"Improving" Cards: New poll

[Gorditadogg]

The base question for this poll is:

If I "improve" one of my cards and put it up for sale in the BST section here without disclosing the "work" I did on it, by doing one of the things listed, would you consider that to be "unethical".

This is a multiple choice poll, so pick as many as items as you like. If you pick one of the items, that means you think that by me doing that to my card and putting it up for sale, that I am being unethical. If you think it is okay, then don't pick that item.

The last question is a bonus question, which asks if I would still be unethical if my "work" was submitted to PSA (again, without disclosure) and PSA gave the card a clean grade.

P.S. This poll is anonymous, you will not be "outed".

[drmondobueno]

Another question, for those who are sharp enough tonlook and find these things: do any of these conditions return or deteriorate over time, say, the next 20 years?

[Leon]

I think what we already see in the poll what will be the prevailing thoughts going forward. There will always (it's some kind of scientific law) be naysayers. Happy collecting...

I feel the need for a card that could be an 8 in the wrong hands..

[gunboat82]

I vote "All of the Above" is unethical, assuming we're referring to selling or trading the card to someone else without disclosure of the alteration (or "restoration," "improvement," "cleaning," "wiping," "sprucing," or whatever phrase you like).

As for the PSA question, someone suggested in the previous thread that the card is whatever the PSA label says it is. I strongly disagree, and I'll use Fritsch W512 prints as an example. Because PSA dabbles in incompetence, it has slabbed a number of obvious Fritsch prints as original W512 strip cards.



Getting a lazy PSA grader to put "1926 W512" on the label doesn't magically transform an ersatz Ruth into an original one. Let's say I knowingly submitted the above Fritsch print to PSA, and PSA slabbed it as a W512 Grade 1. If I sold it to someone without disclosing that it's really a Fritsch print, then I committed fraud.

Bless your shriveled black heart if you're willing to give me a pass in that scenario, but the reality is that you're a scumbag enabling another scumbag.

[brunswickreeves]

Many of these methodologies were completely unknown to me, as a buyer ignorance is bliss I surmise. I’m going to use an eraser and remove these from my memory, just need the Men in Black!

[G1911]

I clicked the boxes for everything, but some of these are pretty minor in the category of "unethical".

Ultimately this is incredibly simple, but I know this group will bend itself into a pretzel to justify whatever is or may eventually be profitable. The average American types at somewhere around 40 WPM, apparently. "Rubbed off wax", "erased pencil mark", "removed ink with acetone", "Kurts spray for pinhole". These take literally less than 3 seconds to type into your listing. Why would you folks not just be open and honest? Far more time and effort is spent coming up with why things should not be disclosed than it would take to just spend less than 3 seconds to disclose it. The question is rhetorical, obviously it's because we want to stretch as much as we can to justify profitable things and pretend it's just too complicated or somehow ethical to not disclose rather than the obvious.

I am quite hard pressed to think of a case in the world where a lack of disclosure in a transaction is the ethical path and where people without a vested interest would by and large vote for that. It's the opposite, and we all know that when we aren't trying to justify things to boost values or make more money for ourselves or our friends.

[brianp-beme]

Rub off wax with panty hose

I had never heard of this before today. Might be a reason for some us to search out an old school undergarment wearing significant other.

And I wonder if this panty hose method works for ear wax?


Brian

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Rub off wax with panty hose

I had never heard of this before today. Might be a reason for some us to search out an old school undergarment wearing significant other.

And I wonder if this panty hose method works for ear wax?


Brian

I've seen it done on occasion. It was the only box I did not check.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

I vote "All of the Above" is unethical, assuming we're referring to selling or trading the card to someone else without disclosure of the alteration (or "restoration," "improvement," "cleaning," "wiping," "sprucing," or whatever phrase you like).

As for the PSA question, someone suggested in the previous thread that the card is whatever the PSA label says it is. I strongly disagree, and I'll use Fritsch W512 prints as an example. Because PSA dabbles in incompetence, it has slabbed a number of obvious Fritsch prints as original W512 strip cards.



Getting a lazy PSA grader to put "1926 W512" on the label doesn't magically transform an ersatz Ruth into an original one. Let's say I knowingly submitted the above Fritsch print to PSA, and PSA slabbed it as a W512 Grade 1. If I sold it to someone without disclosing that it's really a Fritsch print, then I committed fraud.

