New BGS/PWCC Scam: McDavid RPA Altered While Keeping Same BGS Serial Number

[3124508 on COMC]

I've seen it all now. I'd love for BGS to explain how someone can add a fake serial number to a card while it stays in a slab with the same serial number as the unaltered card.

Sold May 26, 2019 (and many times prior to that):
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/15-16-ud-cup-connor-mcdavid-rc-2002151978

To be sold by PWCC. Auction starting tonight:
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/2418153

These are the facts I have observed:
-First, the two cards above are clearly the same from the patches and autograph.
-Second, the PWCC auction to begin shortly is for an altered copy of the card where a serial number has been poorly added.
-Third, the BGS serial number of the card does not change from the card as sold on May 26, 2019 to now.
-Fourth, the BGS subgrades DO change (the corner subgrade goes up, while the surface subgrade goes down).
-Fifth, the "MISSING SERIAL NUMBER" line was removed from the slab when it was graded for the second time.
-Sixth, the card has been reslabbed. It is in the opposite orientation in the BGS case now.
-Seventh, the date graded has been changed to Wednesday, July 31, 2019 with the new subgrades applied on the BGS website. This aligns with the time of the 2019 National Convention.

Feel free speculate on how exactly this happened.

https://i.imgur.com/rkHaLh7.png

[ShoutFan2020]

This is getting out of hand, crooks everywhere. Worst fake number ever and BGS doesn't tag it with an altered or low grade since it is defaced?

PWCC sucks and most know it, but their ethics are some of the worst.

[rohara99]

So someone take the fattest sharpie ever created, defaces the cards with a made up #/97 (which is was suppose to originally have and was noted on the BGS holder as missing), and then gets is slabbed with the same BGS # prior to the defacing?

W. T. F. ?

[leaflandwest]

Someone went through the trouble of hand numbering and didn't even number it 97. They must've thought that's what would've given it away and not the fact that they tried writing it using a bingo dabber.

[slightlyrounded]

This is insane. Such an indictment of both the grader and PWCC (as if either needed that further confirmation).

The sooner Brent Huigens is locked up, the better

[pip]

The evidence sure makes it look like Beckett was a willing participant in the attempted fraud. Would be interesting to know who the submitter was.

Also, wouldn't the card potentially be more valuable without the number? Wasn't an extremely scarce error card basically defaced?

[corndog]

The evidence sure makes it look like Beckett was a willing participant in the attempted fraud. Would be interesting to know who the submitter was.

Also, wouldn't the card potentially be more valuable without the number? Wasn't an extremely scarce error card basically defaced?

So much of the bolded.

Integrity in grading? :rolleyes:

[mjohnatgt]

May not be an error card originally. May be backdoored or made as a replacement. But yes, smacks of corruption.

My initial guess:
I know that SGC used to have a rule that if you cracked out and tried it raw at PSA, that you could return the card "in the same condition" and get your old grade back at SGC. It's possible that this is what is happening here with BGS, and that BGS didn't realize the serial number was counterfeited.

[pip]

May not be an error card originally. May be backdoored or made as a replacement. But yes, smacks of corruption.

My initial guess:
I know that SGC used to have a rule that if you cracked out and tried it raw at PSA, that you could return the card "in the same condition" and get your old grade back at SGC. It's possible that this is what is happening here with BGS, and that BGS didn't realize the serial number was counterfeited.LOL..

[ShoutFan2020]

Let's review possible scenarios;

Submitter gets card in May and takes to the National. Tells UD about missing serial number. Did UD mark the card and walk it over to BGS? Either way BGS should not have used the same serial number and regraded under a new number. Surface gets dinged down to a 9 and edges stay at 9.5 despite apparent marker overrun on the one edge (has to be blue on the edge). Seems to be a bit of a stretch really.

[KhalDrogo]

May not be an error card originally. May be backdoored or made as a replacement. But yes, smacks of corruption.

