Article about Collecting and Fraud in the Hobby

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

An altered card is going to sell for a fraction of an unaltered card. We already know that from all the "Authentics" out there. Alteration is only lucrative if combined with deception.

Restoration is technically alteration though, correct? So what if some paper conservator was able to rebuild a card's corners and turn it into what would now be considered a high grade version of that card? Why not just call it what it is, a restored card, but then also give it the grade it deserves based on the card's merits and presentation, along with giving credit to the conservator for the work they performed?

And maybe in regard to value, doesn't a card graded 7(MC) often (or at least potentially) sell for more than a straight 5 or 6 grade? You never know for certain what the market will do and how it will react until you actually try something new. Maybe YOU would not pay any more if an altered/restored card were marked as such, and then given a numeric grade, but then YOU are also not representative of and speaking for everyone else in the hobby. Who really knows? Look at all the threads just recently on here talking about low grade cards that appear and present well, and oftentimes go for more than you'd expect given their technical grades. I know I once picked up a gorgeous E95 Wagner that was graded "A" due to slight trimming. It looks deserving of a 6, maybe even a 7 grade, if not for the trimming. My alternative for budget purposes may have been to pick up a really crappy looking 1 or 1.5 grade, if I could have even come across one. Am very happy with my trimmed/altered card in this case, and would probably value it much higher than a crappy looking 1 or 1.5 for sure.

Or what about cards that were put in screw down holders and are slightly, but unintentionally, flattened by the pressure. They may not have been altered on purpose, but still get the technical hit from TPGs. Some of them can be downright beautiful, and you can't really discern there's any difference from a non-squashed card when looking at it. I'd likely be okay and happy to pay more for that card, altered by pressing it too hard in a screw down holder, than I would for a crappy looking, but unaltered, version of it in say a 1, 2, or maybe even 3 grade.

Just a few examples, and certainly not covering all potential options and variations that can occur or happen in the alteration/restoration of cards, but I'm guessing I would be far from alone in my thinking and valuations in at least some of these instances.

[Peter_Spaeth]

To each his own, but I don't want restored cards, don't care how skillfully restored. Originality is what matters, and cards are appropriately valued and differentiated according to how well they survived the rigors of time. This isn't art where each work is one of a kind.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To each his own, but I don't want restored cards, don't care how skillfully restored. Originality is what matters, and cards are appropriately valued and differentiated according to how well they survived the rigors of time. This isn't art where each work is one of a kind.

Do not disagree at all, and to each his own. Collect and buy the card, not the holder.

But heck, look at people posting right now in the other thread on the front page that Leon started, "I Don't Know About Ya'll (lower grades)". There are other members talking about embracing and starting to accept and go for some altered/restored cards. You hadn't posted in that thread, so I don't know if you've seen and read through it. If you do, you'll clearly see that not everyone follows your thinking and collecting standards. And that is perfectly fine, collect what and how you like, to each his own.

Of course, the type of thinking I'm talking about is maybe more appropriate for older, vintage and pre-war type cards where there may not be that many examples of some cards to begin with, and they aren't all usually in nicer shape, like you'd expect with more modern cards. The age, wear, and other faults more commonly find on older vintage cards also makes them much more likely to benefit from restorations/alterations that can be made to them. But I'm most definitely of the opinion that alterations or restorations should always be disclosed. I'm too much of an idealist on stuff like this, but you have to have some hopes/dreams in life, right?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To each his own, but I don't want restored cards, don't care how skillfully restored. Originality is what matters, and cards are appropriately valued and differentiated according to how well they survived the rigors of time. This isn't art where each work is one of a kind.

I would revise your statement to say that cards are valued (appropriately or not) and differentiated according to how people perceive how well they survived the rigors of time.

The vast majority of high grade vintage cards have all been altered or restored. Ken Kendrick's collection is a prime example. So many of those cards have been trimmed. Even Nat Turner's vintage cards too. So many of those are alerted as well. I'm talking about obvious alterations too, not the ones that are difficult to tell. If they want to pay huge sums for cards to have razor sharp corners from issues that never had corners like that off the press, then the market will deliver. It always does.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Assuming you are talking broadly about altering cards and not just cleaning which some don't view as alteration at all, are you suggesting I don't know this area of the law and you do? Are you suggesting Brent's elite criminal defense lawyer who along with me explained this at length in the day and later advised Brent to cooperate doesn't know the law but you do? Are you suggesting SA Brusokas has spent years investigating activity that was perfectly legal? Come on Travis, stop it.

