Long Time suspected FAKE baggies scam / seller

[Caswellbot]

Anyone can see that that baggie has been handpainted, repainted, touched up, whatever. So if he sold it, why did he sell it? Ignorance would not wash as an excuse. How could someone with the experience he has not see that?

 

[edd_jedi]

100% agree, as you can see the dodgy Fett was sold just two months ago. If he was told he was selling fake baggies three to four years ago, he seems to have made no effort to up his game:

 

[Grant_C]

Think the crime there is the P+P

Is the paint job recent or look like it was done ages ago?

 

[edd_jedi]

I've just added up all the baggies I can find from Jeff's eBay feedback. From 1356 feedbacks left for selling, 499 of them are for baggies. That is just eBay AND people who have left feedback (from my experience at least 25% of buyers do not bother leaving feedback.) This does not take in to account sales via email, in person at events etc of which we know there are many more (apparently he had 150 at the last FF event.)

Does this strike anybody else as an unusually high amount for somebody just selling his spares?

 

[naughtyjedi]

This is probably not going to add anything, and its certainly not any kind of defence or proof or anything other than tad of experience.

The pics above with the touched up kenner logo and some of the bad printing look like screen printing shambles. If anyone has ever screen printed by hand, overloading ink due to the squeegee not being set correctly (or if by hand too much pressure or multiple passes), or a build up of ink in the screen or a printer hand touched them up because there wasnt any QC.. or by a total amateur who had never printed onto a flexible substrate like plastic.

this could mean these were made by an amateur later (you'd think if it looked so **** they would dispose if faking) or they could mean they were early write off bags which were sealed to test the process and used for visuals.

Obviously I have no proof if these were printed by screen, or flexo (that tends to dry faster but is used a lot for plastics) or some other process..just what I see. Maybe Ive added to this or just waffled like a tit.

 

[finestcomics]

Anyone can see that that baggie has been handpainted, repainted, touched up, whatever. So if he sold it, why did he sell it? Ignorance would not wash as an excuse. How could someone with the experience he has not see that?

That's not the issue. Fake has a much wider meaning based on the OP, and I'd like to know if this is on the scale of being entirely fabricated (as in not period correct baggie, resealed, non-geniuine stamp, etc.).

If this is a touch-up, but is an original seal, that's a completely different ball of wax. IF so, it should be referred to as touched-up.

Otherwise there wouldn't be room in this thread for all the touched-up stuff floating around out there, still being sold without disclosure, that now needs to be referred to as fake.

 

[edd_jedi]

I think you're getting hung up on the Fett. It is one of dozes of dodgy baggies Jeff has sold. Some are completely wrong as you say, this one has "only" been touched up. None of them should have been sold, that's the point.

 

[naughtyjedi]

I think you're getting hung up on the Fett. It is one of dozes of dodgy baggies Jeff has sold. Some are completely wrong as you say, this one has "only" been touched up. None of them should have been sold, that's the point.

true, true

 

[finestcomics]

This is probably not going to add anything, and its certainly not any kind of defence or proof or anything other than tad of experience.

The pics above with the touched up kenner logo and some of the bad printing look like screen printing shambles. If anyone has ever screen printed by hand, overloading ink due to the squeegee not being set correctly (or if by hand too much pressure or multiple passes), or a build up of ink in the screen or a printer hand touched them up because there wasnt any QC.. or by a total amateur who had never printed onto a flexible substrate like plastic.

this could mean these were made by an amateur later (you'd think if it looked so **** they would dispose if faking) or they could mean they were early write off bags which were sealed to test the process and used for visuals.

Obviously I have no proof if these were printed by screen, or flexo (that tends to dry faster but is used a lot for plastics) or some other process..just what I see. Maybe Ive added to this or just waffled like a tit.

Those have definitely had white infill painting done by hand. But there's also an entire decade or more where this type of thing was seen as acceptable. I've heard numerous people who I would consider an authority describe "touch-ups" as an "accepted" practice at one time, but the value of MOC's and boxed items was nowhere in the same value threshold in the 90's that it is today. I never liked this being used as an excuse - i.e. oh, that's how I got it, person X said everyone was doing it - especialy when I'd point out touch-ups on pieces being sold on eBay. If they didn't at least revise the listing, or tried to resell it without disclosing it, I figured they were going to end up with the headaches. I remember like yesterday dealing with this very thing on a bell display - the entire thing was touched up on the ends and you could faintly see it in the images the seller posted. It wasn't cheap either. The seller had to relist it, but didn't revise the description. That to me is blatent deception and this happens a lot more than just than this one incident I'm describing.

 

[Ross_Barr]

I still don't have a horse in this race (other than advising the group that formed a week or so ago about their legal rights in case their allegations were in fact true), and I still don't know if Jeff actually made these. I don't think anyone can say 100% that he did, and therein lies some of the problem people note in this thread. But the circumstantial evidence against him so far is very telling and I think it shows, at minimum, that he either was ignoring the fact that he knew that he was selling an inordinate amount of fake baggies or that he was extremely careless in doing so but not knowing that he was doing so. At worst, he was making them and then selling them on mixed in with a bunch of original ones.

Grant spends a lot of time saying that Jeff is a doofus and couldn't have done this. When I spoke with Grant, he told me that Jeff was a sweet guy and in Grant's heart he couldn't see him doing so. Hopefully that's true, and Jeff didn't do this. But the circumstantial evidence of at least extreme recklessness leading to collector losses is pretty overwhelming IMO. Perhaps the evidence is so strong that we can say that beyond a reasonable doubt he made these, but I am not sure to be honest.

