Forbes

LGC

Here is a new article that is of interest to many on this board seeking clarification:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidseideman/2019/06/27/industry-confronts-allegations-of-card-doctoring/#624a81af2b53

1951WheatiesPremium

A well written article that presents the facts as a proper journalist should - without judgement.

I am sure the author should be called out for not being specific enough with names but anyone who is aware of what is going on should recognize that this is a very good summary of events without being clouded with speculation, conjecture and/or drawn conclusions.

REMEMBER: We are anonymous chat board users versus Mr. Seideman the journalist. He does need to use language that protects he and his publication from libel and slander suits.

rcmb3220

“Card sleuths have posted dozens of photos of cards which they are certain have been doctored. But in one case, they seem to have backed off because a card’s supposed alteration may have been the result of an auction house’s poor scan.”

At least he finally wrote something even if the above quote is laughably disingenuous.

1951WheatiesPremium

@rcmb3220 said:
“Card sleuths have posted dozens of photos of cards which they are certain have been doctored. But in one case, they seem to have backed off because a card’s supposed alteration may have been the result of an auction house’s poor scan.”

At least he finally wrote something even if the above quote is laughably disingenuous.

I didn’t read it that way; I think it’s a way of pointing out - tactfully - that not every single card that has been ‘outed’ has been verifiable as ‘altered.’ Trimming, pressing away creases and touch ups can be obvious - but some are very subtle, too.

And I mention this mainly because - even before this whole thing broke - people have definitely posted scans that were ‘altered’ by the scanner while the card was not. Whether colors are autofilled, omitted, etc, sometimes it’s the scanner. And since I’ve been following pretty quietly and closely since it broke, I can say with certainty that there are a few of the alterations pointed to have been questionable, at best.

In the case of that specific card in the quote, I think it’s a Ruth rookie and I do believe even the original poster of that scan acknowledged that it’s possible the card wasn’t bleached but just the scan made the card appear lighter.

Truth be told, it’s hard to keep up and it makes me sad so I can’t do it - read these ‘bad card’ threads - everyday.

rcmb3220

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@rcmb3220 said:
“Card sleuths have posted dozens of photos of cards which they are certain have been doctored. But in one case, they seem to have backed off because a card’s supposed alteration may have been the result of an auction house’s poor scan.”

At least he finally wrote something even if the above quote is laughably disingenuous.

I didn’t read it that way; I think it’s a way of pointing out - tactfully - that not every single card that has been ‘outed’ has been verifiable as ‘altered.’ Trimming, pressing away creases and touch ups can be obvious - but some are very subtle, too.

And I mention this mainly because - even before this whole thing broke - people have definitely posted scans that were ‘altered’ by the scanner while the card was not. Whether colors are autofilled, omitted, etc, sometimes it’s the scanner. And since I’ve been following pretty quietly and closely since it broke, I can say with certainty that there are a few of the alterations pointed to have been questionable, at best.

In the case of that specific card in the quote, I think it’s a Ruth rookie and I do believe even the original poster of that scan acknowledged that it’s possible the card wasn’t bleached but just the scan made the card appear lighter.

Truth be told, it’s hard to keep up and it makes me sad so I can’t do it - read these ‘bad card’ threads - everyday.

My problem is with the word dozens. The moon is dozens of miles from earth too. He’s had over a month to get a more accurate count and it wouldn’t be a number best described with “dozens”. At least it’s more accurate than “multiple”.

1951WheatiesPremium

@rcmb3220 said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@rcmb3220 said:
“Card sleuths have posted dozens of photos of cards which they are certain have been doctored. But in one case, they seem to have backed off because a card’s supposed alteration may have been the result of an auction house’s poor scan.”

At least he finally wrote something even if the above quote is laughably disingenuous.

I didn’t read it that way; I think it’s a way of pointing out - tactfully - that not every single card that has been ‘outed’ has been verifiable as ‘altered.’ Trimming, pressing away creases and touch ups can be obvious - but some are very subtle, too.

And I mention this mainly because - even before this whole thing broke - people have definitely posted scans that were ‘altered’ by the scanner while the card was not. Whether colors are autofilled, omitted, etc, sometimes it’s the scanner. And since I’ve been following pretty quietly and closely since it broke, I can say with certainty that there are a few of the alterations pointed to have been questionable, at best.

