Longtime dealer Johnny Adams Jr. trimmed vintage cards and sold thru PWCC for years

[corndog]

PSA Cert #24535970

PSA Set Registry: jbcofc

1954 Bowman Allie Reynolds #113

Value gain of $271.01

This card was purchased by masked VCP ID m***h (Johnny Adams, Jr.) from Ebay seller higradecards10 as a PSA 8 for $69.99 on January 11, 2015.
VCP link: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/b...13/67920/PSA/8

Same card was sold by PWCC as a PSA 9 for $341.00 on September 10, 2015.
VCP link: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/b...13/67920/PSA/9

Yellow circles are print, fiber, or chipping identifiers.
Red box identifies trimmed right edge. No back image provided with the first sale data.

[pip]

Johnny Adams not only ruined a lot of really nice nm-mt cards but also defrauded a ton of collectors. Really hope he ends up in jail and has to provide FULL restitution for his criminal acts.

[corndog]

PSA Cert #24535972

PSA Set Registry: jbcofc

1954 Bowman Chico Carrasquel #54

Value gain of $150.95

This card was purchased by masked VCP ID m***h (Johnny Adams, Jr.) from Ebay seller tsc*c as a PSA 8 for $26.55 on August 31, 2014.
VCP link: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/b...=&limit=999999

Same card was sold by PWCC as a PSA 9 for $177.50 on September 10, 2015.
VCP link: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/b...54/67977/PSA/9

Yellow circles are print, fiber, or chipping identifiers.
Red boxes identify trimmed left and right edges.

[pspa123]

Originally Posted by pip

Johnny Adams not only ruined a lot of really nice nm-mt cards but also defrauded a ton of collectors. Really hope he ends up in jail and has to provide FULL restitution for his criminal acts.

I wonder just how many of their scarce resources the FBI and U.S. Attorney are willing to put into this. It's no simple or inexpensive matter to build a criminal case under a beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

[pip]

Originally Posted by pspa123

I wonder just how many of their scarce resources the FBI and U.S. Attorney are willing to put into this. It's no simple or inexpensive matter to build a criminal case under a beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

Well, I'd say just in terms of financial impact, we're looking at 100 times what Mastro did. I bet the multiplier for the number of collectors affected is similar. It would not surprise me if this ended up becoming one of the FBI's biggest cases of fraud in the last decade.

[pspa123]

Originally Posted by pip

Well, I'd say just in terms of financial impact, we're looking at 100 times what Mastro did. I bet the multiplier for the number of collectors affected is similar. It would not surprise me if this ended up becoming one of the FBI's biggest cases of fraud in the last decade.

No disagreement on scope. But we don't know if that alone determines priority and dedication of resources.

How unfortunate that this hobby has not, and never will, police itself to any extent.

[pip]

Originally Posted by pspa123

No disagreement on scope. But we don't know if that alone determines priority and dedication of resources.

How unfortunate that this hobby has not, and never will, police itself to any extent.

Yes. Things are completely out of control. There seems to be no limit to the number of altered cards being discovered and no caution or due diligence exercised by auction houses and online marketplaces that just continue to sell these pieces of trash.

[superdan49]

Originally Posted by pip

Yes. Things are completely out of control. There seems to be no limit to the number of altered cards being discovered and no caution or due diligence exercised by auction houses and online marketplaces that just continue to sell these pieces of trash.

I think an honest consignment law is one possible (partial) solution to this, wherein upon request an auction house must provide the name of the individual or entity consigning an item over a certain dollar amount.

[corndog]

Originally Posted by superdan49

I think an honest consignment law is one possible (partial) solution to this, wherein upon request an auction house must provide the name of the individual or entity consigning an item over a certain dollar amount.

PWCC would lose over half their business.

[pspa123]

Originally Posted by corndog

PWCC would lose over half their business.

So would many AHs.

