PSA Response from President Steve Sloan

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Thank you for your very thoughtful reply. I pretty much agree with you all the way down the list. Here are my thoughts to your comments:

1. Removing a foreign substance that causes paper loss... I am not sure how that is substantially different than handling my cards and creating a bit of paper loss from normal wear. It seems that your standard is that you can't do something that alters the card from its original state. Well, my cards had sharp corners in their original state, and now the corners show some fraying and rounding. Must I state to the TPG or buyer that I handled the cards a little, to account for their current non-mint condition?

2. "Unaltered by recognized grading standards." Are those standards universally accepted and codified in law somewhere? I'm being rhetorical - I think this is what is lacking in terms of being able to prosecute.

3. The problem with being able to do things to cards as long as you disclose what you did only goes one generation. Do I disclose what I did to the TPG and let them then grade the card (and now it is "officially" a 7 or 8 or whatever, after they take into consideration what I did) or do I disclose what I did to the buyer? Once the card has left my hands, there is no certainty the story of what I did will be recounted every subsequent time that card changes owners.

4. I don't think disclosure would be needed with cards that every collector knows were issued on the sides of boxes (cereal, jello, bubble gum pieces, cupcakes, etc.) What would the disclosure reveal? I cut these really cleanly? That would be self-evident.

5. I agree with the first part of what you said - Stephen Juskiewicz Inc. bought authentic cards from Topps and cut them with their blessing - but not with their equipment. As I mentioned in my post, looking at an 800 count box, the edges of the cards looked like glass, which is not how the edges of the cards in a Topps vending box look. They also paid much better attention to centering. In short, they did a superior job than Topps, which is why I suspect their cards were prime candidates for the top grades.

Your conclusion was good and I agree. But with all this gray area, I really wonder what the card doctors could be charged with, from a purely legal, prosecute-able standpoint. Not to get into a head-butting contest about who's elephant is bigger, but I think the biggest elephant in the room is that there might not be much of a legal leg for any prosecutor to stand on, even with all the evidence.

Again, in your order.

1. Worn corners are apparent and need no disclosure.

2. A successful fraud prosecution has nothing to do with whether the grading standards are codified in law.

3. If you are submitting it to a TPG, you disclose it to them. If the card is raw and you are selling it privately, you disclose that what a rational buyer would reasonably regard as material that otherwise the buyer would not reasonably be expected to know and from the circumstances reasonably would not expect to have been done to the card.

4. No argument.

5. Again with this issue, a murky area to some, but to me, I would be okay with it. The fact that this dealer did a better job cutting them, because he was an authorized subcontractor of Topps, would be analogous to different, say, tobacco factories cutting Piedmont brand t206s having better cutting processes. Despite that, those tobacco cards would all be properly regarded as factory cut.

Conclusion: The card doctors could properly be charged with fraud. Whether law enforcement wants to devote the resources to pursue this, that is another matter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Corey do you mean a card doctor who together with an enabler (more likely multiple enablers) swindles people out of potentially millions of dollars through interstate commerce, by participating in a scheme to defraud by concealing patently material facts about the cards, could actually be charged with a crime?

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Corey do you mean a card doctor who together with an enabler (more likely multiple enablers) swindles people out of potentially millions of dollars through interstate commerce, by participating in a scheme to defraud by concealing patently material facts about the cards, could actually be charged with a crime?

Peter,

One thing I like about you is your understated nature.

[RollieFingers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Corey do you mean a card doctor who together with an enabler (more likely multiple enablers) swindles people out of potentially millions of dollars through interstate commerce, by participating in a scheme to defraud by concealing patently material facts about the cards, could actually be charged with a crime?

Why not? Government has done it to you for 100s of years.
But they are the only ones allowed to. It's only against the law when you do it.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by RollieFingers

Why not? Government has done it to you for 100s of years.
But they are the only ones allowed to. It's only against the law when you do it.