In the case of that specific card in the quote, I think it’s a Ruth rookie and I do believe even the original poster of that scan acknowledged that it’s possible the card wasn’t bleached but just the scan made the card appear lighter.

Truth be told, it’s hard to keep up and it makes me sad so I can’t do it - read these ‘bad card’ threads - everyday.

My problem is with the word dozens. The moon is dozens of miles from earth too. He’s had over a month to get a more accurate count and it wouldn’t be a number best described with “dozens”. At least it’s more accurate than “multiple”.

That’s fair; hundreds? Thousands? I haven’t done a count, honestly.

I’ve almost always bought raw and subbed. Never could really afford the major auction houses. Still like collecting.

erikthredd

Rather than point out the names involved in these current allegations of card doctoring he reminds everyone of Bill Mastro's deeds which are irrelevant to what PWCC & Gary Moser have been outed for.
This fluff piece is nothing more than a deflection.

ReggieCleveland

What a hack. There's easily hundreds of cards that have been identified. And the one card that might not be altered was posted by an overzealous board member that had nothing to do with the detective work going on.

Arthur

Arthur, I've deleted your second paragraph. You can't go blasting folks like that here without hard evidence. - Todd Tobias

Frozencaribou

I'd like to get to a place in all of this where we can safely share information about altered cards that will allow us to make informed decisions without getting us banned. The blowout thread outing cards is helpful in my pursuit to "Never get cheated." It would be preferable if I could get this information in a more structured and official way, but that has not happened yet.

Some alterations have been subtle, yes. But many of the 1948 Leaf football, 1952 Berk Ross, 1952 Topps Look n'see, and 1953 Parkhurst hockey trimming examples are not subtle. Cards are unique. The pulp fibres on the back of vintage card are not going to present the same on two separate cards. The cumulative borders on some of these cards have been cut by 10-15%.

Mistakes happen. Own the clear mistakes, introduce more stringent policies on things like size requirements, provide information to stop the further spread of this, and in doing so protect the PSA brand.

Even if it was a guide on what to look for- information is the best defense against further fraud.

-Nathanael

ReggieCleveland

I have no issue with PSA's current timetable. They're in the middle of handling this and we're not going to get an official statement until that part is concluded. That's just how these things work 101.

Anyone that thinks they're sitting on their hands hasn't been paying attention.

As far as the Forbes article, I'll amend my deleted statement. I find it odd that there's a giant piece of information missing from this piece. A piece of information that runs common with all of the altered cards identified to-date. I would have thought that piece would be included.

Arthur

1951WheatiesPremium

Forbes is a publication, not a chat room. This wasn’t written yesterday and posted today. He also more than likely has his articles edited in many ways and submits them some time before publication.

And he’s certainly not writing for us as his intended audience. Everyone on these boards knew everything in that article already weeks ago. However, some people still seem to be confusing ‘unethical’ with ‘criminal’. And negligence with criminal negligence.

Regardless, isn’t news of this being brought to a wider audience a good thing for all collectors?

I mean, there’s enough meat on the bone in that article for a completely uninformed party to start digging around and looking for the information that he alludes to while not naming the specific parties.

That last bit is called ‘upholding journalistic standards’, gentleman. And the man should be commended, not condemned, for it. It’s a quality that, to my eyes, is increasingly rare in our civilization.

Again, I’m still talking about this - I do care about the issue - and I think articles like that help to keep the conversation going and widen the potential number of people talking about it.

Accusations, statements, evidence, even proof - it’s all well and good. I haven’t heard or seen any legitimate actions that have been taken to this point and so I continue to wait for it like everyone else.

doubledragon

Look, PSA cares about it's customers. I think it's unfair to attack PSA. They are working on bettering the situation. These things take time. When a Tornado hits a town, the town isn't rebuilt overnight. Now, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to use my smoke signal gif. There's no reason to use my smoke signal gif, but I'm gonna do it anyway.

ReggieCleveland

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

And he’s certainly not writing for us as his intended audience. Everyone on these boards knew everything in that article already weeks ago. However, some people still seem to be confusing ‘unethical’ with ‘criminal’. And negligence with criminal negligence.

I'm confused. What are you referring to in the ethical/criminal comparison?