[pspa123]

Originally Posted by pip

Yes. Things are completely out of control. There seems to be no limit to the number of altered cards being discovered and no caution or due diligence exercised by auction houses and online marketplaces that just continue to sell these pieces of trash.

Or by most collectors, sadly.

[pspa123]

Originally Posted by superdan49

I think an honest consignment law is one possible (partial) solution to this, wherein upon request an auction house must provide the name of the individual or entity consigning an item over a certain dollar amount.

Imagine a world where you knew who had submitted cards to TPGs and who had consigned cards to sellers. LOL. The industry could never survive such transparency. Which tells you all you need to know.

[Pink Pussycat]

Originally Posted by superdan49

I think an honest consignment law is one possible (partial) solution to this, wherein upon request an auction house must provide the name of the individual or entity consigning an item over a certain dollar amount.

I really like this idea, and see no reason it can't/shouldn't come to this. If the consignor has nothing to hide, the disclosure should not bother him one bit. In fact it will probably help his price realized, as people would be bidding with greater confidence.

How PSA gave the Reynolds card a "9" is beyond me. This has to be another example of favoritism for this submitter. So much of the right edge is trimmed, and the cut is so poorly executed, that it's unthinkable any normal person submitting would be granted a "9".

[pspa123]

Originally Posted by Pink Pussycat

I really like this idea, and see no reason it can't/shouldn't come to this. If the consignor has nothing to hide, the disclosure should not bother him one bit. In fact it will probably help his price realized, as people would be bidding with greater confidence.

How PSA gave the Reynolds card a "9" is beyond me. This has to be another example of favoritism for this submitter. So much of the right edge is trimmed, and the cut is so poorly executed, that it's unthinkable any normal person submitting would be granted a "9".

The problem is a huge percentage of consignors have something to hide.

[Pink Pussycat]

Originally Posted by pspa123

The problem is a huge percentage of consignors have something to hide.

Yeah, that's pretty obvious. But are we not talking about potential solutions for cleaning things up?

[KD35Russ0]

Originally Posted by corndog

[B][SIZE="3"]

Yellow circles are print, fiber, or chipping identifiers.
Red box identifies trimmed left edge.

Let me first say, I really respect the work this forum does on this issue, and have no doubt that most of the opinions are correct. That said, I've had a question for a while and this first card in the thread is a perfect representation. Isn't it possible that some of these cards with similarity points are actually different cards? I mean, the printing presses could make the same or very similar mistakes on back to back cards. For instance, while the first example in this thread has many similarity points, the #1 in card #115 on the back looks very different to me. As does the outline of the baseball on the two cards (there is a bowing on the PSA 9 right around the seam under the #1 that does not appear to be as pronounced in the PSA 8 version. Any thoughts on this? What is the confidence level that these two cards are actually the same card?

[pspa123]

Originally Posted by Pink Pussycat

Yeah, that's pretty obvious. But are we not talking about potential solutions for cleaning things up?

How is it going to happen? Is someone going to sponsor legislation in multiple state legislatures? Is the Congress of the United States going to take this up? It seems totally impractical to me, except perhaps as an industry self-regulating standard that won't happen either because this industry ain't never going to regulate itself.

[pip]

Originally Posted by KD35Russ0

Let me first say, I really respect the work this forum does on this issue, and have no doubt that most of the opinions are correct. That said, I've had a question for a while and this first card in the thread is a perfect representation. Isn't it possible that some of these cards with similarity points are actually different cards? I mean, the printing presses could make the same or very similar mistakes on back to back cards. For instance, while the first example in this thread has many similarity points, the #1 in card #115 on the back looks very different to me. As does the outline of the baseball on the two cards (there is a bowing on the PSA 9 right around the seam under the #1 that does not appear to be as pronounced in the PSA 8 version. Any thoughts on this? What is the confidence level that these two cards are actually the same card?

100% confidence. The odds against having several of the exact same paper flaws on the back of two different cards are astronomical.

