Article about Collecting and Fraud in the Hobby

[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?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

I am well aware. Hence why I said “charged”. I don’t think this is going to end up with Brent with in court on charges of fraud for altering cards. That is why I said, specifically, what I said. You are aware that that is different from being investigated, right?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am well aware. Hence why I said “charged”. I don’t think this is going to end up with Brent with in court on charges of fraud for altering cards. That is why I said, specifically, what I said. You are aware that that is different from being investigated, right?

Man you are being smug today. You also said the feds would not take the time and effort, suggesting to me you were not aware they are in fact devoting a substantial time and effort.

PS, he would not be charged with altering cards, it would be with mail and wire fraud for selling without disclosure.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Man you are being smug today. You also said the feds would not take the time and effort, suggesting to me you were not aware they are in fact devoting a substantial time and effort.

PS, he would not be charged with altering cards, it would be with mail and wire fraud for selling without disclosure.

I copied your exact condescending phrasing, that you chose to use first. Smugness breeds smugness.

I am, again, aware, which is why I said exactly what I said. “Charged for fraud”. “Fraud for altering cards” is, very obviously, not the literal name of the crime but a descriptor of what has happened, on which we seem to agree. We are, of course, all intimately aware that Brent did not alter cards to silently keep in his personal collection.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I copied your exact condescending phrasing, that you chose to use first. Smugness breeds smugness.

I am, again, aware, which is why I said exactly what I said. “Charged for fraud”. “Fraud for altering cards” is, very obviously, not the literal name of the crime but a descriptor of what has happened, on which we seem to agree. We are, of course, all intimately aware that Brent did not alter cards to silently keep in his personal collection.

He might also be charged with knowingly selling cards others had altered, which would also fit the statute. I have no idea if he will be charged or not, but I do think you are wrong to say the feds won't take the time or effort.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

He might also be charged with knowingly selling cards others had altered, which would also fit the statute. I have no idea if he will be charged or not, but I do think you are wrong to say the feds won't take the time or effort.

What is the language of the statute you are referencing though? And how do we even determine what things must be disclosed? And who determines it? Surely this stuff is not spelled out in the letter of the law (unless I'm wrong, and there is an explicit law on the books that reads something along the lines of "alterations made to sports cards must be disclosed when reselling"). It seems to me that it would have to be open to some fairly liberal interpretation in order to arrive at the conclusion that altering a baseball card with the intent to profit from it is somehow a crime. When taken to the extreme, selling a car without disclosing to the buyer that you replaced the headlights could be construed as criminal behavior, no? How is this any different from failing to disclose that someone flattened out a lifted corner with the back of their fingernail on a baseball card? This is certainly a form of "alteration" that many in this hobby find to be dishonest and something they think ought to be disclosed. How would a court of law distinguish between which things are criminal if not disclosed and which things aren't necessary to disclose? The ability to profit from it surely cannot be the dividing line. I cracked a Lebron James SGC 9 RC out of its holder and wiped off a noticeable fingerprint on it, then subbed it to PSA and it came back in a 10 holder. I later resold it without disclosing that it previously had a fingerprint and was in an SGC 9 holder. Does that make me a criminal?

Even on the other end of the spectrum though with respect to some of the more egregious alterations like trimming. There are countless people in this hobby who believe that if it isn't detectable by an expert senior grader with decades of experience, then those differences simply do not matter. Just read the comments on Instagram whenever Cardporn posts a trimmed card. The comment section is tattooed with people saying, "what difference does it make?" And it's not like someone has been defrauded by purchasing a trimmed card in a PSA holder. There will always be another buyer for it. Everyone knows the 00000001 Wagner was trimmed or "hand cut". But nobody cares. The next time that card trades hands, it's still going to break the record and will always outsell any other Wagner. If I were PSA, I would do the best I could at detecting alterations while being open and honest about the fact that some alterations simply aren't detectable and that the grades they assign to cards reflects their best judgment and leave it at that. Then just let the market decide what the value of their opinion/service is worth instead of them pretending like they are some unpenetrable wall through which alterations cannot cross.

[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.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

Travis what you said is the truth. People might not like it but it's just the way it is. People in this Hobby want it both ways all the time and that's not how it works. It's just not.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Snowman

At some point, we just become the old man screaming at clouds. Don't scream at clouds.

Not to get too political, but your admonition reminded me of this historical event:

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-kno...umps-election/

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

Weak slippery slope argument. Nobody condones trimming as far as I know, or recoloring, or hopefully bleaching.. So who cares if you can come up with some stuff as to which there may be less consensus?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Weak slippery slope argument. Nobody condones trimming as far as I know, or recoloring, or hopefully bleaching.. So who cares if you can come up with some stuff as to which there may be less consensus?