Arthur

ahopkins

I can't get that 3 minutes back.

1951WheatiesPremium

@ReggieCleveland said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

And he’s certainly not writing for us as his intended audience. Everyone on these boards knew everything in that article already weeks ago. However, some people still seem to be confusing ‘unethical’ with ‘criminal’. And negligence with criminal negligence.

I'm confused. What are you referring to in the ethical/criminal comparison?

Arthur

Well, there is absolutely nothing that is illegal about altering cards -let’s start there. There is no section of law anywhere I can find - federally or by state - that says ‘Baseball Card Law’. So, I can legally take out a box ‘56 Topps, color them, cut them and generally do whatever I like to them. They’re mine. Whether I do it with scissors and crayons it high tech equipment it’s my stuff.

As I have stated before, even if you take that card and send it to PSA and get it through the system, you STILL have not broken any laws. Sure, you violated their policy but that’s unethical, not illegal.

I’m not going to do this for every party involved but the reason for the ‘Mastro reference’ in the article is because that is basically the only thing you can actually get ANY of these guys on are federal crimes of wire and or mail fraud on an interstate level.

‘Not being that good at your job’ or having ‘questionable ethics’ are not crimes.

With respect to PSA, specifically, people have asserted that ‘they’ve said they can detect altered and counterfeit cards and these cards mean they can’t’ and that does appeal to logic but is not exactly logical. PSA does catch them as evidenced by people receiving these grades of rejection over the years. They literally have codes and we have all seen them. Even on these very boards, many will tell you that they’re disgusted by altered cards yet those same people when they get one will just keep resubbing it and when you ask them why the response is often that it will get through eventually. Or posters who say that trimmers should be hung by their necks and that they’ll get their rope but must do so carefully because it’s by a bunch of cards that are soaking.

By omission, you can see with whom I believe the guilt lies. I have taken a journalism class after all.

Ethical vs legal

ReggieCleveland

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@ReggieCleveland said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

And he’s certainly not writing for us as his intended audience. Everyone on these boards knew everything in that article already weeks ago. However, some people still seem to be confusing ‘unethical’ with ‘criminal’. And negligence with criminal negligence.

I'm confused. What are you referring to in the ethical/criminal comparison?

Arthur

Well, there is absolutely nothing that is illegal about altering cards -let’s start there. There is no section of law anywhere I can find - federally or by state - that says ‘Baseball Card Law’. So, I can legally take out a box ‘56 Topps, color them, cut them and generally do whatever I like to them. They’re mine. Whether I do it with scissors and crayons it high tech equipment it’s my stuff.

As I have stated before, even if you take that card and send it to PSA and get it through the system, you STILL have not broken any laws. Sure, you violated their policy but that’s unethical, not illegal.

I’m not going to do this for every party involved but the reason for the ‘Mastro reference’ in the article is because that is basically the only thing you can actually get ANY of these guys on are federal crimes of wire and or mail fraud on an interstate level.

‘Not being that good at your job’ or having ‘questionable ethics’ are not crimes.

With respect to PSA, specifically, people have asserted that ‘they’ve said they can detect altered and counterfeit cards and these cards mean they can’t’ and that does appeal to logic but is not exactly logical. PSA does catch them as evidenced by people receiving these grades of rejection over the years. They literally have codes and we have all seen them. Even on these very boards, many will tell you that they’re disgusted by altered cards yet those same people when they get one will just keep resubbing it and when you ask them why the response is often that it will get through eventually. Or posters who say that trimmers should be hung by their necks and that they’ll get their rope but must do so carefully because it’s by a bunch of cards that are soaking.

By omission, you can see with whom I believe the guilt lies. I have taken a journalism class after all.

Ethical vs legal

Well, you're wrong.

Here are some of the charges those involved may be looking at, depending on what evidence is uncovered in the investigation:

Fraud and Forgery: Altering a card and selling it without disclosure is fraud. It is also forgery (when a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person). Both are chargeable as crimes in addition to being tortious conduct that can lead to a civil lawsuit.

Honest Services Fraud: Sending altered cards to PSA and trying to sneak them through, then selling the successes without disclosure is probably also honest services fraud.