As to your question, which is fair and you should have stopped there, you need to understand the nature of mail and wire fraud. just altering the card hasn't yet defrauded anyone through the wires or mail. It only becomes a crime when those elements are met, in other words when there's been a scheme carried out through the wires or mail by means of a material misrepresentation or non-disclosure. In other words, it's not the sale per se of the altered card that's the problem, it's the non -disclosure of the fact that it's altered. If I trim a card, get it past the graders, and sell it with full disclosure, there's no fraud. So your logic -- if it isn't illegal to alter it, it can't be illegal to sell it -- misunderstands the nature of mail and wire fraud. Oh, and in your free time read the Mastro indictment and the part about the Wagner. The part that allegedly was mail fraud was not the trimming but the concealment.

Now if your REAL point is not that it couldn't be a crime, but that it isn't something that SHOULD be prosecuted, that would be a different point and discussion.

I'm not making claims about anyone's knowledge of the law or lack thereof. I think my primary concern with your argument is that you seem to just declare that restoring a baseball card for the purpose of profiting from it is tantamount to fraud. That may be a majority opinion among serious collectors, but I don't think the rest of the world sees it that way. I don't even think most people would view it as slimy behavior, let alone criminal. I think they would just roll their eyes at us. The fact that someone profits from something that a niche group of people dislike doesn't make it a crime. Can you point to something specific that clearly makes this behavior a crime?

The fact that Brent sought legal counsel is not evidence of criminal activity. He has not been charged with any crimes related to this scandal, to our knowledge, despite the FBI being all up in his business. Nor has anyone else for that matter. Ever in fact (to my knowledge). And it's not due to a shortage of evidence. The feds were handed mountains of irrefutable evidence of multiple card doctors having bought, altered, regraded, and then resold cards for a profit. They know the names behind every account those doctors used on every online platform and who all was involved. In my observation, they clearly decided this was a nothing burger. I'm open to being wrong with my read of the situation, but the clock sure is ticking on that being the case if so.

I do not read support for the argument that Mastro's mail fraud charge had something to do with trimming the Wagner. To me, it reads as though it's merely a footnote that gets mentioned, but no where is he actually charged for it. Also, I believe Mastro himself references this fact in one of his interviews. I'd have to find it, but I believe he expressly states that the Wagner had nothing to do with why he was charged. Also, multiple associates of his were charged with mail fraud in the same case, yet they had nothing to do with that card. Also, I believe he said he sold it to the next owner in person in a cash deal, so how could mail fraud even come into play if so? My understanding is that the mail fraud charge was for auctioning off (and shipping) a baseball that he and his associates knew was a counterfeit.

Another disconnect that we're having though is with respect to the legal obligations (or lack thereof) that someone would have to disclose what they've done to a card prior to selling it. Obviously, it's the "right" thing to do in most cases, but that doesn't make it an obligation. I realize this may seem outlandish on the face of it for something like trimming a card, but if you continue along this path, you eventually find yourself having to defend the position that wiping off a fingerprint or a smudge from a modern chrome card is an act of "card molestation" that "must be disclosed" (I'm quoting this from Sports Card Radio's recent YouTube video where he hilariously, and quite literally, states precisely this - and he wasn't joking).

The real problem from my viewpoint is that people foolishly place PSA on a pedestal and fail to educate themselves on what they're actually buying. I have zero sympathy for those "collectors" (or "investors"). I collect raw sets. I don't need PSA's remarkably inconsistent opinion on the condition of the vast majority of my collection. I probably wouldn't even care if I found out that a few of the cards in my sets had been trimmed (so long as they still measure and look accurate). With the cards I do submit for grading, I only do so because the market dictates that it's necessary. And in those cases, I stick to low and mid grade cards, so alterations aren't much of a concern. And if I get a BS grade, I crack it out and resubmit until I get an accurate grade.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I'm not making claims about anyone's knowledge of the law or lack thereof. I think my primary concern with your argument is that you seem to just declare that restoring a baseball card for the purpose of profiting from it is tantamount to fraud. That may be a majority opinion among serious collectors, but I don't think the rest of the world sees it that way. I don't even think most people would view it as slimy behavior, let alone criminal. I think they would just roll their eyes at us. The fact that someone profits from something that a niche group of people dislike doesn't make it a crime. Can you point to something specific that clearly makes this behavior a crime?

