I’m surprised no one burst out laughing… maybe it was fake video after all
If some guy swore up and down that this box was worth 375,000, it was in a gun safe for 20 years, and the fucking guy bought it for like 300,000$ hoping to make 75,000 and then the shit turns out fake? That he spent 300K on?
I’d be laughing so hard you’d call the freaking paramedics
I think Collectibles Guru was trying to scam. Just my opinion.
I think you and I are just using ‘blame’ differently. I agree that the buyer “did nothing unethical and benefited in no way from the scam.” In my view, however, these aren’t relevant to assessing blame. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re conceiving of ‘blame’ as a way of expressing that’s someone’s morally at fault. This is a perfectly fine way to conceive of it, but it’s not how I do. My use of ‘blame’ is only to indicate that the buyer has fault. That is to say that the buyer could have prevented the situation, but didn’t. I don’t view that as a matter of moral culpability. It’s simply that the buyer could’ve avoided becoming victim to the scam by being a responsible consumer. The buyer isn’t at fault for the scam itself, but isat fault for the fact that he/she fell victim to it.
I agree that the person morally at fault in this transaction is the person that knowingly sells the resealed box. But the reality is that scammers exist. I wish they didn’t, but they do. It’s much easier to reform buyers than scammers – scammers aren’t going to listen to appeals to ethics.
TL;DR - the best way to prevent future scamming, in my view, is to encourage consumer responsibility. It’s not a matter of victim-blaming or of expressing moral disapproval – it’s solely a matter of helping to ensure that fewer people fall victim to these sorts of scams in the future. As a practical matter, it’s much easier to reform the habits of buyers than of scammers.
Reseals are obviously getting better. They are already indistinguishable to experts with clear wrap, basically indistinguishable in WOTC wrap to the layperson, and soon to be even harder to spot if even possible to with WOTC wrap. There is no consumer responsibility issue if you literally can’t tell the fake apart. Nor should you be expected to spend weeks researching potential flaws in plastic just because you want to buy a box from a big store on eBay.
We are reaching the point where “the only way the buyer could have prevented the situation” is by not buying sealed product. Which yes, is victim blaming. In the scenario you proposed the only responsible thing to do is never buy sealed again.
Empty 1st edition booster boxes have gone up in price. I see people offering in the thousands for them. I guess thats the new frontier in collecting. Buy empty boxes and wait for the chump…i mean pump in price 
As I stated a gazillion times, I’m not referring to expert reseals. I’m referring only to reseals that any person with an ounce of knowledge could recognize – for instance, the Fossil box that was being referenced.
The whole point of what I wrote was to encourage consumer responsibility. If the person who bought the Fossil box had done any amount of research, he/she could’ve prevented the situation. If you want to call that ‘victim-blaming’ then fine. But the practical reality is that consumers should educate themselves before purchasing boxes. It will not save them from every resealed box. But it will save them from resealed boxes are easily recognizable as being resealed. If consumers knew how to recognize bad reseals, then there would be many fewer people being scammed. I’m not sure why this is controversial, but it clearly is.
I’m far from an expert and even I wouldn’t have been fooled by that Fossil box. Anyone who would be fooled by it is clueless and need to do some basic research before spending personally significant sums of money. That doesn’t mean it’s not the scammer’s fault. But it’s much easier to educate consumers than it is to reform scammers. That’s the practical element that you’re missing. This isn’t about victim-blaming – it’s about encouraging responsible consumer habits, which are clearly lacking in this hobby. There are an astonishing amount of uninformed buyers in this market. It’s why these scams even work in the first place.
There are almost zero issues with resealed boxes in Magic – because people don’t buy 5-figure booster boxes without doing research first. It’s not rocket science. Scammers suck. And the best way to prevent scammers from scamming is to not be clueless.
WOTC doesn’t have an amazing track-record for consistency. There are Aquapolis boxes with clear wrap. There are boxes with no logos on multiple sides. There are boxes where the logo is weirdly stretched. There are boxes with bizarre thick seals that look fake. But for the past twenty years people have been told WOTC logo on the wrap = good to go. Besides CG, several people I’ve seen scammed with these reseals have been around for years.
For an experiment I googled “Pokemon how to tell if a box is fake”.
All the top results said similar things:
Basically, up until now, the fake market has been completely different outside of 1st Ed. Base. It was literally counterfeit boxes, not precisely resealed, actual old boxes with correct packs on top where if you push down you’d see them.
So what research are people supposed to do?
I realize all of this. Magic boxes are also produced by WotC and are similarly inconsistent. But there are basic authentication methods that all MTG sealed collectors are aware of. These methods are common knowledge. I’ve been heavily involved in collecting sealed MTG for well over a decade at this point and I’ve literally never heard of someone getting scammed on $5k+ booster box. It doesn’t happen. And you know why it doesn’t happen? It’s not because people don’t reseal boxes – there’s plenty of that. It’s because people don’t spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on items that they’re clueless about.
This is in reference to shitty reseals – which many, if not most, resealed boxes are. I realize that some resealed boxes are very tough to recognize. I repeat: I’m NOT referring to these boxes. This is in reference to boxes such as the Fossil box. It should’ve been obvious to the buyer that the box was resealed for the reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread. The buyer should’ve known better. Does that make him/her any less deserving of compassion? Of course not. But a large proportion of buyers in this market are clueless. And if they were slightly less clueless, way fewer people would fall victim to scams. It’s as simple as that.
