Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[Mark Zaid]

I know Mark Zaid posted saying he was in a dialogue with CGC and would post here agaqin, but I have not seen him come back here, did I miss a post?

 

Mark? what happened to the dialogue? I hope no one tar and feathered you or anything.

 

Nah, they just figured if they waited it out, the problems would just magically disappear, and the boards would lose interest. It's hard to sustain negative emotions over a long period of time, which has happened here.

 

A few posts of lip service to slightly quell the mob seems to have sufficed in this instance.

 

With all due respect, I don't give lip service to anything or anyone. Nor do I let anything fade away without being addressed as promised.

 

My apologies to everyone for the delay but that is on me, not CGC. I have been very occupied in dealing with Benghazi issues. I trust the murder of a US Ambassador is understandably a legitimate distraction.

 

I will be back on this issue as soon as I can.

 

With all due respect Mark, perhaps you have too much on your plate.

 

Regards,

Drew

 

Tell me something I don't know Drew.

One of the first things they teach you at Customer Service School is to never, ever tell the disgruntled, "Sorry about that, but I am just too busy to help you."

 

Lawyers don't have Customer Service Schools, although I can imagine it is a required course for comic book store owners.

 

With all humor aside, as I said, I will be back focusing on the issue and do my best to provide responses. My lack of written response on the boards should not be taken as an indication CGC/CCS does not remain seized with the issue internally.

[MrBedrock]

I know Mark Zaid posted saying he was in a dialogue with CGC and would post here agaqin, but I have not seen him come back here, did I miss a post?

 

Mark? what happened to the dialogue? I hope no one tar and feathered you or anything.

 

Nah, they just figured if they waited it out, the problems would just magically disappear, and the boards would lose interest. It's hard to sustain negative emotions over a long period of time, which has happened here.

 

A few posts of lip service to slightly quell the mob seems to have sufficed in this instance.

 

With all due respect, I don't give lip service to anything or anyone. Nor do I let anything fade away without being addressed as promised.

 

My apologies to everyone for the delay but that is on me, not CGC. I have been very occupied in dealing with Benghazi issues. I trust the murder of a US Ambassador is understandably a legitimate distraction.

 

I will be back on this issue as soon as I can.

 

With all due respect Mark, perhaps you have too much on your plate.

 

Regards,

Drew

 

Tell me something I don't know Drew.

One of the first things they teach you at Customer Service School is to never, ever tell the disgruntled, "Sorry about that, but I am just too busy to help you."

 

Lawyers don't have Customer Service Schools, although I can imagine it is a required course for comic book store owners.

 

With all humor aside, as I said, I will be back focusing on the issue and do my best to provide responses. My lack of written response on the boards should not be taken as an indication CGC/CCS does not remain seized with the issue internally.

We were pretty sure they were seizing even before you responded.

[gaz973]

The Wilson-ized example below is but another that displays the characteristics discussed herein and elsewhere.

 

Acquired in a state of age produced by years of ownership, it underwent reconstructive treatment which created an apparent high-grade appearance.

 

Initially sold as a raw FN/VF copy via Heritage, it resurfaced as a CGC 9.2 in the recent Beverly Hills auction. However, that was not before pgcmint attempted to liquidate same via eBay in September of this year.

 

 

 

 

All-American Comics #65 (DC, 1945) Condition: FN/VF

 

All-American Comics #65 (DC, 1945) CGC NM- 9.2 Off-white pages

 

Is it wrong of me to think the book actually looks better in the after photos? The spine roll was simply corrected. It appears that the spine, cover edges and pages line up in a manner more approximating what the publishers were actually striving for. It looks to me like a darn pretty book.

 

I can see the point you are making that it does look better for being properly aligned but I'd like to know how it's possible that it got a 9.2?

 

The two left corners were blunted (particularly the top one) and there appears to be at least one staple tear so has that damage been ignored simply because it has been shifted onto the back cover?

[AlexanderM]

Once they deemed pressing non restorative. This is the result.

