Quote:
Originally Posted by calvindog
I don't believe either of those were trimmed. I think it's a lot tougher for a grader to spot cards which were cleaned than cards which were hacked to pieces, like all the cards that got past PSA and Beckett.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calvindog
Of course. But I think considering the circumstances we should make the best of an imperfect situation. And there really is no test which can discern whether a card is cleaned or not usually. Not surprisingly, therefore, most collectors aren't as offended by a cleaning as they are by a trim job. That PSA routinely can't spot the most obvious trimming and SGC seems to do much better in this area should be appreciated.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calvindog
From what I've been told the chemicals used to clean a card (peroxide, etc.) don't leave a smell.
And yeah, the trimming is insane that they aren't spotting. All those times when you look at a Heritage auction and see high graded cards that you think have funny borders? They're ALL trimmed. Not some -- all.
|
I agree with Jeff 100%!
Cleaning, in general, is an accepted practice with most collectors so if one can't discern what products (no smell) were used to clean a card then how can a TPG not accept the card as real and give it a number grade?
Imo, comparing this to a trimmed card is not an apple to apple comparison. I believe most would accept a card that has been soaked but fully reject a card that has been trimmed and/or recolored.
Having before and after photos when purchasing is not an option for most collectors so even if a card looks a little faded or doesn't present the best, most collectors would just assume time and the sun got to it over the years.
Personally, and although they are not perfect, my grader of choice if and when the time comes will be SGC, which I have stated many times here.