Drew Brees Card Graded BGS 9.5 Gains Almost $9,000 in Value After Trimming

[Low3453]

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

https://web.archive.org/web/20190328...rchInterval=30

This is the buyer feedback for the untrimmed card.

Thanks for the education

[3124508 on COMC]

Originally Posted by Low3453

Thanks for the education

Yeah. I see you have ties with them to some extent. Be careful.

Really just be careful buying anything locally in the Dallas area.

[Low3453]

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

Yeah. I see you have ties with them to some extent. Be careful.

Really just be careful buying anything locally in the Dallas area.

I dont buy much locally or at shows... just new stuff very soon after release. I do sell a lot to him.

[Doublestriker]

Great Work as always Dan!

[deemsterz33]

Thanks Dan! Thing that is weirding me out is that while the focus is on trimmed cards getting gem grades, how many trim jobs ended up getting 9s? They're out there too.

[Cubsfanp]

Originally Posted by Onepocketj

You think it doesn't help them if people stop buying cards because they've lost faith in the current system? Let a few of the huge purchases people have made be found to be trimmed and see what happens.

People will not stop buying cards/wax. People might stop buying GRADED cards, if anything.

[Bruin7]

Again collectors should purchase the CARD and not the GRADE. I've seen plenty of beautiful raw examples at shows and plenty of graded gems that have imperfections. In a way its a good thing as collectors will gravitate towards the overall quality of the card and not the supposed given grade.

ACS

[NYGiants72]

Originally Posted by superdan49

Lots of productive discussion and good ideas here. Here is a compromise solution: modern cards under 2.5 by 3.5" are given a qualifier by PSA— MS (minimum size). PSA already has a slew of qualifiers, including OC, PD, MK, MC.

Some like off-center (OC) are not mandatory; that is, a submitter may select "no qualifiers" and PSA would knock the card down two grades from say a PSA 9 OC to a PSA 7. Others like MK are mandatory; that is, if the card has a pen mark or ink stain it gets an MK qualifier no matter the preference of the submitter.

The MS qualifier should be one of the mandatory qualifiers. The few cards that do not measure properly, but do not show signs of trimming, should be pegged with a mandatory MS qualifier, with the high grade capped at a PSA 9 MS. That way they still are given a numerical grade—just like miscut (MC) or marked (MK) cards—but a collector can then choose whether or not he wants to buy a qualified card. This would be less restrictive than the Authentic—Undersized designation, which I otherwise support.

This was the closest to my thought. IMO, not even sure you need the mandatory qualifier. As someone said before, if you pack-pull a card below tolerances, it would be a condition issue just like a dinged corner. I'd be for setting a rule that for modern cards, a card that does not meet minimum size tolerances is capped at a 8.5. That way there is no special call-out that implies alteration, but removes the incentive for anyone to trim.

Not sure how this would apply to vintage, as that is out of my personal collecting wheelhouse.

[mouschi]

This is absolutely insane to me. I've seen a few threads on this, and just can't get over it. Without reading hundreds of pages, would someone be able to tell me if BGS has a size tolerance of sorts, and the trimmers are just staying within the tolerances? For example: I'd imagine cards from the factory must have some slight variance to them, (a centimeter for example), so is it that trimmers know the minimum requirements of BGS and trimming down to that?

Or is it that there is no tolerance and a blind eye is being turned to these cards?

[starvela]

Originally Posted by mouschi

This is absolutely insane to me. I've seen a few threads on this, and just can't get over it. Without reading hundreds of pages, would someone be able to tell me if BGS has a size tolerance of sorts, and the trimmers are just staying within the tolerances? For example: I'd imagine cards from the factory must have some slight variance to them, (a centimeter for example), so is it that trimmers know the minimum requirements of BGS and trimming down to that?

Or is it that there is no tolerance and a blind eye is being turned to these cards?

Problem is with both BGS and PSA, not just BGS....Like many others have stated, it's greed on their part...They are likely always overwhelmed and backed up and they probably really only spend seconds on a card...

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by mouschi

This is absolutely insane to me. I've seen a few threads on this, and just can't get over it. Without reading hundreds of pages, would someone be able to tell me if BGS has a size tolerance of sorts, and the trimmers are just staying within the tolerances? For example: I'd imagine cards from the factory must have some slight variance to them, (a centimeter for example), so is it that trimmers know the minimum requirements of BGS and trimming down to that?

Or is it that there is no tolerance and a blind eye is being turned to these cards?

Our best guess is there's a 1/64th inch size tolerance. That was deduced from a prior thread where an individual (I can't even remember who now, there's been so many), was caught searching for assistance in trimming paper by 1/64th of an inch.

[corndog]

Originally Posted by mouschi

This is absolutely insane to me. I've seen a few threads on this, and just can't get over it. Without reading hundreds of pages, would someone be able to tell me if BGS has a size tolerance of sorts, and the trimmers are just staying within the tolerances? For example: I'd imagine cards from the factory must have some slight variance to them, (a centimeter for example), so is it that trimmers know the minimum requirements of BGS and trimming down to that?

Or is it that there is no tolerance and a blind eye is being turned to these cards?

Probably a combination of both. BGS and PSA are both guilty of failing to measure cards. Some of the cards are trimmed so much that they look as if they could spin sideways in the holder.
Beckett has been additionally scrutinized for having cozy relationships with proven trimmers such as Kevin Burge and Bill John Sliheet (Superior Sports Investments or SSI). Sliheet seems to have gained an insider that may be overlooking short cards. Whether it's a friend or through payoff is not known. Sliheet lives near Beckett in Dallas and has bragged about his daily presence in Beckett offices. Beckett has remained mum.

[JMANIA]

Originally Posted by Bruin7

Again collectors should purchase the CARD and not the GRADE. I've seen plenty of beautiful raw examples at shows and plenty of graded gems that have imperfections. In a way its a good thing as collectors will gravitate towards the overall quality of the card and not the supposed given grade.

ACS

Raw cards are not what they used to be pre-grading era. Plenty of raw cards are trimmed cards that got rejected from being graded as trimmed and then being sold raw.

[golferphil]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

Aw, I may have it lol.

The uncut sheet of cards is printed on a cardboard stock that has a standard colorful something material. Easily identifiable. As the cards are cut by the manufacturer, the blade that cuts them “coats” the edges to appear solid white or black or whatever color that card edges look like. If a trimmer shaved an edge, it eliminates this manufacturer coat that was applied by the manufacturer cutting process and exposes the pattern . —> evidence of a trimmed edge

Nope, just make the cardboard jelly filled one cut and you have grape jam all over.

Or even better, put those little explosive charges they put in the bank robber's cash. Bet that would surprise a few trimmers.

[superdan49]

Originally Posted by JMANIA

Raw cards are not what they used to be pre-grading era. Plenty of raw cards are trimmed cards that got rejected from being graded as trimmed and then being sold raw.

This is true. In fact, SSI's COMC inventory has numerous raw cards I believe were botched trim jobs or were rejected by BGS or PSA for being undersized. Just because a card is raw does not mean it is clean.

[Thunderdunk]

Originally Posted by superdan49

This is true. In fact, SSI's COMC inventory has numerous raw cards I believe were botched trim jobs or were rejected by BGS or PSA for being undersized. Just because a card is raw does not mean it is clean.

Thats disgusting. 13,655 cards they have listed on COMC that have a potential to be altered

[solt0131]

Originally Posted by superdan49

Well, this just took an unexpected turn


I have discovered the 2009 Bowman Chrome Mike Trout Refractor auto 180/500 graded BGS 10 Pristine and currently being sold by breakersrowe for $39,999.00 was once a mere PSA 9:


https://www.ebay.com/itm/2009-BOWMAN...0/153428543642







Here is the same card, sold as a PSA 9 on 5/26/2014 by freshlybakedcollectibles for $1,080.77:

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...auto-520167914







As you can see, both the signatures and the serial numbers match:





I want to stress that breakersrowe is 100% not the source of any malfeasance here. This card was once sold as a BGS 10 by Probstein back on May 26, 2015:
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...ike-1730654185


But this begs the question: How does a PSA 9 of one of the most iconic modern cards jump two grades to a BGS 10 Pristine? This one is just 0.5 away from a BGS Black Label.


There are two possibilities here:

1) Either the card was altered sometime between its purchase as a PSA 9 on 5/26/2014 and its regrading as a BGS 10 on July 14, 2014.

2) Beckett regarded as Pristine the same card PSA saw as Mint.


The Worthpoint photos of the PSA 9 are too small to conduct a detailed examination, so we will probably never know the full truth about what happened. Either way, breakersrowe has run into a string of bad luck buying questionable high-end cards.

He purchased this card this past weekend at the Chantily show then. I know the dealer who had this in his showcase on Friday and I saw it in there along with another Trout 2009 Chrome Auto.

[dfr52]

It was suggested a page earlier but maybe the problem begins with the companies producing the cards? With the current cost of products being so high they should have started taking steps to limit altering years ago. Even if you take grading out of mix as JMANIA mentions trimming and altering are still happening. The card companies should begin to protect consumers/collectors since they control the production process.

[superdan49]

Originally Posted by solt0131

He purchased this card this past weekend at the Chantily show then. I know the dealer who had this in his showcase on Friday and I saw it in there along with another Trout 2009 Chrome Auto.

Or breakersrowe could be selling it on his higher-visibility eBay account on behalf of the dealer you know.

I do not know if the card is trimmed. It might be 100% unaltered. However, it is a fact that it jumped from a PSA 9 Mint to a BGS 10 Pristine. This detail alone would cause me to avoid it like the plague were I in the market for a high-end '09 Trout.

[Cubsfanp]

Originally Posted by dfr52

It was suggested a page earlier but maybe the problem begins with the companies producing the cards? With the current cost of products being so high they should have started taking steps to limit altering years ago. Even if you take grading out of mix as JMANIA mentions trimming and altering are still happening. The card companies should begin to protect consumers/collectors since they control the production process.

Please tell me why Topps/Panini/Upper Deck/Leaf should care about this? They only care about selling wax, not the secondary marked for card which are graded by a party which is not their own.

[dfr52]

Originally Posted by Cubsfanp

Please tell me why Topps/Panini/Upper Deck/Leaf should care about this? They only care about selling wax, not the secondary marked for card which are graded by a party which is not their own.

This isn't 1991 where most packs of cards cost a buck or two. Collectors are paying a lot of money and should be given some protection against card doctoring. The grading companies have always had sizing tolerances to account for a the way a card is cut. Maybe it is time Topps/Panini/Upper Deck/Leaf do something to help their customers so they can easily spot altering themselves.

[corndog]

Originally Posted by dfr52

This isn't 1991 where most packs of cards cost a buck or two. Collectors are paying a lot of money and should be given some protection against card doctoring. The grading companies have always had sizing tolerances to account for a the way a card is cut. Maybe it is time Topps/Panini/Upper Deck/Leaf do something to help their customers so they can easily spot altering themselves.

A ruler?

[dfr52]

Originally Posted by corndog

A ruler?

It will show a card to be short but not necessarily trimmed or altered.

[Cubsfanp]

Originally Posted by dfr52

This isn't 1991 where most packs of cards cost a buck or two. Collectors are paying a lot of money and should be given some protection against card doctoring. The grading companies have always had sizing tolerances to account for a the way a card is cut. Maybe it is time Topps/Panini/Upper Deck/Leaf do something to help their customers so they can easily spot altering themselves.

Once it leaves their boxes, they could care less.

"Topps does not, in any manner, make any representations as to whether its cards will retain any future value."

[dfr52]

Originally Posted by Cubsfanp

Once it leaves their boxes, they could care less.

"Topps does not, in any manner, make any representations as to whether its cards will retain any future value."

I agree but maybe consumers should expect the companies to protect the integrity (not value) of their product.