THE MARKEL REPORT: Are Graded Baseball Cards Being �Juiced� (Aesthetically Enhanced)?

stone193 · #1 08-22-2009, 01:41 PM

Thanx Dan - I see what ya mean.

Altho this is very compelling - what do you plan to do about it?

Is this a problem with guys like Susor or PSA or both?

Proving this in a court may be different - I would believe - than convincing the board membership.

Does anyone think PSA is an intentional part of this problem?

That would just seem dumb - for a few more grading fees they're gonna risk their entire collective operation?

mike

Peter_Spaeth · #2 08-22-2009, 02:03 PM

I don't think PSA is in cahoots with this seller if he did anything or anyone else. To me it suggests that the 10 second review you get for your 5 bucks is insufficient to detect high quality microtrimming. EDIT TO ADD If asked I might feel differently about a bygone era at PSA when different graders were there.

barrysloate · #3 08-22-2009, 02:35 PM

Peter- all the card doctors know that too. I'm sure they all brag about the fact that their work is so good they can get it past the graders.

slidekellyslide · #4 08-22-2009, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think PSA is in cahoots with this seller if he did anything or anyone else. To me it suggests that the 10 second review you get for your 5 bucks is insufficient to detect high quality microtrimming. EDIT TO ADD If asked I might feel differently about a bygone era at PSA when different graders were there.

Anyone who consistently gets cards rejected for evidence of trimming should be placed on a watchlist by the grading companies....I would bet a donut that PSA knows who the trimmers are, and if in fact they do and continue to allow them to send in submission then by my definition they are "In cahoots" with the trimmers.

Dakota · #5 08-22-2009, 03:47 PM

Great work Dan. You put a tremendous amount of work and money into this and I appreciate you trying help clean up the hobby.

calvindog · #6 08-22-2009, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Anyone who consistently gets cards rejected for evidence of trimming should be placed on a watchlist by the grading companies....I would bet a donut that PSA knows who the trimmers are, and if in fact they do and continue to allow them to send in submission then by my definition they are "In cahoots" with the trimmers.

Dan, you're right of course -- but how would that help PSA make money? In a bizarre way, the Set Registry -- which makes a load of money for PSA -- actually encourages trimming. PSA wants more collectors to want higher graded cards so the trimming will continue, unabated.

slidekellyslide · #7 08-22-2009, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvindog

Dan, you're right of course -- but how would that help PSA make money? In a bizarre way, the Set Registry -- which makes a load of money for PSA -- actually encourages trimming. PSA wants more collectors to want higher graded cards so the trimming will continue, unabated.

It's interesting to me that this guys name is not allowed to be uttered on the PSA boards yet he is still allowed to submit cards to them. Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmm....

calvindog · #8 08-22-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

It's interesting to me that this guys name is not allowed to be uttered on the PSA boards yet he is still allowed to submit cards to them. Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmm....

Exactly. More PSA money = Susor continuing to submit. Less PSA money = discussions regarding Susor and his ability to get trimmed cards past PSA graders.

By the way, did we ever learn if Susor worked at PSA? And if so, under what circumstances did he leave?

botn · #9 08-22-2009, 05:21 PM

High percentages of rejected cards do not always indicate a submitter trying to get altered cards past graders. Depending on the service level, value of cards, grade of the card and who is submitting the cards, grading companies are known to reject 100% original cards.

Things to think about:
1) Graders can know whose cards they are grading.
2) Higher graded cards and more expensive cards are rejected more frequently than lower graded or less valuable cards.
3) Not all graders are competent and some lack sufficient experience/abilities to assess alterations or the lack thereof.
4) Most cards are not graded by more than 1 grader.

Of course grading companies will deny most of the above but anyone who submits frequently will tell you the same thing.

HRBAKER · #10 08-22-2009, 04:36 PM

I've figured it out. The low pop commons are so high because there is so much more labor cost involved. This is disturbing but haven't we really figured as much for a long time now?

benjulmag · #11 08-22-2009, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me it suggests that the 10 second review you get for your 5 bucks is insufficient to detect high quality microtrimming.

Case closed....that is for those who really care to know what lies WITHIN the slab.

Peter_Spaeth · #12 08-22-2009, 07:04 PM

Corey, good point. There probably are registry guys who wouldn't care if you proved to them their cards were trimmed, so long as the label reads 8 or 9. Incredible that things have come to this juncture, where the flip means so much more than the card itself.

botn · #13 08-22-2009, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Corey, good point. There probably are registry guys who wouldn't care if you proved to them their cards were trimmed, so long as the label reads 8 or 9. Incredible that things have come to this juncture, where the flip means so much more than the card itself.

