Darren's Rovell take on PWCC, etc.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Beastmode

Agreed, and this is where PSA has their head entirely up their ass. The lower tier does work, just make it clear what the process is. Lower tier grading involves no warranty, no checking for trimming, no reviewing of alterations, etc.

I'm not sure what in my post you're agreeing to. I don't agree with anything you wrote in the first two paragraphs after "Agreed."

[benjulmag]

While I agree that one should not speculate why an officer decides to sell his shares, in the same fashion I would not put too much stock (no pun intended) into the accuracy of his/her legally mandated public explanation. If the real reason is concern that the price is about to plummet, regardless whether for known or as not yet publicly disclosed information, the officer is unlikely to list that as the motivating reason. In saying this, I am in no way implying that is the explanation for the sale in this instance, but simply opining that a publicly disclosed sale and explanation in and of itself means very little and that no inferences should be drawn from it.

Bob, as to your question whether PWCC ultimately decides to invoke the PSA grading guaranty and seek reimbursement from PSA, I think they would have a lot of trouble doing that. The guaranty proscribes the original submitter from invoking it. So to the extent that the cards at issue were cards Moser bought from PWCC and then had PWCC submit for grading, by the technical wording of the guaranty, PWCC would be out of luck. If Moser on the other hand was the person who submitted them to PSA, I suspect PSA would still resist payment arguing that PWCC and Moser were in cahoots over the doctoring scheme and therefore should be legally regarded as one and the same.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

While I agree that one should not speculate why an officer decides to sell his shares, in the same fashion I would not put too much stock (no pun intended) into the accuracy of his/her legally mandated public explanation. If the real reason is concern that the price is about to plummet, regardless whether for known or as not yet publicly disclosed information, the officer is unlikely to list that as the motivating reason. In saying this, I am in no way implying that is the explanation for the sale in this instance, but simply opining that a publicly disclosed sale and explanation in and of itself means very little and that no inferences should be drawn from it.

Bob, as to your question whether PWCC ultimately decides to invoke the PSA grading guaranty and seek reimbursement from PSA, I think they would have a lot of trouble doing that. The guaranty proscribes the original submitter from invoking it. So to the extent that the cards at issue were cards Moser bought from PWCC and then had PWCC submit for grading, by the technical wording of the guaranty, PWCC would be out of luck. If Moser on the other hand was the person who submitted them to PSA, I suspect PSA would still resist payment arguing that PWCC and Moser were in cahoots over the doctoring scheme and therefore should be legally regarded as one and the same.

So Joe and CU might have lied on a Form 4 filed with the SEC? Is that what you're suggesting as a possibility such that we shouldn't take it at face value? Should we not take at face value the date (the prior day) on which the shares on which he owed tax vested? Should we not take at face value that the sales were pursuant to a 10b5-1 trading plan? And who ever lists their "motives" for selling on a Form 4 anyhow? Certain specific circumstances are typically noted, such as sales pursuant to trading plans and sales to satisfy tax obligations, but generally speaking there is no "legally mandated public explanation" of the reasons for selling.

By the way, look how many shares Joe retained versus how many he sold. End of discussion.

[damonh23]

Couple of questions and comments:

So i'm already seeing a PSA overaction to trimmed cards., which kinda like an umpire calling balls and strikes, just want to see consistency. So the bad guys get away with huge upside, while we get stung paying fees for trimmed cards..Feel like PSA shouldn't charge for "trimmed cards" if they deem trimmed as they are seemingly overreacting at high rates.

Example: we buy cards direct from the source all time. i.e. a guy in his 60's selling a shoebox from the 1960's. PSA has viewed some of these as trimmed. Completely impossible, these cards haven't seen the light of day for 50 years, unless they were trimmed for their bicycle spokes


SIDE Q: Can PSA actually detect if chemicals were used?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by damonh23

Couple of questions and comments:

So i'm already seeing a PSA overaction to trimmed cards., which kinda like an umpire calling balls and strikes, just want to see consistency. So the bad guys get away with huge upside, while we get stung paying fees for trimmed cards..Feel like PSA shouldn't charge for "trimmed cards" if they deem trimmed as they are seemingly overreacting at high rates.

