PWCC Statement on Recent Card Trimming Concerns

[Snapolit1]

Maybe I’m missing something obvious here, but what crime is being committed by someone who buys a baseball card in a PSA case and then cracks it out, trims the edge, and resubmits it to PSA, which then takes a fresh look at it (either realizing or not realizing they’ve seen the card before) and then assigned it a better grade on the basis that the card still meets their criteria. Or if Brent receives a card from a guy who got a card regraded from PSA.

I not justifying any of these shenanigans. Just wondering what LE is doing with this?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Maybe I’m missing something obvious here, but what crime is being committed by someone who buys a baseball card in a PSA case and then cracks it out, trims the edge, and resubmits it to PSA, which then takes a fresh look at it (either realizing or not realizing they’ve seen the card before) and then assigned it a better grade on the basis that the card still meets their criteria. Or if Brent receives a card from a guy who got a card regraded from PSA.

I not justifying any of these shenanigans. Just wondering what LE is doing with this?

I've asked the exact same question in multiple threads. Like you, not justifying what happened or defending anyone, I'm just not sure what laws were broken.

[70ToppsFanatic]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I've asked the exact same question in multiple threads. Like you, not justifying what happened or defending anyone, I'm just not sure what laws were broken.

I believe both wire fraud and mail fraud can be applied if those responsible are not disclosing the alteration and using the internet and/or USPS to sell the card in question. Depending on the volume and aggregate value of the cards involved there also might be a a racketeering/RICO issue.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I've asked the exact same question in multiple threads. Like you, not justifying what happened or defending anyone, I'm just not sure what laws were broken.

I answered you, but maybe you didn't read it. Or maybe I don't count, that's fine lol.

[bounce]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I've asked the exact same question in multiple threads. Like you, not justifying what happened or defending anyone, I'm just not sure what laws were broken.

Knowingly misrepresenting something to be something that it's not - that's basically the definition of fraud.

Where money is involved, that makes it a crime.

Proving it sufficiently to convict in a court of law, could be a long road. This game is in the early innings still, there's a lot more to come.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by bounce

Knowingly misrepresenting something to be something that it's not - that's basically the definition of fraud.

Where money is involved, that makes it a crime.

Proving it sufficiently to convict in a court of law, could be a long road. This game is in the early innings still, there's a lot more to come.

While what they're doing is unethical, Im not so sure it's against the law. They're representing it as it is certified to be. If (insert any TPG here) says it's a (insert grade here) and they're selling it as such, not sure they're breaking any law. Let me be clear for all. I'm not justifying it, I just don't see how they're legally (key word) misrepresenting it. Wouldn't their defense in court be that they paid for a 3rd party opinion and that third party is supposed to label altered cards as such? That they were expecting the TPG to label it as such?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

While what they're doing is unethical, Im not so sure it's against the law. They're representing it as it is certified to be. If (insert any TPG here) says it's a (insert grade here) and they're selling it as such, not sure they're breaking any law. Let me be clear for all. I'm not justifying it, I just don't see how they're legally (key word) misrepresenting it. Wouldn't their defense in court be that they paid for a 3rd party opinion and that third party is supposed to label altered cards as such? That they were expecting the TPG to label it as such?

Didn't you and I have this exact discussion? Or am I losing it? Go read the mail and wire fraud statutes and come back. Don't read RICO, there would be no need for a prosecutor to go there.

See what I mean, Todd? "I'm not so sure it's against the law."

[calvindog]

This is really painful to read.

[70ToppsFanatic]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

While what they're doing is unethical, Im not so sure it's against the law. They're representing it as it is certified to be. If (insert any TPG here) says it's a (insert grade here) and they're selling it as such, not sure they're breaking any law. Let me be clear for all. I'm not justifying it, I just don't see how they're legally (key word) misrepresenting it. Wouldn't their defense in court be that they paid for a 3rd party opinion and that third party is supposed to label altered cards as such? That they were expecting the TPG to label it as such?

That may be a successful defense as long as it cannot be shown that they had knowledge of any alterations. If it can be shown they knew the doctoring was occurring then this line of defense will not save them.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by 70ToppsFanatic

That may be a successful defense as long as it cannot be shown that they had knowledge of any alterations. If it can be shown they knew the doctoring was occurring then this line if defense will not save them.

But here is the problem. There are differences of opinion of alterations. Some believe, and have even stated such, that the alteration improved the condition of the card (as if it's a good thing). A small percentage of the collecting world believes that. So, if it's a matter of opinion, how can you say you have to disclose something that's some consider as an improvement?

FWIW, I don't think any alteration is an improvement.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

So, if it's a matter of opinion, how can you say you have to disclose something that's some consider as an improvement?

So if some think altering a card is a good thing and improves the card, why would you need to disclose something that is beneficial? Again, I'm not saying it is, just trying to approach this others points of view.

If I'm a house flipper and I buy a house with old aluminum wiring and have it rewired to bring it up to date, do I have to disclose it? It would obviously be a good selling point, but do I have to legally disclose it?

[70ToppsFanatic]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

But here is the problem. There are differences of opinion of alterations. Some believe, and have even stated such, that the alteration improved the condition of the card (as if it's a good thing). A small percentage of the collecting world believes that. So, if it's a matter of opinion, how can you say you have to disclose something that's some consider as an improvement?

FWIW, I don't think any alteration is an improvement.

That’s kind of what started this whole crisis.

The hobby basically looks at this along the following lines:

Anything done to hide, disguise or remove degradation and/or deterioration that already occurred to a card is alteration and is not acceptable.

Brent tried to push a narrative that if such action can be detected then it’s ok and labeled it conservation.