Peter,

I don't think much has really changed. In in the infancy of grading, when auctions appeared in SCD, dealers used to joke about not really needing to show the entire card but just the label so they could fit more cards on a page and save ad space. Think there are simply more collectors who have bought into that and more collectors with more money. Not sure how many of them really care if their cards are altered, as long as their grading company of choice remains in business.

base_ball · #14 08-22-2009, 08:44 PM

Shocked, shocked!

WhenItWasAHobby · #15 08-23-2009, 12:38 AM

There were several topics up for discussion since I last posted.

Leon wondered about several things. This may help:

1. Yes, the postal inspectors office in Dallas and Houston are both aware of what's been going on and in Dallas for quite awhile. An agent at the Houston office said they are backed up but have an interest in this case and may get to it in the near future.

2. Besides the postal inspectors, a criminal complaint was filed through the F.B.I.'s website to the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) on July 31st. The Complaint Id is I0907311626469362.

3. Michael O'Keefe was contacted by one of the team members several months ago and was asked if he would publicize a civil case related to this issue and he said he would. As far as I know he hasn't seen this thread.

The other topic was PSA.

I'm not going to say anything good or bad about them right now. This is what I know. Susor had a long history of having a significant portion of his invoices rejected for trimming. We know this by checking his cert runs. By the way, a very invaluable thanks to the Network54 member who designed that program on Card Target. That saved us a lot of time. Someone did a calculation of his rejected for evidence of trimmings in 2007 and it was 38%. So in short, I don't have any reason to believe PSA was in bed with him.

One other thing. I talked to a PSA Customer Rep named Shane at the January 2008 Tri-Star in Houston for about 20 minutes. Shane was very nice and I warned him that I was convinced that someone was intentionally submitting altered cards to PSA. I explained Susor's MO to a tee without mentioning his name and give him a lot of circumstantial evidence. His response was in essence: "We always catch the bad cards, so if someone wants to throw his money away and try getting altered cards past us - go ahead." He also said that when an invoice goes over a certain percentage of trimmed cards, something like 30%, they call the submitter. I walked away shaking my head thinking they must have Susor's number on speed dial.

One other thing, shortly after that conversation, the PSA website would no longer show if a cert number was rejected for evidence of trimming to the public.

benjulmag · #16 08-23-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by botn

I don't think much has really changed. In in the infancy of grading, when auctions appeared in SCD, dealers used to joke about not really needing to show the entire card but just the label so they could fit more cards on a page and save ad space. Think there are simply more collectors who have bought into that and more collectors with more money. Not sure how many of them really care if their cards are altered, as long as their grading company of choice remains in business.

I think a lot has changed in that NOW there is serious question what the correlation is between the number on the flip and the card that lies within. In contrast, in the infancy of grading, I suspect there was much less concern over the percentage of cards that were altered and whether they would pass undetected by the grading company. Yes, one could say that a collector not caring to see the card signifies that the grade matters more than the card's physical appearance. But underlying this statement would be the purchaser's assumption that the card is unaltered. Or, to put it another way, the fact that a purchaser doesn't care to see the actual card speaks only to the question that grade means more than APPEARANCE. It doesn't necesssarily follow that to such a purchaser grade means more than the card being UNALTERED.

barrysloate · #17 08-23-2009, 09:09 AM

Corey expressed something I've been thinking about throughout this thread. I'm sure there are many collectors who would be more than happy to see their card receive a 9 even if they believe it only merits say an 8. A little grade inflation would be welcomed by just about anybody.

But it's hard for me to imagine that the same collector would be just as happy if he found out that the 8 he just purchased for big money was altered. That's not a scenario where the buyer would feel whole because the label reads 8.

I see a distinct difference between overgraded cards and altered ones. The guy whose 9 should really be an 8 might feel he beat the system in some way. But the one who unknowingly bought an altered card would think the system beat him. Big difference.

Lothar52 · #18 08-22-2009, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stone193

Altho this is very compelling - what do you plan to do about it?

Is this a problem with guys like Susor or PSA or both?

mike

I see it as a problem for both, especially after I just had a few cards denied by PSA for trimming because their "border were smooth"....and all of theborders were smooth....and they still were to size and what i believe not trimmed....but yet they graded these??? HUH?? one was a SGC crackout they said was trimmed..pfft!!!

Loth

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1924-25 Dominion Chocolate. Baseball cards DO exist!	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	9	07-20-2012 09:15 PM
1966 Topps Baseball PSA graded	Archive	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	2	12-22-2008 02:48 PM
WTB: SGC GRADED 1958 Topps Baseball Cards	Archive	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	11-25-2008 10:08 AM
% of Graded Vintage Cards	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	44	10-09-2007 05:45 PM
Trimmed cards graded as Authentic: how are they priced?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	14	08-16-2005 12:17 PM