But I think it is worth pointing out that Jeff's personality he showed to people in a 90 minute, and in my view largely incoherent podcast interview, or in a couple of beers at FF doesn't mean a damn thing. People do weird and unexplainable things to the people that know them best, and most don't give a crap about doing it to others they barely know. Countless wives and husbands have been shocked to find out their spouses, who are supposed to love them more than anyone else, have been cheating on them for years. So it isn't beyond doubt to think it is very possible that this is more than carelessness here.....

So let's stick to the facts and stop talking about what a swell guy or doofus Jeff is, as that doesn't mean a damn thing. Facts matter. Perhaps he had mal intent. Perhaps he was just a careless doofus. There are more facts that others have that they need to show.

 

[Lindo]

I have sold "touched up" cards before, granted I never did it myself and made it plain on the listing that it was touched up

 

[finestcomics]

I think you're getting hung up on the Fett. It is one of dozes of dodgy baggies Jeff has sold. Some are completely wrong as you say, this one has "only" been touched up. None of them should have been sold, that's the point.

If it's factory sealed, then it's a touch-up. It should be described as such. Fake or suspect shouldn't be used in this context because it implies resealed or non-original factory baggie modern sealed.

 

[finestcomics]

I have sold "touched up" cards before, granted I never did it myself and made it plain on the listing that it was touched up

As it should be, but would you call it fake?

 

[Grant_C]

Correct Ross. But in a court room, character witnesses are often called when evidence is limited. It is in the U.K. anyway. Not that it stands for much in this case anyway, as Edd said.

Still waiting on evidence.

He has sold fakes was established in the first post. We haven't got much further.

Be great to have a link of acknowledging fakes and then selling on. I would have expected that to be included in post number 1.

 

[Lindo]

no but if I had a sealed baggie also and the text had worn of I would still have a sealed baggie and would leave it that way

 

[finestcomics]

Still waiting on evidence.

Exactly, and since it's been implied I'm "hung-up" on something, I'd like the evidence and visual references to describe the details better about what makes each item fake.

Otherwise, we are revising and reshaping community meaning and universally recognized grading standards to prove a point, in what has already been abundantly made clear is being assembled in a haste, impartial, and self-serving manner.

The "touch-up" talking points I brought up are obviously not being treated with the diligence the situation deserves.

Please point out non-original seals, and non-original baggies where it's required along with the evidence.

That to me is the expertise and evidence this situation requires and is badly lacking.

 

[maxf]

The "touch-up" talking points I brought up are obviously not being treated with the diligence this deserves.

Please point out non-original seals, and non-original baggies where it's required along with the evidence.

*if* it is just altering genuine baggies to become different types, or making damaged text complete again, you're ok with that? Or am I missing something?

To me, that's just as fake as someone putting a sticker on a card to hide damage or create a rare variation - both of which would be vilified on here.

 

[edd_jedi]

Exactly, and since it's been implied I'm "hung-up" on something, I'd like the evidence and visual references to describe the details better about what makes each item fake.

Otherwise, we are revising and reshaping community meaning and universally recognized grading standards to prove a point, in what has already been abundantly made clear is being assembled in a haste, impartial, and self-serving manner.

Are you for real? Please explain how any of this is self serving. You think this has done my or Frank's reputation any good here? If you think we're doing this for praise you're mad quite frankly. You seem hell-bent on defending Jeff based on nothing more than his denial, saying there is no evidence when:

- Frank has explained exactly what is wrong with most of the baggies, re-read his first post. There are genuine examples compared to fake showing seal, text, size, shape etc differences
- Jeff denied he had sold any of the red text baggies on eBay, where as his eBay feedback I have posted shows otherwise
- There is hard evidence that he sold all of these because we are the people who bought them, I am happy to share eBay/paypal receipts if my word is not good enough

Don't say there is no evidence here, its simply not true.

 

[finestcomics]

The "touch-up" talking points I brought up are obviously not being treated with the diligence this deserves.

Please point out non-original seals, and non-original baggies where it's required along with the evidence.

*if* it is just altering genuine baggies to become different types, or making damaged text complete again, you're ok with that? Or am I missing something?

To me, that's just as fake as someone putting a sticker on a card to hide damage or create a rare variation - both of which would be vilified on here.

It needs to be disclosed for certain. However fake to me implies it's been resealed, which opens up a much more complex scenario of needing to determine the genuine nature of the contents (i.e. figure touch-ups, repro weapons, etc.).

They are day and night differences in an expose outing a seller "suspected" as perpetrating a baggie scam!

 

[finestcomics]

Exactly, and since it's been implied I'm "hung-up" on something, I'd like the evidence and visual references to describe the details better about what makes each item fake.

Otherwise, we are revising and reshaping community meaning and universally recognized grading standards to prove a point, in what has already been abundantly made clear is being assembled in a haste, impartial, and self-serving manner.

Are you for real? Please explain how any of this is self serving. You think this has done my or Frank's reputation any good here? If you think we're doing this for praise you're mad quite frankly. You seem hell-bent on defending Jeff based on nothing more than his denial, saying there is no evidence when:

- Frank has explained exactly what is wrong with most of the baggies, re-read his first post. There are genuine examples compared to fake showing seal, text, size, shape etc differences
- Jeff denied he had sold any of the red text baggies on eBay, where as his eBay feedback I have posted shows otherwise
- There is hard evidence that he sold all of these because we are the people who bought them, I am happy to share eBay/paypal receipts if my word is not good enough

Don't say there is no evidence here, its simply not true.

Is it a reseal? That's all I'm asking. Why can't you answer this plainly? I don't see it described from the way that baggie example was listed. No need to make this personal.