[Randall Dowling]

This is my take on this:

 

Is it wrong of me to think the book actually looks better in the after photos? The spine roll was simply corrected.

No, it was over-corrected with the staples rotated to the back of the book, thus, exposing the body on the right side to a large extent.

It appears that the spine, cover edges and pages line up in a manner more approximating what the publishers were actually striving for. It looks to me like a darn pretty book.

Yes and no. I can show you a very large number of books that look greatly improved after restoration. And that is what this is, a restored book. It doesn't mean that the book is ruined or worthless, just that it is slightly restored. I think the problem comes in when people are being led to believe that they are buying a book that hasn't had work done to it. Whoever bought this in the Heritage auction was misled by the blue label 9.2. And I think they might be upset if they find this thread, as they should be.

 

Just because the existing flaws were rotated to the back of the book doesn't mean they aren't there anymore. And having pages sticking out of the right side is a pretty fugly symptom of pressing.

[gaz973]

This is my take on this:

 

Is it wrong of me to think the book actually looks better in the after photos? The spine roll was simply corrected.

No, it was over-corrected with the staples rotated to the back of the book, thus, exposing the body on the right side to a large extent.

It appears that the spine, cover edges and pages line up in a manner more approximating what the publishers were actually striving for. It looks to me like a darn pretty book.

Yes and no. I can show you a very large number of books that look greatly improved after restoration. And that is what this is, a restored book. It doesn't mean that the book is ruined or worthless, just that it is slightly restored. I think the problem comes in when people are being led to believe that they are buying a book that hasn't had work done to it. Whoever bought this in the Heritage auction was misled by the blue label 9.2. And I think they might be upset if they find this thread, as they should be.

 

Just because the existing flaws were rotated to the back of the book doesn't mean they aren't there anymore. And having pages sticking out of the right side is a pretty fugly symptom of pressing.

Well put. (thumbs u

[pickycollector]

This is my take on this:

 

Is it wrong of me to think the book actually looks better in the after photos? The spine roll was simply corrected.

No, it was over-corrected with the staples rotated to the back of the book, thus, exposing the body on the right side to a large extent.

It appears that the spine, cover edges and pages line up in a manner more approximating what the publishers were actually striving for. It looks to me like a darn pretty book.

Yes and no. I can show you a very large number of books that look greatly improved after restoration. And that is what this is, a restored book. It doesn't mean that the book is ruined or worthless, just that it is slightly restored. I think the problem comes in when people are being led to believe that they are buying a book that hasn't had work done to it. Whoever bought this in the Heritage auction was misled by the blue label 9.2. And I think they might be upset if they find this thread, as they should be.

 

Just because the existing flaws were rotated to the back of the book doesn't mean they aren't there anymore. And having pages sticking out of the right side is a pretty fugly symptom of pressing.

Well put. (thumbs u

+1

[comicwiz]

Mark,

 

Thank-you for stopping-by to respond.

 

Hoping you will have a chance to respond to some of the concerns raised in this thread thus far as your work and time permit, including one facet of this situation which is of particular concern to me. It is hoped that by sharing this concern openly, we can better understand the implications to the long-term health and staying power of third-party certification in our hobby.

 

On the latter point, I think a lot of people here perhaps haven't taken an outsider looking-in point of view on how frustrating it can be to immerse oneself in hobbies where things like a yearly published price guide, universally accepted grading standards and third-party certification, are either lacking one or two, or are completely absent of these aspects which work as a lifeline to promote and draw in new collectors. Take away the relevance of one or two of these pieces, and it will have a direct correlative impact on the hobby's ability to draw in new blood.

 

I think we can all agree that when discoveries of manipulation like this occur, it creates unsettling controversy that questions the relevance of certification. I believe this partially relates to the concern that there will always be a segment of those operating in the back issue hobby understanding the nuances and risks to better inform their decision, and that includes some who have no trouble assuming a position of advantage. On the flipside, there is a segment of the hobby that does not fully understand the implications of books being manipulated to this degree, and this means exposing themselves to undue disadvantages. We've seen proof of this without having to step away from the boards, as there have been several boardie's here who have chimed-in and wondered what this all means.