Example: we buy cards direct from the source all time. i.e. a guy in his 60's selling a shoebox from the 1960's. PSA has viewed some of these as trimmed. Completely impossible, these cards haven't seen the light of day for 50 years, unless they were trimmed for their bicycle spokes


SIDE Q: Can PSA actually detect if chemicals were used?

In my experience from friends who submit to PSA. They do not charge for cards they don't slab. Now if you start to regularly send in cards they wont slab they start charging for them. These are just average collectors who don't submit a lot of cards.

They might be able to detect bleach if it is still dripping from the card.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Not true Ben. If it's a card from a set that they don't grade or for some other reason don't need to evaluate they won't charge you. But for trimming, recoloring, or other alteration they have to evaluate the card and charge you accordingly.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Not true Ben. If it's a card from a set that they don't grade or for some other reason don't need to evaluate they won't charge you. But for trimming, recoloring, or other alteration they have to evaluate the card and charge you accordingly.

Maybe it is different for different people. Like I have said many times I have never submitted a card to PSA so I can only go by what I have been told. I had this conversation with a friend about 2 months ago. He was mad because PSA started charging him for rejected cards. He only collects rare error cards and many super rare error/scrap cards are altered.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Joe and CU might have lied on a Form 4 filed with the SEC? Is that what you're suggesting as a possibility such that we shouldn't take it at face value? Should we not take at face value the date (the prior day) on which the shares on which he owed tax vested? Should we not take at face value that the sales were pursuant to a 10b5-1 trading plan? And who ever lists their "motives" for selling on a Form 4 anyhow? Certain specific circumstances are typically noted, such as sales pursuant to trading plans and sales to satisfy tax obligations, but generally speaking there is no "legally mandated public explanation" of the reasons for selling.

By the way, look how many shares Joe retained versus how many he sold. End of discussion.

Come on Peter, stop it. You are distorting what I am saying, and as an attorney I'm surprised you would react that way.

I don't take as the gospel truth what a person says on a legally mandated disclosure form any more than I would someone under oath on a witness stand denying something that if he/she were to admit it would be detrimental to his/her case.

You have been excoriating PSA as much as anyone. So now we are to take a face value something said because the SEC requires it? I do not know why Joe sold his shares, and my point is it should never have been raised in the first place.

Why are we arguing over this?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Come on Peter, stop it. You are distorting what I am saying, and as an attorney I'm surprised you would react that way.

I don't take as the gospel truth what a person says on a legally mandated disclosure form any more than I would someone under oath on a witness standard denying something that if he/she were to admit it would be detrimental to his/her case.

You have been excoriating PSA as much as anyone. So now we are to take a face value something said because the SEC requires it? I do not know why Joe sold his shares, and my point is it should never have bern raised in the first place.

Why are we arguing over this?

Because you misstated the legal disclosure requirements, and suggested we shouldn't necessarily take the Form 4 at face value when it reports clearly verifiable or falsifiable facts such as when Joe's shares vested and what his trading plan provides - points which you're ignoring. Your analogy to testimony is misplaced in my opinion.

PS I don't think I've distorted what you said. If your only point was people shouldn't speculate, you should have stopped your post right there. The rest of it clearly is insinuating the Form 4 might be false.

And yes I have very serious issues with PSA, and Joe, but that doesn't mean I am going to insinuate Joe is or may be dumping his shares and lying about the reasons or that that's even a possibility based on the documentation I have seen. This is obviously a routine securities transaction, nothing more, and you're being unfair in my opinion insinuating there is some other possibility.

PS I don't think I've distorted what you said. If your point was that people shouldn't speculate you could have ended your post right there. But you went on to suggest the possibility the Form 4 might not be truthful.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Because you misstated the legal disclosure requirements, and suggested we shouldn't necessarily take the Form 4 at face value when it reports clearly verifiable or falsifiable facts such as when Joe's shares vested and what his trading plan provides - points which you're ignoring. Your analogy to testimony is misplaced in my opinion.

PS I don't think I've distorted what you said. If your only point was people shouldn't speculate, you should have stopped your post right there. The rest of it clearly is insinuating the Form 4 might be false.

