Long Time suspected FAKE baggies scam / seller

[bobbybobs]

Thanks Frank and everyone else for posting about this. Must have been a massive amount of work.

While I can't comment on the veracity of the claims, I have always been a little suspicious about the seller's seemingly endless supply of certain baggies. I bought a couple of baggies from him in the past off eBay so I need to check if these were on the list.

I can only hope that the seller was also duped because he seemed like a nice enough bloke to me.

Christian

 

[edd_jedi]

I think this has been handled appallingly and am shocked to see certain names in this thread just taking everything as gospel that Jeff is sitting at home putting figures into plastic bags rather than waiting to see the whole picture.

Something some of you are overlooking - many of these fake baggies have been returned to Jeff for refunds over the last couple of years. Frank has had many conversations with Jeff about fake baggies. Yet still he continues to sell them, in some cases even reselling the ones that he's been told are fake as per Frank's first example. So even if Jeff is not actually making these himself, he certainly knows baggies he has been selling are fake. IMO that goes beyond selling without due care.

 

[maxf]

Something some of you are overlooking - many of these fake baggies have been returned to Jeff for refunds over the last couple of years. Frank has had many conversations with Jeff about fake baggies. Yet still he continues to sell them, in some cases even reselling the ones that he's been told are fake as per Frank's first example. So even if Jeff is not actually making these himself, he certainly knows baggies he has been selling are fake. IMO that goes beyond selling without due care.

That's incredibly damning. I'm not sure Frank's original post highlighted this enough.

 

[steve obi wan]

Just what the hobby didn't need another SW fake scandal , this is why I have stayed clear of baggies in the past , an easy thing to fake !!!

Great investigation from Frank , looking forward to seeing an update from all parties

 

[cryption]

I just want to say that I think it's absolutely correct that the known source of the fakes is named. It's not going to be helpful to the community if people are told there are fakes, but not told where they originate from, and the forum would be up in arms demanding a name. Additionally, if left un-named it would have left the seller open to continue to trade around the blatantly fake products, and shift the stock quick to unknowing customers until publicly outed, which would have happened eventually. Better sooner rather than later in my opinion.

 

[lee gray]

Even murderers get a trial lol.
If it was me and i knew about this thread as he does then if i was innocent. I would be posting like mad to defend myself.

Funny thing is just a couple of days ago in the gi joe collecting community another long term seller was caught selling baggies and sealed red card backs that he was making himself with overwhelming evidence.

Its making it very hard to know whats real anymore

 

[decipher28]

Another real shame for the hobby. Nice work by Frank and co uncovering it all. I've always stayed away from baggies as they struck me as far too easy to fake. Now we know...

Jason

Totally agree 100%.I always thought the baggie collecting was risky as on the face of it they were just a bag and printed text.

The only ones I did have more confidence in knowing were genuine were the logo'd kenner and palitoy parker bradgate ones.


Reminds me of the billy boy rodgers baggie scandal but wonder if it is worse?.It's like history repeating itself.Also wonder what damage this will do to baggie collecting.

 

[edd_jedi]

Well Toy Toni had real cardbacks, bubbles and figures and now most people are fairly confident they can spot his fakes looking at a few giveaways. I'm sure baggies will be the same. The problem up to now is that people (myself included) have bought any figure in any bag and assumed it is legit. Only a handful of people know which figures belong in which baggies and details like how long/wide the bags should be etc so baggie collecting will be fine, but people will need to up their game.

 

[Ross_Barr]

I think this has been handled appallingly and am shocked to see certain names in this thread just taking everything as gospel that Jeff is sitting at home putting figures into plastic bags rather than waiting to see the whole picture.

Something some of you are overlooking - many of these fake baggies have been returned to Jeff for refunds over the last couple of years. Frank has had many conversations with Jeff about fake baggies. Yet still he continues to sell them, in some cases even reselling the ones that he's been told are fake as per Frank's first example. So even if Jeff is not actually making these himself, he certainly knows baggies he has been selling are fake. IMO that goes beyond selling without due care.

I think Edd gave the perfect response to the whole "Jeff should have been contacted first" comment, which Stuart seems to be articulating most forcefully.

FFS people, it is clear these all came from Jeff (and perhaps it is now clear that he knew some were fake because Frank told him and then maybe still sold those same ones on), so that leads logically to only the following conclusions: (1) Jeff was making these in his basement in true Toy Toni fashion; (2) Jeff was so grossly irresponsible in not knowing that he was buying dozens and dozens of fake baggies and then selling on to others, but didn't actually make the baggies himself; or (3) Jeff reprehensibly knew he had tons of fake baggies that were bought elsewhere (i.e., he didn't make them himself) once he was told so, but sold them on to others anyway.