 

Where I am going with all this is that I can't help but think with the introduction of a conservation/pressing arm, there is both a duty and responsibility for CGC to make consumers fully aware of the risks associated to certification. A lot of people here have quickly pointed to the disadvantage it would cause CGC to disclose work performed by CCS, however I think an equally important rebuttal to this argument that should not be overlooked is that they are dangerously walking the line of possibly concealing information which consumers might require/need to avert the financial risks and damages inherent with buying books the market might later discover to be manipulated and damaged by unsound manipulation techniques and deceptive practices.

 

These consumer risks include but are not limited to discussions, very much the like the one going on here, where books are posted, analyzed and talked about to the point where questions are raised over their suitability, marketability, fitness, and that extends to questions being raised about undisclosed restorative techniques which may/may not have been detected by CGC. I'm sure everyone here can appreciate the way this type of discussion impairs the marketability of such examples being showcased, and that extends to the value impairment for owners who may be looking to sell these books down the road. One further, the fact these discussions exist and responses are publicly posted leaves no question about company knowledge of these activities and events.

 

There is also a secondary, negative trickle effect, and that is that the tell tale signs of the manipulation blending into the area of falsely identifying books exhibiting similar right outer edge fanning which were manufactured that way. Lastly, would be the concern of baths or washes or other work deemed "restorative" in nature passing through as unrestored, to later be properly flagged in the high stakes game where books are cracked, pressed and resubmitted.

 

Moreover is the concern that treatments might accelerate the harm a book might not otherwise have been exposed to had it not been for the superficial and shallow monetizing scheme to squeeze every cent within an inch of the books life. None more compelling an argument than the TTA 27 example shared earlier, which revealed foxing on the rear cover of the 7.5 state. Excluding the possibility of the scan digitally masking the defect on the after photo in the 9.0 state, I would find it hard to believe the treatment used did not involve bleaching - a chemical treatment that might improve the short-term aesthetic appearance of the book, but impact the paper negatively by manifesting a recurrence of the mould and accelerating paper brittleness to the point of the paper completely breaking down. It is important to know that while we may be using the term "accelerating" loosely, most collectors understand what is implied when we see a book shrinking, staples tearing, or comic paper becoming brittle in such a short time (within the span of several months, thanks to technology providing a "video review" through before and after scans), when the book otherwise managed to remain unaffected or exhibiting such defects for decades.

 

While CGC has made an official announcement describing RSR, does it have a responsibility to make consumers aware of the risks of buying certified books where non-additive, manipulative and restorative techniques may have been allowed to pass through? And I'm not talking about the disclaimer on the back of the label which essentially states they are imperfect and fallible - rather, how does CGC reconcile the perception issues associated to publishing an announcement describing RSR as an "improper" pressing technique, rewards the practice, and ensures a buyer is made aware of the risks associated to a book "improperly pressed" and the financial risks of buying a book the market will react to with both negativity and resistance?

 

As a footnote to everything I've said, I wanted to point out the overarching concern of this information being poorly managed and mishandled by overzealous journalists with a penchant to publish the counterpunch to "comics as an investment" angle that abounds, and to sully the reputation of this hobby. We've already seen the likes of hack journalist Eric Spitznagel's piece on the worthlessness of comics, supported solely on hand-picked and skewed quotes made by what appear to be embittered comic collectors, dealers and industry people. The traction that article received is astounding if ones considers it was posted on his blog and later syndicated by Bloomberg/Businessweek and a handful of other mainstream financial channels. My hunch is that hack journos like Eric Spitznagel just can't wait to sink their teeth into the searing story of the next big collectible swindle.

