Ashamed - Topps T206 Buy Back Fraud

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

I will tell you what IS most likely illegal. It is knowingly and intentionally selling something that isn't what it is purported to be. I think that is fraud.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not arguing with you, or defending Larry, but it is what its purported to be. It's a T206 card. It makes no mention of a specific card or grade - it's just as the Topps box says - a "Genuine T206 Card." Again, illegal? I'm not sure. Unethical? Very much so.

[Tennis13]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not arguing with you, or defending Larry, but it is what its purported to be. It's a T206 card. It makes no mention of a specific card or grade - it's just as the Topps box says - a "Genuine T206 Card." Again, illegal? I'm not sure. Unethical? Very much so.

In the literal sense, sure.

It does beg the question why I may pay more for a card or group of memorabilia that may be framed and presented nicely as opposed to one just in a slab, and why that may be different than being misled about a buyback or not? After all, this is just an old card presented nicely, right?

It's like one of those tricky mind games you see on NatGeo Network where they say A and B and never say C but by human nature your mind connects the dots and says C, even though it's not actually C at all.

This dude is a scumbag. Maybe you can serve as a character reference for him in the future, not because you want to defend him, but to explain potaytoze versus pahtahtoze. He knew exactly what he was doing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

David -- I know you enjoy being a contrarian, but the bottom line is that obviously Larry was representing these as having come directly from Topps, when they did not, they were franken-cards that he assembled himself. And obviously the reason he did it is that people for whatever reason are willing to pay more thinking they had come directly from Topps. So it's fraud. Is it the biggest fraud in history, no, it barely registers probably. But still, I think you are off base here.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Larry was representing these as having come directly from Topps, when they did not

Not a contrarian, just a realist. You're right, he was representing them as having come from Topps (as T206Collector also pointed out as I was typing this). I'm not arguing that fact. I'm arguing whether or not it's illegal to do so. The card itself has no trademark or copyright, so what is he really infringing upon here?

Tell, you what. If you think it's illegal, why don't you do the hobby a big favor and report it? I'll even save you some time. Larry lives (or I believe he did at one time) in Buffalo, NY. You can email the Buffalo police department at tips@bpdny.org or call them directly at (716) 847-2255. Please report back and let the board know what they say.

I keep repeating myself but obviously some don't get it. I think what Larry did was totally unethical. I'm not defending him, I'm sharing my opinion of what I believe to be true (whether or not it's a crime - that was the original question which I responded to). But, again, here's your chance to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting.

[Leon]

He isn't infringing (or at least that part I am not sure of) but he is committing fraud. Fraud is illegal and is a crime. As far as getting an authority very involved for what amounts to a few Happy Meals, I agree. It probably won't happen. But don't think for a second what he did wasn't criminal. It was. It is black and white and not any gray.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Not a contrarian, just a realist. You're right, he was representing them as having come from Topps (as T206Collector also pointed out as I was typing this). I'm not arguing that fact. I'm arguing whether or not it's illegal to do so. The card itself has no trademark or copyright, so what is he really infringing upon here?

Tell, you what. If you think it's illegal, why don't you do the hobby a big favor and report it? I'll even save you some time. Larry lives (or I believe he did at one time) in Buffalo, NY. You can email the Buffalo police department at tips@bpdny.org or call them directly at (716) 847-2255. Please report back and let the board know what they say.

I keep repeating myself but obviously some don't get it. I think what Larry did was totally unethical. I'm not defending him, I'm sharing my opinion of what I believe to be true (whether or not it's a crime - that was the original question which I responded to). But, again, here's your chance to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting.

[JohnP0621]

His whole story stinks. He claims it was his Brother that listed the cards on EBay yet in June 2017 he is trying to sell them on Net 54 to a member. Unless it was also his Brother that made him do it.
Sorry I don't buy his BS story.


John P

[tab]

if you have purchased a topps 206 "buyback" in the last several years there is a BIG chance that it is from the OP and not from topps. People buy and sell cards all the time. They may have changed hands several times. There would be no way to tell at this point. So unless you bought from him directly it's not going to make things right for lots of people in the hobby. Over such a long period of times I'm sure there are hundreds. Just my 2 cents

[T206Collector]

Using an old English "F" stamp on the back of a T206 card is a closer case. No law against that. But context is everything. If he said "I stamped this card myself" or "this stamp came from the desk of F Scott Fitzgerald" do you really think his legal culpability is the same?

[KendallCat]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Not a contrarian, just a realist. You're right, he was representing them as having come from Topps (as T206Collector also pointed out as I was typing this). I'm not arguing that fact. I'm arguing whether or not it's illegal to do so. The card itself has no trademark or copyright, so what is he really infringing upon here?