In any of (1) - (3), the dude should have been called out and this issue brought to light not only so people would know that these are out there, but also to avoid buying any more from Jeff.

Why should we protect someone that is either a scammer ((1) above), someone with more money than brains that single handedly introduced scores of fakes into the hobby due to his ignorance of what he had ((2) above), or a selfish person looking to pass his mistakes onto others ((3) above). I choose to protect the community over any of those three guys.

Cheers to Frank and the others for all their hard work in bringing this to light and protecting the community.

 

[finestcomics]

Even murderers get a trial lol.
If it was me and i knew about this thread as he does then if i was innocent. I would be posting like mad to defend myself.

Same here, however we live in a litigious world, and with people here already suggesting the libelous nature of these claims, we might never hear anything from the other side.

I can think of at least two instances in the SW collecting community where a person accused of serious wrongdoing didn't say a word (except, to say they were told to keep mum as per their lawyers advice) and we were left with never knowing the full story.

I agree with the sentiment and logic Stuart shared on the subject. We have a method to ID suspect baggies, but if it couldn't be proven Jeff produced them, vilifying him publicly to tarnish his reputation, prevent him from selling and/or to corner him into singing like a bird is an unwise way to go about it.

 

[edd_jedi]

Same here, however we live in a litigious world, and with people here already suggesting the libelous nature of these claims, we might never hear anything from the other side.

I can think of at least two instances in the SW collecting community where a person accused of serious wrongdoing didn't say a word (except, to say they were told to keep mum as per their lawyers advice) and we were left with never knowing the full story.

Sorry to refer to Toni again, but how an incident like this is handled is in my eyes sometimes more important than the incident itself. I was one of the people who thought Toni may have started out making his cards relatively harmlessly in the 90s when nobody gave a crap, and it simply got out of hand. If he had admitted guilt and apologised, something good could have come from it - eg all his unused cradbacks going in to circulation which I'm sure collectors would love to get their hands on.

However he admitted nothing, denied it despite the concrete evidence and then disappeared off the face of the earth. Now his name is forever tarnished. We all make mistakes, it could have been avoided with a simple apology, explanation and some refunds. I am eager to see how this plays out as his reputation is not finished yet.

 

[Ross_Barr]

Same here, however we live in a litigious world, and with people here already suggesting the libelous nature of these claims, we might never hear anything from the other side.

I can think of at least two instances in the SW collecting community where a person accused of serious wrongdoing didn't say a word (except, to say they were told to keep mum as per their lawyers advice) and we were left with never knowing the full story.

Sorry to refer to Toni again, but how an incident like this is handled is in my eyes sometimes more important than the incident itself. I was one of the people who thought Toni may have started out making his cards relatively harmlessly in the 90s when nobody gave a crap, and it simply got out of hand. If he had admitted guilt and apologised, something good could have come from it - eg all his unused cradbacks going in to circulation which I'm sure collectors would love to get their hands on.

However he admitted nothing, denied it despite the concrete evidence and then disappeared off the face of the earth. Now his name is forever tarnished. We all make mistakes, it could have been avoided with a simple apology, explanation and some refunds. I am eager to see how this plays out as his reputation is not finished yet.

If Jeff has nothing to hide and is innocent, he will come on and say why he is. As I said before, at minimum, he is guilty of carelessness by introducing scores of fakes into the hobby. Carelessness can be forgiven quickly; we are all human. But if this goes beyond carelessness and enters the realm of scamming (i.e., he made the fake baggies) / intent to knowingly pass on his purchase of fakes onto others (i.e., he didn't make the baggies but knew they were fake before he sold them on), forgiveness will be a much harder sell.

 

[finestcomics]

Same here, however we live in a litigious world, and with people here already suggesting the libelous nature of these claims, we might never hear anything from the other side.

I can think of at least two instances in the SW collecting community where a person accused of serious wrongdoing didn't say a word (except, to say they were told to keep mum as per their lawyers advice) and we were left with never knowing the full story.

Sorry to refer to Toni again, but how an incident like this is handled is in my eyes sometimes more important than the incident itself. I was one of the people who thought Toni may have started out making his cards relatively harmlessly in the 90s when nobody gave a crap, and it simply got out of hand. If he had admitted guilt and apologised, something good could have come from it - eg all his unused cradbacks going in to circulation which I'm sure collectors would love to get their hands on.

However he admitted nothing, denied it despite the concrete evidence and then disappeared off the face of the earth. Now his name is forever tarnished. We all make mistakes, it could have been avoided with a simple apology, explanation and some refunds. I am eager to see how this plays out as his reputation is not finished yet.

