BGS Black Labels, Joe Clemons (eBay ID: wjc75056), and Illegitimate Grading

[sammyjankis]

I don't have a problem with someone getting a great deal on pricing. The problem is that it appears that he is either the Babe Trout of grading or the cards he grades are getting preferential treatment.

I looked at another one of the Black Label cards listed from Dan's data dump.

11334006 Baseball 2010 Bowman Prospects Anthony Rizzo

There have been 2,525 cards graded from the 2010 Bowman Prospects set. Only 2 cards have achieved a black label 10.

The other black label 10 is a Nolan Arenado that was graded on October 15, 2018 (https://www.beckett.com/grading/card...0887892&flag=1).



The title sure looks familiar - all caps player name, exact same way that Joe writes all of his other titles.

Out of 2,525 cards from this set, only Joe has the eye to get a black label. Is that what you guys are really saying? That he is literally that much better than everyone else? He's the only person that has the will to go through thousands of Nolan Arenado and Anthony Rizzo Bowman cards to find the perfect card?

Again, circumstantial. We won't get better than stuff like this. How many "coincidences" do the naysayers need?

[Blue_Devil]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

I don’t understand your point.

I do this with PSA. My motive is to profit off of grading. That is not a criminal activity. What point are you trying to make?

He has the inside track to a black label which is the basic point of the thread. A black label significantly increases the value. He was doing one day submittals on very pedestrian cards. Very simple.

[chuckerrrr]

Originally Posted by DaRitz

Post 2400 is rapidly approaching... Are we any closer to figuring out what shady thing is going on, and who is responsible?



Joe has been burned at the stake. Now we just need to find out if he did something nefarious, and if so, what.



Maybe the next 2400 posts will tell us. If not, hopefully we can at least satisfy the masses and find another person we can crucify while we search.

I will stick around for as long as it takes. More and more will come out about this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chuckerrrr]

Originally Posted by hche

I don't believe we will ever get enough evidence in this thread to support any wrongdoing by any party. All evidences so far are circumstantial and statistical.



Personally, I do believe there is something unusual going on. However, I also believe the primary culprit is BGS, not Joe. BGS gave out the grades, not Joe.

Yeah but Joe worked for Beckett for years. Getting unusual amount of Black labels is mysterious and questionable. Throw on top a former BGS employee. This is why its a huge case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[3of5-2]

I have 100+ sub popping on Friday from Beckett. Anyone care to guess how many BL's I will get after all of this crap.

[imbluestreak23]

Originally Posted by Blue_Devil

He has the inside track to a black label which is the basic point of the thread. A black label significantly increases the value. He was doing one day submittals on very pedestrian cards. Very simple.

That’s different than saying grading $3 cards is not potentially valuable.

Love scrubbing the bread crumbs of eBay and comc looking for hidden low pop value. It doesn’t attract the big bidders and most don’t want to deal with it. In bulk, and if someone does all the work for you for free other than you buying...fantastic!

[Maverik]

Originally Posted by huskies3

In 12 minutes, you read "most of the thread?" OK. Glad you could put on your cape and come to Joe's rescue after taking 12 minutes to read 83 pages worth of posts.

actually took me about 90 minutes...

[jr24ai3]

Originally Posted by Blue_Devil

He has the inside track to a black label which is the basic point of the thread. A black label significantly increases the value. He was doing one day submittals on very pedestrian cards. Very simple.

He did say all the one days were already RCR 10s. So it's not like he was paying $50 and taking a risk.

[Blue_Devil]

Originally Posted by imbluestreak23

That’s different than saying grading $3 cards is not potentially valuable.

Love scrubbing the bread crumbs of eBay and comc looking for hidden low pop value. It doesn’t attract the big bidders and most don’t want to deal with it. In bulk, and if someone does all the work for you for free other than you buying...fantastic!

Happy hunting, but that has zero to do with what is going on here. Go get em...