Based on the response I’d say the vast majority of the hobby stakeholders felt he was full of it.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

While what they're doing is unethical, Im not so sure it's against the law. They're representing it as it is certified to be. If (insert any TPG here) says it's a (insert grade here) and they're selling it as such, not sure they're breaking any law. Let me be clear for all. I'm not justifying it, I just don't see how they're legally (key word) misrepresenting it. Wouldn't their defense in court be that they paid for a 3rd party opinion and that third party is supposed to label altered cards as such? That they were expecting the TPG to label it as such?

I do...It's knowingly duping people out of their money. It's the same thing that Mastro did, and did jail time for. Hence the name Brent mastro. Are you guys kiddin or just taking the asses point or just moronic? Pretty laughable you don't think its a crime to steal money from people. To each there own. "Youre not justifying it what a tra la la goon D A

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

I do...It's knowingly duping people out of their money. It's the same thing that Mastro did, and did jail time for. Hence the name Brent mastro. Are you guys kiddin or just taking the asses point or just moronic? Pretty laughable you don't think its a crime to steal money from people. To each there own. "Youre not justifying it what a tra la la goon D A

Nice Bugs Bunny reference. A+

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxGgnI6kCrs

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Nice Bugs Bunny reference. A+

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxGgnI6kCrs

you're right...What a maroon and an "Ignoranimus" as well.

[cdogstu99]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Maybe I’m missing something obvious here, but what crime is being committed by someone who buys a baseball card in a PSA case and then cracks it out, trims the edge, and resubmits it to PSA, which then takes a fresh look at it (either realizing or not realizing they’ve seen the card before) and then assigned it a better grade on the basis that the card still meets their criteria. Or if Brent receives a card from a guy who got a card regraded from PSA.



I not justifying any of these shenanigans. Just wondering what LE is doing with this?

Negligence. And if they knowingly knew that it was altered...well there’s your crime. Not saying they did but hard to ignore the volume from at least one trimmer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[70ToppsFanatic]

Originally Posted by cdogstu99

Negligence. And if they knowingly knew that it was altered...well there’s your crime. Not saying they did but hard to ignore the volume from at least one trimmer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Negligence of this kind is not a legal violation. It’s a civil tort.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 70ToppsFanatic

Negligence of this kind is not a legal violation. It’s a civil tort.

Knowledge of the law is not a prerequisite here to pontificating about the law.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Knowledge of the law is not a prerequisite here to pontificating about the law.

Thank goodness. I'm an engineer and get all my legal "training" from television. Loved Matlock as a kid.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I always liked Columbo myself.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Knowledge of the law is not a prerequisite here to pontificating about the law.

So true.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

So true.

Todd yeah I used to have the patience for it, but I resist the temptation much of the time now.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by cdogstu99

Negligence. And if they knowingly knew that it was altered...well there’s your crime. Not saying they did but hard to ignore the volume from at least one trimmer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Negligence is not a crime.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Maybe I’m missing something obvious here, but what crime is being committed by someone who buys a baseball card in a PSA case and then cracks it out, trims the edge, and resubmits it to PSA, which then takes a fresh look at it (either realizing or not realizing they’ve seen the card before) and then assigned it a better grade on the basis that the card still meets their criteria. Or if Brent receives a card from a guy who got a card regraded from PSA.

I not justifying any of these shenanigans. Just wondering what LE is doing with this?

I was not aware that trimmed or recolored cards meet PSA's criteria for getting numerical grades. And that's the point. If the cards are submitted with full disclosure what was done to them, then that would be fine. But they are being submitted under a guise that such work was not performed, with the intent the cards be eventually purchased by collectors believing they are unaltered.

You see nothing fraudulent in that?

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I was not aware that trimmed or recolored cards meet PSA's criteria for getting numerical grades. And that's the point. If the cards are submitted with full disclosure what was done to them, then that would be fine. But they are being submitted under a guise that such work was not performed, with the intent the cards be eventually purchased by collectors believing they are unaltered.

You see nothing fraudulent in that?

If I sell house and don’t tell the buyer there was six feet of water in the basement of the house last year that is not a crime. If I signed a disclosure document affirmatively saying there was never a flood at the house that could be a crime.
If someone can point me to a law saying that the seller of a collectible needs to disclosure any alterations done to the card prior to the sale I’m all ears.

Not justifying this just wondering what law enforcement is up to. If they are up to anything.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

If I sell house and don’t tell the buyer there was six feet of water in the basement of the house last year that is not a crime. If I signed a disclosure document affirmatively saying there was never a flood at the house that could be a crime.
If someone can point me to a law saying that the seller of a collectible needs to disclosure any alterations done to the card prior to the sale I’m all ears.

Not justifying this just wondering what law enforcement is up to. If they are up to anything.

Yet again. Mail fraud and wire fraud. Fraud -- remember? Intentional misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.

18 USC 1341 and 1343.

[Leon]

This!!

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

If I sell house and don’t tell the buyer there was six feet of water in the basement of the house last year that is not a crime. If I signed a disclosure document affirmatively saying there was never a flood at the house that could be a crime.
If someone can point me to a law saying that the seller of a collectible needs to disclosure any alterations done to the card prior to the sale I’m all ears.

Not justifying this just wondering what law enforcement is up to. If they are up to anything.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So if nothing potentially illegal occurred why is Brent working with law enforcement? Your wishful thinking doesn't change the scope of the law which several here have explained.

[Leon]

I didn't say nothing illegal occured. Why not just answer the question, counselor?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if nothing potentially illegal occurred why is Brent working with law enforcement? Your wishful thinking doesn't change the scope of the law which several here have explained.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

I didn't say nothing illegal occured. Why not just answer the question, counselor?

How many times do I have to say it. Mail fraud and wire fraud. 18 USC 1341 and 1343.