Conspiracy/RICO: If Moser acted with anyone else--say Brent--then we have a conspiracy to defraud. If the prosecutor believes that there was an organized criminal enterprise at work, we have the potential for a RICO case.

Bribery: If it turns out that payments were made to a crooked PSA or BVG grader for favorable treatment, then there are a number of commercial bribery statutes that apply. Honest services fraud also would apply--that is what the college bribery people got charged with.

On top of all of the above, there are two parasitic criminal laws that the Feds routinely assert:

Mail fraud: Any scheme carried out in a fraudulent manner, with the intent of depriving another person of his or her property, or “honest services,” via the U.S. Postal Service, or any other interstate mail carrier, is mail fraud: each time Moser mails an altered card to PWCC, to PSA or to a purchaser, it is an offense.

Wire fraud: The crime of using an interstate wire, television or radio communications, or the Internet, in order to defraud someone. Taking electronic payments as part of a fraudulent scheme is wire fraud, so if PWCC PayPal'd the proceeds to Moser, each transfer is an offense.

Every state has their own mix of laws on this issue and depending on where these people are located, they may be subject to independent prosecution under state law, as well.

Arthur

craig44

Fluff piece where the author is clearly minimising the extent of this mess. He emphasized one error and minimized the 100's of correctly identified altered "assets". This illustrates the author has an agenda, and that agenda is apparently an attempt to minimize damage and return to the status quo.

1951WheatiesPremium

@ReggieCleveland said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@ReggieCleveland said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

And he’s certainly not writing for us as his intended audience. Everyone on these boards knew everything in that article already weeks ago. However, some people still seem to be confusing ‘unethical’ with ‘criminal’. And negligence with criminal negligence.

I'm confused. What are you referring to in the ethical/criminal comparison?

Arthur

Well, there is absolutely nothing that is illegal about altering cards -let’s start there. There is no section of law anywhere I can find - federally or by state - that says ‘Baseball Card Law’. So, I can legally take out a box ‘56 Topps, color them, cut them and generally do whatever I like to them. They’re mine. Whether I do it with scissors and crayons it high tech equipment it’s my stuff.

As I have stated before, even if you take that card and send it to PSA and get it through the system, you STILL have not broken any laws. Sure, you violated their policy but that’s unethical, not illegal.

I’m not going to do this for every party involved but the reason for the ‘Mastro reference’ in the article is because that is basically the only thing you can actually get ANY of these guys on are federal crimes of wire and or mail fraud on an interstate level.

‘Not being that good at your job’ or having ‘questionable ethics’ are not crimes.

With respect to PSA, specifically, people have asserted that ‘they’ve said they can detect altered and counterfeit cards and these cards mean they can’t’ and that does appeal to logic but is not exactly logical. PSA does catch them as evidenced by people receiving these grades of rejection over the years. They literally have codes and we have all seen them. Even on these very boards, many will tell you that they’re disgusted by altered cards yet those same people when they get one will just keep resubbing it and when you ask them why the response is often that it will get through eventually. Or posters who say that trimmers should be hung by their necks and that they’ll get their rope but must do so carefully because it’s by a bunch of cards that are soaking.

By omission, you can see with whom I believe the guilt lies. I have taken a journalism class after all.

Ethical vs legal

Well, you're wrong.

Here are some of the charges those involved may be looking at, depending on what evidence is uncovered in the investigation:

Fraud and Forgery: Altering a card and selling it without disclosure is fraud. It is also forgery (when a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person). Both are chargeable as crimes in addition to being tortious conduct that can lead to a civil lawsuit.

Honest Services Fraud: Sending altered cards to PSA and trying to sneak them through, then selling the successes without disclosure is probably also honest services fraud.

Conspiracy/RICO: If Moser acted with anyone else--say Brent--then we have a conspiracy to defraud. If the prosecutor believes that there was an organized criminal enterprise at work, we have the potential for a RICO case.

Bribery: If it turns out that payments were made to a crooked PSA or BVG grader for favorable treatment, then there are a number of commercial bribery statutes that apply. Honest services fraud also would apply--that is what the college bribery people got charged with.

On top of all of the above, there are two parasitic criminal laws that the Feds routinely assert:

Mail fraud: Any scheme carried out in a fraudulent manner, with the intent of depriving another person of his or her property, or “honest services,” via the U.S. Postal Service, or any other interstate mail carrier, is mail fraud: each time Moser mails an altered card to PWCC, to PSA or to a purchaser, it is an offense.