[Maverik]

BO Member sees a post regurgitating the same circumstantial details "proving" guilt:

"Way to go! Well done! Great post!"

BO Member sees a post stating the evidence is incomplete and there MAY be an alternative view to consider:

"Go to hell, troll! I'm not feeding the morons! We have 99 pages! Learn to read, goober!"

[moosetequila]

I once got 3 BL in a 10 card sub... I am not a crook! (Nixon's voice-yeah I'm old)

[mrbasepauly]

Originally Posted by moosetequila

I once got 3 BL in a 10 card sub... I am not a crook! (Nixon's voice-yeah I'm old)

Joe Clemons went 3 for 3, you've got some work to do to get to his level.

[MIRRABB]

Originally Posted by sammyjankis

I don't have a problem with someone getting a great deal on pricing. The problem is that it appears that he is either the Babe Trout of grading or the cards he grades are getting preferential treatment.

I looked at another one of the Black Label cards listed from Dan's data dump.

11334006 Baseball 2010 Bowman Prospects Anthony Rizzo

There have been 2,525 cards graded from the 2010 Bowman Prospects set. Only 2 cards have achieved a black label 10.

The other black label 10 is a Nolan Arenado that was graded on October 15, 2018 (https://www.beckett.com/grading/card...0887892&flag=1).



The title sure looks familiar - all caps player name, exact same way that Joe writes all of his other titles.

Out of 2,525 cards from this set, only Joe has the eye to get a black label. Is that what you guys are really saying? That he is literally that much better than everyone else? He's the only person that has the will to go through thousands of Nolan Arenado and Anthony Rizzo Bowman cards to find the perfect card?

Again, circumstantial. We won't get better than stuff like this. How many "coincidences" do the naysayers need?

Good find. Yeah, you have to be pretty delusional at this point to ignore this stuff

[mrbasepauly]

Keep this near the top.

Originally Posted by StayingWarm

This thread is turning into a referendum on the poor state of American math and critical thinking skills. The fact is that we have a great deal of evidence that strongly suggests something nefarious has occurred within BGS and its relationship with Joe Clemons:

• We have proof that Joe receives a MINIMUM of 14% of PERFECT 10 BLACK LABELS in his submissions. It is possible that the real percentage is higher, as there is some debate as to the completion of the data set used to arrive at this number.

• This 14% appears to be a statistical anomaly on par with someone winning the Powerball in back to back drawings. It seems that people may be getting hung up on 14% in the absolute, saying things like “well, if it were 30% it would be high” and “14% seems normal”. This is incorrect analysis. While we don’t have a complete dataset, we have significant anecdotal evidence to suggest that other “best in class” graders receive somewhere around 4% Black Labels and we have (to my knowledge) exactly zero cases of anybody who either personally or even knows of someone who has received even 6% Black Labels over a significant sample size. The impact of this absolute cannot be over-stated. See my post #2015 for an attempt to explain this in simple terms. Any stats PhD out there want to give it a shot to succeed where I have failed?

• We have a case of Joe purposefully failing to provide information that could potentially help clear his name, namely the %s of these same submissions that were given a 10 grade (but not Black Label). Occam’s Razor would tell us this is because he feels the information will not help him. We have seen from work by kyaa that anecdotally Joe receives a large % of 10 grades. It is likely that this information would present a similar statistical anomaly as to the above.

• Additionally, we have several examples of where Joe has “beaten extreme odds”, including:

o Having the only 2018-19 Panini Prizm silver prizm Black Label (out of thousands of cards submitted)

o Having the only 2018-19 Panini Prizm blue prizm Black Label (out of thousands of cards submitted)

o Having something like 50% of the total number of 2018 Topps Chrome Update Black Labels in existence (out of many thousands of cards graded)

o Having two of the three 2001 Upper Deck Gallery Tiger Woods Black Labels in existence (out of thousands of cards graded)

o Having received three Black Labels in a single submission of three cards. Even if these cards were RCRd, that seems like the most unlikeliest of results for any submitter regardless of how well-trained and previously successful