I'm not saying there wasn't a need to deal with the situation urgently. I normally side with the intent of protecting the community trumping all else.

However in this case, this could have just as effectively been handled by posting the alert with no name, with the same visual examples for reference, and an advisory asking any members who had these to get in touch with members involved with the investigation.

At that point, when you started to see a signficant pattern of people who bought these directly from Jeff, you STILL should involve the seller in the process of remediation and rectifying the problem. The rectification could have ranged from requesting refunds, right through to warning the seller that escalating the matter publicly would be a last resort if eiher the pattern or matter wasn't resolved to the teams satisfcation.

To have done this any other way was unwise.

 

[Stuart Skinner]

I think this has been handled appallingly and am shocked to see certain names in this thread just taking everything as gospel that Jeff is sitting at home putting figures into plastic bags rather than waiting to see the whole picture.

Something some of you are overlooking - many of these fake baggies have been returned to Jeff for refunds over the last couple of years. Frank has had many conversations with Jeff about fake baggies. Yet still he continues to sell them, in some cases even reselling the ones that he's been told are fake as per Frank's first example. So even if Jeff is not actually making these himself, he certainly knows baggies he has been selling are fake. IMO that goes beyond selling without due care.

Just want to state a couple of points as I get the feeling it maybe coming across that I'm defending Jeff. I'm not, I have met the bloke a couple of times at Farthest From and probably had less than 5 minutes worth of conversation with the bloke, so this isn't me defending anything.
Secondly, the evidence in the initial post has been made by frank, who I regard as the most knowledgeable baggie expert. I know nothing about Baggies, I own two and to be fair I don't care too much for them, so as a collector point of view it doesn't effect me directly. if Frank tells me a baggie is fake then in my mind it's fake, there has clearly been a lot of work into this investigation and I like most on this thread appreciate the time and effort gone into researching this issue and revealing it.
I also don't doubt that Jeff has been selling these items (willingly or not knowingly), Marc pointed out two fakes on his stall at the recent FF and Jeff removed them from sale, so again I have no issue with the accusation that he offers up these fake baggies.

My question is; Is he actually knowingly selling fakes, or does he not really know what he is selling? Is he like the rest of us and just assumed all baggies are legit and collected them, traded them and sold them without knowing???

My issue was the way this was handled and revealed, yes I agree it needed to come to light, and it states that they have been researching for years (think that's what I read). Last night Frank states he spoke with Jeff for an hour and a half, why couldn't the reveal of this happen after that call so the details of that call could be included in this report??? What was said in the call, we still haven't heard that either. My issue and only issue was the handling of the affair and the statement that Jeff must be making these as he has too many to not know. I don't bye that and won't grab my pitchfork until Jeff has had the chance to respond, and I don't doubt for a minute that he will respond.

Question that I would be interested in knowing, the baggie that Jeff was told was fake and then apparently sold 6 months later, do we have hard evidence that can be produced for this??? because that wouldn't sit comfortably for me.

 

[maxf]

At that point, when you started to see a signficant pattern of people who bought these directly from Jeff, you STILL should involve the seller in the process of remediation and rectifying the problem. The rectification could have ranged from requesting refunds, right through to warning the seller that escalating the matter publicly would be a last resort if eiher the pattern or matter wasn't resolved to the teams satisfcation.

To have done this any other way was unwise.

The danger is, and I am playing devils advocate here, that the people who know about get refunds and by the time it gets to the public the money has dried up. I salute Frank and the others involved for not going down this road.

Its a difficult one. I'm really on the fence and can persuade myself either way. **** sandwich anyway.

 

[Stuart Skinner]

I just want to say that I think it's absolutely correct that the known source of the fakes is named. It's not going to be helpful to the community if people are told there are fakes, but not told where they originate from, and the forum would be up in arms demanding a name. Additionally, if left un-named it would have left the seller open to continue to trade around the blatantly fake products, and shift the stock quick to unknowing customers until publicly outed, which would have happened eventually. Better sooner rather than later in my opinion.

This is exactly the kind of idiotic response I'm talking about. 'Not told where they originate from', this may well not be known, you're reading the thread and hanging the bloke for the crime before he's been tried, we don't know these fakes originate from Jeff, just that he had these for sale.

'Shift the stock quickly to unknown customers', again we have no evidence he does this, unless their is concrete evidence of the one mentioned in the initial thread. He removed two from sale at FF when pointed out and I know when there has been any doubt on the baggies he has always given a refund.

Sadly it's people like you who read half the thread and fill in the gaps that cause issues. Want facts and not gut feelings and then I will grab my pitchfork too.