Wire fraud: The crime of using an interstate wire, television or radio communications, or the Internet, in order to defraud someone. Taking electronic payments as part of a fraudulent scheme is wire fraud, so if PWCC PayPal'd the proceeds to Moser, each transfer is an offense.

Every state has their own mix of laws on this issue and depending on where these people are located, they may be subject to independent prosecution under state law, as well.

Arthur

Arthur,

You know how I feel about this issue. I’m just being realistic and practical here. I don’t believe the first three avenues will be pursued as they’re difficult to prove even with ironclad evidence. A fake can be proven if the original - with provenance - is produced. As in, ‘That’s not the Mona Lisa, this is the Mona Lisa here in the Louvre.’
However, the costs of the investigation and prosecution are often outweighed by the benefits. RICO was designed to give the Federal Government the right to break up the mafia and other organized crime syndicates. Yes, it is invoked in other cases but again, the circumstances don’t seem right for that either: PWCC is pretty high profile in the card collecting world but there are many collectors who don’t know who they are and even more to the point, if you ask 100 people on the street what PWCC is, I would guess between 95-99 would have no idea, if not the full hundred. Hardly the public menace represented by the Gambino crime family. And the technical nature of it all and potential for the jury being bored of it all quickly (and not understanding why people pay thousands and hundreds of thousands for baseball cards in the first place) are two of the chief reasons for prosecutorial hesitancy.

As you know from private discussions, I don’t think bribery was involved; I have said as much privately and publicly on these boards. Not that it’s not possible but just that it’s not likely. So again, there’s been negligence on the part of TPGs but not to a criminal degree, not of which I have seen evidence, anyway.

Hence, my assertion that convictions on mail/wire fraud are the only thing we can realistically expect as resolutions to this matter. I’m starting to believe it is wishful thinking that we even get that, at this point, but I will continue to follow the story.

As for the last bit, I believe anyone who has done business with PWCC has already agreed to have any legal matters adjudicated in Oregon courts, and I would be shocked if the laws with respect to these matters in that state are analogous to the laws governing corporations in Delaware.

In summary, Arthur, I’m not going to say ‘you’re wrong’, I’m just being practical. Your list of potential crimes committed is accurate but the easiest ones to prove and the ones with the ‘cheapest and easiest to collect and present and have understood’ evidence are the last two, only. And if you think bribery, bribery. The evidence of forensic accounting is very reliable and easy digested as people love to see a scheme unraveled for them to digest. Mostly because schemes rely on arrogance and confidence and people love to see the arrogant punished most of all.

Be well.

ReggieCleveland

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

Arthur,

You know how I feel about this issue. I’m just being realistic and practical here. I don’t believe the first three avenues will be pursued as they’re difficult to prove even with ironclad evidence. A fake can be proven if the original - with provenance - is produced. As in, ‘That’s not the Mona Lisa, this is the Mona Lisa here in the Louvre.’

I actually don't know how you feel about this issue but the issue here isn't about fake cards being sold. It's about cards being altered and then sold as though they haven't been altered. There is a whole bunch of photographic evidence that that happened. It's irrefutable, actually.

However, the costs of the investigation and prosecution are often outweighed by the benefits. RICO was designed to give the Federal Government the right to break up the mafia and other organized crime syndicates. Yes, it is invoked in other cases but again, the circumstances don’t seem right for that either: PWCC is pretty high profile in the card collecting world but there are many collectors who don’t know who they are and even more to the point, if you ask 100 people on the street what PWCC is, I would guess between 95-99 would have no idea, if not the full hundred. Hardly the public menace represented by the Gambino crime family. And the technical nature of it all and potential for the jury being bored of it all quickly (and not understanding why people pay thousands and hundreds of thousands for baseball cards in the first place) are two of the chief reasons for prosecutorial hesitancy.

That's not how this works and I think you know that. The only thing that will determine indictments and charges are what, if any, evidence is discovered during the investigation. Once indictments are handed down the criminal process moves quickly which is why you see the federal government spend years investigating. When they indict, they have more than a 90% success rate because of that. They don't go fishing and they aren't swayed by popular opinion. If evidence is found to support any charge, they'll charge it. If Brent and Moser left a communicative trail or, like I mentioned, if they find a bunch of texts from Brent to his employees to shill their auctions, that's more than enough for conspiracy and RICO. The idea that they wouldn't charge it because it's not the mafia is mistaken.

As you know from private discussions, I don’t think bribery was involved; I have said as much privately and publicly on these boards. Not that it’s not possible but just that it’s not likely. So again, there’s been negligence on the part of TPGs but not to a criminal degree, not of which I have seen evidence, anyway.

I don't believe there's been bribery either. At least not involved with PSA. The thing with BGS is a whole other can of worms.

Hence, my assertion that convictions on mail/wire fraud are the only thing we can realistically expect as resolutions to this matter. I’m starting to believe it is wishful thinking that we even get that, at this point, but I will continue to follow the story.

As for the last bit, I believe anyone who has done business with PWCC has already agreed to have any legal matters adjudicated in Oregon courts, and I would be shocked if the laws with respect to these matters in that state are analogous to the laws governing corporations in Delaware.

In summary, Arthur, I’m not going to say ‘you’re wrong’, I’m just being practical. Your list of potential crimes committed is accurate but the easiest ones to prove and the ones with the ‘cheapest and easiest to collect and present and have understood’ evidence are the last two, only. And if you think bribery, bribery. The evidence of forensic accounting is very reliable and easy digested as people love to see a scheme unraveled for them to digest. Mostly because schemes rely on arrogance and confidence and people love to see the arrogant punished most of all.

Be well.

I don't want to make Todd's life any harder than I already have so I'll table most of my comments about the matter. I think Brent thought this was just going to be a little PR hiccup for a really long time and it went sideways on him really fast.

I look forward to the day when I can email Steve and bitch to him about why they still label W502s as Hand Cut and refuse to label their different backs.

Arthur

1951WheatiesPremium

@ReggieCleveland

Arthur,

I feel this is all a blight on the hobby. I am unimpacted mostly because I buy lower end stuff raw and will occasionally get some items graded. I make my own judgements and then seek confirmation of said judgements - that is gown i use the service.

The success rate you cited is mostly accurate and directly related to selecting changes that you know you can make stick. If my memory is correct, Mastro was charged with mail and wire fraud (and not charged with the ‘trimming the Wagner’ fraud) but ultimately confessed to committing that Wagner fraud as part of his plea agreement and allocution. But again, I’m relying on memories at this point.

Again, I know what I believe happened here and I would like to see the guilty parties punished - the card alterer(s) and their seemingly primary salesman. I agree that the before and after scans are clear and convincing to me and in the court of public opinion; I am, however, unsure of how they will hold up in actual courts. I would think you would need sworn affidavits of people along the chain of custody to firmly establish where and when the card was altered. Though I could admittedly be wrong about that.

If nothing else, the dialog should certainly continue and I sincerely hope it does.

Tim

ReggieCleveland

The shilling is what got Mastro and it might be what ends up getting anyone who may or may not be involved in this as a defendant.

Arthur

60sfan

More discoveries on the Blowout Forum today, including a 1933 Ruth #144 that went from a 2 to a 4.5.

1951WheatiesPremium

By the way, I thought to myself when looking through the article again:

What if this article was my introduction to this whole mess?

I figured I’d want to know whom he was talking about. So I went, like anyone would, to google.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&source=hp&ei=HZQYXeuhGu6P9PwP8eG5gAs&q=altered+cards+auction+house&oq=altered+cards+auction+h&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-hp.1.1.33i22i29i30j33i299.1973.17196..19016...9.0..0.216.4452.0j29j1......0....1.......8..46i39i275j35i39j46i39j0i131i67j46i67j0i131j0j0i67j46j46i275j46i10i275j0i10j0i22i30j33i160.jd1RS5c11t0

Suffice it to say, google is still your friend.

ReggieCleveland

Tim, as a journalism-aficionado, let me ask you a question.

If there was an iconic card being auctioned off, one that doesn't come up for auction very often, and it was currently set to break the record for all previous sales of the card, do you:

1.) write a story about the card with 4 days left to go, not knowing the final outcome, and not write a follow-up article ever, or

2.) wait until the auction is finished, where you can see that it SMASHED all previous results and finished 50% higher than it was at the junction in option 1, and be able to compare it to historical results for other cards and talk about the significance of the auction, the card, the player, where it sits in the pantheon, etc.

Just, you know, from a journalism point of view.

Arthur

1951WheatiesPremium

@ReggieCleveland

Arthur,

While I can see clearly now you don’t like this author, I’ll play along to answer the question:

Forbes is a financial and investment services magazine and many subscribers and readers are wealthy individuals. So while there’s no doubt an element of advertising to the article as written, I think an article that says ‘Here’s one that never comes up and is worth looking at now and potentially investing in’ as opposed to one with the theme of ‘Here’s something you can’t invest in anymore that was probably a good investment that you should have considered’ is the one you’re more likely to see in Forbes Magazine. Auction Report, Sports Collectors Daily and these boards is where you are far more likely to see the latter.

From a journalist’s perspective, I would not bring articles about auction results - likely to be viewed as missed investment opportunities by my readers - to a publication designed for investors.

That’s similar to writing an article advising people that they should have bought Amazon and Apple.

So that’s my take, you know, from a journalism point of view.

Tim

mattyc_collection

If we are going to talk about agendas, there are warped and twisted personal agendas galore on those toxic cesspool chatrooms— the histrionics and invective from random strangers truly jumped the shark.

AFLfan

Just a reminder to not let this get heated. The dialogue is fine. I just want to make sure it doesn't develop into something else.

@DM23HOF made a good point. Healthy debate is great. Blasting each other for differences of opinion is not (not that either of you have gotten to that point yet...).

1951WheatiesPremium

@AFLfan said:
Just a reminder to not let this get heated. The dialogue is fine. I just want to make sure it doesn't develop into something else.

@DM23HOF made a good point. Healthy debate is great. Blasting each other for differences of opinion is not (not that either of you have gotten to that point yet...).

I don’t get heated on message boards and have exchanged many pleasant messages privately and publicly with Arthur. I consider him an asset to the boards, a supremely nice guy and a very knowledgeable hobbyist. He has been generous with his time and knowledge with me specifically and other on the boards. When he posts about things, he tells it like it is and doesn’t hold back. I respect people like that even if and when I don’t agree with them as you can always tell when someone speaks from the heart (if you know how to listen, anyway).

This is two rational people having a nice discussion. I try to refrain from making disparaging remarks about anyone even when they deserve it. My track record on this is not perfect but pretty damn good. And I’d never disparage Arthur in any way but I will respectfully disagree with him when I think I should.

AFLfan

Perfect. I was just making sure, but am glad to see this. It can be hard to read tone on the screen.

Keep rolling on!

ReggieCleveland

Yeah, Tim and I have spoken privately. This isn't adversarial.

You could say I don't like the author but I think there's an equal advocacy here of you supporting him no matter what. I don't want to get into the author directly as nothing constructive will come from that.

Tim said:
Forbes is a financial and investment services magazine and many subscribers and readers are wealthy individuals. So while >there’s no doubt an element of advertising to the article as written, I think an article that says ‘Here’s one that never comes >up and is worth looking at now and potentially investing in’ as opposed to one with the theme of ‘Here’s something you >can’t invest in anymore that was probably a good investment that you should have considered’ is the one you’re more likely >to see in Forbes Magazine. Auction Report, Sports Collectors Daily and these boards is where you are far more likely to see >the latter.
From a journalist’s perspective, I would not bring articles about auction results - likely to be viewed as missed investment >opportunities by my readers - to a publication designed for investors.
That’s similar to writing an article advising people that they should have bought Amazon and Apple.

So that’s my take, you know, from a journalism point of view.

Except this doesn't follow any of the previous articles. All of the previous articles are about finds or record sales, stuff that, like you mentioned, someone outside the hobby would be drawn to. He gets paid by the click so he needs a hook, something that can be easily tossed in the title to get people to hit the button. That's why you get stories that are either "you might have this in your attic, too" or "this sold for $1MM," or, even better, both. What you won't ever find in any of the previous articles are pieces written about an item that isn't a "find" and isn't completed.

We both know "The $100K Jeter" is a much better tag line, story, article, gateway, everything. David isn't in the business of directing people where to invest their money DURING auctions. In fact. you could make a case he isn't in the business of directing people where to invest their money at all. That's not his role and it's clear based on all of the articles he's written.

