Two hour interview with.... Bill Mastro

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Exactly.

And PSA, complicit in the skulduggery from the word go - knew it was sheet cut and gave it an 8 anyway.

What a fine opening chapter for the attitudes on grading and tone of things we find today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, the common understanding seems to be that Mastro took a lower grade card and trimmed it into a higher grade one, and PSA missed or overlooked the trimming. Thus, all the emphasis has been on the trimming. Not really accurate.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yeah, the common understanding seems to be that Mastro took a lower grade card and trimmed it into a higher grade one, and PSA missed or overlooked the trimming. Thus, all the emphasis has been on the trimming. Not really accurate.

Right.

The problem seems to be in Mastro’s insistence that he didn’t hide it (the fact it was cut) from anyone, vs. the stories that started circulating after Gretzky and McNall bought the card and PSA graded it.

You can kind of see Mastro’s side of the story though. At the time he cut it from the sheet or the “oblong football” of a card he bought, there were no grading companies. Even after PSA graded the card in 1992 or whenever, there still was not this widespread focus on the deceptive practice of trimming, what a certain type of card should or should not measure to up to 1/72 of an inch - and things like that. Mastro likely wasn’t asked much about the circumstances in which he acquired the card and what he did with it before selling it to Jim Copeland in the late 80’s. There was not this cloud of eternal suspicion over things like that, as we have today with just about anything in a slab that is vintage that appears perfect or near perfect to the naked eye.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Right.

The problem seems to be in Mastro’s insistence that he didn’t hide it (the fact it was cut) from anyone, vs. the stories that started circulating after Gretzky and McNall bought the card and PSA graded it.

You can kind of see Mastro’s side of the story though. At the time he cut it from the sheet or the “oblong football” of a card he bought, there were no grading companies. Even after PSA graded the card in 1992 or whenever, there still was not this widespread focus on the deceptive practice of trimming, what a certain type of card should or should not measure to up to 1/72 of an inch - and things like that. Mastro likely wasn’t asked much about the circumstances in which he acquired the card and what he did with it before selling it to Jim Copeland in the late 80’s. There was not this cloud of eternal suspicion over things like that, as we have today with just about anything in a slab that is vintage that appears perfect or near perfect to the naked eye.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No widespread focus on trimming?? There was a huge focus on it, and it was rampant. I discussed this with quality dealers and hobby people all the time back then. I didnt purchase PSA cards because of the deals made to get grades on trimmed cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

No widespread focus on trimming?? There was a huge focus on it, and it was rampant. I discussed this with quality dealers and hobby people all the time back then. I didnt purchase PSA cards because of the deals made to get grades on trimmed cards.

Of course there was. Ironically, the rampant trimming at that time was the very marketing pitch on which PSA launched its business.

[tjisonline]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

No widespread focus on trimming?? There was a huge focus on it, and it was rampant. I discussed this with quality dealers and hobby people all the time back then. I didnt purchase PSA cards because of the deals made to get grades on trimmed cards.

many high grade trimmed vintage cards in older PSA holders. it's laughably sad.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tjisonline

many high grade trimmed vintage cards in older PSA holders. it's laughably sad.

People wanted high grade cards, and were and are willing to pay for the illusion that they were real. Hall saw the opportunity in this and, in my opinion, made certain compromises with certain card doctors.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

People wanted high grade cards, and were and are willing to pay for the illusion that they were real. Hall saw the opportunity in this and, in my opinion, made certain compromises with certain card doctors.

Does anyone else find it laughable that in the 30-for-30, Hall just says with a poker face "It doesn't look trimmed to me..." when discussing being in the grading room with Mastro's Wagner?

Really? Hall is supposedly the world's foremost expert on T206, who at the time had the most complete master set of backs and variations ever assembled. That's the best answer he could give? Not any kind of lengthy discussion on genuine size variation, paper stock, appearance under magnification, nothing? That's the PSA "expertise" we get on that card all these years later?

Sheesh.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

No widespread focus on trimming?? There was a huge focus on it, and it was rampant. I discussed this with quality dealers and hobby people all the time back then. I didnt purchase PSA cards because of the deals made to get grades on trimmed cards.

Thanks for the info. I honestly didn't know; I was 14 in 1991. Where I guess I was going was, did the average collector then look at a nice expensive card and ask if it had been trimmed? Maybe not for 50's cards. But I guess maybe if you were considering buying a Wagner you would.