I felt the way he heard that it was going to be opened up in person live, he immediately went on about the backstory of the box and setting the stage that if it were fake, its not his fault.
It would be helpful for everyone if you could share MTG suggested research methods. Though, that market is completely different. There are a grand total of eleven MTG booster boxes over $5k on eBay. Meanwhile there are 75 Pokemon booster boxes over $5k on eBay. The incentive to devise clever new ways to scam is much higher because you can move expensive boxes faster and have them change hands. Regardless, these buyers are not clueless. That Fossil box was purchased by someone whose been collecting for a year and a half, not some sports guy who bought his first Pokemon stuff on eBay last month. They are people like you and me who have been scammed, not that it should matter. I assure you – there is an EX Series resealed box out there that could trick you regardless of how much research you did. Especially since those are less prone to being opened.
I am very happy I am not an e4 mod
Totally. His entire tone shifted. Like, “dang, how do I snake my way out of this.” Sucks that Leonhart was in it. Just a bad look all around.
I just want to say - this is the reason I never bought a 1st edition Base Set booster box. It’s already been a concern for years.
I’ve always felt that the sealed product is the best *investment* if you can really get it right but I never wanted to deal with the uncertainty. (Not to mention I like the cards much better anyway)
lol what is all this shit you’re typing and can you tldr your point?
Thing about it too, is that if that box stays unopened, and leaves camera view even for a second, Guru gets away with this scam. He could have just said “well, you could have swapped the box. I am not refunding you.” Another major issue with buying sealed vintage product. Sure, there is in theory a “line of ownership,” but once a box leaves the cameras, how can anyone guarantee or prove anything? Box was resealed, sucks, but major kudos to the guys who did not let that box off camera, and only opened it with Guru present.
I know this is going back a few pages now, but the discussion around potential verification seems the most interesting conclusion to be taken from this episode.
Given a large part of the value of the product is in the sealed aspect, I wonder if the technology is available to determine the age of the wrapping? For Base set 1st edition at least, this will obviously all be 20+ years old on authentic examples. I imagine there is a viable method to test that it is appropriately aged and perished, and hasn’t been recently stretched etc.
Given some of the testing available mentioned in the CGC Base 2 Charizard verification (no shill), this seems possible in a non-invasive manner, whilst maintaining the seal. It seems like the authentication needed has gone beyond the naked eye or ‘feel’ thresholds, even for experts. And would be a shame to have to open to do so!
As flagged, once the values reach $375k+, this seems a reasonable level of due diligence. Any thoughts?
Wait Reina are you saying you aren’t interested?? He has a Rolex… and saves ‘100s’ on shampoo
I’d be happy to share some basic authentication methods. Probably the most basic authentication method is to check that the box does not have significant damage that the shrinkwrap doesn’t also have. It’s very difficult for the box to get damaged without the shrinkwrap also exhibiting that wear. The Fossil box had creasing, dents, and other wear that the shrinkwrap didn’t.
One element of this is inspecting the box for common damage that results from the box having been opened. Are there fingernail/knife scuff marks on the top of the cardboard from when the box was originally opened? Is there any fraying/scuffing on/near the top front edge where the pop-up portion folds into? Many people open boxes by slicing along the tiny open space between where the pop-up part of the box folds in to. Few people open boxes without leaving any evidence of the fact that they opened it.
Another element of this is looking for fingerprints/oil marks on the cardboard. It’s easy to tell if they are on the cardboard – you can just carefully brush the shrinkwrap. If they’re on the cardboard, that’s a sure sign of the box that the box is resealed. If you can’t find any evidence of human hands having touched the cardboard, then that is (inconclusive) evidence of the authenticity of the box. Unless the factory seal was broken by an expert resealer who wore sterile gloves, then the box likely displays sebum and/or fingerprints.
Another method is just basic provenance. Where was the box originally acquired from? Is the wear that the box displays consistent with its supposed provenance? Is the person providing the provenance credible? What was the chain of custody? What evidence is there for the alleged chain of custody?
These are a few examples of MANY authentication methods. There are dozens more that I could also outline, including some very effective methods. The vast majority of resealed boxes can be detected either through the physical signs I detailed or inconsistencies in the provided provenance. Note that these are basic, unscientific authentication methods.
Re: resealed EX Series box – it might trick me. It might not. I’m pretty careful and detail-oriented, but it is certainly possible that I could fall victim to a scam. Which is why I would only ever purchase a box that exhibits, unambiguously, none of tell-tale signs of having been resealed as well as having verifiable provenance. While I’m sure it would be possible, theoretically, to scam me, knowing basic authentication methods prevents me from falling victim to the vast majority of resealed boxes. If the Fossil buyer knew what I knew, he wouldn’t have purchased the box.
The Dumb Money guys had another live stream today for I guess more of their normal stocks discussion, but at the start they discussed the resealed box and had mentioned that Guru and the others were aware that it was going to be opened there live beforehand. Now if you believe them or not, that is up to you. They also did mention that its possible Guru bought a real one and gave them a resealed one, and discuss the likelihood of this or not among some other things.
TL;DR: the victim of a poorly-resealed box (meaning a box that could easily be detected as being resealed) is at fault, but not morally. The relevance of this distinction is that the person I was responding to accused me of ‘victim-blaming.’ Victim-blaming = shifting moral responsibility onto the victim (i.e., “that person was asking for it”). I wasn’t doing that. I was arguing that people should take basic, precautionary steps before buying items in order to reduce the risk that they fall victim to scams.