But they very much do. I guess that's my point. As I mentioned above, just go look at the comments under any trimming scandal post by Cardporn on Instagram. You will find opinions all across the spectrum, including countless collectors with the "who cares, what difference does it make if it can't even be detected" viewpoint. The reason I use the slippery slope argument here is because it is in fact a slippery slope discussion with respect to alterations in this hobby. Sure, the majority may not condone trimming. But is that the only dividing line we have to distinguish between which alterations are and are not allowed? Majority vote? Perhaps it's a fair one. I don't know. But my point is that I don't think it's as straightforward of a debate as many would like it to be. And if we start putting trimmers behind bars, what's to prevent half the people on this board from being charged with removing T206s from a scrapbook by soaking them and then later reselling them without disclosure?

I realize that it may not come across this way, but I do understand and respect your viewpoint on this. I think trimming cards for profit is a slimeball thing to do. But I probably wouldn't vote to convict them of a crime for it if I were on a jury unless someone could clearly demonstrate to me that it is in fact a crime. And that case has not yet been made to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

But they very much do. I guess that's my point. As I mentioned above, just go look at the comments under any trimming scandal post by Cardporn on Instagram. You will find opinions all across the spectrum, including countless collectors with the "who cares, what difference does it make if it can't even be detected" viewpoint. The reason I use the slippery slope argument here is because it is in fact a slippery slope discussion with respect to alterations in this hobby. Sure, the majority may not condone trimming. But is that the only dividing line we have to distinguish between which alterations are and are not allowed? Majority vote? Perhaps it's a fair one. I don't know. But my point is that I don't think it's as straightforward of a debate as many would like it to be. And if we start putting trimmers behind bars, what's to prevent half the people on this board from being charged with removing T206s from a scrapbook by soaking them and then later reselling them without disclosure?

I realize that it may not come across this way, but I do understand and respect your viewpoint on this. I think trimming cards for profit is a slimeball thing to do. But I probably wouldn't vote to convict them of a crime for it if I were on a jury unless someone could clearly demonstrate to me that it is in fact a crime. And that case has not yet been made to me.

There you go again trying to ski that slope. If law enforcement understands the hobby largely views scrapbook removal as legitimate, they won't prosecute, end of story. Laws are always bounded by discretion and common sense. In more technical terms, they would determine they could not prove concealment of a MATERIAL fact.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There you go again trying to ski that slope. If law enforcement understands the hobby largely views scrapbook removal as legitimate, they won't prosecute, end of story. Laws are always bounded by discretion and common sense. In more technical terms, they would determine they could not prove concealment of a MATERIAL fact.

So would it be fair for me to state your argument as being that it is a material fact that trimming a card for profit is tantamount to fraud because the vast majority of the hobby views it as such? But that other forms of "alteration" (be it cleaning, flattening out a bent corner, polishing a surface, soaking, etc.) are less clear and thus may not amount to being considered fraud as they do not reasonably meet the requirement of being a material fact since there appears to be a much wider spectrum of viewpoints on the matter?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but rather to make sure I can phrase your viewpoint in a way that you would sign off on.

If this phrasing passes the smell test, then I would ask whether you think the rest of the world (non-collectors) also shares this viewpoint. Surely, it is the majority opinion of the hobby. But is that enough to establish it as a material fact? This seems to be your argumnet. Because as we've discussed many times, a jury will ultimately be responsible for determining whether or not this behavior meets the criteria, not you nor anyone else arguing this case. If you believe that the majority of juries would conclude that card trimming for profit = fraud if not disclosed, then I believe this is where our disagreement lies. I do not think they would accept your argument that it is a material fact. I believe this viewpoint is a niche viewpoint that is primarily found within this hobby. Any defense attorney worth his salt could easily just point to nearly every other hobby or industry out there where this sort of behavior is widely accepted. The data also appears to support this, as there has never once been a case where someone was even charged with a crime, let alone found guilty of a crime for card trimming. And as you've pointed out many times, it's not because it has never been investigated. Perhaps this will change in the future. Maybe one day someone will be charged and convicted of card trimming for a profit. But until then, I think the more reasonable viewpoint to hold is that it is in fact not a crime.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

So would it be fair for me to state your argument as being that it is a material fact that trimming a card for profit is tantamount to fraud because the vast majority of the hobby views it as such? But that other forms of "alteration" (be it cleaning, flattening out a bent corner, polishing a surface, soaking, etc.) are less clear and thus may not amount to being considered fraud as they do not reasonably meet the requirement of being a material fact since there appears to be a much wider spectrum of viewpoints on the matter?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but rather to make sure I can phrase your viewpoint in a way that you would sign off on.

If this phrasing passes the smell test, then I would ask whether you think the rest of the world (non-collectors) also shares this viewpoint. Surely, it is the majority opinion of the hobby. But is that enough to establish it as a material fact? This seems to be your argumnet. Because as we've discussed many times, a jury will ultimately be responsible for determining whether or not this behavior meets the criteria, not you nor anyone else arguing this case. If you believe that the majority of juries would conclude that card trimming for profit = fraud if not disclosed, then I believe this is where our disagreement lies. I do not think they would accept your argument that it is a material fact. I believe this viewpoint is a niche viewpoint that is primarily found within this hobby. Any defense attorney worth his salt could easily just point to nearly every other hobby or industry out there where this sort of behavior is widely accepted. The data also appears to support this, as there has never once been a case where someone was even charged with a crime, let alone found guilty of a crime for card trimming. And as you've pointed out many times, it's not because it has never been investigated. Perhaps this will change in the future. Maybe one day someone will be charged and convicted of card trimming for a profit. But until then, I think the more reasonable viewpoint to hold is that it is in fact not a crime.

