OT: 3.5 Million Dollar Scam - Pokemon Cards Certified by BBCE

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by ALBB

maybe...but cant help that it looks a little staged ??

Definitely not staged. I’ve been following this one for a while and after Logan bought it a lot of ppl on the internet started questioning what they were seeing on the boxes. Steve had no experience with Pokémon he should not have authenticated this box.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Santo10Fan]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

Definitely not staged. I’ve been following this one for a while and after Logan bought it a lot of ppl on the internet started questioning what they were seeing on the boxes. Steve had no experience with Pokémon he should not have authenticated this box.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I have to agree. Logan is not a fourth dimensional chess player. Frankly, he trusted an authenticator many of us on Net54 also trust. But it's not that simple.

LP got ripped off because he didn't do his homework and also trusted some chump middlemen who had him marked. The chain of custody on the fugazi item is surprisingly clear and the original auction was for suckers only. So many red flags. That video is likely earning him $15K+ per day this week as long as it stays a top trending. So there's no way LP or his lawyers would let him risk owing Steve Hart millions in a lawsuit over it, negating any revenue from the content.

Steve really looks bad here and if he was branching out, it's clear he spread himself too thin. The only good news is that it was not a Topps/Fleer/etc vintage product. Hardly anyone on this site gives a crap about Pokemon product but people here have invested (or are invested) in Steve's reputation with sports cards.

[swarmee]

To the people making some inferences that this ordeal is a dramatic ruse, READ MORE THREADS. This has been going on for 2 years. I've been following it from the beginning, because the original flipper, meelypops has a store in Gainesville FL and I've seen him post about the original purchase in early 2020.

Steve tried to authenticate out of his knowledge base, was challenged by real experts in that specific field, and was exposed for certifying a fake. It's that easy. Don't build up straw men to try to explain it away. It happened.

You think this meelypops guy would make long videos about how he first purchased the case in Canada and then took it straight to BBCE for their blessing if he knew it was fraudulent? Because people normally play a long con where they incriminate themselves with million hit videos? Nope. He thought it was a true purchase of an undiscovered gem, and was burned along with Steve.
Will be interesting to see if anything happens with the original Canadian seller, who has a history of faking these types of items. Would require the Canadian authorities to intervene.
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1500649

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1500869

https://forums.collectors.com/discus...m-pokeman-case

https://forums.collectors.com/discus...n-case-updates

[mrreality68]

Update he got his money back see below link

https://www.ladbible.com/entertainme...20114.amp.html

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Steve tried to authenticate out of his knowledge base, was challenged by real experts in that specific field, and was exposed for certifying a fake. It's that easy.[/URL]

This was my first thought as well but, after watching the video again, it's actually not that easy. Please listen to what I have to say objectively. If you will, you’ll realize it’s a lot more than that. I have used bold font for Steve’s exact words.

Steve says this is “What I looked for” as he begins to give his reasons for authenticating the case. ”This tape is aged onto this case. This label too. The same embedded lines of the cardboard from age are in that label.”

Someone starts to ask a question, “There’s no evidence of tampering…" (is interrupted by Steve) “One edge would look different” (finishes the question) "...in any way shape or form?”

Steve says, “I did my diligence just like I do for a sports case.” This is the part that I have a problem with. Yes, we can agree that the product was out of his knowledge base. But the way he examined the product was the same way he’s going to examine any unopened case (the product inside is irrelevant). He said the tape was aged onto the case. Well, obviously it wasn’t because it had been re-taped. So if he doesn’t know how to tell if tape is actually aged onto a case or not, how many cases has he authenticated that were tampered with? How many wax boxes has he authenticated that were supposedly FASC (from a sealed case)? It doesn’t matter if he’s authenticating a case of 1985 Topps or 2000 (or whatever the year is) Pokemon, the methods for authentication are still the same - he admits that.

Y'all can defend him if it makes you feel better about the situation, but he blew it and it didn’t have anything to do with the product he was examining. It had everything to do with his examination methods.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Steve says, “I did my diligence just like I do for a sports case.” This is the part that I have a problem with. Yes, we can agree that the product was out of his knowledge base. But the way he examined the product was the same way he’s going to examine any unopened case (the product inside is irrelevant).