 

On the concealment aspect, we have a mega trend developing in professional sports, where players are arguing the leagues knew about the long-term neurological risks and health impacts, but didn't share that with players to help them decide whether retirement was necessary to avoid brain injury. This has already played out in the NFL and is now making it's way into the NHL, and of course the wider spectrum of concern here is not only over player safety (and to my point about the long-term health and staying power) but eventually will open up a dialogue which will impact everything from the way players perform, to the development programs, and ultimately the decisions parents make to support or turn their backs on the idea of allowing the new generation of youth to participate in these sports.

 

There is no question in my mind, especially with the enterprising way this hobby transformed itself from being a disposable medium to "stash for big cash" pursuit that it will be a matter of time before consumers concerns about being screwed by undisclosed manipulation will snowball into something big. How big and devastating will depend on the role and duty we assume as stewards to this hobby. Make no mistake though - this should also be taken to mean CGC needs to minimize the exposure to such concerns, especially from a consumer risk standpoint. I'm not going to sugar coat this last point, as based on some of the responses I've heard here and elsewhere, some believe it's too little, too late. The optimist in me however looks to people like you, and chooses instead to deliver the suggestion that it's best chance to counter this mess might well count on timely solutions, action and awareness.

[mschmidt]

Where I am going with all this is that I can't help but think with the introduction of a conservation/pressing arm, there is both a duty and responsibility for CGC to make consumers fully aware of the risks associated to certification. A lot of people here have quickly pointed to the disadvantage it would cause CGC to disclose work performed by CCS, however I think an equally important rebuttal to this argument that should not be overlooked is that they are dangerously walking the line of possibly concealing information which consumers might require/need to avert the financial risks and damages inherent with buying books the market might later discover to be manipulated and damaged by unsound manipulation techniques and deceptive practices.

Hasn't it already been stated several times in this thread that CGC will, in fact, note every restorative process done by CCS on the label?

 

Or are we back to the "CGC needs to label dry-cleaning & pressing done by CCS, even though they wouldn't label it coming from anyone else"-thing again which would make no sense and is never going to happen? :shrug:

 

 

Moreover is the concern that treatments might accelerate the harm a book might not otherwise have been exposed to had it not been for the superficial and shallow monetizing scheme to squeeze every cent within an inch of the books life. None more compelling an argument than the TTA 27 example shared earlier, which revealed foxing on the rear cover of the 7.5 state. Excluding the possibility the scan digitally masking the defect on the after photo in the 9.0 state, I would find it hard to believe the treatment used did not involve bleaching - a chemical treatment that might improve the short-term aesthetic appearance of the book, but impact the paper negatively by manifesting a recurrence of the mould and accelerating paper brittleness to the point of the paper completely breaking down. It is important to know that while we may be using the term "accelerating" loosely, most collectors understand what is implied when we see a book shrinking, or comic paper becoming brittle in such a short time (several months), when the book otherwise managed to remain unaffected or exhibiting such defects for decades.

What you're implying is that:

 

a) CGC knowingly gave a blue label to a chemically-bleached book

 

or

 

b) CGC missed a chemical bleach

 

I'd say it's much more likely the book wasn't actually chemically bleached.

[Davenport]

There is no question in my mind, especially with the enterprising way this hobby transformed itself from being a disposable medium to "stash for big cash" pursuit that it will be a matter of time before consumers concerns about being screwed by undisclosed manipulation will snowball into something big.

Anybody have any idea what's different about comics, as opposed to coins, sports memorabilia or autographs when it comes to consumer protections or investigation efforts?

 

It can't be the money, because there's a LOT of money involved now and that's routinely trumpeted in news articles. Common knowledge, so it must be something else. Is it some residual attitude about comics being silly kid's fare? Or is it the lack of highly prominent participants?

 

There's some difference, whatever it is, that allows the marketplace for grade-certified comics to remain completely ungoverned. There's zero punishment-risks and plenty of reward enticements compared to all those other collectibles markets. No authorities watching whatsoever. But why is that?