Bless your shriveled black heart if you're willing to give me a pass in that scenario, but the reality is that you're a scumbag enabling another scumbag.

It's going to seem like a dumb thing to argue, but that actually does have all the value of a W512 Grade 1 Babe Ruth because of their guarantee. So the flip does define what's inside...even if outside the slab it would be defined differently. Counterfeits, alterations, anything the flip doesn't mention doesn't exist while it's in the slab, value-wise anyway. True story.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

It's going to seem like a dumb thing to argue, but that actually does have all the value of a W512 Grade 1 Babe Ruth because of their guarantee. So the flip does define what's inside...even if outside the slab it would be defined differently. Counterfeits, alterations, anything the flip doesn't mention doesn't exist while it's in the slab, value-wise anyway. True story.

I'd argue that the flip still doesn't define what's inside. What you're describing isn't a "W512 Grade 1 Babe Ruth," it's a coupon for PSA reimbursement.

If you treat cards as nothing more than currency, then I suppose it's a distinction without a difference.

[Gorditadogg]

Yes, that's a big question with graded cards. If you trim a card and send it to PSA to launder it, and PSA grades it a 7, is it still trimmed? Or is it now a clean 7?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Yes, that's a big question with graded cards. If you trim a card and send it to PSA to launder it, and PSA grades it a 7, is it still trimmed? Or is it now a clean 7?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Is this like some "Schrödinger's Card" thought experiment?

If you trim a card and send it to PSA, it's still a trimmed card, regardless of the label that PSA slaps on it.

As an aside, I find it amusing that people often repeat the mantra, "Buy the card, not the slab," suggesting that the card is the actual product and the slab is just a plastic vessel that someone slapped a number on.

But when we're talking about card doctoring, the conversation quickly morphs into a philosophical discussion over whether the slab is the product, and the card itself is just window dressing.

[raulus]

I'm guessing that we've got the majority of votes in now. Kind of fascinating to see how they line up.

Basically 3 big groupings here:

-Activities that almost everyone is okay with
-Activities that most people are okay with
-Activities that the vast preponderance of people are not okay with

Pantyhose falls into the category of activities that almost everyone is okay with, with only 9% reporting it as unethical.

Bending corners back, erasing pencil marks, and soaking cards to remove glue, dirt, or stains falls into the bucket of activities that most people are okay with, with around 20-33% reporting it as unethical.

And finally, most everyone seems to think that the rest are highly unethical, as they line up with 74-95% reporting it as unethical. The application of black marker to a 71T takes the cake with 95%+ reporting it as unethical.

Even more excitingly, right in the middle at 57%, almost half of us find no ethical conundrum with getting PSA to grade improved cards. Some of this could be driven by the fact that it probably depends on whether we're talking about submitting any of them, or all of them. For example, I'm guessing that some portion of respondents who find pantyhose acceptable are also fine with taking the card so hosed by panties and submitting it to PSA, and ergo declined to check the PSA box.

Of course, some of the responses to the bonus question could also be driven by basic antipathy towards PSA in general - anyone who buys slabs certified by a perfectly imperfect TPG deserves what they get, so caveat emptor and all that.

[JustinD]

I think it's a bit funny that there is a group of around 10-15% of responders as of now that are perfectly ok with trimming, using nail polish remover, random chemicals with unknown results (especially when the resulting chemicals are trapped in a plastic tomb with the card to air out for years), and press out creases with Kurt's magic rollers but using a sharpie on a 71' Topps...well that's just over the line buddy!

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I think it's a bit funny that there is a group of around 10-15% of responders as of now that are perfectly ok with trimming, using nail polish remover, random chemicals with unknown results (especially when the resulting chemicals are trapped in a plastic tomb with the card to air out for years), and press out creases with Kurt's magic rollers but using a sharpie on a 71' Topps...well that's just over the line buddy!

Haha. My 71T's are being unfairly discriminated against.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I think it's a bit funny that there is a group of around 10-15% of responders as of now that are perfectly ok with trimming, using nail polish remover, random chemicals with unknown results (especially when the resulting chemicals are trapped in a plastic tomb with the card to air out for years), and press out creases with Kurt's magic rollers but using a sharpie on a 71' Topps...well that's just over the line buddy!

