bogus.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by conor912

For the life of me, I don't, nor have I ever, understood this statement. At some point, either in a collector's lifetime or not, these cards will get sold. Therefore, according to this logic, altering a card at any point is condemning someone (whoever that end seller may be) to a fraudulent act.

Therefore, the argument for it to be ok to alter a card that you (not you, Leon, but anyone) intend to keep is bogus.

Not at all.

I have a few cards that are trimmed. One T206 was at one point rather tall. I'm positive it wouldn't have fit the pages available in the 80's. In fact, it's still too tall despite being trimmed. I'm sure that it was trimmed so it wouldn't stick out of the page too far. That was both common and unfortunate. (And more common on E90-1s)

But I bought the card as trimmed.
The trimming is really obvious.
Someday when I replace it, I'll sell it as trimmed. Perhaps in an "A" holder, perhaps not.

No fraud.

Now if some future buyer re-trims it and sells it without disclosure, or does it well enough to pass a grading company, that's a problem.
The key is in the representation.

Steve B