Ashamed - Topps T206 Buy Back Fraud

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

I should read the indictment, clearly.

So, simple question: It is not illegal to take the graphite end of a pencil and write on a t206 card (though many here might like it to be) and then list that on eBay without mention (because the writing would be pretty obvious). But to take the eraser end of the pencil to one that previously marks on it and list it on eBay without mention is punishable by law?

If the seller lists it as unaltered, and does so with the intent to defraud, then yes.

ETA: subject to Peter's caveat. If the buyer relies on any representation that the card is unaltered and that factors into the decision to purchase, or the price, then it is fraud.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Keep in mind a lot of this is theoretical discussion . I am not going to get arrested for going 56 in a 55 MPH zone. Larry Harris is not going to get prosecuted here, the authorities have better things to do. And so on. But is what he did illegal, and could he be prosecuted? Absolutely.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Bliggity

If the seller lists it as unaltered, and does so with the intent to defraud, then yes.

ETA: subject to Peter's caveat. If the buyer relies on any representation that the card is unaltered and that factors into the decision to purchase, or the price, then it is fraud.

So intent matters? The OP could theoretically argue that the premium from the Topps pack was more the frame (as a presentation piece) than the card and frame in its entirety. Topps was putting random cards into frames with zero correlation between the two, so OP was just doing same. The argument would become how natural the assumption that these came in packs as such would be (I imagine).

None of us believes that about the OP's intent, of course, but I think this is a pretty gray area as well in that the Topps206 holder is not too far differentiated from a generic topholder (seems closer to that than to a slab, at least). I don't know how easy it is to remove and replace the cover.

Sorry if I'm annoying anyone here. I'm enjoying the back and forth quite a bit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think the issue is that for whatever reason, as proven by the spreadsheet, people are paying at least in part for the item as a whole originating from Topps. There may be no logic to it, and Larry's frankencards may be just as good as the original items from Topps, but for whatever reason people want these as sold by Topps. and not as assembled by Larry Harris. I personally would just want the T206 within, and think the frame is stupid, but that's just me.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think the issue is that for whatever reason, as proven by the spreadsheet, people are paying at least in part for the item as a whole originating from Topps. There may be no logic to it, and Larry's frankencards may be just as good as the original items from Topps, but for whatever reason people want these as sold by Topps. and not as assembled by Larry Harris. I personally would just want the T206 within, and think the frame is stupid, but that's just me.

And you see, having helped create this product as a Topps employee, I think Topps' intention was NOT that the framed creation be worth more than the card within. They wanted to include these cards that they purchase don the secondary market, which happened to be smaller than most of the cards in the pack. Each pack contained a single mini that floated loose, but the other minis (the autos, GU, and originals) were out into frames more as a way to assimilate them into the other cards in terms of size (and make it a bit harder to detect by simply feeling a pack).

I've seen a lot of fraud in this hobby (as have we all), but I've also seen too many collectors get angry at others (manufacturers, dealers, ebayers) for reasons of their own greed and overly-heightened expectations. I think this case is a confluence of the two.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Topps' intent is irrelevant in my opinion. Topps' original intent way back when was to sell chewing gum, not expensive collectibles. Does that matter any more? If collectors value the cards in frames from Topps more than the T206s themselves -- and the spreadsheet and all the money Larry made prove this -- then he committed fraud by lying about the origin and nature of what he was selling.

[mighty bombjack]

You are right that it is irrelevant in terms of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the OP, but I'm pointing out that Topps, as a company, agrees with your opinion on the matter. The t206 within the frame was the whole point for Topps, and I'd bet that several that were directly inserted had been previously trimmed and/or otherwise altered (again, someone should ask Kit Young if there were stated standards in this area - maybe he'd remember, though I doubt he'd share).

I guess my point is that Topps doesn't give a crap about anything being argued here, and they didn't copyright the frame for a reason, that's all.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

You are right that it is irrelevant in terms of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the OP, but I'm pointing out that Topps, as a company, agrees with your opinion on the matter. The t206 within the frame was the whole point for Topps, and I'd bet that several that were directly inserted had been previously trimmed and/or otherwise altered (again, someone should ask Kit Young if there were stated standards in this area - maybe he'd remember, though I doubt he'd share).

I guess my point is that Topps doesn't give a crap about anything being argued here, and they didn't copyright the frame for a reason, that's all.

Right; it's equally illegal to pass off a fake Rolex as a real one whether or not Rolex cares.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

You are right that it is irrelevant in terms of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the OP, but I'm pointing out that Topps, as a company, agrees with your opinion on the matter. The t206 within the frame was the whole point for Topps, and I'd bet that several that were directly inserted had been previously trimmed and/or otherwise altered (again, someone should ask Kit Young if there were stated standards in this area - maybe he'd remember, though I doubt he'd share).