• We have additional circumstantial evidence to support the conditions necessary for Joe and someone(s) in BGS to knowingly give/receive preferential grades, including:

o Joe used to be an employee at BGS and remains friends with several active BGS graders

o Joe uses submission techniques that would maximize the chances of removing any “blinds” from the process, including dropping off submissions in person (which allows graders to know they are getting cards from him) and using same day submissions (which allow him to know which grader(s) is/are likely to grade his cards)

o Joe’s submissions have, at times, appeared to not follow standard BGS operating procedures, such as grouping of Black Labels together, etc.

Taken together, this evidence provides a strong case that Joe has someone(s) at BGS who provide him with “special treatment” in the form of grading results that far and away exceed what he or any other highly successful, high-volume grader should receive.

Now, does this data meet the US criminal justice system requirement for conviction of “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”? No, probably not, at least in my opinion. But it could meet the US civil justice system for “a preponderance of evidence”, especially when Joe has failed to provide other evidence that should tip the scales in his favor were he not involved in nefarious conduct. And in reality this is neither a criminal or a civil court case, but an assessment of a market that relies (as most markets do) on the trust of parties in the good intentions of one of the market participants (in this case BGS). To me, the data presented above is enough to cause me to lose faith in BGS as a neutral arbiter of card condition and, for me, to change my buying habits accordingly.

Now, there are certainly things that could change my opinion. BGS could release its entire database and we could see that there are in fact “more Joes” out there who receive a seemingly improbably % of Black Label and/or 10 grades. We could get Joe’s full dataset that shows he’s really submitted millions of cards and actually receives Black Labels closer to 2-4% and has been playing up his “eagle eye” reputation for personal status. Sure, that’s dumb and unlikely, but it’s an example of something that could change opinions. But in the absence of more data both math and critical thinking tell us that something nefarious is likely to have occurred between Joe Clemons and BGS, and we should all proceed accordingly. Thanks to kyaa, Superdan49 and others for helping us get to the point where we can all make informed opinions about the parties involved.

EDIT: I don't know Joe or, to my knowledge, anyone who has posted in this thread. I actually don't even think this issue is about Joe. To me, it's about the status of BGS as a neutral arbiter of card condition (and, as follows, card value). And that status is not as good as it was before this thread...

[base set]

“a deep knowledge of what they are looking for”

Ahh, The Mysteries. No one else knows; if only someone else could figure out what they are looking for. Is it a special gleam on a certain corner when they shine the special Black Label anti-light on it? Will we ever know what the graders are looking for?

I predict they return all over again on about, oh, page 109.

[auburn35]

Originally Posted by StayingWarm

This thread is turning into a referendum on the poor state of American math and critical thinking skills. The fact is that we have a great deal of evidence that strongly suggests something nefarious has occurred within BGS and its relationship with Joe Clemons:

• We have proof that Joe receives a MINIMUM of 14% of PERFECT 10 BLACK LABELS in his submissions. It is possible that the real percentage is higher, as there is some debate as to the completion of the data set used to arrive at this number.

• This 14% appears to be a statistical anomaly on par with someone winning the Powerball in back to back drawings. It seems that people may be getting hung up on 14% in the absolute, saying things like “well, if it were 30% it would be high” and “14% seems normal”. This is incorrect analysis. While we don’t have a complete dataset, we have significant anecdotal evidence to suggest that other “best in class” graders receive somewhere around 4% Black Labels and we have (to my knowledge) exactly zero cases of anybody who either personally or even knows of someone who has received even 6% Black Labels over a significant sample size. The impact of this absolute cannot be over-stated. See my post #2015 for an attempt to explain this in simple terms. Any stats PhD out there want to give it a shot to succeed where I have failed?

• We have a case of Joe purposefully failing to provide information that could potentially help clear his name, namely the %s of these same submissions that were given a 10 grade (but not Black Label). Occam’s Razor would tell us this is because he feels the information will not help him. We have seen from work by kyaa that anecdotally Joe receives a large % of 10 grades. It is likely that this information would present a similar statistical anomaly as to the above.

• Additionally, we have several examples of where Joe has “beaten extreme odds”, including:

o Having the only 2018-19 Panini Prizm silver prizm Black Label (out of thousands of cards submitted)

o Having the only 2018-19 Panini Prizm blue prizm Black Label (out of thousands of cards submitted)

o Having something like 50% of the total number of 2018 Topps Chrome Update Black Labels in existence (out of many thousands of cards graded)

o Having two of the three 2001 Upper Deck Gallery Tiger Woods Black Labels in existence (out of thousands of cards graded)

o Having received three Black Labels in a single submission of three cards. Even if these cards were RCRd, that seems like the most unlikeliest of results for any submitter regardless of how well-trained and previously successful

• We have additional circumstantial evidence to support the conditions necessary for Joe and someone(s) in BGS to knowingly give/receive preferential grades, including:

o Joe used to be an employee at BGS and remains friends with several active BGS graders

o Joe uses submission techniques that would maximize the chances of removing any “blinds” from the process, including dropping off submissions in person (which allows graders to know they are getting cards from him) and using same day submissions (which allow him to know which grader(s) is/are likely to grade his cards)

o Joe’s submissions have, at times, appeared to not follow standard BGS operating procedures, such as grouping of Black Labels together, etc.

Taken together, this evidence provides a strong case that Joe has someone(s) at BGS who provide him with “special treatment” in the form of grading results that far and away exceed what he or any other highly successful, high-volume grader should receive.

Now, does this data meet the US criminal justice system requirement for conviction of “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”? No, probably not, at least in my opinion. But it could meet the US civil justice system for “a preponderance of evidence”, especially when Joe has failed to provide other evidence that should tip the scales in his favor were he not involved in nefarious conduct. And in reality this is neither a criminal or a civil court case, but an assessment of a market that relies (as most markets do) on the trust of parties in the good intentions of one of the market participants (in this case BGS). To me, the data presented above is enough to cause me to lose faith in BGS as a neutral arbiter of card condition and, for me, to change my buying habits accordingly.

Now, there are certainly things that could change my opinion. BGS could release its entire database and we could see that there are in fact “more Joes” out there who receive a seemingly improbably % of Black Label and/or 10 grades. We could get Joe’s full dataset that shows he’s really submitted millions of cards and actually receives Black Labels closer to 2-4% and has been playing up his “eagle eye” reputation for personal status. Sure, that’s dumb and unlikely, but it’s an example of something that could change opinions. But in the absence of more data both math and critical thinking tell us that something nefarious is likely to have occurred between Joe Clemons and BGS, and we should all proceed accordingly. Thanks to kyaa, Superdan49 and others for helping us get to the point where we can all make informed opinions about the parties involved.

EDIT: I don't know Joe or, to my knowledge, anyone who has posted in this thread. I actually don't even think this issue is about Joe. To me, it's about the status of BGS as a neutral arbiter of card condition (and, as follows, card value). And that status is not as good as it was before this thread...

Excellent post.

Maybe an accountant can chime in on the legality of "special treatment" E.g. drastically reduced grading fees, pay for grade (only pay for grades given)..... whatever employee benefits that might be going on.

I think taxable income comes into play, once a price discount reaches a certain level or service (not available to the paying customer) is used as a benefit.

[GoBeavs]

Originally Posted by Blue_Devil

Happy hunting, but that has zero to do with what is going on here. Go get em...

When it's being used as "evidence" of the accused's wrongdoing, it absolutely has to do with what is going on here. It's red herrings like this, or absolute false "facts" which is fueling all the opposition posts. They are exactly what is used in "witch hunts", and many here are rightly calling them out.

