Posted By:
MWJay --
First, the word "methinks" was commonly used in plays during Shakespeare's time (1564-1616), which would be Middle English. "Old English" refers to the time period from the middle of the 5th to the beginning of the 12th century. If you were truly using the "Old English" form of this expression, you would have written "me thyncth" (or "me thinketh" in today's nomenclature).
Next, you claim that I have yet to explain why altered cards that are slabbed (but ungraded) are problematic. Here are 7 different posts that prove you wrong:
(1) (February 3 2002, 11:47 PM) << First, I don't think it would be at all difficult to imagine buyers over-paying for "authentic only" cards. Just look at how many 1923 Spalding Babe Ruths or 1938 Goudey Joe DiMaggio Rookies "libertyforall" has sold in the past year. Like it or not, there will always be willing buyers for this type of stuff. The common denominator is that if it's in a holder, there's a much greater chance it's going to sell. The result? Many first time buyers will be turned off to the hobby and others will lose confidence in encapsulated cards. If you don't think that buying an "authentic only" card from one of perhaps thousands of eBay sellers is analogous to gambling, then I don't think you understand how this hobby functions. Why create such an amorphous, hype-your-card-to-the-moon environment? >>
(2) (February 3 2002, 11:47 PM) << "Authentic-trimmed?" Isn't that analogous to "Authentic-not exactly authentic?" My feeling is if one wants to thoroughly confuse new hobbyists and many buyers of vintage, graded cards, all that is necessary is for an established grading service to encapsulate altered cards. And I'm sure it would work wonders for their reputation. >>
(3) (February 1 2002, 5:13 PM ) << I agree and I also think David is right on this subject. "Authentication only" would lead to a great many difficulties. Even authentication with some further identifying tag (say, of an alteration) would fly right in the face of reason, common sense and sound judgment. So too, with all the problems that Internet auctions experience with reprints and non-authentic material, I just don't see any real advantage to an SGC "authentic only" service. PSA has already begun to dig themselves a hole on this matter. There's no reason for SGC to start a new one. >>
(4) (February 2 2002, 2:01 AM) << To me, there's no way a grading company can properly assess the authenticity of an altered card. Sure, there will always be some examples where a card is lightly trimmed or the collector just wants verification that something is original and not reprinted. But for each of these cases, there are cards that are repapered, significantly altered, or altered to appear as another card. As far as I'm concerned, it's impossible for one to draw the line. Grading cards as "authentic only" demands a judgment as to the percent authentic. Not only do I view that as unwise, but tedious and troublesome. Like I said before, it's like assigning a grade to an altered card. I can only imagine the headaches a grading company would get if it started a large-scale authentication only service. Think of the number of people who would be trading in "authentic only" cards or the number of submitters who would argue that their card was "just authentic enough" to be encapsulated. EBay would be a mess as bidders tried to guess what was in the holder before they bid. Talk about giving dishonesty and greed a new set of legs.... >>
(5) (February 2 2002, 1:49 PM ) << What you are not taking into consideration is how much an "authentication only" service would legitimize cards that have been significantly altered. Cards that had numerous creases removed, were recolored, or even significantly repapered would now be legitimate candidates for being encapsulated. If I owned a grading company there is absolutely NO WAY I would want to put ANY stamp of approval (of authenticity) on altered material. That's just bad business. >>
(6) (February 2 2002, 4:41 PM ) << Now, imagine that there are hundreds or even thousands of these "authentic" cards on the market. Sure, they'll be some sellers who will describe the cards properly, but what happens in those situations where creases (or other defects) are missed or there is deception on the part of the seller? And then who's to blame? The seller of the card? The company that authenticated the card (without a grade)? Both? The only alternative is to grade "authentic only" material on a card by card basis. Buy then you're just right back where PSA is with their authentication service. That is, you create the perception that a great deal of bias exists -– some submitters can get the "authentication only" grade, others can't. Either way, it's a losing proposition. >>
(7) (February 2 2002, 4:56 PM) << Next, I will absolutely guarantee you that if SGC starts an "authentication only" service that an entirely new market will develop. One that encourages deception, greed, greater numbers of altered cards, and dozens of eBay sellers who claim their "authentic only" cards will grade as high as the moon. Finally, yes; only certain cards should be graded. Cards that are original and unaltered. If you think that trimmed or altered cards that have an "authentic" label aren't going to be passed off as something else, then I think you are mistaken. Think about it -– even if there's a qualifier (my favorite word) indicating the type of alteration, the seller might still claim the card is full-sized (or unaltered) and that SGC probably just made a mistake ("Duh! I don't see anything wrong with it!") >>
Even you, Jay, seem to refute your own argument when YOU write the following:
<< I have no illusion that the unscrupulous dealers out there will submit there cards for 'authentic'. It's counterproductive to the scam they are trying to pull and I gaurentee you that they would free plenty of 'authentic cards so that they could resell them as 'short' or whatever. >>