My initial guess:
I know that SGC used to have a rule that if you cracked out and tried it raw at PSA, that you could return the card "in the same condition" and get your old grade back at SGC. It's possible that this is what is happening here with BGS, and that BGS didn't realize the serial number was counterfeited.
It was a re-grade though (corners and surface both changed). BGS doesn't use the old serial number on a crack out, even if you send the flip in (my understanding). And if this flip was sent in...

[sbfinley]

Even odds that it was purchased, the slab was compromised, the card was altered, and it was subbed as reholder with Beckett.

[mjohnatgt]

Well, one edge of the holder is snipped off in the earlier picture.

[pip]

Even odds that it was purchased, the slab was compromised, the card was altered, and it was subbed as reholder with Beckett.That was my thought as well. But how could Beckett ignore its first label? Maybe they decided to reassess the grade given the level of damage to the holder. How could Beckett be that stupid though?

[sbfinley]

It almost had to be a reholder with regrade because the sub grades changed but the cert number didn’t. As for how they missed it... I don’t know, but I’m guessing it’s the same reason everyone screws something up every day.

[TheCardFarmer]

Crazy. Maybe BGS gave the same serial # just in case they had a pop report of 98 of 97 lol

[3124508 on COMC]

Looks like PWCC has pulled it after emailing them.

[pip]

It almost had to be a reholder with regrade because the sub grades changed but the cert number didn’t. As for how they missed it... I don’t know, but I’m guessing it’s the same reason everyone screws something up every day.Come on. That looks like a 3 year old did it.

[pip]

Looks like PWCC has pulled it after emailing them.So a letter from Beckett certifying the correct grade/assessment is on its way before the PWCC relist?

[3124508 on COMC]

So a letter from Beckett certifying the correct grade/assessment is on its way before the PWCC relist?

Correct.

[pip]

I just took a look at various price tracking sites and it appears that there were a fair number of the cards issued without any serial numbers written on them. Could this (the unnumbered variety) have been a promo card that was given out at a venue like the National?

[Melagoo]

Someone went through the trouble of hand numbering and didn't even number it 97. They must've thought that's what would've given it away and not the fact that they tried writing it using a bingo dabber.

... :D :D :D ... had to laugh ... that is so bad ... what were they thinking ... :eek:

[fuzzycollects]

This was an admitted mistake by Upper Deck on the Honorable Numbers cards for McDavid's rookie year. Some of them came out numbered but some also did not get hand numbered. Upper Deck admitted they dropped the ball on it and said that any collector that wanted to have it 'hand numbered', could send it back to them & they would fix. Now....looking at this card, if that was an Upper Deck employee who hand numbered it with the fattest sharpie known to man, they should just quit. Doesn't make much sense, why would anyone even try to do that on their own, especially on a rookie year card from The Cup. I'm guessing it actually was Upper Deck but who knows?

[mjohnatgt]

I will pay you $100 USD by PayPal if Upper Deck had anything to do with it.

[vincecarder]

The original case could have been damaged and the owner cracked it, altered card and mailed it in for reslab with original 9.5 label. Beckett wouldn't know any better especially if the card was still in the same gem condition and would think the crappy new blue numbering was original and just slab again.

[auburn35]

Here's a couple possibilities for when the card was encased; as it appears Beckett just grouped together the reslab orders into a couple batches during the National.

July 31 2019 BGS serial numbers
11542396 reslabes
11542407 recases

Doesn't explain all the irregularities but depending on how broken the case ended up looking after the card was popped out (altered), Beckett may have had to regrade the card, as part of the encasement.

[26CRD]

So poorly written, it had to be a return from UD no?

[superdan49]

Here's a couple possibilities for when the card was encased; as it appears Beckett just grouped together the reslab orders into a couple batches during the National.

July 31 2019 BGS serial numbers
11542396 reslabes
11542407 recases

Doesn't explain all the irregularities but depending on how broken the case ended up looking after the card was popped out (altered), Beckett may have had to regrade the card, as part of the encasement.

