Baseball Cards Trimmed by Heroes of Sport Owner Will Jaimet and Sold via PWCC

[ark8085]

Originally Posted by shrevecity

The tolerances create another issue, it is not uncommon for a card to be slightly larger or smaller than the standard 2x3. All the grading companies allow slight tolerances for this fact as long as the trim still falls into that range then it will keep happening.

This goes back to why the companies need to be more proactive in keeping tabs on previously graded numbered cards. Unnumbered is a whole different ballgame.

I wonder what they use for a tolerance, they should have a template they could drop the card on, take 2 seconds to measure the card.

But I get what your saying if they are falling within the tolerance, that’s tough.

[Tony27]

What is a good way to go about checking the cards I bought recently for trimming? What tools would I need ? Obviosly precise original cuts for those years are needed or even original weight but thats almost on a nano scale type scale to get down to the bones of it and probably the easiest clue to know. None of the cards I bought are numbered and from vintage or semi vintage era.

If anyone knows how to go about it or pm me to not clog the thread unless it would be useful for others to know.

Then I would need to know the weight of a psa case so weighing really wont matter, i would rather know how i could measure i guess....ugh

[SirTommyWinAlot]

I don't have time to read all this but has the perpetrator been strung from a tree by his balls yet?

[no10pin]

Originally Posted by ChiSox72

To me, it is not clear that all of these cards are the same.

The Ruth card is clearly NOT the same card. I can look at it and give you three specific reasons/examples why.

I don't know you or the seller and have no skin in this at all, but the Ruth card is not the same card. The other cards are suspect too.

Originally Posted by ChiSox72

We've seen examples of serial numbers being printed multiple times with DLP.

I see three differences on the front of the card.

[shrevecity]

Originally Posted by ark8085

I wonder what they use for a tolerance, they should have a template they could drop the card on, take 2 seconds to measure the card.

But I get what your saying if they are falling within the tolerance, that’s tough.

Mainly because the printing companies use them. It's like a 2X4 piece of wood you will rarely get one that is exactly 2x4 most are actually around 1/4 shorter. With cards the standard is 2.5 by 3.5 they may allow for variations from 2.45 to 2.55 this tenth of an inch allows plenty of room for a cutter that goes to the hundredths or even possibly thousandths. Especially when you get to cards that are on the oversize side of that scale.

[KhalDrogo]

I cannot explain the differences in the jersey swatch.

However, the two cards are absolutely the same. Look at the placement of the serial numbering. It is identical. Pull up other examples of the card on Worthpoint and see how they differ. I would post them, but I’m on my phone and it’s a pain.

[PuddleMonkey]

I love these threads.

[connor77977]

Just an fyi, I think the difference in patch is just a shadow, zoomed in on my desktop which has a massive screen and its quite obviously a shadow. Light source that's decently bright the picture-takers right in the original photo. Great job on finding these man, this people know no bounds.

[ark8085]

Originally Posted by shrevecity

Mainly because the printing companies use them. It's like a 2X4 piece of wood you will rarely get one that is exactly 2x4 most are actually around 1/4 shorter. With cards the standard is 2.5 by 3.5 they may allow for variations from 2.45 to 2.55 this tenth of an inch allows plenty of room for a cutter that goes to the hundredths or even possibly thousandths. Especially when you get to cards that are on the oversize side of that scale.

That seems like a huge tolerance, that almost an 1/8 of an inch. Do cards really vary by that much?

[shrevecity]

Originally Posted by ark8085

That seems like a huge tolerance, that almost an 1/8 of an inch. Do cards really vary by that much?

I was just giving an example, it's not that much, probably closer to 1/16th however the idea still holds true when you are talking hundredths and thousandths

[tmoore_25]

I'm sure I already know the answer to my question, but I will ask it anyway. I'm not versed in the fine art of investigative practices but when there is someone who is working to defraud others, I believe they should pay for their crimes.

Considering that you have, with a fair amount of certainty, proven that Will Jaimet trims high-end, rare cards, and that he is working directly with a high level employee (Jesse Craig) of PWCC to sell/purchase these cards, have you considered taking this to eBay. When I say that, I mean is there someone in a position higher than the customer service rep I would speak to, who could view the evidence and permanently ban PWCC for helping to execute fraud on their website? (The guy who shill bid an auction recently that I bid on as well as numerous others, is still operating after I reported it to eBay. Thanks for looking into it eBay.) I know the answer is probably that eBay would do nothing because they make so much money from their fees. Considering the amount of times it has been reported to PWCC that their cards were trimmed and they did nothing, it's clear that they know what they are doing. There has to be some way to hold them accountable so that they cannot continue to take advantage of those who do not possess the knowledge to research as deeply as you have.

