Washington Post article on the altered card scandal

[Millerd33]

I contacted SGC to let them know. We shall see if the image is changed.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by Millerd33

I contacted SGC to let them know. We shall see if the image is changed.

The bigger question is why didn't the Washington Post run before and after photos of a doctored card. I can't imagine they wouldn't have permission from the BODA people to do so.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

The bigger question is why didn't the Washington Post run before and after photos of a doctored card. I can't imagine they wouldn't have permission from the BODA people to do so.

Because the BODA guys don't own the rights to those images?

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Millerd33

I contacted SGC to let them know. We shall see if the image is changed.

The pic is small, and the label text even smaller and essentially impossible to read. Few to none of the WaPo readers are going to be trying to read that label and I don't think will be able to read what it says if they do. They'll see it as a generic photo the type that accompanies articles.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

At this point, what defense is there for people that continue to do business with or associate with PWCC?

Arthur

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by HasselhoffsCheeseburger

At this point, what defense is there for people that continue to do business with or associate with PWCC?

Arthur

They offer a level of service that no one else provides in the hobby.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

They offer a level of service that no one else provides in the hobby.

meaning they "enhance" the physical appearance of cards without dislosing their alterations and have them authenticated as unaltered and then sell them at inflated prices to the sheeple?

This service?

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

meaning they "enhance" the physical appearance of cards without dislosing their alterations and authenticate them as unaltered and then sell them at inflated prices to the sheeple?

This service?

Nope. As far as I’m aware, they’re the only seller that has a user friendly consignment portal that charges fees under 4%.

Selling stuff on eBay isn’t enjoyable. I am happy to send my consignments elsewhere, but right now PWCC seems like the best option. I’m happy to give them their 1-4% cut if they want to do all the work for me.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Nope. As far as I’m aware, they’re the only seller that has a user friendly consignment portal that charges fees under 4%.

Selling stuff on eBay isn’t enjoyable. I am happy to send my consignments elsewhere, but right now PWCC seems like the best option. I’m happy to give them their 1-4% cut if they want to do all the work for me.

Good point, I mean what's a little fraud between friends?

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Nope. As far as I’m aware, they’re the only seller that has a user friendly consignment portal that charges fees under 4%.

Selling stuff on eBay isn’t enjoyable. I am happy to send my consignments elsewhere, but right now PWCC seems like the best option. I’m happy to give them their 1-4% cut if they want to do all the work for me.

I assume then you're completely fine paying retail for graded cards that are actually altered/authentic. No? Can't have it both ways.

Arthur

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Nope. As far as I’m aware, they’re the only seller that has a user friendly consignment portal that charges fees under 4%.

Selling stuff on eBay isn’t enjoyable. I am happy to send my consignments elsewhere, but right now PWCC seems like the best option. I’m happy to give them their 1-4% cut if they want to do all the work for me.

ahhhhh...that "service!" I wonder if this is part of their business model...to undercharge for consignments in lieu of the back end where shill bidding and the moser connection more than make up the difference.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Nope. As far as I’m aware, they’re the only seller that has a user friendly consignment portal that charges fees under 4%.

Selling stuff on eBay isn’t enjoyable. I am happy to send my consignments elsewhere, but right now PWCC seems like the best option. I’m happy to give them their 1-4% cut if they want to do all the work for me.

This has nothing to do PWCC, and it should be obvious not defending them (I've already stated that they and Gary Moser should go under and get any legal prosecution they are due). However, many collectors who sell their own stuff on eBay don't understand that many collectors don't enjoy, or have the time, to do their own eBay auctions. They are willing to pay the extra percentage for the ability to send their stuff to someone else sell for them.

It's like you may enjoy painting your kitchen walls, but others don't and prefer to pay someone else to do it-- and they also may feel the professional will do a better job.

When someone says "Why don't they sell it themselves," the same can be said when you pay someone to paint your kitchen or mow your law.

[cubsguy1969]

The bigger question is why didn't the Washington Post run before and after photos of a doctored card. I can't imagine they wouldn't have permission from the BODA people to do so.

Because whoever took those photos owns the rights to those photos and would have to get paid for their use, or grant permission for their use. And I imagine they aren't too eager to do that.

I work at a big newspaper and the rules for photo usage have gotten insane. Even star publicity photos, which ostensibly were taken for PUBLICITY, require permission for use. Otherwise the photographer wants paid.

I agree using the SGC photo is bad. That's just lazy. Someone not paying attention.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cubsguy1969

The bigger question is why didn't the Washington Post run before and after photos of a doctored card. I can't imagine they wouldn't have permission from the BODA people to do so.

Because whoever took those photos owns the rights to those photos and would have to get paid for their use, or grant permission for their use. And I imagine they aren't too eager to do that.

I work at a big newspaper and the rules for photo usage have gotten insane. Even star publicity photos, which ostensibly were taken for PUBLICITY, require permission for use. Otherwise the photographer wants paid.

I agree using the SGC photo is bad. That's just lazy. Someone not paying attention.

Since the items are newsworthy, wouldn't use of the photos fall under fair use?

[Jim65]

These guys will start turning on each other. Getting interviewed by the FBI and the prospect of jail time tends to do that.

[cubsguy1969]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Since the items are newsworthy, wouldn't use of the photos fall under fair use?

I'm pretty sure not. If that were the case, a newspaper photographer could go out, take a photo of a huge news event, post it on the newspaper's site and then anyone could grab it because the event was "newsworthy." Whoever took the photo owns the rights to it. Or the person who paid that person owns the rights. You could run it in your newspaper if you want, but that person could send you a hefty bill for using it. This stuff happens all the time now online. People grab photos from sites and use them for their own purposes. Photographers are coming after these people hard. Pay me! As they should. It's their work. You can't just take it.

[jimjim]

When my Dad calls me to ask me about the baseball card scandal, you know it has hit the main stream. He knows nothing about the industry or hobby. He read about it in a local newspaper.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Good article and I'm glad the issue is becoming a widespread news story - although it's actually an old, ongoing problem with new evidence.

One part of the article that was newsworthy to me was the following statement:

The scandal started after a pair of online collectors began identifying and documenting cards that were allegedly improperly modified. They’ve identified 316 such cards, retouched by nearly a dozen “card doctors,” which sold for a combined $1.4 million.

I'm curious who these alleged dozen doctors are? Only one was alleged in the article by name. (Although I'm very sure there's far more than a dozen involved).

[tschock]

What? No mention of all the class action lawsuits?

[Millerd33]

Originally Posted by drcy

The pic is small, and the label text even smaller and essentially impossible to read. Few to none of the WaPo readers are going to be trying to read that label and I don't think will be able to read what it says if they do. They'll see it as a generic photo the type that accompanies articles.

This has been shared on many facebook card groups as well as anyone who goes to their website. It is very clear they are SGC in the image not PSA on those platforms.