BGS Black Labels, Joe Clemons (eBay ID: wjc75056), and Illegitimate Grading

[DaRitz]

Originally Posted by seanbros55

Where are all the ostriches that were claiming no wrongdoing a few days ago now?

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

Where are all the "white knights" with the, derp, you guys just have your pitchforks out, there's not enough evidence now?

I assume you mean those of us who thought it was ridiculous to assume that:
- Joe had some buddy in the grading department giving him Black Labels
- when Joe had 22/22 it did NOT mean that he got 22 in a row, because it was clear the submissions were put in order after the fact?

And then we posted stuff like this:

Originally Posted by DaRitz

This thing is going to have a few more plot twists, and the pitchforks are going to be changing directions very soon.

Just be careful of your assumptions, and stick to the facts.

Originally Posted by DaRitz

The plot twist is going to be grand.

Followed by a bunch of deleted/edited posts and "Yeah but..." comments.

I commend /u/Auburn35 on all the work he's done. The first 2500 posts were about Joe paying his grader buddies under the table... with no proof.

The last couple pages of posts are really hitting at the problem and the people at fault -- BGS.

If you had a good submission option to you where you could submit 500 or 1000 cards at pretty cheap prices, put a min-grade on it an not pay much (if anything) for those submissions, and end up with a pile of raw cards, a bunch of 9.5s, 10's, and Black Labels... wouldn't you do it?

Someone mentioned it earlier, but I suggest a new thread. It's hard to get new readers to this post... no one is going to filter through 3200 posts... and the first 2500+ don't even touch on the real issue being discussed here.

/u/CubsFanP started a good thread, mentioned above:
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1299119

But a new one could also be good... simply with the purpose (and subject to match) of demanding an answer from BGS.

Right now, no statement is better business for BGS than making a statement on their submission policies. They have to lose a lot of business to a point where "making a statement" is the better business decision. We're not there yet, and this thread isn't going to get enough NEW viewers to make a dent.

"Good work," to everyone who has contributed... especially the recent stuff. I think the focus is now on the party that should have been the focus all along: BGS.

[superdan49]

The problem here is for every issue believed to be solved, another rises up. Like this one I just uncovered:

0010306658 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306659 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306660 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306661 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306662 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306663 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306664 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306665 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306666 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL

Nine Black Labels in a row. 1,215 copies of this card have been graded. 26 Black Labels (2.14%) have been awarded. 9 of those 26 were given out consecutively on Leaf's January 12, 2018 order.

At least one of these was packed out as a hit in Leaf Greatest Hits Baseball:


Notice Beckett Grading Service likes this tweet. They do not like this thread.

[auburn35]

Originally Posted by superdan49

The problem here is for every issue believed to be solved, another rises up. Like this one I just uncovered:

0010306658 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306659 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306660 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306661 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306662 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306663 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306664 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306665 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306666 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL

Nine Black Labels in a row. 1,215 copies of this card have been graded. 26 Black Labels (2.14%) have been awarded. 9 of those 26 were given out consecutively on Leaf's January 12, 2018 order.

At least one of these was packed out as a hit in Leaf Greatest Hits Baseball:


Notice Beckett Grading Service likes this tweet. They do not like this thread.

Beckett, oh that's who's cards we we're grading!

[DaRitz]

Originally Posted by superdan49

The problem here is for every issue believed to be solved, another rises up. Like this one I just uncovered:

0010306658 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306659 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306660 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306661 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306662 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306663 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306664 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306665 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306666 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL

Nine Black Labels in a row. 1,215 copies of this card have been graded. 26 Black Labels (2.14%) have been awarded. 9 of those 26 were given out consecutively on Leaf's January 12, 2018 order.

At least one of these was packed out as a hit in Leaf Greatest Hits Baseball:
(Note from DaRitz: Imaged removed for the sake of everyone scrolling)

Notice Beckett Grading Service likes this tweet. They do not like this thread.

2500 post ago, the response would have been: 9 in a row is impossible without someone on the inside. People need to be arrested for fraud and mail fraud and bribery, etc...

Posts now: BGS needs to make a comment about their submission methods. It's plausible that they said all along, "We don't reduce our standards on these big orders," and in fact, didn't intend to reduce any standards.