[gabballplayer14]

Transferring this from the OP's post in Member feedback, since it is specifically addresses baseball cards. Click here https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...90&postcount=1 and scroll down to this area (about 3/4 of the way down):

Here are the flagship color cards he bought. Ctrl+f for q***u on these feedback pages. If you are so inclined, feel free to copy the listing title over to Worthpoint to check the condition of these cards out. Most clearly are not Gem Mint:


I recognize a few of the ebay screen names, but if someone was the seller of any of these could help post a scan of the card they sold, we might be able to find even more. Looks like at least 4 Walmart Blue Trouts, 3 Mookie Target Reds, an Arenado Red, and a handful of others.

[ChiSox72]

Ok - quickly before bed-
Ruth patch appears different in that the blue stripe moved shifted off the left side of the square opening. Would the patch had been adjusted for some reason by the trimmer also? Not sure why he would have attempted to. There is more cream jersey visible in the 2nd photo.

The trimmed version of the Ruth card has a grey vertical line on the card at the top right corner which appears to be a print defect. How would this appear after the trimming. Does not appear on the original card.

The 2nd Ruth has slightly different baseball seam print spacing at the top right corner. If you compare the seams to where they cross the blue horizontal line, they are slightly off.

This doesn't explain the same print number on the back (087/100), which appears to be in the same place and obviously the same number.

After a second review, this does seem closer to the original.

I don't have links now, but we have seen previously examples of the same serial number on cards. That's been illustrated several times before. Not saying that is the case here.

[13goyankees13]

Originally Posted by shrevecity

I was just giving an example, it's not that much, probably closer to 1/16th however the idea still holds true when you are talking hundredths and thousandths

I would think even less than that.

But still, there is variability in the manufacturing process and PSA and BGS make room for that. For an average sized card, it seems like people can trim closely enough that it's within that tolerance. For an above average sized card, there's more room to trim.

Unless Topps can cut down on the variability in their production process and get graders to tighten their tolerances, there is no way to detect a good trim job just by looking at the card. It seems like the only way it to find scans of the same card before trimming and show differences.

Sadly PWCC and ebay seem to lack the ethics to do anything about it either. Other than pointing out individual cards I'm not sure if there's much that anyone can do. I don't think the FBI would do anything since this is currently on a smaller scale than other collectible things they have gotten involved with.

[Wiseguy917]

Lol when will people finally understand that grading is a scam. My god how many more of these threads do we need. Give it up people. Grading is a scam. Wake up!!!!

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by Wiseguy917

Lol when will people finally understand that grading is a scam. My god how many more of these threads do we need. Give it up people. Grading is a scam. Wake up!!!!

sadly there is no alternative

[vwnut13]

Originally Posted by Wiseguy917

Lol when will people finally understand that grading is a scam. My god how many more of these threads do we need. Give it up people. Grading is a scam. Wake up!!!!

When will people understand that grading is running the hobby?

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

sadly there is no alternative

We've reached the point where if it's in a slab I assume that it has been trimmed.

[bobthewondercat]

Props to the researchers here. If I were a buyer of this kind of stuff I would be greatly concerned. Not sure if the general public cares enough, but at least you are making the information available. I do hope this results in a loss of livelihood for these scammers.

[dictoresno]

if you want some real answers about grading standards, or how PSA measures cards during the process to determine if its trimmed or not, why dont one of you email Steve Sloane. he was very receptive and maybe he would like to be clued in on this stuff. maybe he can shed some light on how they determine which cards to measure and which to maybe not, depending if there are other factors that make it look suspicious. I find it hard to believe they measure every single card, and if they do, there must be a template with tolerances they must fall under for it to pass.

[mchenrycards]

Originally Posted by vwnut13

When will people understand that grading is running the hobby?

We've reached the point where if it's in a slab I assume that it has been trimmed.

The hobby isnt being ruined.

People do unscrupulous things because there is money to be made because lemmings have to have the best of the best and are willing to pay.

There are plenty of collectors out there like me who enjoy the hobby but don't have to have the highest graded of anything and enjoying spending our disposable income on cards that have great eye appeal and are affordable. I am currently working on a 1956 Topps baseball set and have found some incredible deals on HOFer cards in mid grade that look like 8's to me.

So I say this hobby isn't being ruined. If one thinks so perhaps they should reevaluate the reasons why they are collecting. Is it for the money or is it for the pure joy of collecting cards.

Happy collecting.

