How is it different than buying a used car, that a 3rd party mechanic says is good- condition. Fix it a little. use a little bondo, put some engine quieting mud in the crankcase. Then a 3rd party mechanic says it's excellent. And it is sold at a profit. I'm not convinced that is a crime.. Jes sayin

Read the link I (or Peter) provided. It's fairly obvious the difference, which in part relies on intent (of the seller). Good versus Excellent condition is an opinion (of the 3rd party, in your case), and not a statement of fact. In the case of the card, altering is a fact, not an opinion. To what extent altering affects the VALUE of a card is an opinion. However "general use acceptance" is that altered cards are worth less than unaltered cards.

"A statement of belief is not a statement of fact and thus is not fraudulent. Puffing, or the expression of a glowing opinion by a seller, is likewise not fraudulent. For example, a car dealer may represent that a particular vehicle is "the finest in the lot." Although the statement may not be true, it is not a statement of fact, and a reasonable buyer would not be justified in relying on it." - again, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

Just plodded through the link.....clear as mud now.:)

It pretty much comes down to you can't use the mail or any private interstate carrier to commit a fraud. Similar statute (wire fraud) that covers the phone/email side of things. Trust me the obstacle is not finding a crime to fit.

Big Red
 

love the Cornell Law reference...

any other Cornellians here?:D

I don't know about Cornellians, but I think the subject of this thread is a Cornholian.

ha Good one!

huuuh huuuhh huuuuuh....you rock or something!

That's an excellent point. I read that not too long ago and I was wondering how long has PSA had that agreement on their submission forms. Does anyone still have some really old submission forms to verify that this disclosure existed a long time ago or was it rather a relatively recent addition?

Ya think that clause has been violated a couple of times here and there? LOL.

No idea when the PSA Collector's Club Agreement reflected that language but I do know that this language was not present on the submission forms until sometime in late 2012. I have all my submission forms going back to the mid 1990s. Still does not excuse them from doing their job and pretty pointless as they rarely buy back cards that are altered. At least now if they buy back a card (hilarious concept) they can try to go back to the submitter.

They had this provision on the coin side for some time -- was the basis for a lawsuit that quick research shows was filed but never actually served.

http://www.coinlink.com/News/pdf/CU_vs_Coin_doctors.pdf

This was still a good move by PSA in my opinion. If anything, from a civil law standpoint, it gives the consumer clear recourse against the card doctor.

As I recall the judge threw out the case for a number of reasons. One reason was several of the defendants were from California, so the Federal court had no jurisdiction. As for the rest, as I recall, the judge threw it out because it basically amounted to CU suing it's dealers for damages incurred for CU's own incompetence. It should be on PACER.GOV.

Far above Cayuga's waters class of 1984

Dan it was a Lanham Act suit diversity or not would have no relevance to a federal question case.

This article suggests the suit was never served.

http://www.coinworld.com/articles/de...erse-attorneys

Scariest thing about the coin doctoring is the surfaces are smoothed using a laser. Wouldn't that be virtually impossible to detect?

"Blackbird" The Beatles, class of 68:eek:

With enough magnification ? No.

With the usual 10X magnifier? Yes.

I've seen only one altered coin that I know of, and it was done well before the laser stuff. Added mintmark, not really obvious, but it also didn't look right either. The dealer whose shop I hung out at had just taken it back, having sold it 15+ years earlier. (It failed TPG when the buyer wanted to sell)
Easy return too, basically a "Hey, that coin I bought a long time ago turned out to be altered" "Really? Do you have it with you?" "Yes, here it is" "Jeez how did I miss that? How much did you pay? I seem to remember $X" "Yeah, that sounds about right" " Is a check ok" - Not even a question of whether he'd take it back. He used it as an example of what to look for for a while, last I saw it it was in a cardboard 2x2 holder with a lot of writing describing the alteration and a couple big red stripes. It probably found it's way to the smelter eventually.