Exactly, the Government can F*** us all they want. Brent mastro can not.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Corey do you mean a card doctor who together with an enabler (more likely multiple enablers) swindles people out of potentially millions of dollars through interstate commerce, by participating in a scheme to defraud by concealing patently material facts about the cards, could actually be charged with a crime?

that's precisely the point Peter in a nutshell. Here we have other gentleman that wants to talk cars and other analogies. It's silly at this point. You can see the people who are smarter than the next guy, they don't see the legalities so to each their own. LOL Brent Mastro doesn't have a problem with it either because he BUILT his business on this premise. Personally I think Brent mastro is complete DICK.

Please just save this response for the next nonsensical post so you can just copy and paste it so you don't have to keep repeating yourself.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

that's precisely the point Peter in a nutshell. Here we have other gentleman that wants to talk cars and other analogies. It's silly at this point. You can see the people who are smarter than the next guy, they don't see the legalities so to each their own. LOL Brent Mastro doesn't have a problem with it either because he BUILT his business on this premise. Personally I think Brent mastro is complete DICK.

Please just save this response for the next nonsensical post so you can just copy and paste it so you don't have to keep repeating yourself.

One thing I don't quite understand about the discussion is how often people want to bring up art or classic cars or stamps or coins. None of it has any relevance to what is or is not acceptable with cards.

[mark evans]

One of the problems is that there is no consensus as to what treatment/alteration/conservation, if any, is acceptable with regard to cards. Hopefully, one of the results of the current scandal will be an agreed-upon standard for these activities.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by mark evans

One of the problems is that there is no consensus as to what treatment/alteration/conservation, if any, is acceptable with regard to cards. Hopefully, one of the results of the current scandal will be an agreed-upon standard for these activities.

Yes, and when attempting a conversation about it, fortunately, most who chime in recognize what you're saying, and are constructive.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Say hey!!
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...postcount=2822

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by mark evans

One of the problems is that there is no consensus as to what treatment/alteration/conservation, if any, is acceptable with regard to cards. Hopefully, one of the results of the current scandal will be an agreed-upon standard for these activities.

Who thinks trimming and recoloring are acceptable? Or shaving corners? Or regraining (is that the word?) borders to hide trimming? That's what's being done to a large percentage of these cards. Furthermore, PSA has clear authentication standards, so any alteration that doesn't meet those standards and is concealed is fraud for a card being sold in a PSA holder. Sorry Chuck had to say it once more.

[Leon]

It should be "nobody" on all accounts.
It's the "cleaning" that is a gray area somewhat.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who thinks trimming and recoloring are acceptable? Or shaving corners?

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by mark evans

One of the problems is that there is no consensus as to what treatment/alteration/conservation, if any, is acceptable with regard to cards. Hopefully, one of the results of the current scandal will be an agreed-upon standard for these activities.

ZERO, is acceptable if you do not disclose it. This was done to deceive FOR $$$$$ Hence, Fraudulent business practices.

[RollieFingers]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

One thing I don't quite understand about the discussion is how often people want to bring up art or classic cars or stamps or coins. None of it has any relevance to what is or is not acceptable with cards.

stamps and coins do.. are comparable in some sense

especially stamps.. they can be altered in similar ways

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Again, in your order.

1. Worn corners are apparent and need no disclosure.

2. A successful fraud prosecution has nothing to do with whether the grading standards are codified in law.

3. If you are submitting it to a TPG, you disclose it to them. If the card is raw and you are selling it privately, you disclose that what a rational buyer would reasonably regard as material that otherwise the buyer would not reasonably be expected to know and from the circumstances reasonably would not expect to have been done to the card.

4. No argument.

5. Again with this issue, a murky area to some, but to me, I would be okay with it. The fact that this dealer did a better job cutting them, because he was an authorized subcontractor of Topps, would be analogous to different, say, tobacco factories cutting Piedmont brand t206s having better cutting processes. Despite that, those tobacco cards would all be properly regarded as factory cut.

