Ashamed - Topps T206 Buy Back Fraud

[Peter_Spaeth]

In which of these situations, if any, do I need to dislose?

1. I buy a raw card I suspect is trimmed. I think if I bury it within a submission I can get it through. A TPG grades it.

2. I buy a PSA 8. I don't like the looks of it, suspect strongly it's trimmed. I put it back out for sale.

3. I buy an SGC 92. I submit it to PSA in the holder to cross, PSA rejects it for evidence of trimming. I put it back out for sale.

4. I buy an SGC 88. I submit it to PSA in the holder to cross. PSA declines on min. grade grounds. I put it back out for sale. Someone then asks me, did you try to cross it.

[DeanH3]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In which of these situations, if any, do I need to dislose?

1. I buy a raw card I suspect is trimmed. I think if I bury it within a submission I can get it through. A TPG grades it.

2. I buy a PSA 8. I don't like the looks of it, suspect strongly it's trimmed. I put it back out for sale.

3. I buy an SGC 92. I submit it to PSA in the holder to cross, PSA rejects it for evidence of trimming. I put it back out for sale.

4. I buy an SGC 88. I submit it to PSA in the holder to cross. PSA declines on min. grade grounds. I put it back out for sale. Someone then asks me, did you try to cross it.

These are some initial thoughts I have after reading these questions. I'm not set on them and could change after some discussion.

1. You are selling PSA's opinion. The buyer should determine if they agree or not. No need to disclose your suspicion.

2. Send it back to PSA for a review. If it comes back the same then again, you are selling PSA's opinion. No need to disclose. The buyer should determine if they are comfortable with the grade.

3. Again, your selling a TPG's opinion, SGC in this instance. Maybe the card is not trimmed and PSA was incorrect. No need to disclose.

4. PSA doesn't cross a lot of cards in other TPG holders so that doesn't mean the card isn't graded properly by SGC. However, if a potential buyer asks, then be upfront and tell the truth about your attempted results.

I would add though, I would disclose any of these if a potential buyer asked me.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In which of these situations, if any, do I need to dislose?

1. I buy a raw card I suspect is trimmed. I think if I bury it within a submission I can get it through. A TPG grades it.

2. I buy a PSA 8. I don't like the looks of it, suspect strongly it's trimmed. I put it back out for sale.

3. I buy an SGC 92. I submit it to PSA in the holder to cross, PSA rejects it for evidence of trimming. I put it back out for sale.

4. I buy an SGC 88. I submit it to PSA in the holder to cross. PSA declines on min. grade grounds. I put it back out for sale. Someone then asks me, did you try to cross it.

Pretty easy really, disclose everything no matter if the card is graded or not. This makes you a good person who cares about others.

Disclose nothing because it is the TPG's fault and hide behind their incompetence. This makes you a piece of garbage that only cares about yourself no matter how you rationalize it to yourself.

Just my honest opinion.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In which of these situations, if any, do I need to dislose?

1. I buy a raw card I suspect is trimmed. I think if I bury it within a submission I can get it through. A TPG grades it.

2. I buy a PSA 8. I don't like the looks of it, suspect strongly it's trimmed. I put it back out for sale.

3. I buy an SGC 92. I submit it to PSA in the holder to cross, PSA rejects it for evidence of trimming. I put it back out for sale.

4. I buy an SGC 88. I submit it to PSA in the holder to cross. PSA declines on min. grade grounds. I put it back out for sale. Someone then asks me, did you try to cross it.

I would disclose each of those scenarios. I wouldn't even wait to be asked if it had been the subject of a crossover attempt, although I cannot see myself trying to cross from SGC to PSA in the first instance.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I would disclose each of those scenarios. I wouldn't even wait to be asked if it had been the subject of a crossover attempt, although I cannot see myself trying to cross from SGC to PSA in the first instance.

Careful you are on a slippery slope. Are you also going to say every time you think a card should have graded lower? Every time a card has been bumped?

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Careful you are on a slippery slope. Are you also going to say every time you think a card should have graded lower? Every time a card has been bumped?

I don't resubmit cards, but if I did, yes I would state that it had been bumped. As for the other, I would give my opinion on the grade if asked and might anyway. Sorry, but these are really not tough decisions for me.

[Fred]

Grading is very subjective. If a TPG indicates a card is a 5, it doesn't mean it would grade a 5 two months later by the same company.

If a card cross graded to a higher grade, does that mean you have to disclose the card was bumped up? The way most people look at it, as long as the label from a "legitimate" TPG indicates a numeric grade then it doesn't matter what it was before.

What if a card was initially deemed "trimmed" or AUTH by PSA and three months later you crack it out, resubmit it and PSA assigns a "7" to the card. Does that have to be disclosed? I thought it was an accepted practice to just accept the "legitimate" TPGs assigned opinion.

