Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorditadogg
John, I know you were just sharing your frustration, that many of us have, with the bad actors that are putting fake and altered cards in circulation. It doesn't seem like we can get rid of them.
|
I understand how my first comment here in this thread might have come off. I'm just more apt to point out the realistic problems with doing something sometimes than starting with what is right theoretically.
For example: Last weekend at one of my LCS's - I bought an absolutely gorgeous, raw 1968 Topps Steve Carlton. If this card is not technically mint, it's close: Razor corners, clean edges, perfect centering, rich color and gloss, focused sharp image - even the back is perfectly centered and vibrant. Now - say that somewhere on the back there once had been an errant ink stain, or some kid's initials or something. I doubt it given a very close review of this card, but as we know with the best doctors lately unfortunately - it's probably possible. Say that Dick T. had gotten ahold of this card, altered the hell out of it with some type of magic solvent - and now there is no trace whatsoever of something that would have rendered a card otherwise an 8 or a 9 down to a 1 or an A.
It's like my mind just cannot get there from here. What can we do when even through modern science - you just can't tell? Undoubtedly - there are countless Ruths and Cobbs and Mantle RC's like this that someone like Dick messed with - residing in numbered and high numbered PSA and other slabs today - and people treasure them.
I guess for me it's just more glaring like with the work the BODA has done over on Blowout - where you can see cards that were obviously - if only slightly and very professionally - trimmed. You can point a finger at that and scream. Much like you could the "autographed" Goudey cards of deceased HOF'ers that JSA and SGC signed off on, only to have glaring proof via photographs come out later of the same cards with identifying marks - unsigned long after the players pictured had passed.
I see that the argument has to start theoretically - it just bothers me that logically it seems so doomed to fail.