And yes I have very serious issues with PSA, and Joe, but that doesn't mean I am going to insinuate Joe is or may be dumping his shares and lying about the reasons or that that's even a possibility based on the documentation I have seen. This is obviously a routine securities transaction, nothing more, and you're being unfair in my opinion insinuating there is some other possibility.

PS I don't think I've distorted what you said. If your point was that people shouldn't speculate you could have ended your post right there. But you went on to suggest the possibility the Form 4 might not be truthful.

10b5-1 trading plans are not ends in and of themselves. They have been criticized as a potential for abuse and it has been reported that there have been SEC investigations regarding their abuse.

Yes, in the great majority of instances a person acting pursuant to one does so for plainly routine and legal reasons. And such might very well be the case here. I do not have any idea what a person is thinking when he/she devises his/her trading plan, and my point remains that I don't believe mention of Joe's sale of his stock was appropriate or relevant.

[Peter_Spaeth]

On that point we agree.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

While I agree that one should not speculate why an officer decides to sell his shares, in the same fashion I would not put too much stock (no pun intended) into the accuracy of his/her legally mandated public explanation. If the real reason is concern that the price is about to plummet, regardless whether for known or as not yet publicly disclosed information, the officer is unlikely to list that as the motivating reason. In saying this, I am in no way implying that is the explanation for the sale in this instance, but simply opining that a publicly disclosed sale and explanation in and of itself means very little and that no inferences should be drawn from it.

Bob, as to your question whether PWCC ultimately decides to invoke the PSA grading guaranty and seek reimbursement from PSA, I think they would have a lot of trouble doing that. The guaranty proscribes the original submitter from invoking it. So to the extent that the cards at issue were cards Moser bought from PWCC and then had PWCC submit for grading, by the technical wording of the guaranty, PWCC would be out of luck. If Moser on the other hand was the person who submitted them to PSA, I suspect PSA would still resist payment arguing that PWCC and Moser were in cahoots over the doctoring scheme and therefore should be legally regarded as one and the same.

So PSA saying that people should take the card back to the dealer is worse than I'd thought. It's not circumventing their own guarantee to avoid some liability. It's circumventing their guarantee to avoid all liability.

[damonh23]

Man PWCC $60M a year revenue is crazy..I wonder what their yearly EBTDA is. They'd be better off paying back whatever they have to, just to keep it going and end it as soon as possible....though the FBI will have to do their thing. I doubt they'd involve PSA...This does have class action lawsuit written all over it.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by damonh23

Man PWCC $60M a year revenue is crazy..I wonder what their yearly EBTDA is. They'd be better off paying back whatever they have to, just to keep it going and end it as soon as possible....though the FBI will have to do their thing. I doubt they'd involve PSA...This does have class action lawsuit written all over it.

"It never occurred to me that one man could start to play with the faith of fifty million people – with the single-mindedness of a burglar blowing a safe."

-F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

"It never occurred to me that one man could start to play with the faith of fifty million people – with the single-mindedness of a burglar blowing a safe."

-F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

"He just saw the opportunity."

[Johnny630]

People don’t wanna believe their cards in PSA holders are altered....well guess what many are....

[BobC]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Bob, as to your question whether PWCC ultimately decides to invoke the PSA grading guaranty and seek reimbursement from PSA, I think they would have a lot of trouble doing that. The guaranty proscribes the original submitter from invoking it. So to the extent that the cards at issue were cards Moser bought from PWCC and then had PWCC submit for grading, by the technical wording of the guaranty, PWCC would be out of luck. If Moser on the other hand was the person who submitted them to PSA, I suspect PSA would still resist payment arguing that PWCC and Moser were in cahoots over the doctoring scheme and therefore should be legally regarded as one and the same.

The reason I mentioned and asked that was because I don't believe the general public knows for certain yet how and by whom all those altered cards were originally submittted to PSA, is that not correct? I imagine some could have been submitted by PWCC, some by Moser directly, as well as others maybe being submitted by different "friends and family" of the parties involved. I agree with your thinking, PSA would not follow the warranty for someone they felt was actually submitting the altered cards, or that they felt was involved in the scheme.

