Article about Collecting and Fraud in the Hobby

[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.

[G1911]

If I sold broken headlights, but told the buyer they were working fine and had my pal at an auto put a sticker on them certifying they were in 10/10 amazing condition, it would not be legal.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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").

I'm not a lawyer, although I did take a business law class once about 23 years ago.

I suspect that "fraud in the inducement" could potentially be used here.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

I'm not a lawyer, although I did take a business law class once about 23 years ago.

I suspect that "fraud in the inducement" could potentially be used here.

Mail fraud. Wire fraud. Federal statutes. We analyzed these in great detail when the scandal broke. They potentially apply to an infinite range of conduct that constitutes fraud so long as it involves the mail or wires. Fraud is a very broad concept involving intentional misrepresentation or concealment. There is a reason Congress made the statutes very broad so as not to limit them.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Mail fraud. Wire fraud. Federal statutes. We analyzed these in great detail when the scandal broke. They potentially apply to an infinite range of conduct that constitutes fraud so long as it involves the mail or wires. Fraud is a very broad concept involving intentional misrepresentation or concealment.

I guess snowman wasn't around for that debate.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

I think if one to were to do anything to a sports card, that at a minimum, is grounds for being rejected by a respectable 3rd party grader (based solely on their written description of what deems a card not worthy of a numerical grade), it would constitute an alteration. If that alteration was done to enhance the value or appearance of the card and it is not disclosed and sold, it probably meets the definition of fraud. On the flip side, "respected" TPG pass altered cards all the time either in error or by design.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I think if one to were to do anything to a sports card, that at a minimum, is grounds for being rejected by a respectable 3rd party grader (based solely on their written description of what deems a card not worthy of a numerical grade), it would constitute an alteration. If that alteration was done to enhance the value or appearance of the card and it is not disclosed and sold, it probably meets the definition of fraud. On the flip side, "respected" TPG pass altered cards all the time either in error or by design.

If this is indeed the standard, then some remarkably large percentage of collectors who submit cards for grading are guilty of criminal activity because massive numbers of ultra-modern collectors are polishing out surface scratches on modern chrome cards or at the very least sending them off to a submitter who does this for a fee on their behalf, referring to it as "prepping the cards for grading". I believe the TPGs say it's a no-no, but it's very much so the standard operating procedure for probably nearly half of the hobby, and the only reason the other half doesn't do it is because they simply don't know it's a thing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

If this is indeed the standard, then some remarkably large percentage of collectors who submit cards for grading are guilty of criminal activity because massive numbers of ultra-modern collectors are polishing out surface scratches on modern chrome cards or at the very least sending them off to a submitter who does this for a fee on their behalf, referring to it as "prepping the cards for grading". I believe the TPGs say it's a no-no, but it's very much so the standard operating procedure for probably nearly half of the hobby, and the only reason the other half doesn't do it is because they simply don't know it's a thing.

So is this the modern equivalent of rubbing out a light gum stain or is it more nefarious? It sounds somewhat at a lower level of evil to me than trimming, but I don't have that much modern.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So is this the modern equivalent of rubbing out a light gum stain or is it more nefarious? It sounds somewhat at a lower level of evil to me than trimming, but I don't have that much modern.

It's the modern version of that, and openly admitted to by almost all when done with water and a microfiber cloth. Some object to using car wax or polish. As an emerging thing, standards are not really set and known, like trimming has been for decades.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

If this is indeed the standard, then some remarkably large percentage of collectors who submit cards for grading are guilty of criminal activity because massive numbers of ultra-modern collectors are polishing out surface scratches on modern chrome cards or at the very least sending them off to a submitter who does this for a fee on their behalf, referring to it as "prepping the cards for grading". I believe the TPGs say it's a no-no, but it's very much so the standard operating procedure for probably nearly half of the hobby, and the only reason the other half doesn't do it is because they simply don't know it's a thing.

And in vintage there are a large number of submitters who take time to prepare their cards making them look as nice as possible short of trimming, recoloring, rebuilding corners. My guess is that in both of our examples fraud is being committed if there is not disclosure at the time of sale, even if whatever steps were taken are not detectable.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

And in vintage there are a large number of submitters who take time to prepare their cards making them look as nice as possible short of trimming, recoloring, rebuilding corners. My guess is that in both of our examples fraud is being committed if there is not disclosure at the time of sale, even if whatever steps were taken are not detectable.

Great points! And to take it a step further...............

Wouldn't/shouldn't that go for cards that have been soaked as well then. Last I looked, water is a chemical - H2O. Or what about people who erase light pencil marks. I've heard people who think doing those things are okay, and rationalize like heck to justify (in their own minds at least) what they are doing is technically not an alteration or type of restoration to a card, so they believe there is nothing they need to disclose. I've got news for people who believe doing things like that are okay, but then criticize others for not always disclosing other types of alterations or restorations they may have done to cards. No one appointed you to be in charge of deciding what is or isn't considered a card alteration or restoration for the rest of us. So for those of you who pick and choose what YOU want to believe is or is not an alteration or restoration that needs to be disclosed, yet complain about others that don't disclose everything either, you can end up coming across to many people as nothing but hypocrites.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by BobC

Great points! And to take it a step further...............

Wouldn't/shouldn't that go for cards that have been soaked as well then. Last I looked, water is a chemical - H2O. Or what about people who erase light pencil marks. I've heard people who think doing those things are okay, and rationalize like heck to justify (in their own minds at least) what they are doing is technically not an alteration or type of restoration to a card, so they believe there is nothing they need to disclose. I've got news for people who believe doing things like that are okay, but then criticize others for not always disclosing other types of alterations or restorations they may have done to cards. No one appointed you to be in charge of deciding what is or isn't considered a card alteration or restoration for the rest of us. So for those of you who pick and choose what YOU want to believe is or is not an alteration or restoration that needs to be disclosed, yet complain about others that don't disclose everything either, you can end up coming across to many people as nothing but hypocrites.

I agree with you Bob. I think the honesty in fully disclosing what one did to a card prior to it being submitted would be great. If a seller is ok with taking out a wrinkle then tell us and let us decide if we care. Not sure I have ever seen anyone disclose anything. Everyone defers or relies on the holder to cleanse whatever steps were taken. I guess to some, as Travis pointed out, it does exactly that.