The reason I wrote what I did is that the product label was inconsistent with other actual 1st edition cases. I expect Steve has a database of examples of many or all the various Topps/Fleer/etc boxes and cases that his company chooses to authenticate. And just like an autograph authenticator, would verify that the product number/code/printing style/font are consistent with known examples.

There is not another known 1st Edition '99 base set case (opened or unopened), as far as what has been revealed, that used the '1E' at the end of the product code, and the '1E' was not embedded in the bar code. Also, it seems some of the spacing of the words were different than real examples. If Steve was going to authenticate the "only known" unopened case valued at $3 million at the time, these are things he should have been doing.
I have said on the other board that he should have passed on authenticating the box, because he didn't know what the box was supposed to look like.

Similarly, there are many cards that PSA should refuse to authenticate that they still choose to, despite not having the background information needed to confirm are unaltered compared to how they were packed out. Many chrome autographed cards have been wiped off due to streaking/fading and either the player has signed them again or a forger has signed them. VERY FEW of any chrome cards that PSA grades need to be authenticated that they were factory original autographs. Same with embedded patches / patch swapping. PSA/BGS etc only confirm the card itself is real, not that the piece of material in the card is the one that was embedded with. Because the 3rd party graders are incompetent or unwilling to consider those as being faked, it calls into question all of their authenticated auto and patch cards.

Here's one that's currently being challenged at Goldin:
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1502551 Card was graded about 5 years ago based on cert number.

Here's a good thread on patch swapping:
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showth...light=swapping There's a nearly 200 page thread on LeBron cards in the same baskeball forum.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

The reason I wrote what I did is that the product label was inconsistent with other actual 1st edition cases. I expect Steve has a database of examples of many or all the various Topps/Fleer/etc boxes and cases that his company chooses to authenticate. And just like an autograph authenticator, would verify that the product number/code/printing style/font are consistent with known examples.

There is not another known 1st Edition '99 base set case (opened or unopened), as far as what has been revealed, that used the '1E' at the end of the product code, and the '1E' was not embedded in the bar code. Also, it seems some of the spacing of the words were different than real examples. If Steve was going to authenticate the "only known" unopened case valued at $3 million at the time, these are things he should have been doing.
I have said on the other board that he should have passed on authenticating the box, because he didn't know what the box was supposed to look like.

Similarly, there are many cards that PSA should refuse to authenticate that they still choose to, despite not having the background information needed to confirm are unaltered compared to how they were packed out. Many chrome autographed cards have been wiped off due to streaking/fading and either the player has signed them again or a forger has signed them. VERY FEW of any chrome cards that PSA grades need to be authenticated that they were factory original autographs. Same with embedded patches / patch swapping. PSA/BGS etc only confirm the card itself is real, not that the piece of material in the card is the one that was embedded with. Because the 3rd party graders are incompetent or unwilling to consider those as being faked, it calls into question all of their authenticated auto and patch cards.

Here's one that's currently being challenged at Goldin:
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1502551 Card was graded about 5 years ago based on cert number.

Here's a good thread on patch swapping:
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showth...light=swapping There's a nearly 200 page thread on LeBron cards in the same baskeball forum.

I get what you're saying about not being able to visually compare the case to other known cases. But the product is really irrelevant to the topic. By his own words, he said that he used the same method of authentication that he would use for any sports case. The tape was obviously not aged onto the case as he said it was. The fact that he couldn't tell the difference is very alarming, is it not?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by swarmee

...Many chrome autographed cards have been wiped off due to streaking/fading and either the player has signed them again or a forger has signed them...

Here's one that's currently being challenged at Goldin:
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1502551 Card was graded about 5 years ago based on cert number.

So now the hobby is up in arms about a baseball card being resigned by a player? If I'm following this correctly, the theory is that they postulate (without providing any evidence mind you) that a card was originally signed by Pujols in 2001, but that the auto must have been either streaky or faded, so they wiped it off and had him sign it again.

Really? This is what we're down to crying about now? A card that is actually signed by Pujols is somehow fraudulent if it was signed twice? Really? LOL. These guys are hilarious.