[BeastMode27]

Certainly makes it seem crappy for people with cards that are actually gem. Cards you pulled yourself or bought raw on eBay, blowout, or at a shop/show. Nothing like buying a raw card on eBay from someone with lower feedback, or not many high end cards for sale. Then getting it and seeing it is actually perfect. For every one of those, there are probably a couple trimmed ones out there. Possibly a lot more than a couple depending on the card.

[RYBOWSKI97]

Originally Posted by dictoresno

if you want some real answers about grading standards, or how PSA measures cards during the process to determine if its trimmed or not, why dont one of you email Steve Sloane. he was very receptive and maybe he would like to be clued in on this stuff. maybe he can shed some light on how they determine which cards to measure and which to maybe not, depending if there are other factors that make it look suspicious. I find it hard to believe they measure every single card, and if they do, there must be a template with tolerances they must fall under for it to pass.

or maybe with the insane amount of money they charge for grading they could do a little research on higher end and serial numbered cards that are submitted. i dont think it would be that difficult.

[Keto]

Originally Posted by CubKings

This makes me think the grading companies have to be in on it. To grade a card gem, do they not measure the sh!t at all? So clearly they let it slide for some people.

Another reason to see that grading is an overrated scam.

Winner winner chicken dinner. I am doing a new test on these grading companies(PSA,BGS,SGC). I will post my results as soon as I get it. They are clearly giving high grades to certain individuals and keeping us retail buyers in check. It's almost no point of sending my cards out to get it graded when they already have it in their mind to give me a grade lower than the elites and keep the population report low so they can continue to be in business.

[corndog]

Originally Posted by ChiSox72

To me, it is not clear that all of these cards are the same.

The Ruth card is clearly NOT the same card. I can look at it and give you three specific reasons/examples why.

I don't know you or the seller and have no skin in this at all, but the Ruth card is not the same card. The other cards are suspect too.

Originally Posted by boston12

I didn’t realize there were back pictures of the Ruth. Now I see the serial number. Piece of jersey still looked different.

Originally Posted by ChiSox72

We've seen examples of serial numbers being printed multiple times with DLP.

I see three differences on the front of the card.

Originally Posted by dodgerfanjohn

Why is the patch on the Ruth different?

Originally Posted by boston12

Fairly certain he did not notice the serial numbers. I missed it on the Ruth. The piece of jersey does looks different in both, angles lighting whatever it is. Let's not start accusing him of anything.

Originally Posted by ChiSox72

Ok - quickly before bed-
Ruth patch appears different in that the blue stripe moved shifted off the left side of the square opening. Would the patch had been adjusted for some reason by the trimmer also? Not sure why he would have attempted to. There is more cream jersey visible in the 2nd photo.

The trimmed version of the Ruth card has a grey vertical line on the card at the top right corner which appears to be a print defect. How would this appear after the trimming. Does not appear on the original card.

The 2nd Ruth has slightly different baseball seam print spacing at the top right corner. If you compare the seams to where they cross the blue horizontal line, they are slightly off.

This doesn't explain the same print number on the back (087/100), which appears to be in the same place and obviously the same number.

After a second review, this does seem closer to the original.

I don't have links now, but we have seen previously examples of the same serial number on cards. That's been illustrated several times before. Not saying that is the case here.

I really want to attempt to educate those that take quick glances and then make posts saying they can't see any differences. Lighting sources play a major role in a card's appearance. The PSA card was scanned with a scanner which doesn't cast shadows but cause fine glare streaks from light refracting through clear plastic slab edges that border the card's edges. The raw card photo was taken with either a camera or a phone in poor lighting with the major light source coming from the right side of the card causing major shadowing. This is clear to see when the worthpoint link is clicked. As noted in the raw photo, the vertical glare streak travels up into the left side of the patch making it appear lighter than it is. I have circled in orange four reference points on both images that prove the cloth patch is the same. Edit: I just noticed that I circled the wrong spot at the top right of the raw photo. It hasn't been shifted. There are areas in the raw photo that appear darker that are due to the extreme right light source causing tiny shadows to be cast by the texture of the cloth fabric.



Please stop derailing threads with "the cards look the same so the OP is wrong" comments. It's okay to ask because you are having trouble seeing the differences... some members want to honestly learn how to spot these subtle changes while others want to be........

Sidenote: I'm working on that IP check and I think I may be on the right track.

[BC81]

Really disgusted by all this. I always wanted to buy a Trout Topps Update rc. I preferred a PSA 10 but with all this trimming I would rather buy a raw. Can save myself lots of money, but my next worry is if a raw card is a botched trim job.

It’s really unfortunate that I have to consider this now with the hobby. I am not quitting on the hobby, I appreciate the work of OP and guys like Superdan in making me smarter and more vigilant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk