Ashamed - Topps T206 Buy Back Fraud

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think the issue is that for whatever reason, as proven by the spreadsheet, people are paying at least in part for the item as a whole originating from Topps. There may be no logic to it, and Larry's frankencards may be just as good as the original items from Topps, but for whatever reason people want these as sold by Topps. and not as assembled by Larry Harris. I personally would just want the T206 within, and think the frame is stupid, but that's just me.

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

So intent matters? The OP could theoretically argue that the premium from the Topps pack was more the frame (as a presentation piece) than the card and frame in its entirety. Topps was putting random cards into frames with zero correlation between the two, so OP was just doing same. The argument would become how natural the assumption that these came in packs as such would be (I imagine).

None of us believes that about the OP's intent, of course, but I think this is a pretty gray area as well in that the Topps206 holder is not too far differentiated from a generic topholder (seems closer to that than to a slab, at least). I don't know how easy it is to remove and replace the cover.

Sorry if I'm annoying anyone here. I'm enjoying the back and forth quite a bit.

Yes - typically, criminal liability does not attach unless the person has an intent to defraud. If someone put a raw T206 into a Topps holder years ago for their personal collection, and then sold it a decade later having forgotten that they didn't pull it straight from the product, that would not be criminal fraud.

Judges will sometimes tell juries that intent can rarely be proven by direct evidence; however, the Jury can look at all the circumstances of a person's actions to determine his intent. I think we all agree that the intent was pretty clear here.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

So intent matters? The OP could theoretically argue that the premium from the Topps pack was more the frame (as a presentation piece) than the card and frame in its entirety. Topps was putting random cards into frames with zero correlation between the two, so OP was just doing same.

Of course, the OP could 'attempt' to argue that, but the evidence would tend to negate that argument, IMO. From one of the listings:

"1909-11 T206 Topps Buyback Red Ames Hands at Chest TOUGH COMMON Piedmont Sweet Caporal 150 back. I just acquired a huge lot of Topps Buybacks with Hall of Famers, Southern Leaguers, and tougher backs."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tschock

Of course, the OP could 'attempt' to argue that, but the evidence would tend to negate that argument, IMO. From one of the listings:

"1909-11 T206 Topps Buyback Red Ames Hands at Chest TOUGH COMMON Piedmont Sweet Caporal 150 back. I just acquired a huge lot of Topps Buybacks with Hall of Famers, Southern Leaguers, and tougher backs."

He must have meant assembled, not acquired.

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by tschock

"1909-11 T206 Topps Buyback Red Ames Hands at Chest TOUGH COMMON Piedmont Sweet Caporal 150 back. I just acquired a huge lot of Topps Buybacks with Hall of Famers, Southern Leaguers, and tougher backs."

"But I never said that the one I was selling was part of that lot!"

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think the issue is that for whatever reason, as proven by the spreadsheet, people are paying at least in part for the item as a whole originating from Topps. There may be no logic to it, and Larry's frankencards may be just as good as the original items from Topps, but for whatever reason people want these as sold by Topps. and not as assembled by Larry Harris. I personally would just want the T206 within, and think the frame is stupid, but that's just me.

And you see, having helped create this product as a Topps employee, I think Topps' intention was NOT that the framed creation be worth more than the card within. They wanted to include these cards that they purchase don the secondary market, which happened to be smaller than most of the cards in the pack. Each pack contained a single mini that floated loose, but the other minis (the autos, GU, and originals) were out into frames more as a way to assimilate them into the other cards in terms of size (and make it a bit harder to detect by simply feeling a pack).

I've seen a lot of fraud in this hobby (as have we all), but I've also seen too many collectors get angry at others (manufacturers, dealers, ebayers) for reasons of their own greed and overly-heightened expectations. I think this case is a confluence of the two.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Topps' intent is irrelevant in my opinion. Topps' original intent way back when was to sell chewing gum, not expensive collectibles. Does that matter any more? If collectors value the cards in frames from Topps more than the T206s themselves -- and the spreadsheet and all the money Larry made prove this -- then he committed fraud by lying about the origin and nature of what he was selling.

[judsonhamlin]

I will post this example from the New Jersey Criminal Code - a fourth degree crime is punishable by up to 18 months in State prison, even if it rarely is.