Tell, you what. If you think it's illegal, why don't you do the hobby a big favor and report it? I'll even save you some time. Larry lives (or I believe he did at one time) in Buffalo, NY. You can email the Buffalo police department at tips@bpdny.org or call them directly at (716) 847-2255. Please report back and let the board know what they say.

I keep repeating myself but obviously some don't get it. I think what Larry did was totally unethical. I'm not defending him, I'm sharing my opinion of what I believe to be true (whether or not it's a crime - that was the original question which I responded to). But, again, here's your chance to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting.

I think in this case it would be wise to not be trying to play devils advocate or LA Law, and even appearing to take his side or trying to argue semantics of what is legal or unethical is not the point. The fact that you are even trying to stay on the other side of the line is what is interesting, and if I was a collector or dealer and read your rhetoric I would not have any dealings with you now or in the future.

What he did was fraud which is illegal and punishable by law - period. Not too hard to understand. Not a matter of did Topps copyright it or trademark it for it to be fraud. Representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is fraud and illegal - period. Not sure what there is to be confused about on this one.

KC

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by KendallCat

I think in this case it would be wise to not be trying to play devils advocate or LA Law, and even appearing to take his side or trying to argue semantics of what is legal or unethical is not the point. The fact that you are even trying to stay on the other side of the line is what is interesting, and if I was a collector or dealer and read your rhetoric I would not have any dealings with you now or in the future.

What he did was fraud which is illegal and punishable by law - period. Not too hard to understand. Not a matter of did Topps copyright it or trademark it for it to be fraud. Representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is fraud and illegal - period. Not sure what there is to be confused about on this one.

KC

I wouldn't come down on David. He was clear that he was not defending Larry in any way. I think, rather, he was exploring some ideas and provoking discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

[ALR-bishop]

+ 1

[KendallCat]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I wouldn't come down on David. He was clear that he was not defending Larry in any way. I think, rather, he was exploring some ideas and provoking discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

Peter - I don't think I am coming down on him, but my friendly advice is when someone commits fraud, deceives a bunch of people out of money, it crosses state lines... that is a criminal act. To argue that it is not copyrighted by Topps as a way out does not make sense since that is not the main crime. The crime is that this person took hard earned money from a bunch of people by deceiving and cheating them, and whether you think you are right for standing up for them and arguing the merits of the law it is not a good look. People will associate him with this guy whether it is correct to do so or not, and I think the smart play would be to not be on the side of the "T206 buybacks guy" or appear to be on his side. Just my two cents - your mileage may vary.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by KendallCat

if I was a collector or dealer and read your rhetoric I would not have any dealings with you now or in the future.

Look here, prick, if you want to have a discussion, we can do so. But if you want to call my integrity into question, that takes it to another level.

Originally Posted by KendallCat

Representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is fraud and illegal - period.

Actually, I can give you many examples where representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is not fraud or illegal. Unethical - yes. Illegal - no. Do you want to listen or do you just want to be a prick?

Edited to add: I don't know why I keep having to reiterate this, but I'll do it once again. What Larry did was totally wrong, unethical, unscrupulous, deceitful, dishonest (fill in the adjective here). My original response was in question to whether or not he would be charged or prosecuted and I simply questioned the legality of it. I don't know why I have to keep clarifying my comments.

[Marchillo]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Look here, prick, if you want to have a discussion, we can do so. But if you want to call my integrity into question, that takes it to another level.



Actually, I can give you many examples where representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is not fraud or illegal. Unethical - yes. Illegal - no. Do you want to listen or do you just want to be a prick?

Edited to add: I don't know why I keep having to reiterate this, but I'll do it once again. What Larry did was totally wrong, unethical, unscrupulous, deceitful, dishonest (fill in the adjective here). My original response was in question to whether or not he would be charged or prosecuted and I simply questioned the legality of it. I don't know why I have to keep clarifying my comments.

I disagree with your opinion on this matter, although I get where you are coming from with it. But I agree I don't know why people would be upset with you. All your previous posts on the matter are clear as day. You present a logical argument but still find what the OP did as offensive as how other respondents feel.

[KendallCat]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Look here, prick, if you want to have a discussion, we can do so. But if you want to call my integrity into question, that takes it to another level.



Actually, I can give you many examples where representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is not fraud or illegal. Unethical - yes. Illegal - no. Do you want to listen or do you just want to be a prick?

Edited to add: I don't know why I keep having to reiterate this, but I'll do it once again. What Larry did was totally wrong, unethical, unscrupulous, deceitful, dishonest (fill in the adjective here). My original response was in question to whether or not he would be charged or prosecuted and I simply questioned the legality of it. I don't know why I have to keep clarifying my comments.

David - you might want to switch to decaf and drop the internet tough guy schtick, or maybe don't be so sensitive - your call. Just letting you know puffing your chest out is not impressing anyone but have at it.