But it's also plausible that when they make one change to the process (handing a stack of cards for a grader to grade in bulk), that the end result is more Black Labels and 10's.

Some people had access to the special submission system and got a majority of all Black Labels in existence. And they kept doing it.

Joe could legitimately say from the beginning that he didn't have an inside guy.

Brian from Leaf could legitimately say that he'd offer $25k if anyone could prove an "inside man"... with little fear of being proven wrong.

BGS needs to explain why a majority of Black Labels come from a certain submission type. Either it was by design, or it was an unintended consequence. But they messed up either way.

[superdan49]

Originally Posted by DaRitz

2500 post ago, the response would have been: 9 in a row is impossible without someone on the inside. People need to be arrested for fraud and mail fraud and bribery, etc...

Posts now: BGS needs to make a comment about their submission methods. It's plausible that they said all along, "We don't reduce our standards on these big orders," and in fact, didn't intend to reduce any standards.

But it's also plausible that when they make one change to the process (handing a stack of cards for a grader to grade in bulk), that the end result is more Black Labels and 10's.

Some people had access to the special submission system and got a majority of all Black Labels in existence. And they kept doing it.

Joe could legitimately say from the beginning that he didn't have an inside guy.

Brian from Leaf could legitimately say that he'd offer $25k if anyone could prove an "inside man"... with little fear of being proven wrong.

BGS needs to explain why a majority of Black Labels come from a certain submission type. Either it was by design, or it was an unintended consequence. But they messed up either way.

Your take here is reasonable. I do think though that granting special grading privileges, such as guaranteed grades to major bulk submitters that Brent of brentandbecca tweeted about, makes it fair game to question the entirety of the output of Beckett Grading Services, especially when it comes to large submitters as well as friends.

In my opinion, these potential sweetheart deals should be investigated by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to see if they violate the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).

[Astros19]

Eh. The drug cartels suck horribly, but the drug pushers ain't no angels either.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[auburn35]

Originally Posted by superdan49

Your take here is reasonable. I do think though that granting special grading privileges, such as guaranteed grades to major bulk submitters that Brent of brentandbecca tweeted about, makes it fair game to question the entirety of the output of Beckett Grading Services, especially when it comes to large submitters as well as friends.

In my opinion, these potential sweetheart deals should be investigated by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to see if they violate the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).

One step ahead of me.
I have been looking at the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) for a couple days now.

Having a clear procedural breakdown on the Beckett website and appearing to differ from those procedures, for specific customers/orders, isn't a good look.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by superdan49

The problem here is for every issue believed to be solved, another rises up. Like this one I just uncovered:

0010306658 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306659 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306660 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306661 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306662 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306663 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306664 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306665 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL
0010306666 2017 Topps Now Offseason Shohei Ohtani/17323 BGS 10 BLACK LABEL

Nine Black Labels in a row. 1,215 copies of this card have been graded. 26 Black Labels (2.14%) have been awarded. 9 of those 26 were given out consecutively on Leaf's January 12, 2018 order.

Not a good look for you Brian.

[pcptrade]

Are we saying two black labels in a row is fishy or is it normal for Beckett to group them together in an individual order/submission?

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by pcptrade

Are we saying two black labels in a row is fishy or is it normal for Beckett to group them together in an individual order/submission?

Beckett says the serial numbers are issued when the order is logged, which occurs before the grading. So any string of black labels is suspicious, if only because it demonstrates the stated procedure is not being followed in all cases.

[Y2Hood]

Can I just sneak in here as a devil's advocate on grading lower end cards and state that when Beckett wasn't charging double digits for the most basic service I frequently slabbed lower end Frank Thomas (white sox) baseball and Drew Brees football cards through the group subs on the Facebook and message board groups. I sub for my own personal collection, I live in a flood zone, and you can't beat those slabs.

This post isn't to pick a side, but I've seen the question asked in multiple variations of "who is subbing cards of low value?"

Some of us casual hobbyists not looking to turn a profit do in fact do that.

As you were.

[pcptrade]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Beckett says the serial numbers are issued when the order is logged, which occurs before the grading. So any string of black labels is suspicious, if only because it demonstrates the stated procedure is not being followed in all cases.

Thanks Khal. The reason I asked is because I recently purchased two Acuna TC Black Labels from a trustworthy/non-suspicious seller and the serial numbers were in succession. Perhaps the seller submitted multiple Acuna TC #193 cards and beckett gave two of them black labels in succession, a rare random occurrence/event?

Acuna TC BGS 10 Black Label by pcp trade, on Flickr

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by Y2Hood

Can I just sneak in here as a devil's advocate on grading lower end cards and state that when Beckett wasn't charging double digits for the most basic service I frequently slabbed lower end Frank Thomas (white sox) baseball and Drew Brees football cards through the group subs on the Facebook and message board groups. I sub for my own personal collection, I live in a flood zone, and you can't beat those slabs.

This post isn't to pick a side, but I've seen the question asked in multiple variations of "who is subbing cards of low value?"

Some of us casual hobbyists not looking to turn a profit do in fact do that.

As you were.

I’m sure those junk commons from 2013 Prizm were submitted for someone’s PC.

[auburn35]

Originally Posted by pcptrade

Thanks Khal. The reason I asked is because I recently purchased two Acuna TC Black Labels from a trustworthy/non-suspicious seller and the serial numbers were in succession. Perhaps the seller submitted multiple Acuna TC #193 cards and beckett gave two of them black labels in succession, a rare random occurrence/event?

Acuna TC BGS 10 Black Label by pcp trade, on Flickr

Sequential serial numbers isn't always a negative. Some people are really selective with what they submit and this (sequence on an "easy" card to grade) is how Beckett supposedly processes cards for grading. Should the rest of the order (and each additional order the seller submits) also contain sequential Black Labels, that's when things start getting suspicious.

Taking a quick look at the cards that were graded around these, it does seem a little odd (group of BGS 10's) but more information would be needed to say for sure, that something clearly odd was occurring.

[Saraste]

The cynic in me leads me to ask where the seller of those Acunas got them from? Were they self-subbed or purchased from one of the previously mentioned names? Since 2018 TC is an easier grade than some other sets, it is entirely possible everything here is on the up and up as a self-sub. But if it is the latter where they were purchased elsewhere, then another batch of "sweet deal" cards was just uncovered.

[pcbuck]

Originally Posted by DaRitz

I assume you mean those of us who thought it was ridiculous to assume that:
- Joe had some buddy in the grading department giving him Black Labels
- when Joe had 22/22 it did NOT mean that he got 22 in a row, because it was clear the submissions were put in order after the fact?

And then we posted stuff like this:







I commend /u/Auburn35 on all the work he's done. The first 2500 posts were about Joe paying his grader buddies under the table... with no proof.

The last couple pages of posts are really hitting at the problem and the people at fault -- BGS.

If you had a good submission option to you where you could submit 500 or 1000 cards at pretty cheap prices, put a min-grade on it an not pay much (if anything) for those submissions, and end up with a pile of raw cards, a bunch of 9.5s, 10's, and Black Labels... wouldn't you do it?

Someone mentioned it earlier, but I suggest a new thread. It's hard to get new readers to this post... no one is going to filter through 3200 posts... and the first 2500+ don't even touch on the real issue being discussed here.

/u/CubsFanP started a good thread, mentioned above:
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1299119

But a new one could also be good... simply with the purpose (and subject to match) of demanding an answer from BGS.

Right now, no statement is better business for BGS than making a statement on their submission policies. They have to lose a lot of business to a point where "making a statement" is the better business decision. We're not there yet, and this thread isn't going to get enough NEW viewers to make a dent.

"Good work," to everyone who has contributed... especially the recent stuff. I think the focus is now on the party that should have been the focus all along: BGS.

Those are good points and BGS definitely has some explaining to do. My problem with Joe Clemens is that he initially came on here basically saying, nothing to see here I’m eagle eyed Joe.

[THE(NEXT)LEVEL]

Originally Posted by pcbuck

Those are good points and BGS definitely has some explaining to do. My problem with Joe Clemens is that he initially came on here basically saying, nothing to see here I’m eagle eyed Joe.

Exactly! It wasn’t the least bit suspicious to him. Why, lol?

[pcptrade]

I did not purchase my Acuna Topps Chrome black labels from wjc. I just realized that I had questioned wjc's unusual number of black labels back in April in the Acuna Thread

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?p=14623522

Originally Posted by pcptrade

Does this ebay seller wjc75056 (from Colony, Texas which is a suburb of Dallas) know someone in Beckett (also in Dallas)? He has unusually high number of black labels. He has sold 4 Acuna TC black labels (different serial numbers) in the past 3 months and has one Acuna TC black label currently for sale. He has a total of 5 Acuna TC black labels, which is almost 45% of the total pop of TC black labels (11)

http://www.watchcount.com/completed....bnp=&bxp=#serp

He has sold 50 black labels of various players in the past 3 months

https://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?_odk...label&_sacat=0

He has active listing of 9 black labels

https://www.ebay.com/sch/m.html?nord...kw=black+label

[dizzydolse]

Originally Posted by Kuch86

Yikes... the photo comparison in that article.

It's amazing how more and more keeps dripping out.

LEAF headquarters

[Blue_Devil]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

I’m sure those junk commons from 2013 Prizm were submitted for someone’s PC.

And not on a one day rate.

[auburn35]

Originally Posted by pcptrade

I did not purchase my Acuna Topps Chrome black labels from wjc. I just realized that I had questioned wjc's unusual number of black labels back in April in the Acuna Thread

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?p=14623522

Yeah, I looked at your card numbers and they didn't clearly match up with a "Joe" submission. They were grouped with other 10's but on a small sample size, it's difficult to say for sure, anything about that order was questionable.

You were obviously ahead of most, when you were suspicious of Joe's inventory, back in April.

[Kuch86]

Originally Posted by DaRitz

I assume you mean those of us who thought it was ridiculous to assume that:
- Joe had some buddy in the grading department giving him Black Labels
- when Joe had 22/22 it did NOT mean that he got 22 in a row, because it was clear the submissions were put in order after the fact?

And then we posted stuff like this:







I commend /u/Auburn35 on all the work he's done. The first 2500 posts were about Joe paying his grader buddies under the table... with no proof.

The last couple pages of posts are really hitting at the problem and the people at fault -- BGS.

If you had a good submission option to you where you could submit 500 or 1000 cards at pretty cheap prices, put a min-grade on it an not pay much (if anything) for those submissions, and end up with a pile of raw cards, a bunch of 9.5s, 10's, and Black Labels... wouldn't you do it?

Someone mentioned it earlier, but I suggest a new thread. It's hard to get new readers to this post... no one is going to filter through 3200 posts... and the first 2500+ don't even touch on the real issue being discussed here.

/u/CubsFanP started a good thread, mentioned above:
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1299119

But a new one could also be good... simply with the purpose (and subject to match) of demanding an answer from BGS.

Right now, no statement is better business for BGS than making a statement on their submission policies. They have to lose a lot of business to a point where "making a statement" is the better business decision. We're not there yet, and this thread isn't going to get enough NEW viewers to make a dent.

"Good work," to everyone who has contributed... especially the recent stuff. I think the focus is now on the party that should have been the focus all along: BGS.

This new "potential" information still doesn't explain away Joe's claims/actions in the thread:

- he only submits his VERY best cards in extremely small batches because he feels he has better chance at BL's
- his eye for picking out the best graded cards is waaaay better than everyone else's and that's why he has such high grades
- only releases his BL grades and not his BGS10
- told one member he never does RCR and told another one of his perfect submissions was because of RCR

There is no question in my mind he (and likely LEAF) has been shady/dishonest in this thread. He deserves what he got.

[Kuch86]

Originally Posted by Y2Hood

Can I just sneak in here as a devil's advocate on grading lower end cards and state that when Beckett wasn't charging double digits for the most basic service I frequently slabbed lower end Frank Thomas (white sox) baseball and Drew Brees football cards through the group subs on the Facebook and message board groups. I sub for my own personal collection, I live in a flood zone, and you can't beat those slabs.

This post isn't to pick a side, but I've seen the question asked in multiple variations of "who is subbing cards of low value?"

Some of us casual hobbyists not looking to turn a profit do in fact do that.