NJSA 2C:21-2 Criminal Simulation. A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if, with purpose to defraud anyone or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud to be perpetrated by anyone, he makes, alters or utters any object so that it appears to have value because of antiquity, rarity, source, or authorship which it does not possess.

No mention of the existence of a copyright as an element of the offense.

Anyone in NJ buy any of these?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

I will post this example from the New Jersey Criminal Code - a fourth degree crime is punishable by up to 18 moths in State prison, even if it rarely is.

NJSA 2C:21-2 Criminal Simulation. A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if, with purpose to defraud anyone or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud to be perpetrated by anyone, he makes, alters or utters any object so that it appears to have value because of antiquity, rarity, source, or authorship which it does not possess.

No mention of the existence of a copyright as an element of the offense.

Anyone in NJ buy any of these?

What does it mean to utter an object????

[mighty bombjack]

You are right that it is irrelevant in terms of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the OP, but I'm pointing out that Topps, as a company, agrees with your opinion on the matter. The t206 within the frame was the whole point for Topps, and I'd bet that several that were directly inserted had been previously trimmed and/or otherwise altered (again, someone should ask Kit Young if there were stated standards in this area - maybe he'd remember, though I doubt he'd share).

I guess my point is that Topps doesn't give a crap about anything being argued here, and they didn't copyright the frame for a reason, that's all.

[judsonhamlin]

To publish, sell, offer for sale or present in some way. One "utters" a bad check when it is turned over for payment, for example

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What does it mean to utter an object????

I guess that would mean voice impersonation, like if I can do a spot-on impression of Morgan Freeman and then use at voice in a radio spot for my product without mention that it's an impersonation?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

You are right that it is irrelevant in terms of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the OP, but I'm pointing out that Topps, as a company, agrees with your opinion on the matter. The t206 within the frame was the whole point for Topps, and I'd bet that several that were directly inserted had been previously trimmed and/or otherwise altered (again, someone should ask Kit Young if there were stated standards in this area - maybe he'd remember, though I doubt he'd share).

I guess my point is that Topps doesn't give a crap about anything being argued here, and they didn't copyright the frame for a reason, that's all.

Right; it's equally illegal to pass off a fake Rolex as a real one whether or not Rolex cares.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

To publish, sell, offer for sale or present in some way. One "utters" a bad check when it is turned over for payment, for example

Only in Jersey.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well now you are into a gray area whether that would be a material alteration that needs to be disclosed. We could argue about whether it is or isn't. But for a clear-cut case like trimming, yeah. There is also a California statute specifically on point that I recall but cannot immediately locate it.

Adam once posted that statute. It is Calif Business and Professions Code sections 21670-21672. http://law.onecle.com/california/business/21670.html My recollection is that there are other states that have adopted similar laws.

[ramram]

Gentlemen - We need to move on to your closing arguments, please. Defendant's team followed by the prosecution's team. Larry is anxiously waiting on a ruling here.

[frankbmd]

So if the card was assembled in New York and uttered in New Jersey and then purchased unwittingly in California, the perp will go to Leavenworth. Have I got that right?

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Bliggity

"But I never said that the one I was selling was part of that lot!"

Dang you, and your vigorous defense!

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Right; it's equally illegal to pass off a fake Rolex as a real one whether or not Rolex cares.

A better analogy here would be a real Rolex watch sold within a real Rolex box, but mismatched (the box was originally made and sold with a Rolex, but a different one than the one being resold). That's the level of fraud we are dealing with here. But, yes, it is still fraud.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by botn

Adam once posted that statute. It is Calif Business and Professions Code sections 21670-21672. http://law.onecle.com/california/business/21670.html My recollection is that there are other states that have adopted similar laws.

Wow, that's pretty clear cut. I had no idea such sports card-specific statutes existed anywhere.

I had originally viewed this almost entirely from the point of view of Topps, who had no copyright on the product or interest in the OP's sales. I now think that the civil liability in terms of fraud/misrepresentation is clear, and the NJ statute quoted above points to criminal liability as well. However, and as has been pointed out, the civil damages are pretty small (unless someone has a massive collectin of these, which has been devalued considerably at this point), and there ain't a DA anywhere that wants to touch this particular prosecution.