[drbanner]

There's some difference, whatever it is, that allows the marketplace for grade-certified comics to remain completely ungoverned. There's zero punishment-risks and plenty of reward enticements compared to all those other collectibles markets. No authorities watching whatsoever. But why is that?

Right, aren't there coin grading companies that won't even grade coins that have been tampered with?

 

For comics, there's no protective oversight because CGC is a monopoly, plain and simple. Once CGC decided to start pressing, cleaning, tucking, washing, erasing, and otherwise manipulating books to improve the number on the label without disclosing what's been done to them, it all became about the $$$$.

 

The hobby's reaction to the inherent conflict of interest (COI) for CGC to restore and grade books under one roof is why they bailed on their initial foray into PCS several years ago. Alas, the inherent COI became a real COI when they manufactured the damaged Schave books, gave them higher grades, then proceeded to blame it on "humidity" and "natural causes" and abdicated any and all responsiblity.

 

I sure hope the buyers of those damaged books knew they were buying a tainted product and adjusted their bidding accordingly...but I doubt it. If CGC had told the truth about what had been done to the books in the 1st place, they would have.

[seanfingh]

There is no question in my mind, especially with the enterprising way this hobby transformed itself from being a disposable medium to "stash for big cash" pursuit that it will be a matter of time before consumers concerns about being screwed by undisclosed manipulation will snowball into something big.

Anybody have any idea what's different about comics, as opposed to coins, sports memorabilia or autographs when it comes to consumer protections or investigation efforts?

 

It can't be the money, because there's a LOT of money involved now and that's routinely trumpeted in news articles. Common knowledge, so it must be something else. Is it some residual attitude about comics being silly kid's fare? Or is it the lack of highly prominent participants?

 

There's some difference, whatever it is, that allows the marketplace for grade-certified comics to remain completely ungoverned. There's zero punishment-risks and plenty of reward enticements compared to all those other collectibles markets. No authorities watching whatsoever. But why is that?

 

In my opinion, any legal recourse is tough sledding. Autographs (and game used memorabilia) are easy because the actual person either signed them (or wore them) or they didn't. That makes fraud easy to describe and easy to explain to a jury - "I thought I was buying a cut signature of Babe Ruth, but it was really forged by an employee of XYZ Company."

 

In the instance of comic books, you are getting what you paid for - a comic book. And, without in any way belittling the manipulation of the books, it seems that it would be extremely difficult to shoehorn the manipulation into a fraud category that is easily digestible and understandable to an unsophisticated juror. That creates a barrier to entry of these types of cases. Not saying they are impossible, but you have to convince a prosecuting authority to take up the escutcheon of an aggrieved party who may be in the unenviable position of trying to defend a five-six-seven figure purchase of a comic book.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

There is no question in my mind, especially with the enterprising way this hobby transformed itself from being a disposable medium to "stash for big cash" pursuit that it will be a matter of time before consumers concerns about being screwed by undisclosed manipulation will snowball into something big.

Anybody have any idea what's different about comics, as opposed to coins, sports memorabilia or autographs when it comes to consumer protections or investigation efforts?

 

It can't be the money, because there's a LOT of money involved now and that's routinely trumpeted in news articles. Common knowledge, so it must be something else. Is it some residual attitude about comics being silly kid's fare? Or is it the lack of highly prominent participants?

 

There's some difference, whatever it is, that allows the marketplace for grade-certified comics to remain completely ungoverned. There's zero punishment-risks and plenty of reward enticements compared to all those other collectibles markets. No authorities watching whatsoever. But why is that?

 

District attorneys prosecute fraud--that's the only organization I've heard of who has taken the kind of action you appear to be alluding to against people in collectibles hobbies. What fraud are you seeing in comics that's at all comparable to the fraud some have been indicted for in other hobbies?

[Spiderphill]

There is no question in my mind, especially with the enterprising way this hobby transformed itself from being a disposable medium to "stash for big cash" pursuit that it will be a matter of time before consumers concerns about being screwed by undisclosed manipulation will snowball into something big.

