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

[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?

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The fact that he couldn't tell the difference is very alarming, is it not?

Completely agree. Different flavors of incompetence in this example.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What turned out to be in the other boxes? Or are those being returned "intact" and someday this happens again with unopened boxes?

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What turned out to be in the other boxes? Or are those being returned "intact" and someday this happens again with unopened boxes?

They're all junk.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Completely agree. Different flavors of incompetence in this example.

Just spent about 2 hours down this rabbit hole including watching the video.


I'd call it greedy (though he admitted in 2020 he knew next to nothing about Pokemon, why turn it down when it can be a nice payday) and lazy/incompetent - What you highlighted "That he used the same procedure as with sports product" is F'n crazy!!! He looks at the way the tape is stuck to the box and the fact that there are striations in the label that match up with the striations in the cardboard it is stuck to, but doesn't check any of the fonts, the fact that a legit label is thermal printed (the fake one is not), etc !!!!??? As far as his "expertise" with packs etc. My $$ will stay in my pocket - fruit of the poisoned tree.
Apparently in the wake of this Steve has refused to authenticate any more pokemon products (Apparently in the Pokemon community there are known resealed pokemon packs in PSA slabs that Steve authenticated as well.
Allegedly in a conversation with someone in the Pokemon community (in 2020 I think) Steve stated he didn't think there was a way to tamper with foil packs!?

Just another example of all these "experts" we have laughing all the way to the bank, many times doing grossly insufficient due diligence, on a good day rendering opinions that are inconsistent and on a bad day that are entirely incompetent.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by hcv123

Just another example of all these "experts" we have laughing all the way to the bank, many times doing grossly insufficient due diligence, on a good day rendering opinions that are inconsistent and on a bad day that are entirely incompetent.

Absolutely. The hobby is now overly relying on third party assurances. Prices are reflecting that and the volume of errors and the millions of dollars in bad autos, game used, cards, etc is staggering.

IMO, had Logan Paul decided to not do the opening party on this case (again I feel it was for publicity purposes purely) I would guess it would have sold later for more assuming that Pokemon remained relevant.

The value in all of our authenticated items, legit or not accurately graded or not, is leaving them in their authenticated state. As long as the authentication company is still a going concern, the item will trade for more the next time...assuming the market is there for the collectible.

[Dead-Ball-Hitter]

Originally Posted by hcv123

just spent about 2 hours down this rabbit hole including watching the video.


I'd call it greedy (though he admitted in 2020 he knew next to nothing about pokemon, why turn it down when it can be a nice payday) and lazy/incompetent - what you highlighted "that he used the same procedure as with sports product" is f'n crazy!!! He looks at the way the tape is stuck to the box and the fact that there are striations in the label that match up with the striations in the cardboard it is stuck to, but doesn't check any of the fonts, the fact that a legit label is thermal printed (the fake one is not), etc !!!!??? As far as his "expertise" with packs etc. My $$ will stay in my pocket - fruit of the poisoned tree.
Apparently in the wake of this steve has refused to authenticate any more pokemon products (apparently in the pokemon community there are known resealed pokemon packs in psa slabs that steve authenticated as well.
Allegedly in a conversation with someone in the pokemon community (in 2020 i think) steve stated he didn't think there was a way to tamper with foil packs!?

Just another example of all these "experts" we have laughing all the way to the bank, many times doing grossly insufficient due diligence, on a good day rendering opinions that are inconsistent and on a bad day that are entirely incompetent.

amen brother!

[Ronnie73]

I've watched multiple videos of wax that was certified and the cards were either packed with the wrong cards or there was so much moisture damage that none of the cards were good but the box sold as much as a box that could have had no moisture damage. Old wax and certain years in the 1990's-2000's that the cards stuck together, I would never take the chance.

[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.

[Orioles1954]

It’s also perhaps the most valuable box of any kind they’ve come across. This isn’t simply an “oh shucks, everyone makes mistakes” type deal.

[sbfinley]

It blows my mind that the every single corner of the collecting world is discussing this fake $3.5 million case and 95% of the chain of custody is only referred to by their XBox Live Gamertag....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

It blows my mind that the every single corner of the collecting world is discussing this fake $3.5 million case and 95% of the chain of custody is only referred to by their XBox Live Gamertag....

Real names are so archaic.

[Snapolit1]

From the first day I got in the hobby I figured that the whole unopened pack, unopened case corner of the hobby was somewhere on the spectrum between shady as hell and a complete flaming crock of shit. Not in a million years do I believe someone can eyeball a pack or a case and conclusively determine anything. Wake up folks. Airlines have a hard time weeding out counterfeit plane parts. And you think it's hard for someone to surgically open a pack of cards and reseal it in a convincing way? C'mon. Same for cases. With the money that's at stake in breaking certain packs I am sure there are groups of people focusing on this fraud. Sophisticated people with the equipment to do it seamlessly.