Think about this though, as a possible way PWCC could still recoup some monies from this fiasco they are in the middle of. They end up buying back these altered cards sold and simply break them out of the PSA holders. They then sell/transfer them to someone, say a "friend" to disseminate back into the market place who sells them raw, and then say whomever gets them goes ahead and submits them to PSA thinking they may have gotten a real deal/steal. PWCC gets at least some of their money back, the cards are no longer in a PSA holder attributed to their previous ownership/handling, so harder to track back and blame them for. The person who ends up buying one/more of these now raw cards, and then submits them to PSA for grading, could actually be an honest, innocent collector just looking to get a card they felt they got a good deal on, graded. And then lets say PSA (or any of the other TPGs) gets fooled again and gives the card(s) a numerical grade. Now they are still out there circulating in the hobby and not so easily tracked back and blamed on PWCC and Moser. Not sure what you can do to insure these cards never get recirculated back into the hobby, unless the TPGs can figure out a better way/process to detect and report when these cards are altered.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I believe PWCC is turning these cards it takes back over to law enforcement.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I believe PWCC is turning these cards it takes back over to law enforcement.

Hadn't heard that, interesting!!! So at the end of whatever comes from this current crisis and issue, what do you think will then happen to those cards currently in law enforcement hands? Even though altered, I assume they are still authentic cards and therefore do have some value. It would be a shame to just destroy them, no? As a collector of mostly vintage cards myself, there is only a finite number of them out there, and destroying even altered ones doesn't sit well with me.

So at the end of law enforcement's need for currently holding on to these cards, if PWCC did reimburse buyers for them, I would think they technically belong to PWCC then and will likely be returned to them, no? So assuming that could end up happening, my comments/concerns could still be valid.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

As much as I agree with your sentiment about vintage cards I think they have to be destroyed or they will likely wind up being sold dishonestly again somewhere down the line. Of course that may wind up increasing the value of the remaining cards which is also weird to think about.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

As much as I agree with your sentiment about vintage cards I think they have to be destroyed or they will likely wind up being sold dishonestly again somewhere down the line. Of course that may wind up increasing the value of the remaining cards which is also weird to think about.

Nooooooooooo!!! I sincerely hope they don't destroy those cards. Put a hole punch in them and sell as altered but do not destroy them.

If they destroyed ALL altered cards we wouldn't have any left.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

As much as I agree with your sentiment about vintage cards I think they have to be destroyed or they will likely wind up being sold dishonestly again somewhere down the line. Of course that may wind up increasing the value of the remaining cards which is also weird to think about.

If these cards are now agreed to be authentic, you can do what they do to 'cards' in Vegas Casinos.....hole punch in them.....thus they still are authentic...and you can have a 'scandal' card with no chance of fixing it..

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Hadn't heard that, interesting!!! So at the end of whatever comes from this current crisis and issue, what do you think will then happen to those cards currently in law enforcement hands? Even though altered, I assume they are still authentic cards and therefore do have some value. It would be a shame to just destroy them, no? As a collector of mostly vintage cards myself, there is only a finite number of them out there, and destroying even altered ones doesn't sit well with me.

So at the end of law enforcement's need for currently holding on to these cards, if PWCC did reimburse buyers for them, I would think they technically belong to PWCC then and will likely be returned to them, no? So assuming that could end up happening, my comments/concerns could still be valid.

Bob I don't know. Maybe they could be an exhibit in FBI headquarters.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bob I don't know. Maybe they could be an exhibit in FBI headquarters.

Well played sir!!! I like that comment and idea. LOL

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bob I don't know. Maybe they could be an exhibit in FBI headquarters.

It's probably been changed, but when I visited the BEP in I think 1976 they had a few displays of counterfeit currency.
I got a telling off by security for touching the glass on one....

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I believe PWCC is turning these cards it takes back over to law enforcement.

Coward's way out. Hand in cookie jar, etc etc

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Paul S

Coward's way out. Hand in cookie jar, etc etc

He is very slim and pretty to be doing time. Federal country club would be OK but man would he be popular in a state pen.