Look at the "Hall" collection of T206 cards graded by PSA. I would have to believe that most people that have seen that collection of cards would have to believe many of the cards were obviously trimmed, yet it is just accepted by the general collecting public that the cards are legitimately graded because PSA assigned the cards numeric grades.

What about the McNall/Gretzky Wagner? How come that card gets a pass?

[drcy]

I don't think you have to disclose previous information/events that were wrong. If you resubmit a card because the first label misidentified the card (calling a 1957 Topps a 1958, for example), you don't have to disclose that resubmission. Similarly, if the original grading was clearly wrong and you get it regraded to get the correct grade, I don't think you have to disclose that. If you got an autograph in person at a Tri-Star show and have the in-person Tri-Star COA and photo of the guy signing it, but PSA rejects it, I don't think you have to disclose the letter. It may beg the question of why the person would choose to try to get the additional PSA letter, but, believe me, people do that. On the PSA forum, a collector had a game used jersey with team LOA and a photo match and was asking about getting an additional PSA/DNA authentication, and I foolishly asked what was the point paying to get a PSA/DNA letter. The wrong forum to ask that question

[mechanicalman]

The very few times I’ve sold some cards, I’ve done everything possible to point out every flaw, especially the hard to find ones like surface wrinkles. But when it comes to pointing out changes in grades (not that I play that game), I would not feel that necessary to disclose. I liken it to real estate. I’m obligated to disclose material issues when I sell. But if I have an appraisal on my house that is well lower than my asking, do I need to disclose that? Should I? Would you? They are just educated opinions like grades, after all.

[Rhotchkiss]

Seems the general consensus (of at least those who have posted here) is that if the card sits in a slab, then we are ethically exonerated from disclosing anything we know and/or suspect about the card -- everything shifts to the TPG. As sad as that is, I respect that as the general state of things. That said, its not for me.

The situation I posted about earlier in this thread is scenario #4 of Peter's hypotheticals. I bought the card for $13k+, from a "reputable" broker and self-acclaimed T206 expert, after the card sold in a second-rate auction for mid $11k. It sat in a BVG 7 flip and from pictures the card looked gorgeous, and I took comfort in the fact that it was sold by one auction house and now being offered by a bigger-time broker (admittedly, the fact that it was in a BVG flip did bother me however). Anyway, the card arrived, and although it looked a tad "short" to me (but T206s can be that way), it truly is an amazing looking card. I promptly took it to SGC at the Chantilly show to get crossed over. I asked for a minimum grade of SGC 80. When I went to pick it up in person, the guy told me he was sorry but that they could not give it the minimum grade I wanted. I was immediately alarmed, but I did not ask, because I didnt want to hear that card had been tampered with, so I took it home and hoped that maybe SGC just got it wrong. I started to hate the card.

Over the next year I took it with me to card shows to show off and to passively get a consensus. Everyone hated that it was in a BVG flip and I heard from many people, including two major auction houses, that while it is a very pretty card, "it had to remain in its current flip." I took all that as code for :this card has been trimmed." I never tried to cross it over because, again, for me ignorance was bliss ethically, and while I may have sniffed the notion of selling or trading it, I never got aggressive because I just did not feel comfortable. In full disclosure, never once did anyone other than two friends tell me they thought it was trimmed and I never had a TPG tell me that and I do not know for certain that it was trimmed; but of course there are plenty of ways to imply that and I heard them all, and logic tells you something is wrong when a card of that caliber is sold at a lesser AH and was sold in a BVG flip and not crossed over by the AH or the big broker before he tried to resell it.

Anyway, finally, a few weeks ago, I emailed the broker (who I hadnt talked to or done a deal with since I bought this card) and offered the card back to him for a discount (this is a card that by all rights has gone up substantially since I bought it). He accepted, he paid me promptly, I sent the card to him, and its all over.

In those months before I determined to get rid of the card to the broker, I considered just listing it on ebay, or consigning it to a lesser auction house, etc., but the thought of someone paying big money for a card that was likely trimmed but sitting in a 7 case, was too much for me and I didnt want to get mixed up any fallout that could occur -- life is just too short.

I firmly believe that if you know something about the card, like its been submitted before or elsewhere and came back a different grade, or you know a card has been cracked out, washed/mark erased etc and resubmitted, and you do not disclose it, then you are a piece of shit and I have no interest in ever doing business with you.

Ryan Hotchkiss

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I don't resubmit cards, but if I did, yes I would state that it had been bumped.

I have bought a card from a board member who (sometimes deservedly so) gets a lot of crap, and he 100% disclosed that the T206 Wajo pitching Tolstoi SGC 82 I was buying had once sat in an SGC 80 flip and he had it bumped. I think that was a stand up act, and frankly, I think the card is still undergraded in an 82 flip!!