 

[cryption]

I'm amazed the suggestion that the wording and content of the post is 'more important' than the actual criminal actions here, and some people seem to be focusing more on that than the fakes, which is pretty shocking.
Just because it was not handled the way you would have handled it does not mean is was handled wrongly. The wrongdoing here is the sale of fraudulent goods. Don't lose sight of the actual issue in favor of defending someone who is well aware of the thread but has not as of yet bothered to offer any explanation or defend himself.
How about showing some appreciation for those who took the time to do the research and make the post for the benefit of the entire community, instead of criticizing the way it was done.

 

[cryption]

I just want to say that I think it's absolutely correct that the known source of the fakes is named. It's not going to be helpful to the community if people are told there are fakes, but not told where they originate from, and the forum would be up in arms demanding a name. Additionally, if left un-named it would have left the seller open to continue to trade around the blatantly fake products, and shift the stock quick to unknowing customers until publicly outed, which would have happened eventually. Better sooner rather than later in my opinion.

This is exactly the kind of idiotic response I'm talking about. 'Not told where they originate from', this may well not be known, you're reading the thread and hanging the bloke for the crime before he's been tried, we don't know these fakes originate from Jeff, just that he had these for sale.

'Shift the stock quickly to unknown customers', again we have no evidence he does this, unless their is concrete evidence of the one mentioned in the initial thread. He removed two from sale at FF when pointed out and I know when there has been any doubt on the baggies he has always given a refund.

Sadly it's people like you who read half the thread and fill in the gaps that cause issues. Want facts and not gut feelings and then I will grab my pitchfork too.

I'd love to hear your explanation and rebuttal of the evidence in the first place, be my guest. And with a posts like this the only person I see causing issues here is you.

 

[finestcomics]

At that point, when you started to see a signficant pattern of people who bought these directly from Jeff, you STILL should involve the seller in the process of remediation and rectifying the problem. The rectification could have ranged from requesting refunds, right through to warning the seller that escalating the matter publicly would be a last resort if eiher the pattern or matter wasn't resolved to the teams satisfcation.

To have done this any other way was unwise.

The danger is, and I am playing devils advocate here, that the people who know about get refunds and by the time it gets to the public the money has dried up. I salute Frank and the others involved for not going down this road.

Its a difficult one. I'm really on the fence and can persuade myself either way. **** sandwich anyway.

The remediation factor isn't going to change either way - the person either has it in them to make wronged parties whole or they don't.

The tactic to ignore customer complaints until a lawyer is involved, then capitulate usually follows a more serious and stern redress and reaction from the community.

But here Jeff wasn't even given the chance to make the situation right, IF we are to assume that all these came from him as that remains an uncertainty.

Years ago, I dealt with a reputable dealer who sold me a touched-up item. The item came from a backstock he bought from another dealer. I was told that the "other dealer" had a son who was an aspring artist, and would take these items to practice his craft/technique.

As ridiculous as that situation sounded to me, I still gave that dealer an opportunity to make the situation right, but for whatever reason it wasn't taken serious. You have to understand, this was not only a reputable person, but someone who I had a tremendous amount of respect and admiration. I had interviewed him for past articles I had written on his rich involvement in the hobby, so when I had no choice but to escalate it publicly, THAT was a difficult thing to do. But I did it only after he didn't take my request for a refund seriously, and because it was more effective in alerting others of the issue. It also gave me a chance to advise those entering into a transaction with the seller to make sure a condition is specified in their transaction terms that he must offer a refund on any stock that is later found to be touched-up.

There's a process to everything. Sometimes it takes rolling-up the sleeve. I take exception though when it's handled swiftly and overlooks remedies that ought to be exhausted before maligning a persons image, character and integrity publicly.

 

[Stuart Skinner]

I'm amazed the suggestion that the wording and content of the post is 'more important' than the actual criminal actions here, and some people seem to be focusing more on that than the fakes, which is pretty shocking.
Just because it was not handled the way you would have handled it does not mean is was handled wrongly. The wrongdoing here is the sale of fraudulent goods. Don't lose sight of the actual issue in favor of defending someone who is well aware of the thread but has not as of yet bothered to offer any explanation or defend himself.
How about showing some appreciation for those who took the time to do the research and make the post for the benefit of the entire community, instead of criticizing the way it was done.

You want to maybe read the posts a bit more, not once have I defended him. I have also stated that I appreciate the work that has gone into this investigation. But we do not know that Jeff was the one producing these items which you elude to in your initial post. I would like to hear from Jeff first to see if he can enlighten us on the gaps in the story, rather than filling in the gaps myself.