I guess my point is that Topps doesn't give a crap about anything being argued here, and they didn't copyright the frame for a reason, that's all.

But they could care, and that would make some difference. I'll leave it to the lawyers to explain, but I have a couple examples from collecting experience.


There was a company in the early 90's, maybe 92-93 that made 3-D cards. Not like the Kelloggs, but they'd take three of the same card, laser or die cut them and reassemble the bits with some spacers to give a 3-D effect. Sold as singles in a nice package through Toys R us and maybe a couple other big retailers. Most cards were fleer and Donruss, all the major card companies objected, and he was out of business very quickly.

Another one was smaller and local. Licensed photos mounted to foamboard, laser cut, and mounted to a nice base with a nameplate and "serial #" Pretty limited production, and shut down pretty hard as well.

So there's two examples of making a "better" product out of a licensed product that were shut down. I don't recall if there were any criminal accusations.

Steve B

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

So intent matters? The OP could theoretically argue that the premium from the Topps pack was more the frame (as a presentation piece) than the card and frame in its entirety. Topps was putting random cards into frames with zero correlation between the two, so OP was just doing same. The argument would become how natural the assumption that these came in packs as such would be (I imagine).

None of us believes that about the OP's intent, of course, but I think this is a pretty gray area as well in that the Topps206 holder is not too far differentiated from a generic topholder (seems closer to that than to a slab, at least). I don't know how easy it is to remove and replace the cover.

Sorry if I'm annoying anyone here. I'm enjoying the back and forth quite a bit.

Yes - typically, criminal liability does not attach unless the person has an intent to defraud. If someone put a raw T206 into a Topps holder years ago for their personal collection, and then sold it a decade later having forgotten that they didn't pull it straight from the product, that would not be criminal fraud.

Judges will sometimes tell juries that intent can rarely be proven by direct evidence; however, the Jury can look at all the circumstances of a person's actions to determine his intent. I think we all agree that the intent was pretty clear here.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

So intent matters? The OP could theoretically argue that the premium from the Topps pack was more the frame (as a presentation piece) than the card and frame in its entirety. Topps was putting random cards into frames with zero correlation between the two, so OP was just doing same.

Of course, the OP could 'attempt' to argue that, but the evidence would tend to negate that argument, IMO. From one of the listings:

"1909-11 T206 Topps Buyback Red Ames Hands at Chest TOUGH COMMON Piedmont Sweet Caporal 150 back. I just acquired a huge lot of Topps Buybacks with Hall of Famers, Southern Leaguers, and tougher backs."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tschock

Of course, the OP could 'attempt' to argue that, but the evidence would tend to negate that argument, IMO. From one of the listings:

"1909-11 T206 Topps Buyback Red Ames Hands at Chest TOUGH COMMON Piedmont Sweet Caporal 150 back. I just acquired a huge lot of Topps Buybacks with Hall of Famers, Southern Leaguers, and tougher backs."

He must have meant assembled, not acquired.

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by tschock

"1909-11 T206 Topps Buyback Red Ames Hands at Chest TOUGH COMMON Piedmont Sweet Caporal 150 back. I just acquired a huge lot of Topps Buybacks with Hall of Famers, Southern Leaguers, and tougher backs."

"But I never said that the one I was selling was part of that lot!"

[judsonhamlin]

I will post this example from the New Jersey Criminal Code - a fourth degree crime is punishable by up to 18 months in State prison, even if it rarely is.

NJSA 2C:21-2 Criminal Simulation. A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if, with purpose to defraud anyone or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud to be perpetrated by anyone, he makes, alters or utters any object so that it appears to have value because of antiquity, rarity, source, or authorship which it does not possess.

No mention of the existence of a copyright as an element of the offense.

Anyone in NJ buy any of these?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

I will post this example from the New Jersey Criminal Code - a fourth degree crime is punishable by up to 18 moths in State prison, even if it rarely is.

NJSA 2C:21-2 Criminal Simulation. A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if, with purpose to defraud anyone or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud to be perpetrated by anyone, he makes, alters or utters any object so that it appears to have value because of antiquity, rarity, source, or authorship which it does not possess.

No mention of the existence of a copyright as an element of the offense.

Anyone in NJ buy any of these?

What does it mean to utter an object????

[judsonhamlin]

To publish, sell, offer for sale or present in some way. One "utters" a bad check when it is turned over for payment, for example

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What does it mean to utter an object????

I guess that would mean voice impersonation, like if I can do a spot-on impression of Morgan Freeman and then use at voice in a radio spot for my product without mention that it's an impersonation?

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Bliggity

"But I never said that the one I was selling was part of that lot!"

Dang you, and your vigorous defense!