THE MARKEL REPORT: Are Graded Baseball Cards Being “Juiced” (Aesthetically Enhanced)?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Peter,

The two Jim Kings were sold around Jan. and Feb. 2007 by eBay seller "excuzme". I saved the scans directly to my hard drive, and also had them backed up on several networks managed by an IT group who could prove they pre-existed before the graded cards showed up on eBay.

The '61 Cheney and the '67 Ellis were originally mine. I made high resolution scans of those cards (about 6 megabytes each) - front and back and asked an attorney in Dallas to list them on eBay along with about 70 other cards between Oct. 2007 to early this year. Susor bought about 30 of them and typically sits on them for 12 to 18 months. We have since then bought back 5 and all appear to be altered to various degrees. The '61 Cheney are the '67 Ellis are the best examples. I have a '64 Osteen that was micro-trimmed. I'll show scans later.

The other 40 were also tracked and several were bought back from "good collectors" with no signs of alteration. Frank Bakka was one of them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

Peter,

The two Jim Kings were sold around Jan. and Feb. 2007 by eBay seller "excuzme". I saved the scans directly to my hard drive, and also had them backed up on several networks managed by an IT group who could prove they pre-existed before the graded cards showed up on eBay.

The '61 Cheney and the '67 Ellis were originally mine. I made high resolution scans of those cards (about 6 megabytes each) - front and back and asked an attorney in Dallas to list them on eBay along with about 70 other cards between Oct. 2007 to early this year. Susor bought about 30 of them and typically sits on them for 12 to 18 months. We have since then bought back 5 and all appear to be altered to various degrees. The '61 Cheney are the '67 Ellis are the best examples. I have a '64 Osteen that was micro-trimmed. I'll show scans later.

The other 40 were also tracked and several were bought back from "good collectors" with no signs of alteration. Frank Bakka was one of them.

Well Dan at least as to the ones YOU personally owned and HE bought, it is difficult for me to think of another explanation. Was he also the buyer of the Jim Kings?

What puzzles me a bit in reference to this seller (and I have heard accusations against him before) is that it's always commons that are involved. One would think if a person had the skill to get trimmed cards past PSA and the inclination, he would also work on higher value cards? Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Sean_C]

I don't know how far things will go with eBay removing Scott. What I'd suggest Dan would be to either contact the FBI and/or USPS postal inspectors office (mail fraud) to see if they want to pursue it, or send an email to O'Keefe and see if he might want to run a story about it. Either way, I think it'll get more accomplished than waiting for eBay to do something.

[Rich Klein]

You may feel it's easier to go unnoticed.

I just checked the PSA pop reports (and if I'm off by a few I apologize)

The key is going for 9's -- because if you hit a 9 -- you get serious competition by the registry people

My quick math (and again I say I could be off) is that the 67 Sammy Ellis card has 12 9's or better out of 108 cards which is an 11 percent ratio.

The 1961 Cheney (which is a reasonably difficult card in itself) is nine 9's or better out of 133 which is about 7 percent.

If you hit the 9's on these cards -- you make some pretty serious money.

RIch

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Sean_C

I don't know how far things will go with eBay removing Scott. What I'd suggest Dan would be to either contact the FBI and/or USPS postal inspectors office (mail fraud) to see if they want to pursue it, or send an email to O'Keefe and see if he might want to run a story about it. Either way, I think it'll get more accomplished than waiting for eBay to do something.

Um....both, probably make that all 3 (Okeefe, FBI, Postal Inspector) are already aware of this thread, I assure you. I am not quite sure this rises to the top of the priority scale, but that is their call. They know about it.

edited to add that I am actually not positive all of those people mentioned are aware of this thread. I have known all to read the board frequently and would be surprised if they aren't aware of it, or at least will be soon.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Um....both, probably make that all 3 (Okeefe, FBI, Postal Inspector) are already aware of this thread, I assure you. I am not quite sure this rises to the top of the priority scale, but that is their call. They know about it.

I would much rather overpay for a good card than get a bad one at an unshilled price, personally.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Peter,

Yes, Susor bought those two Jim Kings directly from "excuzme". I communicated with that dealer recently and he told me that he keeps a log of all of his sales so these two purchases should documented and the scans were saved for our database. There is an extensive visual database of Susor's eBay purchases the over the last 2-1/2 years.

As far as stars versus commons, the PSA Registry has made low population commons more valuable than stars. From a raw buyers end, you can buy a $5 or $10 common and bump it to make an outrageous profit. Here's an example from the Network 54 post-war forum post by Jim Crandell (davalillo). In fact even after reading "The Markel Report" early yesterday, Crandell and I exchanged several e-mails and still doesn't think Susor alters cards. Amazing.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=110886

Susor recently sold a '59 Billy Pierce AS PSA 8 for $3001. We have a good scan of what looks to be the identical raw card with a clearly rounded batwing type corner that in the graded card looks squared up and sharp. Under Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Law, this could potentially be a $9003 judgment against Susor if the buyer decides to pursue it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

To me, the evidence is compelling, particularly when combined with the fact that the same guy bought and sold the cards.

[calvindog]

Yeah, I would have to agree with Dan and Peter: this one is a slam dunk. Disgraceful. Whatever happened to people wanting to work hard to make money instead of stealing it?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Yeah, I would have to agree with Dan and Peter: this one is a slam dunk. Disgraceful. Whatever happened to people wanting to work hard to make money instead of stealing it?

Who says doctoring cards is not hard work?

[judsonhamlin]

Hey Jeff - Those kind of people keep you and I employed.