I may discuss it with my older brother when he comes to town tomorrow, as he is a former Colorado DA himself, and see what he thinks about it. He will likely yawn and say "Who the hell cares," which is why I'm glad to have an online community like this to go back and forth with.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Once more, with feeling.

18 U.S.C. § 1343: Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Once more, with feeling.

18 U.S.C. § 1343: Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

But Peter, that only applies if what Larry did is fraud. As David has so eloquently explained, all the attorneys are wrong because we don't know the law and it isn't fraud because ... he said so.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

But Peter, that only applies if what Larry did is fraud. As David has so eloquently explained, all the attorneys are wrong because we don't know the law and it isn't fraud because ... he said so.

I'm done with his nonsense. Maybe he can go argue with someone that the earth is flat as I said before. I have encountered people like this before -- the more you show them they are wrong, and the more people who oppose them, the more fiercely they cling to their position. It's a waste of time.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

You are right that it is irrelevant in terms of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the OP, but I'm pointing out that Topps, as a company, agrees with your opinion on the matter. The t206 within the frame was the whole point for Topps, and I'd bet that several that were directly inserted had been previously trimmed and/or otherwise altered (again, someone should ask Kit Young if there were stated standards in this area - maybe he'd remember, though I doubt he'd share).

I guess my point is that Topps doesn't give a crap about anything being argued here, and they didn't copyright the frame for a reason, that's all.

But they could care, and that would make some difference. I'll leave it to the lawyers to explain, but I have a couple examples from collecting experience.


There was a company in the early 90's, maybe 92-93 that made 3-D cards. Not like the Kelloggs, but they'd take three of the same card, laser or die cut them and reassemble the bits with some spacers to give a 3-D effect. Sold as singles in a nice package through Toys R us and maybe a couple other big retailers. Most cards were fleer and Donruss, all the major card companies objected, and he was out of business very quickly.

Another one was smaller and local. Licensed photos mounted to foamboard, laser cut, and mounted to a nice base with a nameplate and "serial #" Pretty limited production, and shut down pretty hard as well.

So there's two examples of making a "better" product out of a licensed product that were shut down. I don't recall if there were any criminal accusations.

Steve B

[jefferyepayne]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's fraud. An open and shut case of fraud. Who gives a damn about copyright?

Peter - you are up against the:

"I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV" crowd here ... they obviously don't understand the meaning of the word fraud.

jeff

[JollyElm]

D.A. Jim Trotter: Now, uh, Ms. Vito, being an expert on general automotive knowledge, can you tell me... what would the correct ignition timing be on a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet, with a 327 cubic-inch engine and a four-barrel carburetor?
Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Does that mean that you can't answer it?
Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question, it's impossible to answer.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Impossible because you don't know the answer!
Mona Lisa Vito: Nobody could answer that question!
D.A. Jim Trotter: Your Honor, I move to disqualify Ms. Vito as a "expert witness"!
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Can you answer the question?
Mona Lisa Vito: No, it is a trick question!
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Why is it a trick question?
Vinny Gambini: [to Bill] Watch this.
Mona Lisa Vito: 'Cause Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Well... um... she's acceptable, Your Honor.

[Bestdj777]

Is this something hat they could even get a copyright for? I assumed it would require a design patent to protect it, but I stopped practicing IP law very shortly after I started--criminal defense work was more interesting and more plentiful.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by Bestdj777

criminal defense work was more interesting and more plentiful.

Yeah, a HUGE issue in our country

There is one way to satisfy the wronged parties in this fiasco and go out with a clear conscience with your honor intact.

[Pat R]

Larry did call me to let me know there was a "problem" with the
buyback he sold me and if I returned it he would issue a refund. While
I do give him credit for contacting me I still think he's only sorry that
he got caught.

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Larry did call me to let me know there was a "problem" with the
buyback he sold me and if I returned it he would issue a refund. While
I do give him credit for contacting me I still think he's only sorry that
he got caught.

I'm sure you know this already Pat.....

but you might want to get your money first before sending back the card!

[7nohitter]

Originally Posted by pat r

i still think he's only sorry that
he got caught.

bing. Go.

[Pat R]

I guess he wasn't too ashamed about cheating people or being dishonest.