Some of that comes down to points of clarification I'm sure. When I responded to the poll, I checked the option for 'trimming', but when I read it again, I realized he was asking something different. He was asking if it's ok to trim off the "fuzzy edges" of a card. Sometimes cards have fuzz sticking off of them. I think it's pretty common for people to pluck off little pieces of fuzz from their cards. Surely, this is how some people interpreted that option, while others were responding to trimming in general. That's why we see a higher percentage of people who checked off using a sharpie on a 71 Topps than we see for people who checked off the "trimmed fuzzy edges" option. I assume if you were to facet the trimming response by people who thought of trimming in general vs people who were thinking of picking off a few pieces of fuzz that you'd get two vastly different percentages here.

[Jeremy102175]

I checked all the boxes. I'm curious why anyone would want to restore a card to begin with, unless it's purely for the $ value. Pencil marks, glue, etc are all a part of the card's journey through the decades.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Jeremy102175

I checked all the boxes. I'm curious why anyone would want to restore a card to begin with, unless it's purely for the $ value. Pencil marks, glue, etc are all a part of the card's journey through the decades.

I could see someone wanting to restore a card for OCD reasons. But the Venn diagram of people who obsess over a card's appearance and people who resell those cards without disclosure seems to be a full circle.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jeremy102175

I checked all the boxes. I'm curious why anyone would want to restore a card to begin with, unless it's purely for the $ value. Pencil marks, glue, etc are all a part of the card's journey through the decades.

And equally importantly, how well they have survived the journey (or not) should determine their relative value -- not the skill of a card doctor/restorer/whatever. It means something if a 100 year old card has actually survived in, say, near mint condition. It means nothing if someone is able to doctor it to make it look near mint.

[Jeremy102175]

Originally Posted by peter_spaeth

and equally importantly, how well they have survived the journey (or not) should determine their relative value -- not the skill of a card doctor/restorer/whatever. It means something if a 100 year old card has actually survived in, say, near mint condition. It means nothing if someone is able to doctor it to make it look near mint.

100%!!!

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And equally importantly, how well they have survived the journey (or not) should determine their relative value -- not the skill of a card doctor/restorer/whatever. It means something if a 100 year old card has actually survived in, say, near mint condition. It means nothing if someone is able to doctor it to make it look near mint.

Well stated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Jeremy102175

I checked all the boxes. I'm curious why anyone would want to restore a card to begin with, unless it's purely for the $ value. Pencil marks, glue, etc are all a part of the card's journey through the decades.

Wouldn't the erasure of a pencil mark also be part of the card's journey?

[Jeremy102175]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Wouldn't the erasure of a pencil mark also be part of the card's journey?

Erasing, trimming, and soaking are all part of the card's journey, but only if you can tell that they occured. In each of those cases though the idea is to conceal or remove the card's imperfections. But yes, if you could tell that there was once pencil on the back of a card and that someone had attempted to erase it, that would certainly be a part of the card's history and journey. A card that has been soaked, trimmed and erased has had its 100+ year journey removed, and is now essentially a 21st century card in my eyes. I completely understand your point, but I tend to think of cleaning cards the same way coin collectors frown on cleaning coins.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Jeremy102175

Erasing, trimming, and soaking are all part of the card's journey, but only if you can tell that they occured. In each of those cases though the idea is to conceal or remove the card's imperfections. But yes, if you could tell that there was once pencil on the back of a card and that someone had attempted to erase it, that would certainly be a part of the card's history and journey. A card that has been soaked, trimmed and erased has had its 100+ year journey removed, and is now essentially a 21st century card in my eyes. I completely understand your point, but I tend to think of cleaning cards the same way coin collectors frown on cleaning coins.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and I see your point. To relate it to my collection, I sometimes bid on GU flannels that have vintage team number changes. This was commonplace back in the pre-1972 era. But I never bid on jerseys that have modern restorations, like new numbers or lettering added. As you say, that makes the shirt 21st century.

[Jeremy102175]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and I see your point. To relate it to my collection, I sometimes bid on GU flannels that have vintage team number changes. This was commonplace back in the pre-1972 era. But I never bid on jerseys that have modern restorations, like new numbers or lettering added. As you say, that makes the shirt 21st century.

I really like that comparison to jerseys. What's interesting as well is that although I knew there were number changes on some vintage jerseys, I didn't realize it was commonplace pre- 1972. Those vintage jerseys' "imperfections" just taught me something about baseball I didn't know until you mentioned it, so to make 21st century alterations that are "corrections" is really a shame in my opinion.