That's one of the reasons I still visit and buy stuff from him. No drama, even when there's a problem.

Steve B



Steve B

I wish I could get some bumps in my cards :( I got some signed at the National and graded on the spot, and they came back lower than the pre-signed slab...just my luck

Steve- you should be able to detect an added mintmark pretty easily. But a laser that simply smoothed light scratches out of the surface of a coin could be a whole lot tougher.

Yes, it's harder. But I read an article on how they detect it, and it's a matter of the flow of the metal being different between coining where the flow is generally out from the center, and the laser which just melts the high spots.

Under 10x it might not be visible, but much higher magnification makes the flow lines and grain structure of the metal visible.

Still pretty worrisome for anyone buying an expensive coin that's not graded, or that was graded earlier.


And yes, the added mintmark was pretty easy to spot. Typical solder job with the coin roughed up a bit in that area then polished and slightly re-tarnished. It was a Half too, a 1921-D. Not high grade, Maybe fine.

Steve B

All this fraud restores my faith in humanity.

I am told by a Board member that Joe P. is set up at the Valley Forge show, in case anyone wants to drop by and shoot the breeze. :D

Or in case they have a card they want to enhance the appearance of :D

Looks like Rick will be set up as well.

I hope the Feds show up too!;)

Why? Nobody is going to be onsite trimming cards.

No. They will not be there. No shill bidding going on at the show. :eek:

You sure? There might even be a guy or two giving lessons.

Holy cow, can we agree to let this thread go? It was started when Moby Dick was a minnow....Please, no regrets about Rick...Based on the business he does, I'm sure he can handle his business....

My only question
 

Is the reason Joe P's name was put back in the title was he refused to "Confress" his guilt to these accusations.

Isn't that a bit strange that we accuse people of things and then his name was put back into lights. At this point -- take his name out and move on. It seems like this began last month.

my only question
 

if Joe P sets up at shows and sells his own stuff, then

WHY DOES HE CONSIGN WITH PROBSTEIN?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

IMO threads like this serve a very good and useful purpose.
I highly doubt they change much behavior along the way on the part of buyers or sellers but it's good to know.

I mean...c'mon guys...can't we just let the corruption continue?!?! It's the american way?!?! :eek:

Just curious, anyone hear about sgc's determination about the altered 34 Goudey? Greg? Population report? anyone?

Nope, and tomorrow makes 5 weeks. It's starting to smell really rotten.

Maybe it went in on an economy submission.
:D

5 weeks...
 

I think PSA has quicker turnaround times

Lol
 

Pete, you're right, it is the American way

I don't "smell" anything, but I am getting visions of tumbleweeds in a ghost town. :)

6 weeks today since the altered '34 Goudey Gehrig was (supposedly) sent to SGC. I've resolved to the fact that we will not hear anything more on this matter and it was covered up, swept under the rug. Therefore, this will be my last bump.

Agreed!

It will probably never happen, but I would like to see this thread "pinned" to the top until "we" (the bulk of 54) get answers. Isn't Greg a member here? He ignores the questions that are asked point blank? wtf?

There are members here whose names happen to be Greg but I do not think Greg B is a member here (certainly not an active member) and may not even know about this thread or that anyone is even interested in the outcome of 34 Gehrig.

.

Well, if you enter the cert # for that card (1293008-010) on the SGC registry, you can see that it's still at 92, so either SGC hasn't changed the grade or the card was never submitted to SGC.

I thought Chris Browne posted that he has asked him a couple of times, so he knows.

I thought Chris only posted that he brought the issue to Greg's attention and Greg said he would send it to SGC for review. I do not recall seeing a follow up post from Chris with any updates from SGC or Greg.

If Gary's cert check sugegsts the card is still in the 92 holder, then either Greg never sent the card for review or SGC reviewed it and felt it was graded right. Without Greg or someone from SGC speaking to this, we cannot know.

All the cards in this thread have been added to the Altered Card Database.