Conclusion: The card doctors could properly be charged with fraud. Whether law enforcement wants to devote the resources to pursue this, that is another matter.

Someone owns a baseball card. That's legal. They do something to it to enhance its appearance. That's legal. The consistent theme of your responses seems to be, if what was done to improve its appearance is disclosed, no problem.

But if nothing of that nature is committed to paper, couldn't it come down to:

Card Doctor : I told them I was improving the cards appearance some.
Auctioneer: I don't remember him saying that (or) I didn't know altering is what he meant.

Basically, He Said, He Said. Then when the card is sold to a third person, because of the claimed confusion above, no mention of "enhancements" is communicated to the current owner of the card, and now its circulating out there.

Thanks again for your thoughtfulness in this conversation. It's so nice to catch a break from the snarkiness, once in awhile.

And again I am not suggesting nothing wrong was done, and I appreciate the fact you get that.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Someone owns a baseball card. That's legal. They do something to it to enhance its appearance. That's legal. The consistent theme of your responses seems to be, if what was done to improve its appearance is disclosed, no problem.

But if nothing of that nature is committed to paper, couldn't it come down to:

Card Doctor : I told them I was improving the cards appearance some.
Auctioneer: I don't remember him saying that (or) I didn't know altering is what he meant.

Basically, He Said, He Said. Then then the card is sold to a third person, because of the claimed confusion above, no mention of "enhancements" is communicated to the current owner of the card, and now its circulating out there.

Thanks again for your thoughtfulness in this conversation. It's so nice to catch a break from the snarkiness, once in awhile.

And again I am not suggesting nothing wrong was done, and I appreciate the fact you get that.

Just because there was confusion between the two parties involved on the selling end doesn't absolve them of their responsibility to disclose. It may muddy the waters as to who is more culpable, but fraud has still occurred.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Just because there was confusion between the two parties involved on the selling end doesn't absolve them of their responsibility to disclose. It may muddy the waters as to who is more culpable, but fraud has still occurred.

I totally agree, and I think the overwhelming number of verified instances that have been uncovered so far is what makes it a clear crime.

It sounds like the answer to my original question, which you've stated concisely above, basically comes down to something like links on a chain. If the Doctor discloses the alteration, he's off the hook (and presumably he receives less for the card when he sells because of that honest disclosure.) If the next guy also discloses the alteration, as told to him by the Doctor, he, likewise, is off the hook. And so on down the road, until someone decides to maximize his profit by not disclosing the alteration. That person, then, is guilty of misrepresenting an altered card as unaltered.

Muddy waters, indeed.

[Exhibitman]

Fraud is more or less common sense, guys: would you want to know that the card had been trimmed, cleaned with a solvent, pressed to remove wrinkles, etc., when you buy the card? You would? Then the alteration is material and not disclosing it is fraudulent concealment.

But then there's PSA (or Beckett, except no one uses them here, so we can go with PSA). So how does that work?

You send the card to PSA without telling PSA you did something to it and you get it through. Yay!

So you sell your freshly graded card on eBay. Guess, what? You're still a fraudster, dumbass. You knew what the card went through and you didn't tell the buyer what you'd done to the card.

So, not wanting to be that dumbass, you decide to send it to a useful idiot on consignment. Let's call the useful idiot "Brent". You don't tell "Brent the useful idiot" that you altered the card and he sells it as a PSA graded card. Yay! Money!

But then some pesky kids on some chat board figure out what you did and they have photographic proof of it. Whoops! But you figure you are OK since PSA and Brent the useful idiot are the ones who certed the card and sold the card, respectively. The chump who bought the card can't claim you didn't disclose anything; you never even interacted with him. So the chump will go after Brent the useful idiot, and Brent the useful idiot will send the chump to PSA to enforce PSA's guarantee (yeah, good luck with that). PSA can't claim the card was altered without looking like a giant clown college instead of a legitimate expert outfit, so they probably will never voluntarily pay off. And most of the chumps won't have any way to sue PSA because they can't afford to pay an attorney and retain an expert to testify, so there will be lots of meaningless chatter across the blogosphere, but so what, you got your money!

