PWCC Statement on Recent Card Trimming Concerns

[bounce]

Originally Posted by AddieJoss

I was told by Brent, that list is coming in the near future.

Cory Weiser

I'm honestly asking, are you being sarcastic?

With everything else that has happened to this point, why would anyone believe the completeness of any list PWCC releases?

Without proper validation, which would require PWCC data, PSA data (possibly other TPGs) and eBay data, there's no way to have any confidence.

None of this even addresses whether this is isolated to this single individual, or if there are other people or elements involved.

There is zero trust right now, another "statement" or list isn't going to change that. They have not been forthcoming in the past, no one should expect them be now.

Said differently, it's always "short".

[pgconboy]

Originally Posted by bounce

I'm honestly asking, are you being sarcastic?

With everything else that has happened to this point, why would anyone believe the completeness of any list PWCC releases?

Without proper validation, which would require PWCC data, PSA data (possibly other TPGs) and eBay data, there's no way to have any confidence.

None of this even addresses whether this is isolated to this single individual, or if there are other people or elements involved.

There is zero trust right now, another "statement" or list isn't going to change that. They have not been forthcoming in the past, no one should expect them be now.

Said differently, it's always "short".

I'd bet my house that internet detectives will find cards missing from any list they provide unless its a giant .csv file of every card ever sold.

[swarmee]

Brent has been fencing cards for up to 10 different revealed scammers. I would like to see all of those on the list too (PSA,BGS). I would like those companies to COMPLETELY DECERTIFY ALL THOSE NUMBERS.

You don't get what you don't ask for.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Brent has been fencing cards for up to 10 different revealed scammers. I would like to see all of those on the list too (PSA,BGS). I would like those companies to COMPLETELY DECERTIFY ALL THOSE NUMBERS.

You don't get what you don't ask for.

You might blow up a few collections. Or more than a few.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You might blow up a few collections. Or more than a few.

Collateral Damage; you think everyone will know at that point? All collectors will know.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Collateral Damage; you think everyone will know at that point? All collectors will know.

A lot of collectors are just in it for the money and ego though, at the high end of things. Not all of course.

[Peter_Spaeth]

PSA has a very tough needle to thread, on the one hand the people who hate altered cards and are livid are going to demand major change; on the other hand people with major bucks tied up in collections may resist that change if it means taking away some of their high grade cards.

[swarmee]

They can turn them in now or see their value plummet in 6 months.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bounce

I'm honestly asking, are you being sarcastic?

With everything else that has happened to this point, why would anyone believe the completeness of any list PWCC releases?

Without proper validation, which would require PWCC data, PSA data (possibly other TPGs) and eBay data, there's no way to have any confidence.

None of this even addresses whether this is isolated to this single individual, or if there are other people or elements involved.

There is zero trust right now, another "statement" or list isn't going to change that. They have not been forthcoming in the past, no one should expect them be now.

Said differently, it's always "short".

David as you've likely seen, on the modern side there are similar threads on known trimmers and PWCC on BO.

[bounce]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David as you've likely seen, on the modern side there are similar threads on known trimmers and PWCC on BO.

Hi Peter - yes, I've seen those. I've pretty much read every post of every relevant thread. I contributed a very small amount of the research to find original sales of some of the cards. Big kudos to those other blowout guys, though - they deserve all the credit.

I'm highly skeptical that an entire list will ever be produced, and here are a couple reasons why.

#1 - Money. Neither PWCC or PSA is going to want to refund on these cards. I think PWCC will selectively try and take the hit, but there are very likely going to be thousands of cards just from Moser. Who knows what else is out there, but I think it's pretty safe to assume there is way more than we've seen. As good as those Blowout guys are, they just don't have enough info to find it all and the Moser relationship alone goes back 7-8 years AT LEAST. That's not the only one out there, we just don't have great proof of others yet but I would imagine they are out there. I just don't believe PWCC will be able to take the hit across all the cards by themselves, so a flip numbers release is a low probability event. I don't see any way PSA agrees to admit they missed anything. As a public company, their ONLY real course of action is to defend their graders. Any flip number release from them is a no probability event. Get used to these words - "within tolerance", as that will be the key phrase. So then, is PWCC going to sue PSA to force them to contribute? That to me is also a going out of business strategy.

#2 - The Set Registry. I know a lot of people think the Set Registry is one of the reasons we are in this mess, but can you imagine the upheaval there is all of a sudden PSA were to actually decertify a bunch of cards? That's basically an invitation to make the claim for market difference with them, which again I see is a no probability event.

#3 - Data. In order to cross reference anything that comes out, you'd need the consignor and sales data from PWCC, all the submission data from PSA (and/or other TPGs) and all the bidder/sale data from eBay so it could all be cross-checked. There is NO WAY eBay is going to release all that data to anyone, and I don't see PSA releasing submission owner data to anyone. Once again, the public companies aren't going to assist this effort unless they are compelled to do so by a government agency of some kind, which is a fight that could take years and even if they had to do it the public market would NEVER get to see any of it.

So with that as your backdrop, I think the easiest choice is that PSA fights everyone to the death over their grades and backs their graders 100%, PWCC tries to take the financial hit and hopes the weight of lost consignment revenue and refunds for questionable cards doesn't sink them. No way PSA contributes to this, otherwise they are just inviting the refunds to pass over to them. PWCC isn't likely to fight that if they ever want to be able to submit again, otherwise they'd have to sue PSA which is essentially a going out of business plan as well.

There's no clear path here, but ultimately the easiest path seems to be this is PWCCs problem, and everybody else just kind of walks away. That's my take anyway.

[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?

[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.

[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.