The fact that Brent sought legal counsel is not evidence of criminal activity. He has not been charged with any crimes related to this scandal, to our knowledge, despite the FBI being all up in his business. Nor has anyone else for that matter. Ever in fact (to my knowledge). And it's not due to a shortage of evidence. The feds were handed mountains of irrefutable evidence of multiple card doctors having bought, altered, regraded, and then resold cards for a profit. They know the names behind every account those doctors used on every online platform and who all was involved. In my observation, they clearly decided this was a nothing burger. I'm open to being wrong with my read of the situation, but the clock sure is ticking on that being the case if so.

I do not read support for the argument that Mastro's mail fraud charge had something to do with trimming the Wagner. To me, it reads as though it's merely a footnote that gets mentioned, but no where is he actually charged for it. Also, I believe Mastro himself references this fact in one of his interviews. I'd have to find it, but I believe he expressly states that the Wagner had nothing to do with why he was charged. Also, multiple associates of his were charged with mail fraud in the same case, yet they had nothing to do with that card. Also, I believe he said he sold it to the next owner in person in a cash deal, so how could mail fraud even come into play if so? My understanding is that the mail fraud charge was for auctioning off (and shipping) a baseball that he and his associates knew was a counterfeit.

Another disconnect that we're having though is with respect to the legal obligations (or lack thereof) that someone would have to disclose what they've done to a card prior to selling it. Obviously, it's the "right" thing to do in most cases, but that doesn't make it an obligation. I realize this may seem outlandish on the face of it for something like trimming a card, but if you continue along this path, you eventually find yourself having to defend the position that wiping off a fingerprint or a smudge from a modern chrome card is an act of "card molestation" that "must be disclosed" (I'm quoting this from Sports Card Radio's recent YouTube video where he hilariously, and quite literally, states precisely this - and he wasn't joking).

The real problem from my viewpoint is that people foolishly place PSA on a pedestal and fail to educate themselves on what they're actually buying. I have zero sympathy for those "collectors" (or "investors"). I collect raw sets. I don't need PSA's remarkably inconsistent opinion on the condition of the vast majority of my collection. I probably wouldn't even care if I found out that a few of the cards in my sets had been trimmed (so long as they still measure and look accurate). With the cards I do submit for grading, I only do so because the market dictates that it's necessary. And in those cases, I stick to low and mid grade cards, so alterations aren't much of a concern. And if I get a BS grade, I crack it out and resubmit until I get an accurate grade.

crime and whether someone wants to enforce it are 2 different things. But yeah if a 'crime' is never prosecuted its like if a tree falls in the forrest but noone is there does is make a noise..

In my life i always hear of people getting away with something but I know that if i ever did it, i would always get in trouble. (not that i would ever do it etc) However i sort of chalk this card altering business to that.

In a more serious nature there are atrocities is many parts of the world that people think are a nothing burger as well, so just saying other people dont care really is a nothing burger as well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I'm not making claims about anyone's knowledge of the law or lack thereof. I think my primary concern with your argument is that you seem to just declare that restoring a baseball card for the purpose of profiting from it is tantamount to fraud. That may be a majority opinion among serious collectors, but I don't think the rest of the world sees it that way. I don't even think most people would view it as slimy behavior, let alone criminal. I think they would just roll their eyes at us. The fact that someone profits from something that a niche group of people dislike doesn't make it a crime. Can you point to something specific that clearly makes this behavior a crime?

The fact that Brent sought legal counsel is not evidence of criminal activity. He has not been charged with any crimes related to this scandal, to our knowledge, despite the FBI being all up in his business. Nor has anyone else for that matter. Ever in fact (to my knowledge). And it's not due to a shortage of evidence. The feds were handed mountains of irrefutable evidence of multiple card doctors having bought, altered, regraded, and then resold cards for a profit. They know the names behind every account those doctors used on every online platform and who all was involved. In my observation, they clearly decided this was a nothing burger. I'm open to being wrong with my read of the situation, but the clock sure is ticking on that being the case if so.

I do not read support for the argument that Mastro's mail fraud charge had something to do with trimming the Wagner. To me, it reads as though it's merely a footnote that gets mentioned, but no where is he actually charged for it. Also, I believe Mastro himself references this fact in one of his interviews. I'd have to find it, but I believe he expressly states that the Wagner had nothing to do with why he was charged. Also, multiple associates of his were charged with mail fraud in the same case, yet they had nothing to do with that card. Also, I believe he said he sold it to the next owner in person in a cash deal, so how could mail fraud even come into play if so? My understanding is that the mail fraud charge was for auctioning off (and shipping) a baseball that he and his associates knew was a counterfeit.