I don't know what the story is between you two. Maybe you're both freelance and it's a brotherhood thing (I worked freelance for years). Maybe he helped you get a job or something. But your explanations are getting further out toward the fringe as we go.

Arthur

1951WheatiesPremium

@ReggieCleveland said:
Yeah, Tim and I have spoken privately. This isn't adversarial.

You could say I don't like the author but I think there's an equal advocacy here of you supporting him no matter what. I don't want to get into the author directly as nothing constructive will come from that.

Tim said:
Forbes is a financial and investment services magazine and many subscribers and readers are wealthy individuals. So while >there’s no doubt an element of advertising to the article as written, I think an article that says ‘Here’s one that never comes >up and is worth looking at now and potentially investing in’ as opposed to one with the theme of ‘Here’s something you >can’t invest in anymore that was probably a good investment that you should have considered’ is the one you’re more likely >to see in Forbes Magazine. Auction Report, Sports Collectors Daily and these boards is where you are far more likely to see >the latter.
From a journalist’s perspective, I would not bring articles about auction results - likely to be viewed as missed investment >opportunities by my readers - to a publication designed for investors.
That’s similar to writing an article advising people that they should have bought Amazon and Apple.

So that’s my take, you know, from a journalism point of view.

Except this doesn't follow any of the previous articles. All of the previous articles are about finds or record sales, stuff that, like you mentioned, someone outside the hobby would be drawn to. He gets paid by the click so he needs a hook, something that can be easily tossed in the title to get people to hit the button. That's why you get stories that are either "you might have this in your attic, too" or "this sold for $1MM," or, even better, both. What you won't ever find in any of the previous articles are pieces written about an item that isn't a "find" and isn't completed.

We both know "The $100K Jeter" is a much better tag line, story, article, gateway, everything. David isn't in the business of directing people where to invest their money DURING auctions. In fact. you could make a case he isn't in the business of directing people where to invest their money at all. That's not his role and it's clear based on all of the articles he's written.

I don't know what the story is between you two. Maybe you're both freelance and it's a brotherhood thing (I worked freelance for years). Maybe he helped you get a job or something. But your explanations are getting further out toward the fringe as we go.

Arthur

Ive never met him and don’t know much about why he writes what he writes. Some writers pick their topics, others are given them. I do know he’s written about the hobby for 30 years and that predates PWCC, eBay and I believe even PSA.

I have seen many people be critical of many parties throughout these goings on and some of it is misdirected in my eyes. I prefer to see the people who have done the misdeeds stay firmly in the crosshairs.

So, I just don’t think it’s fair to lump this guy in with the ‘bad guys’ but maybe I’m wrong; it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong to give someone the benefit of the doubt. As I mentioned the last time I found myself ‘defending’ this guy as insults were hurled his way, PWCC has been the talk of this hobby for almost a decade. Much of it was positive. Whispers of impropriety have now turned into a mounting pile of evidence that now needs to be addressed. If you are reporting on the hobby as it relates to investing (his exact niche) then to not discuss PWCC would be totally incompetent.

Lastly, here’s a scroll of his writings. He may not be a guy who is in the business of talking about items currently up for auction but I found several articles where he’s doing just that.

https://muckrack.com/david-seideman/articles

And that’s my final word on the topic; I’m neither his spokesman, press agent or lawyer though I’m starting to feel like it.

ReggieCleveland

Completely objective (Parenthetical added by me).

"Honest Consignor (PWCC!) Helps Expose His Own Doctored Ty Cobb Card In eBay Auction"
David Seideman

1951WheatiesPremium

Yikes!

@ReggieCleveland

Benefit of doubt revoked.

Excellent call by you.

ReggieCleveland

@HolyGrail said:
Consignor is Jesse. Auction house is PWCC. One consigns, the other auctions.

This is true. However, legally, the auction house is also considered a consignor until the buyer takes possession of the items.

Arthur

AFLfan

I guess that technically Arthur may be correct, but I also think the article was referring to Jesse being the consignor. Let's hold off on going down this road again unless something detailed and specific comes out. At this point it is all just conjecture, and it's not fair to the writer to blast him with no proof.