What you forget is that if the card is in the window of returns or credit card disputes, Brent the useful idiot is going to get a charge back and he's gonna want his money back from you. Even an idiot wants a refund...And you also forgot about the ways you cheated Brent and PSA with your antics, which amount to an honest services fraud perpetrated against them, all undertaken through the mail. So you are a dumbass all over again, because even though you've not sold a thing directly, you used the mail to send all sorts of stuff you knew was bad to Brent the useful idiot and to the large company, and you managed to do a crime that you never even heard of if that Laurie Loughlin chick hadn't bribed her stupid daughters' ways into USC. Whoops. Worst of all, everyone following this scandal knows your name and many of the players know where you live and the press is starting to circle around.

Then the knock on the door...If you are lucky it is just a process server. If you are unlucky it is an investigator from law enforcement. If you are really unlucky it is one of those really pissed off chumps with a baseball bat.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Fraud is more or less common sense, guys: would you want to know that the card had been trimmed, cleaned with a solvent, pressed to remove wrinkles, etc., when you buy the card? You would? Then the alteration is material and not disclosing it is fraudulent concealment.

Or if you do the typical glowing oozing write up, affirmative misrepresentation.

[RollieFingers]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Fraud is more or less common sense, guys: would you want to know that the card had been trimmed, cleaned with a solvent, pressed to remove wrinkles, etc., when you buy the card? You would? Then the alteration is material and not disclosing it is fraudulent concealment.

pressed to remove wrinkles, doesnt sound like a bad thing.
sounds like a wise thing to do

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by RollieFingers

pressed to remove wrinkles, doesnt sound like a bad thing.
sounds like a wise thing to do

Trimmed to remove edge wear and to sharpen corners. Why not indeed.

[RollieFingers]

I wipe wax off with pantyhose. Am I in trouble?

[Peter_Spaeth]

This is why the only hope for people who care whether their cards are altered (itself a can of worms but leave it aside for now), is for the TPGs to identify the cards submitted by known or strongly suspected card doctors, and to have an open and honest review process.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Someone owns a baseball card. That's legal. They do something to it to enhance its appearance. That's legal. The consistent theme of your responses seems to be, if what was done to improve its appearance is disclosed, no problem.

But if nothing of that nature is committed to paper, couldn't it come down to:

Card Doctor : I told them I was improving the cards appearance some.
Auctioneer: I don't remember him saying that (or) I didn't know altering is what he meant.

Basically, He Said, He Said. Then when the card is sold to a third person, because of the claimed confusion above, no mention of "enhancements" is communicated to the current owner of the card, and now its circulating out there.

Thanks again for your thoughtfulness in this conversation. It's so nice to catch a break from the snarkiness, once in awhile.

And again I am not suggesting nothing wrong was done, and I appreciate the fact you get that.

I'm glad if our discussion helped clarify things in your mind. I can understand how some of it might not be readily obvious if in your mind what you did was done in good faith not to cheat someone but instead to improve the appearance of the card.

And you are correct that if you own a baseball card, it is yours and you can do with it anything you want. But if you submit it for grading or sell it privately, if what you did would reasonably be material information to the grading company or your purchaser and is not readily obvious, you disclose. There's no downside to doing it and it could save you from some unpleasant accusations down the road.

As to the hypothetical you describe of making the disclosure orally, not a great idea. Put it writing, and if the other party will not acknowledge receipt of your disclosure, confirm it in an email (preferable) or text. A person's mood has a tendency to shift when he/she is about to loose big bucks and is looking for someone to pin it on.