Another disconnect that we're having though is with respect to the legal obligations (or lack thereof) that someone would have to disclose what they've done to a card prior to selling it. Obviously, it's the "right" thing to do in most cases, but that doesn't make it an obligation. I realize this may seem outlandish on the face of it for something like trimming a card, but if you continue along this path, you eventually find yourself having to defend the position that wiping off a fingerprint or a smudge from a modern chrome card is an act of "card molestation" that "must be disclosed" (I'm quoting this from Sports Card Radio's recent YouTube video where he hilariously, and quite literally, states precisely this - and he wasn't joking).

The real problem from my viewpoint is that people foolishly place PSA on a pedestal and fail to educate themselves on what they're actually buying. I have zero sympathy for those "collectors" (or "investors"). I collect raw sets. I don't need PSA's remarkably inconsistent opinion on the condition of the vast majority of my collection. I probably wouldn't even care if I found out that a few of the cards in my sets had been trimmed (so long as they still measure and look accurate). With the cards I do submit for grading, I only do so because the market dictates that it's necessary. And in those cases, I stick to low and mid grade cards, so alterations aren't much of a concern. And if I get a BS grade, I crack it out and resubmit until I get an accurate grade.

You are missing my point about Brent. His counsel advised him to cooperate in the investigation of which he was and may still be a target. If there was no possible crime here, he would not have so advised him. Likewise, if there was no possible crime here, the FBI would have dropped this very quickly. It did not.

[G1911]

I have a hard time seeing how altering an item without disclosing it for the purpose of increasing price is not fraud.

I also think the odds Brent gets charged for this are very small. The feds are not going to take the time and effort to clean up a hobby almost nobody actually wants cleaned up.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have a hard time seeing how altering an item without disclosing it for the purpose of increasing price is not fraud.

I also think the odds Brent gets charged for this are very small. The feds are not going to take the time and effort to clean up a hobby almost nobody actually wants cleaned up.

You might want to run that by Brian Brusokas. You are aware presumably the FBI started an investigation in 2019, issued scads of subpoenas, and that Brent as a target or potential target agreed to cooperate, right?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have a hard time seeing how altering an item without disclosing it for the purpose of increasing price is not fraud.

Alterations lie on a spectrum of acceptability to collectors. It would never occur to me that I might have some obligation to inform a future buyer that I wiped a fingerprint or a smudge off of a card prior to submitting it for grading. Yet, there are those in the hobby who literally wish to make such demands of others (Sports Card Radio is one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI4B8lfebdE starting around the 3:40 mark).

Likewise, it would never occur to me that if I had a card with a dinged/lifted/bent corner that I pushed back down prior to selling that this is something that ought to be disclosed. Honestly, I find even the mere suggestion to be pretty damn funny.

Everyone has a different dividing line for what they deem as acceptable and unacceptable. Nobody cares to place demands to disclose on condition improvements they deem as acceptable, only for things they deem as unacceptable. But where that line gets drawn is different for everyone. So who gets to decide for the masses?

At the end of the day, it's a dog eat dog world out there, especially in this hobby. The reality is that ~nobody is going to disclose this stuff, so you just need to educate yourself and look out for your own interests, whatever those are. If you have a card in hand and you are unable to detect any alterations whatsoever, despite having years of grading experience at one of the top grading companies, then what difference does it really make if something was indeed done to that card? At some point, we just become the old man screaming at clouds. Don't scream at clouds.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I do not read support for the argument that Mastro's mail fraud charge had something to do with trimming the Wagner. To me, it reads as though it's merely a footnote that gets mentioned, but no where is he actually charged for it.

This was my recollection as well but I understand next to nothing I read that is prepared by a lawyer.

Originally Posted by G1911

I have a hard time seeing how altering an item without disclosing it for the purpose of increasing price is not fraud.

I also think the odds Brent gets charged for this are very small. The feds are not going to take the time and effort to clean up a hobby almost nobody actually wants cleaned up.

Agree entirely that the feds are not going to take the time to try to clean up the hobby but they have shown us that they will pursue much smaller crimes in the hobby. Not sure their pursuit of the investigation of PWCC needs to be done in an effort to clean up the hobby. Still feel Brent could be charged.