As you were.

It's pretty obvious Joe IS looking to turn a profit. That is the whole point.

[Kuch86]

Also, with the new talk of grading deals and the fact LEAF is encouraging people to post his responses to PM's I will post the following Q&A I had with LEAF for the record.

Please note the bolded point is likely a part of the whole scheme

Kuch86 Question:

I can only assess what has been presented in the thread and it doesn't look good for your employee.

Also, just to be clear:

Do you have any knowledge that Beckett graders may know they are grading Joe's cards, or any other "special" batches of cards, and they would give favorable treatment to those cards?

Also, do you have any knowledge of special grading arrangements (outside the publicly listed rates) in place that Joe, or anybody else for that matter, may be benefiting from?

Two very simple questions. If you don't know then please just say so.

Thanks.

LEAF Answer:

I don't know anything "for sure"....

BUT, I would guess that there are some deals made for no sub orders as it appears Beckett is pushing people that way. I believe if you make a "no subgrade order", you still get subs on 10's and still get the good turnaround.
Additionally, last I heard PSA has a huge sliding scale for pricing and turn around times...

Additionally, I do not believe the graders know whose order anyone's order is. Although, I am sure they can "guess" that if I submit Valiant a month or more prior to release for the graded cards inside the product and we submit 4,000++++ cards, they might be able to guess it is the manufacturer.

Unfortunately, if you look at my valiant results, we are much lower percentage success as it is much harder to get 10's after players slide cards across a table, handle cards in and out of the shipping box, etc.....

I hope you know, I have ZERO problems with guys helping police an industry that really does need the help in some areas. In this case, even if you thought he was guilty of something (which my more extensive investigation leads me to believe he is not), the fact that this is 125 pages and known trimmer threads and PWCC threads are 25 pages is laughable.

He is probably getting treated worse because people don't like me, but I can't do much about that..... How could I become popular on this board anyway? LOL... Impossible.

BG

[auburn35]

Originally Posted by DaRitz

The last couple pages of posts are really hitting at the problem and the people at fault -- BGS.

If you had a good submission option to you where you could submit 500 or 1000 cards at pretty cheap prices, put a min-grade on it an not pay much (if anything) for those submissions, and end up with a pile of raw cards, a bunch of 9.5s, 10's, and Black Labels... wouldn't you do it?

Someone mentioned it earlier, but I suggest a new thread. It's hard to get new readers to this post... no one is going to filter through 3200 posts... and the first 2500+ don't even touch on the real issue being discussed here.

/u/CubsFanP started a good thread, mentioned above:
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1299119

But a new one could also be good... simply with the purpose (and subject to match) of demanding an answer from BGS.

Right now, no statement is better business for BGS than making a statement on their submission policies. They have to lose a lot of business to a point where "making a statement" is the better business decision. We're not there yet, and this thread isn't going to get enough NEW viewers to make a dent.

"Good work," to everyone who has contributed... especially the recent stuff. I think the focus is now on the party that should have been the focus all along: BGS.

Yes, Beckett should be a focus of our attention but the others involved in the equation, are still of interest.

With all of the information that has been shared, Joe/Leaf are the ones that keep popping up. We think we find someone else and it ends up coming right back to Joe/Leaf.

Not sure if you happened to look at this thread that was posted yesterday, but it's just like the scenario you are describing.
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=964886
This was a "bulk MG" submission that took place here, on Blowout.

Looking at the results; the grades are completely random, across the board, as they should.
This "Bulk" order doesn't appear to have the "rejected" cards recorded in Beckett database, suggesting that only the graded cards were entered into the system, after grading. If someone from the group want's to confirm that their "rejected" cards don't have a searchable Beckett serial numbers, that would be helpful.

So now we have at least two different submission methods "standard" and "bulk" that appear to have different processing methods but neither has the "grade grouping" pattern that has been linked to Joe and Leaf submissions.

This (grouping of grades) pattern that has consistently been occurring throughout the Joe/Leaf submissions (Small or Large, Quick or Slow services levels, doesn't seem to matter) is the one repeatable piece of evidence of collusion. There doesn't appear to be any "clear" advantage to a specific submission method, other than "WHO" is submitting that order.