Get to someone who works at one of the companies. Pay them $5,000 for a large sheet of pristine wrapping used for cases. Maybe a handful of stickers. Problem solved.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

If the card is not as it was released by the factory, but is being represented as such, why is it so hard to see that is fraudulent? I think the hobby clearly differentiates between factory released autos and cards people get signed. Put another way, WHY did someone wipe it (if they did), get it resigned, and try to pass it off as an original factory card? To make more money by the deception is why.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If the card is not as it was released by the factory, but is being represented as such, why is it so hard to see that is fraudulent? I think the hobby clearly differentiates between factory released autos and cards people get signed. Put another way, WHY did someone wipe it (if they did), get it resigned, and try to pass it off as an original factory card? To make more money by the deception is why.

Apparently Anything and Everything is acceptable in this industry, it’s ok do what you want.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Apparently Anything and Everything is acceptable in this industry, it’s ok do what you want.

If I buy an expensive Pujols RC that I think was a factory release and PSA says it's a factory release, I'm not going to be at all happy if I find out he signed it 10 years later and the original autograph was removed. Am I out of touch?

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If I buy an expensive Pujols RC that I think was a factory release and PSA says it's a factory release, I'm not going to be at all happy if I find out he signed it 10 years later and the original autograph was removed. Am I out of touch?

Snowman would say you are out of touch. Why complain it’s in PSA slab you should be happy with what it’s worth. You’re a dinosaur.
I don’t like it but the masses prob don’t care, know, and or want to know they only care it it’s slabbed.
No line can’t be crossed to get a card in a holder. It’s a shame I feel your pain.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Snowman would say you are out of touch. Why complain it’s in PSA slab you should be happy with what it’s worth. You’re a dinosaur.
I don’t like it but the masses prob don’t care, know, and or want to know they only care it it’s slabbed.
No line can’t be crossed to get a card in a holder. It’s a shame I feel your pain.

From my viewpoint, it's not about whether or not it's "slabbed" that makes it ok, but the fact that PUJOLS SIGNED IT that makes it ok. If someone wiped the previous auto and forged it, then sure, by all means, that's worth complaining about. But a Pujols RC auto card, signed by Pujols (regardless of when) is just not something I think is worth wasting one's energy on (and I'd wager good money that the vast majority of the hobby agrees).

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If I buy an expensive Pujols RC that I think was a factory release and PSA says it's a factory release, I'm not going to be at all happy if I find out he signed it 10 years later and the original autograph was removed. Am I out of touch?

No, you’re not out of touch. You’re a collector, one with higher standards.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Eric72

No, you’re not out of touch. You’re a collector, one with higher standards.

I love all these subtle passive-aggressive jabs you guys take around here. It's like you guys have a secret virtue-signaling competition or something.

"My morals are just higher than yours if you think soaking a card in water to remove the scrapbook paper from the back is acceptable" or "Clearly, you have character flaws if you think a card SIGNED BY ALBERT F***ING PUJOLS and authenticated as such does not constitute fraud, even if he signed it twice."

What difference does it make, even if he signed it 47 times until he had a signature that he was happy with? It's still an Albert Pujols signed RC.

I swear, you guys will bi**h about anything and everything.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

The card was originally not worthy of a PSA 10 grade. It was then altered and fixed, and then garnered a PSA 10 grade. Really no different than trimming or patch-swapping.

If the card was graded by PSA as ALTERED with Auto AUTHENTIC presuming they evaluated the autograph (which they didn't), then the flip would be accurate and the buyer would know what they're getting. As of right now, it's a Frankenstein card.

Similar to the 1994 Griffey and Mantle autos. Many were released unsigned, some were released with Griffey auto, some with Mantle autos, and some with both autos. Do you just assume that all cards you would come into contact with having both autos are authentic as released cards? Who's to say Mantle didn't sign afterwards, or Griffey did? Does that make the cards less valuable? Yes. Or did a forger put either's auto on there?

I just don't get you. Perfectly okay with fraud. Just a cost of doing business. Why not just buy counterfeit Jackie Robinson cards? Why are they worse than originals?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

The card was originally not worthy of a PSA 10 grade. It was then altered and fixed, and then garnered a PSA 10 grade. Really no different than trimming or patch-swapping.

If the card was graded by PSA as ALTERED with Auto AUTHENTIC presuming they evaluated the autograph (which they didn't), then the flip would be accurate and the buyer would know what they're getting. As of right now, it's a Frankenstein card.

Similar to the 1994 Griffey and Mantle autos. Many were released unsigned, some were released with Griffey auto, some with Mantle autos, and some with both autos. Do you just assume that all cards you would come into contact with having both autos are authentic as released cards? Who's to say Mantle didn't sign afterwards, or Griffey did? Does that make the cards less valuable? Yes. Or did a forger put either's auto on there?

I just don't get you. Perfectly okay with fraud. Just a cost of doing business. Why not just buy counterfeit Jackie Robinson cards? Why are they worse than originals?

Not that the originals ended up being particularly valuable, but I have read that many of the 93 Hoops Bird/Magic dual autos are just aftersigned cards. Relatively speaking the originals are worth a lot more.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by swarmee

The card was originally not worthy of a PSA 10 grade. It was then altered and fixed, and then garnered a PSA 10 grade. Really no different than trimming or patch-swapping.

