Ashamed - Topps T206 Buy Back Fraud

[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.

[ramram]

Gentlemen - We need to move on to your closing arguments, please. Defendant's team followed by the prosecution's team. Larry is anxiously waiting on a ruling here.

[frankbmd]

So if the card was assembled in New York and uttered in New Jersey and then purchased unwittingly in California, the perp will go to Leavenworth. Have I got that right?

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

A better analogy here would be a real Rolex watch sold within a real Rolex box, but mismatched (the box was originally made and sold with a Rolex, but a different one than the one being resold). That's the level of fraud we are dealing with here. But, yes, it is still fraud.

[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