Anybody have any idea what's different about comics, as opposed to coins, sports memorabilia or autographs when it comes to consumer protections or investigation efforts?

 

It can't be the money, because there's a LOT of money involved now and that's routinely trumpeted in news articles. Common knowledge, so it must be something else. Is it some residual attitude about comics being silly kid's fare? Or is it the lack of highly prominent participants?

 

There's some difference, whatever it is, that allows the marketplace for grade-certified comics to remain completely ungoverned. There's zero punishment-risks and plenty of reward enticements compared to all those other collectibles markets. No authorities watching whatsoever. But why is that?

 

In my opinion, any legal recourse is tough sledding. Autographs (and game used memorabilia) are easy because the actual person either signed them (or wore them) or they didn't. That makes fraud easy to describe and easy to explain to a jury - "I thought I was buying a cut signature of Babe Ruth, but it was really forged by an employee of XYZ Company."

 

In the instance of comic books, you are getting what you paid for - a comic book. And, without in any way belittling the manipulation of the books, it seems that it would be extremely difficult to shoehorn the manipulation into a fraud category that is easily digestible and understandable to an unsophisticated juror. That creates a barrier to entry of these types of cases. Not saying they are impossible, but you have to convince a prosecuting authority to take up the escutcheon of an aggrieved party who may be in the unenviable position of trying to defend a five-six-seven figure purchase of a comic book.

 

I'm gonna assume Sean's a lawyer Well said.

[fantastic_four]

In my opinion, any legal recourse is tough sledding. Autographs (and game used memorabilia) are easy because the actual person either signed them (or wore them) or they didn't. That makes fraud easy to describe and easy to explain to a jury - "I thought I was buying a cut signature of Babe Ruth, but it was really forged by an employee of XYZ Company."

 

In the instance of comic books, you are getting what you paid for - a comic book. And, without in any way belittling the manipulation of the books, it seems that it would be extremely difficult to shoehorn the manipulation into a fraud category that is easily digestible and understandable to an unsophisticated juror. That creates a barrier to entry of these types of cases. Not saying they are impossible, but you have to convince a prosecuting authority to take up the escutcheon of an aggrieved party who may be in the unenviable position of trying to defend a five-six-seven figure purchase of a comic book.

 

Agreed. And fake autographs is what Dupcak got busted for...if memory serves, it was fake Hank Aaron autographs that Aaron himself denied to the district attorney ever signing when asked.

[comicwiz]

There is no question in my mind, especially with the enterprising way this hobby transformed itself from being a disposable medium to "stash for big cash" pursuit that it will be a matter of time before consumers concerns about being screwed by undisclosed manipulation will snowball into something big.

Anybody have any idea what's different about comics, as opposed to coins, sports memorabilia or autographs when it comes to consumer protections or investigation efforts?

 

It can't be the money, because there's a LOT of money involved now and that's routinely trumpeted in news articles. Common knowledge, so it must be something else. Is it some residual attitude about comics being silly kid's fare? Or is it the lack of highly prominent participants?

 

There's some difference, whatever it is, that allows the marketplace for grade-certified comics to remain completely ungoverned. There's zero punishment-risks and plenty of reward enticements compared to all those other collectibles markets. No authorities watching whatsoever. But why is that?

 

In my opinion, any legal recourse is tough sledding. Autographs (and game used memorabilia) are easy because the actual person either signed them (or wore them) or they didn't. That makes fraud easy to describe and easy to explain to a jury - "I thought I was buying a cut signature of Babe Ruth, but it was really forged by an employee of XYZ Company."

 

In the instance of comic books, you are getting what you paid for - a comic book. And, without in any way belittling the manipulation of the books, it seems that it would be extremely difficult to shoehorn the manipulation into a fraud category that is easily digestible and understandable to an unsophisticated juror. That creates a barrier to entry of these types of cases. Not saying they are impossible, but you have to convince a prosecuting authority to take up the escutcheon of an aggrieved party who may be in the unenviable position of trying to defend a five-six-seven figure purchase of a comic book.