[pip]

Originally Posted by pspa123

How is it going to happen? Is someone going to sponsor legislation in multiple state legislatures? Is the Congress of the United States going to take this up? It seems totally impractical to me, except perhaps as an industry self-regulating standard that won't happen either because this industry ain't never going to regulate itself.

It will if enough people go to jail and the fines/deterrents to criminal behavior are significant enough.

[superdan49]

Originally Posted by KD35Russ0

Let me first say, I really respect the work this forum does on this issue, and have no doubt that most of the opinions are correct. That said, I've had a question for a while and this first card in the thread is a perfect representation. Isn't it possible that some of these cards with similarity points are actually different cards? I mean, the printing presses could make the same or very similar mistakes on back to back cards. For instance, while the first example in this thread has many similarity points, the #1 in card #115 on the back looks very different to me. As does the outline of the baseball on the two cards (there is a bowing on the PSA 9 right around the seam under the #1 that does not appear to be as pronounced in the PSA 8 version. Any thoughts on this? What is the confidence level that these two cards are actually the same card?

The matching paper fibers are key. They are natural to card stock and are not created by printing. However, when also factoring in exactly precise printer marks and the fact that these cards cycled through the same buyer (Johnny Adams Jr.) and the same auction house (PWCC), the odds of the two 1955 Topps Kinder cards being different are less than your chance of winning the lottery on the same day you are hit by lightning.

[pspa123]

Originally Posted by pip

It will if enough people go to jail and the fines/deterrents to criminal behavior are significant enough.

How well has deterrence worked for violent crimes, drugs, etc.?

[superdan49]

Originally Posted by Pink Pussycat

I really like this idea, and see no reason it can't/shouldn't come to this. If the consignor has nothing to hide, the disclosure should not bother him one bit. In fact it will probably help his price realized, as people would be bidding with greater confidence.

How PSA gave the Reynolds card a "9" is beyond me. This has to be another example of favoritism for this submitter. So much of the right edge is trimmed, and the cut is so poorly executed, that it's unthinkable any normal person submitting would be granted a "9".

It would take a Congressman who is also a collector to spearhead this. Unfortunately, Rep. Chris Collins who owns the #1 Mantle Master Set on the PSA Registry was indicted for financial crimes and resigned his seat. He certainly would have been an ally, and still might be down the road.

[KD35Russ0]

Originally Posted by superdan49

The matching paper fibers are key. They are natural to card stock and are not created by printing. However, when also factoring in exactly precise printer marks and the fact that these cards cycled through the same buyer (Johnny Adams Jr.) and the same auction house (PWCC), the odds of the two 1955 Topps Kinder cards being different are less than your chance of winning the lottery on the same day you are hit by lightning.

That makes sense and I appreciate the response. How would the differences in the card be explained? Obviously the #1 could be fixed, but what bout the different shape of the ball?

[superdan49]

Originally Posted by KD35Russ0

That makes sense and I appreciate the response. How would the differences in the card be explained? Obviously the #1 could be fixed, but what bout the different shape of the ball?

Distortion due to image compression. I've seen this on other images on eBay.

[HarryLime]

I've only background checked a minute fraction of the amount of cards that BODA has -- and BODA certainly doesn't need me to speak up for them -- but I can tell you that the idea that there's a lot of graded examples of any one card changing hands just isn't accurate.

Even the most actively traded card, something with a few hundred sales in the past decade, is going to be extremely difficult to match up with another example of the same card just based on centering, corners, print job, the absolute basics. You can easily eliminate 90+% of cards just with a cursory glance while scrolling through scans. It's rare that you get to the part of the process where you progress to the back of the card where you look to delve deeper and get into fibers and specks and match the card's fingerprint that way.

I see what you're saying about the '1' and the circle but I have to imagine that's a mechanical error that occurred in the process of scanning or something. I would put the odds of another card having the same front AND those same 6 fiber/print markings on the back at non-zero (it exists but realistically can't happen).

Just my $0.02.

Arthur