Just stick to the true facts and let people make their own opinions. Primary one being he is getting a much higher than average success rate. This one has actually been proven when he released his account data to share. Pretty much all the rest is just noise, or were countered by Joe in his response.

Some of that high success can be attributed to his extreme pickiness over what he submits (not his "eye" as people continue to erroneously post). Many of the regular graders posted that they aim for 9.5s. Joe is aiming for 10s on all his cards. He's mentioned multiple times that his questionable cards get sent to PSA, or group subs. However, even an extremely picky submission requires a fair amount of luck in the grading process. These results appear to be beyond luck.

That being said, you still have to put me in the boat of those asking what is it that Joe has done. Is the accusation that he's a shill for BGS? Is it the "smoking gun" for the theory that heavy submitters get favorable grades? Many are making posts as if Joe is a criminal here. What law has he broken?

What is the purpose of this thread?

[RogerGodahell]

Don't forget about his Luka Prizm black label which is like 3 in 1600

[Onepocketj]

Originally Posted by GoBeavs

When it's being used as "evidence" of the accused's wrongdoing, it absolutely has to do with what is going on here. It's red herrings like this, or absolute false "facts" which is fueling all the opposition posts. They are exactly what is used in "witch hunts", and many here are rightly calling them out.

Just stick to the true facts and let people make their own opinions. Primary one being he is getting a much higher than average success rate. This one has actually been proven when he released his account data to share. Pretty much all the rest is just noise, or were countered by Joe in his response.

Some of that high success can be attributed to his extreme pickiness over what he submits (not his "eye" as people continue to erroneously post). Many of the regular graders posted that they aim for 9.5s. Joe is aiming for 10s on all his cards. He's mentioned multiple times that his questionable cards get sent to PSA, or group subs. However, even an extremely picky submission requires a fair amount of luck in the grading process. These results appear to be beyond luck.

That being said, you still have to put me in the boat of those asking what is it that Joe has done. Is the accusation that he's a shill for BGS? Is it the "smoking gun" for the theory that heavy submitters get favorable grades? Many are making posts as if Joe is a criminal here. What law has he broken?

What is the purpose of this thread?

Can't be serious. Or are you pgis?

[crazyjoe2099]

What is a RCR

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by crazyjoe2099

What is a RCR

welcome back!

Raw Card Review

[mlbfan10]

Originally Posted by crazyjoe2099

What is a RCR

It's an offering BGS does for shows. TBP laid out the meaning above.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Wiseysez]

I gotta find this guy that sets up at shows and has hundreds of the same common in a box for Joe to peruse.

[GoBeavs]

Originally Posted by Onepocketj

Can't be serious. Or are you pgis?

You mean the guy who got kicked off for being an opposition. Sure the guy makes a lot of troll posts, but most in this thread had been legitimate questions or information.

And what part of my post could possibly not be serious? The main reason I stayed on the sideline for so long is because I don't have time to deal with responses like this which provide no advancement.

[blackbears86]

Originally Posted by sammyjankis

I don't have a problem with someone getting a great deal on pricing. The problem is that it appears that he is either the Babe Trout of grading or the cards he grades are getting preferential treatment.

I looked at another one of the Black Label cards listed from Dan's data dump.

11334006 Baseball 2010 Bowman Prospects Anthony Rizzo

There have been 2,525 cards graded from the 2010 Bowman Prospects set. Only 2 cards have achieved a black label 10.

The other black label 10 is a Nolan Arenado that was graded on October 15, 2018 (https://www.beckett.com/grading/card...0887892&flag=1).



The title sure looks familiar - all caps player name, exact same way that Joe writes all of his other titles.

Out of 2,525 cards from this set, only Joe has the eye to get a black label. Is that what you guys are really saying? That he is literally that much better than everyone else? He's the only person that has the will to go through thousands of Nolan Arenado and Anthony Rizzo Bowman cards to find the perfect card?

Again, circumstantial. We won't get better than stuff like this. How many "coincidences" do the naysayers need?

Excellent info here.