I know if the holder is broken to a point where the card might have been damaged, PSA requires it be reevaluated for condition prior to reholdering. Let's assume for a second this happened with this McDavid card, and Beckett determined the overall grade was the same (subgrades changing aside). It still does not explain how it went from being labeled "missing serial number" to not having that designation. Did Beckett assume that they just missed noticing the serial number the first time around?

You would think that a badly cracked, apparently mislabeled case would raise a red flag with Beckett, especially considering cards without serial numbers are generally devalued in the marketplace versus those with them.

[valleynuckfan]

The original case could have been damaged and the owner cracked it, altered card and mailed it in for reslab with the original 9.5 label Beckett wouldn't know any better especially if the card was still in the same gem condition and would think the crappy new blue numbering was original and just slab again.
The label in the original damaged case noted the missing serial # so Beckett would need to be especially blind.

[pip]

The label in the original damaged case noted the missing serial # so Beckett would need to be especially blind.Correct. Not a single one of the other numbered cards has writing like that or is numbered out of "98."

[auburn35]

I know if the holder is broken to a point where the card might have been damaged, PSA requires it be reevaluated for condition prior to reholdering. Let's assume for a second this happened with this McDavid card, and Beckett determined the overall grade was the same (subgrades changing aside). It still does not explain how it went from being labeled "missing serial number" to not having that designation. Did Beckett assume that they just missed noticing the serial number the first time around?

You would think that a badly cracked, apparently mislabeled case would raise a red flag with Beckett, especially considering cards without serial numbers are generally devalued in the marketplace versus those with them.

Yeah, the grade and label description both changing adds an extra level to the puzzle. When I've sent labeling errors back to Beckett for correction, I've received the same BGS serial number, grades and a corrected label.

If this was a "recase" and Beckett was fooled on the case/card actually being unaltered (just a damaged case), I'm sure Beckett could have been fooled that their original label was a mistake, incorrectly noting the missing serial number.

[3124508 on COMC]

Correct. Not a single one of the other numbered cards has writing like that or is numbered out of "98."

I was wondering if anyone else would pick up that there is no way, in my opinion, to read that as anything but “53/98”

[auburn35]

For what it's worth, here's two conflicting PR statements from UD about the cards with missing serial numbers.
https://www.upperdeckblog.com/2017/01/upper-deck-announces-numbering-omission-with-2015-16-nhl-the-cup-honorable-numbers-connor-mcdavid-cards/
https://www.sportscardforum.com/threads/2352523-UD-Blog-Connor-McDavid-Cup-Honorable-Numbers-Error-Situation

The posts appear to have been updated at some point but depending on the version, there were either 35 cards (1-34 and 97/97) released with serial numbers or 50 cards (1-49 and 97/97).

Upper Deck is supposedly keeping track of customer and card information, when a unnumbered card is sent in to receive a legitimate serial number.

[3124508 on COMC]

For what it's worth, here's two conflicting PR statements from UD about the cards with missing serial numbers.
https://www.upperdeckblog.com/2017/01/upper-deck-announces-numbering-omission-with-2015-16-nhl-the-cup-honorable-numbers-connor-mcdavid-cards/
https://www.sportscardforum.com/threads/2352523-UD-Blog-Connor-McDavid-Cup-Honorable-Numbers-Error-Situation

The posts appear to have been updated at some point but depending on the version, there were either 35 cards (1-34 and 97/97) released with serial numbers or 50 cards (1-49 and 97/97).

Upper Deck is supposedly keeping track of customer and card information, when a unnumbered card is sent in to receive a legitimate serial number.

I only saw the official UD release and noted many copies above 34 (but below 50) numbered in the same fashion as 1-34 and 97, so that’s interesting.

[mjohnatgt]

Wait, the same 2019 National Convention that they had an FBI agent sitting at their table taking returns on fraudulent cards? That's when this was regraded?