So there were "deals made" to get grades on other trimmed cards even in the early PSA days? Interesting. You always hear the argument that PSA was the savior of the wild wild west scene, where nobody knew whether cards had been altered or not. But if they were making deals from the getgo of slabbing trimmed cards with the profit motive - I guess that's just earlier than I realized.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

So there were "deals made" to get grades on other trimmed cards even in the early PSA days? Interesting. You always hear the argument that PSA was the savior of the wild wild west scene, where nobody knew whether cards had been altered or not. But if they were making deals from the getgo of slabbing trimmed cards with the profit motive - I guess that's just earlier than I realized.

PSA knowingly built their entire brand off the backs of trimmers. The early cert holders are chock full of trimmed cards. Nearly all high-grade vintage cards are trimmed or otherwise altered and/or severely overgraded, and 99% of them are early certs.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

PSA knowingly built their entire brand off the backs of trimmers. The early cert holders are chock full of trimmed cards. Nearly all high-grade vintage cards are trimmed or otherwise altered and/or severely overgraded, and 99% of them are early certs.

A tradition that has been followed, it seems, until recently and not just high grade but mid grade too. I think they appear to be running a more legit operation under Turner in regards to blindly grading bad cards.

When one of the first cards that got graded, at the time, was valued at over a million dollars, they set that precedent by grading it an 8.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You can argue semantics.... And you pointing to the fact that it was mentioned in a lengthy indictment full of other crimes for which he could not escape in a case that didn't go to trial because he struck a plea deal doesn't mean he would have been found guilty of that charge by a judge or a jury. It just doesn't. I get that in the "logic" of lawyer-land, you guys all think a "conviction" by plea deal is equivalent to a conviction by a jury, because "Yay! I won my case!", but it doesn't make it true. HE WAS NEVER TRIED ON THE CHARGE OF ALTERING/SELLING THAT WAGNER. Not by a jury. Not by the standard that matters with respect to what I've been arguing now for years.

You're the one engaging in semantics if you're arguing that a guilty plea is not an admission of being guilty. Try explaining that to the man on the street.

Originally Posted by Snowman

PSA knowingly built their entire brand off the backs of trimmers. The early cert holders are chock full of trimmed cards. Nearly all high-grade vintage cards are trimmed or otherwise altered and/or severely overgraded, and 99% of them are early certs.

Thanks for the tip. I think I'll just continue to say "No!" to such slabs. Hopefully you've not got any for sale.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm sorry, I just have fun sticking with this clowns lies!

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They've shifted so many times it's hard to keep up, even though I'm sort of used to the tactic.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Note that he's gleeful that the FBI ultimately did not pursue the investigation. How pathetic is that? Anyone concerned about the hobby should be disappointed in their decision, and the freedom it confers on criminals to keep up the same shit without fear of reprisal, not gleeful about it. Not our boy though. He's giddy. Taunting, because (for the wrong reasons) he predicted this one right.

Well whoever you're talking about, at least he has the common decency to address the other side directly. That's something for you both to learn.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Cleaning bird poop off of a car is expected. Cleaning stuff off a sports card is not, despite the fact that many do it and many accept it. PSA just updated their terms taking a stance in writing on cleaning, which is likely a CYA.

Originally Posted by Mark17

The word "cleaning" needs to be better defined to make any sense in determining if it necessitates disclosure. For instance, if I have a stack of cards that sits on a shelf for a couple years, then decide to sell them, I may have to wipe a thin layer of dust off the top card. Technically, that's cleaning it. Does that need to be disclosed at risk of committing a criminal act?

The natural state of the Topps cards I collected in the 1960s came in wax packs. Sometimes the gum was lightly stuck to a card, and I altered that original, from-the-factory natural state by separating the gum from the card.
Often, powdered sugar residue might be in a card, and I'd wipe it off. If there was wax residue on a card back it left a stain and there wasn't much I could do, but if it was on the glossy side, I removed wax by rubbing it with a cloth.

It's a slippery slope, which is why I say the word "cleaning" is much too ambiguous.

I hate to admit it, but CGC's stance on cleaning seems to be reasonably workable and thus good. Removing "stuff" from comics isn't considered restoration by CGC. But!!! Introducing any extraneous substance/material, even water, to a comic is considered restoration and CGC will bestow the dreaded Purple label indicative of "Restored" upon the comic if it detects that any such extraneous substances have been applied.

Therefore rubbing sugar, gum and wax stains or wiping bird droppings off a card is not considered restoration, but a card on which Alan Rosen's "magic potion" had been used would definitely be considered restored, i.e. altered in card terminology.