I think materiality would be assessed in terms of the customers of the seller, not the world at large. So I do think it's a question of how the hobby views the particular alteration, not the New York City collective phonebook. In other words, context matters. Think of Magie and Magee. Who the hell outside the hobby would care? But that alteration clearly would be material in context.

As to part one, generally I would agree with that. I would define a material alteration as one a significant portion of potential buyers would deem important to their buying decision. It's not precise, but the law rarely is. So if most people wouldn't care if they weren't told about putting down a corner, not material. If we reach a point where most people don't care if a card has been trimmed, well, I would give up on the criminal law at that point.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

But they very much do. I guess that's my point. As I mentioned above, just go look at the comments under any trimming scandal post by Cardporn on Instagram. You will find opinions all across the spectrum, including countless collectors with the "who cares, what difference does it make if it can't even be detected" viewpoint. The reason I use the slippery slope argument here is because it is in fact a slippery slope discussion with respect to alterations in this hobby. Sure, the majority may not condone trimming. But is that the only dividing line we have to distinguish between which alterations are and are not allowed? Majority vote? Perhaps it's a fair one. I don't know. But my point is that I don't think it's as straightforward of a debate as many would like it to be. And if we start putting trimmers behind bars, what's to prevent half the people on this board from being charged with removing T206s from a scrapbook by soaking them and then later reselling them without disclosure?

I realize that it may not come across this way, but I do understand and respect your viewpoint on this. I think trimming cards for profit is a slimeball thing to do. But I probably wouldn't vote to convict them of a crime for it if I were on a jury unless someone could clearly demonstrate to me that it is in fact a crime. And that case has not yet been made to me.

I guess I would want to know if those making that argument even have the ability to see an alteration that is pointed out to them let alone one that is not. And how much of their argument is based on the fact that a TPG slabbed the altered card.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

The difference is that none of this is what PWCC did. PWCC's ring was not engaged in borderline conduct. They very clearly and intentionally altered cards, snuck them past the graders (at best), and then sold them without disclosure of their severe alterations, cutting away parts of the original item. They did not remove fingerprint smudges to spawn this controversy.

I don't think a slippery slope changes this. Am I guilty of speeding if I'm going 65.1? Is that really worse than 64.9? Am I really doing wrong? Does it matter when what I'm actually being accused of is going 112?

I agree that this is very unlikely to ever actually go to court, but I'm really not seeing a real argument how running an alteration ring and selling items on provably false grounds is not actually fraud.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

The difference is that none of this is what PWCC did. PWCC's ring was not engaged in borderline conduct. They very clearly and intentionally altered cards, snuck them past the graders (at best), and then sold them without disclosure of their severe alterations, cutting away parts of the original item. They did remove fingerprint smudges to spawn this controversy.

I don't think a slippery slope changes this. Am I guilty of speeding if I'm going 65.1? Is that really worse than 64.9? Am I really doing wrong? Does it matter when what I'm actually being accused of is going 112?

I agree that this is very unlikely to ever actually go to court, but I'm really not seeing a real argument how running an alteration ring and selling items on provably false grounds is not actually fraud.

You're not seeing one because there isn't one. If the BS posted by Snowman is the best the defenders can do, that's really lame.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're not seeing one because there isn't one. If the BS posted by Snowman is the best the defenders can do, that's really lame.

I never expected people to really stop doing business with PWCC no matter how many mountains of evidence the Blowout gents uncovered. I did, naively, think people would stop publicly trying to claim they didn't really do anything wrong, it's arbitrary after all.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I never expected people to really stop doing business with PWCC no matter how many mountains of evidence the Blowout gents uncovered. I did, naively, think people would stop publicly trying to claim they didn't really do anything wrong, it's arbitrary after all.

Textbook slippery slope -- I can come up with an extreme example that doesn't fit your thesis, therefore your thesis is entirely invalid.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Textbook slippery slope -- I can come up with an extreme example that doesn't fit your thesis, therefore your thesis is entirely invalid.

It wouldn't be an internet thread without one!

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by G1911

I never expected people to really stop doing business with PWCC no matter how many mountains of evidence the Blowout gents uncovered. I did, naively, think people would stop publicly trying to claim they didn't really do anything wrong, it's arbitrary after all.

I would venture to say PWCC lost a substantial amount of business/buyers and consignors since being exposed and removed from ebay.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

I would venture to say PWCC lost a substantial amount of business/buyers and consignors since being exposed and removed from ebay.

It doesn't seem to stop them from selling a ton of cards for high prices. Some surely did stop working with them, but they retain a very strong customer base and certainly aren't really blacklisted by hobbyists.