Your integrity was not called into question(maybe your common sense on this matter trying to decipher law vs ethics), and everyone can read what I posted - "I would not chose to deal with or have dealings with someone whose Pov was one that still doubles down on trying to explore the nuances of what is fraud, what is illegal, what is unethical... pretty sure in this case it is clear cut that what he did was fraud and was carried out over among time and with 80+ people.

If someone makes fake Jordan rookies and sells them as legit 86 Fleer cards and makes money off of them is that fraud and illegal or just unethical so let them have at it. Need to clean the language up around here, or at least make it interesting for everyone to read

KC

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Look here, prick, if you want to have a discussion, we can do so. But if you want to call my integrity into question, that takes it to another level.



Actually, I can give you many examples where representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is not fraud or illegal. Unethical - yes. Illegal - no. Do you want to listen or do you just want to be a prick?

Edited to add: I don't know why I keep having to reiterate this, but I'll do it once again. What Larry did was totally wrong, unethical, unscrupulous, deceitful, dishonest (fill in the adjective here). My original response was in question to whether or not he would be charged or prosecuted and I simply questioned the legality of it. I don't know why I have to keep clarifying my comments.

One example would suffice, because in my decades of practicing law, knowingly misrepresenting an item for sale with intent to deceive is as pure an example of FRAUD as there is. Now of course there are exceptions and defenses: if I know you're lying, I can't rely on your misrepresentation, for example. But Larry misrepresented his franken-cards as originating from Topps, knowing he was lying, and intending to deceive people into paying more than if he had said for sale is a franken-card I put together myself. It's an open and shut case as far as I can see.

And to respond to your red herring, it probably wasn't illegal to assemble the cards. But so what. Selling them in interstate commerce via a misrepresentation was illegal.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not arguing with you, or defending Larry, but it is what its purported to be. It's a T206 card. It makes no mention of a specific card or grade - it's just as the Topps box says - a "Genuine T206 Card." Again, illegal? I'm not sure. Unethical? Very much so.

Here's the description on the eBay auctions from the OP/seller:

"1909-11 Topps Buyback Bobby Wallace HOF Piedmont 350 back.

I just acquired a huge lot of Topps Buybacks with Hall of Famers, Southern Leaguers, and tougher backs. These will be listed in the near future. "

It is a representation that it is a Topps product, which it isn't.

[ullmandds]

[QUOTE=T206Collector;1689394]Here's the description on the eBay auctions from the OP/seller:

"1909-11 Topps Buyback Bobby Wallace HOF Piedmont 350 back.

I just acquired a huge lot of Topps Buybacks with Hall of Famers, Southern Leaguers, and tougher backs. These will be listed in the near future. "

It is a representation that it is a Topps product, which it isn't.[/QUOTE

I didnt think these typically had "tougher backs?"

[Tao_Moko]

[QUOTE=ullmandds;1689415]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Here's the description on the eBay auctions from the OP/seller:

"1909-11 Topps Buyback Bobby Wallace HOF Piedmont 350 back.

I just acquired a huge lot of Topps Buybacks with Hall of Famers, Southern Leaguers, and tougher backs. These will be listed in the near future. "

It is a representation that it is a Topps product, which it isn't.[/QUOTE

I didnt think these typically had "tougher backs?"

I purchased a Ganley with the Piedmont350 back from an AH(not Larry). I'm sure an oversight by Topps and not a "tough" brand, but is a card with a very small population.

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

I purchased a Ganley with the Piedmont350 back from an AH(not Larry). I'm sure an oversight by Topps and not a "tough" brand, but is a card with a very small population.

Same scenario as you Eric with two Buybacks that I've purchased. Neither came from Larry H. and I bought them mainly because of the player/back combination than solely collecting them.

The two that I purchased were Karger & Ewing with Piedmont 350 backs, so I think you are safe with the Ganley.

Jantz

[vintagetoppsguy]

There have been people caught putting phony period stamps (e.g. Toy Town, F Scott Fitzgerald, etc.) on the backs of T206s to deceive the guys that collect back stamps. These obviously sell for a premium to the ones that collect them. Do you think that's a crime as well or just unethical? I'm not looking for a debate as I don't believe there is really a right answer. Just an opinion.

I think that's a pretty good comparison though because the objective is the same in both cases.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Look up 18 USC 1343 if you want to play lawyer. Oh wait, someone already posted it. The issue isn't infringement, it's fraud, plain and simple.

[tothrk]

I'm not looking to argue either. I'm not a lawyer or legal expert. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I believe what he did/has been doing (multiple times) is a crime. He did what he did with the intent to deceive. He did this for monetary gain. Once he is done with being ashamed and making everything right, he should be banned from the board for life with the possibility of parole in 15 years. Sadly, there is too much shady crap in this hobby. That is why I now collect only items which no one has ever seen or even heard of.