For anyone looking to bid on this Reulbach he has listed on ebay

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-1911-T...MAAOSwoBlaZIMD


He bought it in an authentic holder for $20 popped it out and soaked
it before listing it.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-11-T20...p2047675.l2557

http://www.flippertools.com/tools/eb...d=282791975802

[Sean]

Wow, that's a listing that would make Battlefield look honest.

[Fred]

I was wondering why this thread got drudged up. Wow, that is just sad and hard to believe.

[Fred]

That aint the only one..... look at the Frank King T206


https://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-1911-T...cAAOSwO~VadVwv



https://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-T206-P...p2047675.l2557

There's probably more... should the fact that it was soaked be disclosed or is soaking an acceptable alteration process?

[Leon]

He bought an altered card and is selling it with no mention after he cracked it out. That has to be some kind of wrongdoing. What a maroon..

The second one shown right above doesn't bother me as much as the somewhat fraudulent one where he knows it's altered and not mentioning it. A lot of the cards we own have been soaked whether we know it or not. It's not a big deal to me on that....to others it is a big deal.

[showtime]

Originally Posted by Leon

He bought an altered card and is selling it with no mention after he cracked it out. That has to be some kind of wrongdoing. What a maroon..

The second one shown right above doesn't bother me as much as the somewhat fraudulent one where he knows it's altered and not mentioning it. A lot of the cards we own have been soaked whether we know it or not. It's not a big deal to me on that....to others it is a big deal.

He is denying that this is what he is doing after I asked through ebay messaging. Not surprised. He even went as far as to say ask Leon about me. A crook is a crook.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by showtime

He is denying that this is what he is doing after I asked through ebay messaging. Not surprised. He even went as far as to say ask Leon about me. A crook is a crook.

He just keeps on cheating people and lying about it. If it was pwcc or
probstein doing the things he's done the responses would rival Franks monster thread.

[albrshbr]

He changed the post description. He now says the card is trimmed

[RedsFan1941]

stand up guy

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by albrshbr

He changed the post description. He now says the card is trimmed

That's more than I can say for some guys on the board who push trimmed cards in non-SGC, PSA, Beckett holders and claim they "just don't want to break them out because there's too much risk."

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by showtime

He is denying that this is what he is doing after I asked through ebay messaging. Not surprised. He even went as far as to say ask Leon about me. A crook is a crook.

Sorry I don't catch your last name. Any chance you could throw that up there

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by calvindog

That's more than I can say for some guys on the board who push trimmed cards in non-SGC, PSA, Beckett holders and claim they "just don't want to break them out because there's too much risk."

No doubt. But what about trimmed cards that do reside in PSA, SGC, and BVG holders? Does the fact that they made it into the holder of a reputable TPG absolve the seller from disclosing that the card is trimmed/tampered with?

A while back I bought a very high end t206 HOFer with a rare back from a "well respected" broker. The card sat in a BVG flip. Once I received it, in person, it looked a bit short to me. I tried to to cross it to SGC and they would not give it the minimum requested grade of 80 (6) (a down grade), so it was returned to me in the BVG flip. I brought it to several shows and many t206 old timers and some auction houses all said the same thing - "it must stay in this holder", which I took as code that the card was trimmed (none directly said it was trimmed). I grew to despise the card but I could not bring myself to try to sell it without disclosing my experiences - even though it sat plain as day in a BVG flip- which would have resulted in me taking a massive loss. So I ended up contacting the broker who did accept my offer to repurchase it for $2500 less than I bought it from him for. I was happy to take the loss and glad to be rid of that card. All that said, I could have consigned it to an eBay or smaller auction house or sold it myself and merely advertised it as a BVG graded card.... Would that have been wrong? Caveat emptor?

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

No doubt. But what about trimmed cards that do reside in PSA, SGC, and BVG holders? Does the fact that they made it into the holder of a reputable TPG absolve the seller from disclosing that the card is trimmed/tampered with?