If the card was graded by PSA as ALTERED with Auto AUTHENTIC presuming they evaluated the autograph (which they didn't), then the flip would be accurate and the buyer would know what they're getting. As of right now, it's a Frankenstein card.

Similar to the 1994 Griffey and Mantle autos. Many were released unsigned, some were released with Griffey auto, some with Mantle autos, and some with both autos. Do you just assume that all cards you would come into contact with having both autos are authentic as released cards? Who's to say Mantle didn't sign afterwards, or Griffey did? Does that make the cards less valuable? Yes. Or did a forger put either's auto on there?

I just don't get you. Perfectly okay with fraud. Just a cost of doing business. Why not just buy counterfeit Jackie Robinson cards? Why are they worse than originals?

First things first. And this is BY FAR my biggest beef with all you card "alteration" hunters. Maybe read this part twice. THE CARD IN QUESTION HASN'T EVEN BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE HAD THE AUTO WIPED TO BEGIN WITH. What we're discussing here is a hypothetical situation about whether it should be acceptable or not for an athlete to have signed a card twice. Yet here you are, pretending as if this has already been proven or something. You're free to cast a vote on that question, but you don't get to just decide on behalf of everyone that to do so constitutes "fraud" or some such nonsense. I would wager everything I own that if someone were to try to take this case to court, they'd be laughed out of any courtroom. There is just no scenario whatsoever that the majority of people would find this to be some sort of fraud, let alone even remotely questionable behavior.

Regardless, back to the card itself. Let's keep the facts straight here. Someone posted a picture of a signed Pujols RC and said essentially that the auto just looked too nice/clean to him for it to have been an auto from 2001, and that it looked more like autos he's seen from 2004 (face-palm added). He provided zero evidence of his claim and made no mention of the sample size of how many autos he might game tried comparing it against. But he just "knows it in his heart", which is good enough for all you clowns to hop on board declaring "Look! MORE FRAUD!!!" Meanwhile, someone else responds with a photo of another Pujols signed RC where the auto looks nearly identical to the one in question. And the response is, "see, there's another one! Look how much fraud exists in this hobby. AVOID PUJOLS AUTOS EVERYONE! THEY'RE FAKE!... er, um, I mean, ya they're signed by Pujols, BUT NOT IN THE DAY YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE! WHICH IS FRAUD!!!"

[Snowman]

As far as the Mantle /Griffey card, again, no difference to me which one of them signed the card on which dates. It's on my wish list, and I couldn't give two f***s about whether it was signed by both at the same time or by one of them in 1994 and the other in 1997. Who cares? And if you do care, why? What difference does it make as long as it's signed by both? I would pay the same price either way.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Who cares? And if you do care, why? What difference does it make as long as it's signed by both? I would pay the same price either way.

Because how do you know that any of them are actually signed by them anymore? That's the problem. The PSA 10 on the flip is supposed to give you that confidence, but it's a lie. At least on that card, since it's pre-1998, requires PSA/DNA to confirm the auto is authentic (or at least as PSA can come close).

On this 2001 Pujols auto, which has a nonstandard auto for the year when the card was released, PSA didn't even evaluate the auto. But their PSA 10 grade would make a buyer think that since the card originally came autographed, that it has the original autograph. PSA AUTH ALTERED AUTO 10 would be more accurate, presuming the Pujols auto was even done by him.

Someone earlier asked why the serial number would have been wiped and redone. One reason would be so that it couldn't have been as easily traced by serial number to previous cards pictured on the internet. Some very high value Trout autographs were exposed as wiped and resigned based on photo matches to previous sales. Once they've been wiped and re-signed, which does constitute alteration no matter how much you whine, PSA ignores the auto when giving the card grade. That's just a terrible business practice for the "world's leader in sports authentication." It's incompetent.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Because how do you know that any of them are actually signed by them anymore? That's the problem. The PSA 10 on the flip is supposed to give you that confidence, but it's a lie. At least on that card, since it's pre-1998, requires PSA/DNA to confirm the auto is authentic (or at least as PSA can come close).

On this 2001 Pujols auto, which has a nonstandard auto for the year when the card was released, PSA didn't even evaluate the auto. But their PSA 10 grade would make a buyer think that since the card originally came autographed, that it has the original autograph. PSA AUTH ALTERED AUTO 10 would be more accurate, presuming the Pujols auto was even done by him.

Someone earlier asked why the serial number would have been wiped and redone. One reason would be so that it couldn't have been as easily traced by serial number to previous cards pictured on the internet. Some very high value Trout autographs were exposed as wiped and resigned based on photo matches to previous sales. Once they've been wiped and re-signed, which does constitute alteration no matter how much you whine, PSA ignores the auto when giving the card grade. That's just a terrible business practice for the "world's leader in sports authentication." It's incompetent.

To test the proposition being floated by our contrarian, do you think a PSA AUTH ALTERED AUTO 10 would sell for the same price as a PSA 10? Something tells me no.