 

 

I often wondered what made the trimmed Honus Wagner card the anomaly, as it was alleged to have been trimmed long before PSA graded it. I believe the Mastro link, as well as other dubious activity brought forward through consumer complaints, festered to the point where the Feds got involved. My hunch is that it culminated from a rare combination of the people, and the money involved, and with the people aspect, the possibility that some close connections existed between victims and enforcement, all aligning to make that case the exception. The comparable in coins being the FTC's NCI/CRCG settlement to pay consumer redress.

[drbanner]

Interesting excerpt from the infamous Jim Halperin Forbes article.

 

"In 2003 several collectors were vying to build the best set of Lincoln pennies on the PCGS registry. Victory came down to a single 1963 penny, the only one known to have received the highest possible rating of proof 70 Deep Cameo. Even in high mint grades an uncertified coin like that goes for less than $10. But when this specimen came up for auction at Heritage, the total price was $39,100 (including commissions).

 

Why pay so much? Soon after landing the 1963 penny, the collector consigned his entire penny set–now certified as the best in the world–to Heritage for auction where it brought $110,000. But on reexamination the coin showed a tiny carbon spot that had formed since grading, greatly diminishing its value. To save face, PCGS bought the coin and retired it."

This is what CGC should have done with the Schave books instead of just turning a blind eye to the damage and releasing them into the hobby.

[fantastic_four]

I often wondered what made the trimmed Honus Wagner card the anomaly, as it was alleged to have been trimmed long before PSA graded it. I believe the Mastro link, as well as other dubious activity brought forward through consumer complaints, festered to the point where the Feds got involved. My hunch is that it culminated from a rare combination of the people, and the money involved, and with the people aspect, the possibility that some close connections existed between victims and enforcement, all aligning to make that case the exception.

 

It's because Mastro himself trimmed the card and represented it as unaltered when it sold in his own auction, wasn't it? He knew he was lying, and a wiretap on his phone caught him admitting he trimmed the card himself.

 

If there's enough money involved and someone in a hobby delivers compelling information about fraud to a local or federal D.A., the odds are decent of them bringing up a case. It also depends upon how busy they are--if they've got a few dozens other cases of multi-million dollar crime on their table, obviously then they won't necessarily pursue the case.

[comicwiz]

I often wondered what made the trimmed Honus Wagner card the anomaly, as it was alleged to have been trimmed long before PSA graded it. I believe the Mastro link, as well as other dubious activity brought forward through consumer complaints, festered to the point where the Feds got involved. My hunch is that it culminated from a rare combination of the people, and the money involved, and with the people aspect, the possibility that some close connections existed between victims and enforcement, all aligning to make that case the exception.

 

It's because Mastro himself trimmed the card and represented it as unaltered when it sold in his own auction, wasn't it?

 

That was partly the problem, but it didn't help PSA graded it as unaltered (8/10 NM-MT) in 1991. Here is an ownership timeline for "The Card":

 

[fantastic_four]

I often wondered what made the trimmed Honus Wagner card the anomaly, as it was alleged to have been trimmed long before PSA graded it. I believe the Mastro link, as well as other dubious activity brought forward through consumer complaints, festered to the point where the Feds got involved. My hunch is that it culminated from a rare combination of the people, and the money involved, and with the people aspect, the possibility that some close connections existed between victims and enforcement, all aligning to make that case the exception.

 

It's because Mastro himself trimmed the card and represented it as unaltered when it sold in his own auction, wasn't it?

 

That was partly the problem, but it didn't help PSA graded it as unaltered (8/10 NM-MT) in 1991. Here is an ownership timeline for "The Card":

 

 

I've read some articles that claimed that one of Mastro's charges was trimming the card in addition to the one count of mail fraud, but that sounds insane. It's not illegal to trim a baseball card, but it is illegal to trim a baseball card and sell it claiming that it's not trimmed. So the mail fraud makes sense, but some charge related to the actual trimming just doesn't.