A while back I bought a very high end t206 HOFer with a rare back from a "well respected" broker. The card sat in a BVG flip. Once I received it, in person, it looked a bit short to me. I tried to to cross it to SGC and they would not give it the minimum requested grade of 80 (6) (a down grade), so it was returned to me in the BVG flip. I brought it to several shows and many t206 old timers and some auction houses all said the same thing - "it must stay in this holder", which I took as code that the card was trimmed (none directly said it was trimmed). I grew to despise the card but I could not bring myself to try to sell it without disclosing my experiences - even though it sat plain as day in a BVG flip- which would have resulted in me taking a massive loss. So I ended up contacting the broker who did accept my offer to repurchase it for $2500 less than I bought it from him for. I was happy to take the loss and glad to be rid of that card. All that said, I could have consigned it to an eBay or smaller auction house or sold it myself and merely advertised it as a BVG graded card.... Would that have been wrong? Caveat emptor?

This story stinks......that dealer is a POS. Post him name so I can not buy anything from him.

[iwantitiwinit]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

No doubt. But what about trimmed cards that do reside in PSA, SGC, and BVG holders? Does the fact that they made it into the holder of a reputable TPG absolve the seller from disclosing that the card is trimmed/tampered with?

A while back I bought a very high end t206 HOFer with a rare back from a "well respected" broker. The card sat in a BVG flip. Once I received it, in person, it looked a bit short to me. I tried to to cross it to SGC and they would not give it the minimum requested grade of 80 (6) (a down grade), so it was returned to me in the BVG flip. I brought it to several shows and many t206 old timers and some auction houses all said the same thing - "it must stay in this holder", which I took as code that the card was trimmed (none directly said it was trimmed). I grew to despise the card but I could not bring myself to try to sell it without disclosing my experiences - even though it sat plain as day in a BVG flip- which would have resulted in me taking a massive loss. So I ended up contacting the broker who did accept my offer to repurchase it for $2500 less than I bought it from him for. I was happy to take the loss and glad to be rid of that card. All that said, I could have consigned it to an eBay or smaller auction house or sold it myself and merely advertised it as a BVG graded card.... Would that have been wrong? Caveat emptor?

It would be interesting to see if that broker re-offered it and at what price and with what description.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

It would be interesting to see if that broker re-offered it and at what price and with what description.

At a $2,500 discount, he can sub it to PWCC and not think twice about it.

[Gradedcardman]

Is it still not up to us as the buyers to inspect these cards ? I bought a Chappie Charles BVG 7 at a National knowing full well that this was a $600 gamble. The gamble did not payoff. I cracked it and re-subbed as my experience when sending with the slab was not good. Live and learn. This is not a business of collectors selling to collectors anymore. You have to be the one that polices your buys.

[Rhotchkiss]

I dont blame anyone but myself -- I am a big boy buying big boy cards, so it is what it is. That's my perspective as buyer. As a seller (and rarely sell anything), I have a different perspective; I like to sleep at night and would rather make friends not enemies in this industry. That said, like another poster stated - would it have been "wrong" to have just sent the card to PWCC or Probstein or some smaller AH and had them simply list and sell it as what it is "a _____ in a BVG flip"? By giving it over to an AH I am effectively laundering the card ethically, as its now the AH selling and advertising it, not me. I fought with this a long time, because this was a 5-figure card, but ultimately could not bring myself to pawn the thing off to an AH, so I just took the loss and walked. I guess its a dog eat dog world, and thats fine. However, I dont like the taste of dog.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

No doubt. But what about trimmed cards that do reside in PSA, SGC, and BVG holders? Does the fact that they made it into the holder of a reputable TPG absolve the seller from disclosing that the card is trimmed/tampered with?

A while back I bought a very high end t206 HOFer with a rare back from a "well respected" broker. The card sat in a BVG flip. Once I received it, in person, it looked a bit short to me. I tried to to cross it to SGC and they would not give it the minimum requested grade of 80 (6) (a down grade), so it was returned to me in the BVG flip. I brought it to several shows and many t206 old timers and some auction houses all said the same thing - "it must stay in this holder", which I took as code that the card was trimmed (none directly said it was trimmed). I grew to despise the card but I could not bring myself to try to sell it without disclosing my experiences - even though it sat plain as day in a BVG flip- which would have resulted in me taking a massive loss. So I ended up contacting the broker who did accept my offer to repurchase it for $2500 less than I bought it from him for. I was happy to take the loss and glad to be rid of that card. All that said, I could have consigned it to an eBay or smaller auction house or sold it myself and merely advertised it as a BVG graded card.... Would that have been wrong? Caveat emptor?

We've debated this before. I think for the most part people think there is no affirmative obligation to disclose grading history.