Quote:
|
I think some very interesting and well written points have been made, I wanted to chime in and comment on a few things.
I am not going to pretend like I am an expert at identifying alteration, far from it. Concerning grading, I also live by the adage "Buy the card, not the grade." I would also say, I've purchased cards that have been labeled by the grading companies as "altered" as I have found that I can get a nice looking card, that presents well, for a fraction of the price. Altering has been going on in our hobby, for a long time. The unfortunate part is that so many cards slip through the cracks, that are altered and then assigned number grades all the same. If you want to soak or trim your cards, for your own personal collection, I am not going to judge you. I do have a problem with the people that do it, strictly for some sort of financial gain. It's dishonest, and I know there's a lot of dishonesty in the world, but I think it's a damn shame that it occurs. You can call my viewpoint naïve, but that's what I maintain. It doesn't surprise me that it occurs, but I don't like it. It was also referenced before, I can't recall which post off the top of my head. It aggravates me to no end, that certain parties or individuals can get away with submitting clearly altered cards, or altered cards with a long history, and yet still receive number grades. I'm not calling out specific parties due to the nature of the rules, and myself wanting my name to be private, if there's an issue with this paragraph, Leon, I will gladly delete it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
As for the Wagner, it seems deductively very very unlikely it was cut from a 'sheet' as in a full sheet or anything close to a full sheet.
If it was, where are the others? |
Quote:
Not saying it can't happen. i just haven't seen how it has happened yet with this particular stuff and the cards the products have been used on. |
Quote:
The history here is obvious and we all know it. |
Let’s please keep it civil so we can keep this thread alive :)
I have t seen anyone advocating for fraud and on this thread except for the post about what PSA did being good for business re: Wagner. Do you believe if only using water and no other chemicals but pushing down on a corner is altering and is fraud? We all have pushed down a finger corner with our fingers or a book or to try to make it look better. I did that at 8 years old. Honest question. Is using panty hose to get wax off the back of a card an alteration? Quote:
|
Quote:
Spray distilled water on my card - maybe I don't care. Alcohol - eh, maybe I'm not so sure. Acetone or bleach - OK, please drop the bottle and step away from the card. Focusing on whether the card appears doctored when Kurt is done with working his magic is beside the point. Undetected alterations are still alterations, so the eyeball test isn't dispositive. All you'd really prove is that he's good at doctoring -- not that he didn't do it. |
Quote:
This whole thing seems to be much more a slippery slope about people being po'd at the INTENT of messing with cards than it is what was actually done in the final analysis to the physical card. Just based on the "act" of someone doing something which may or may not be illicit - then what is the point of all of this empty discussion? Alteration has to be provable on a card later, or it isn't alteration, by any practical or realistic judgment. Period. If Kurt's alteration cannot be detected later, anymore than 9 year-old Billy immediately wiping a booger off of a card in 1957 can be detected in 2024, then neither should be realistically considered "altering" cards. The cards as ephemera / artifacts are not logged upon some blockchain of history where you can go back and see what was or was not done to them over the course of their existence. They are not conscious beings who can say "Hey, a dealer pressed my left corner back down for a little bit too long at a show in 1982, maybe you should tell PSA I'm altered!" :confused: To me this starts to cross a strange boundary where realism / sanity in the judgment of "what is" is no longer a factor. And that is where I cannot continue to follow the script. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
According to Mastro there was a whole pile of others. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The things are you asking have nothing to do what what I have actually said? I am not defining 'alter' in any strange, unusual, or unique way. When did I object to pushing a corner flat with your finger? When did I object to water or imply as such? Does not my first post suggest the exact opposite? Kurt's openly engages in practices almost everyone here, until convenient for it to change, has long held to be altering. Go check out their own advertising. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It seems very unlikely that there was an uncut sheet found, or a nearly uncut sheet. The single subject presentation of it and the Plank make this very, very unlikely - what we have does not match a sheet. Maybe it was strips. Maybe there were some oversized scraps. Maybe the cards are the product of the conspiracy theory of a 1950's perfect reprint ring that has been endorsed here. Maybe Santa made them in his shop. |
Quote:
|
Every slabbed card has a story, don't it?
Quote:
Ok, but at the end of the day you and everyone else judging only on the act would have to admit that it’s a theoretical problem. If by definition you “don’t know” that you may be collecting an altered card - and that doesn’t stop you - well then it must not be too big of a problem. Right? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Quote:
|
For those who’ve been following this for a while… Brent Huigens’ “tenets” now prevail. He never should’ve been an FBI target… he was a hobby trailblazer! :eek:
|
Quote:
Obviously, it is untrue and just an old wives type of tale, like most 'perfect crime' stories where nobody telling it can state how they know this, who specifically did it, produce even a tiny shred of evidence, and wraps up too cleanly and vaguely. Off memory, we had a poster claiming the sheet was found in New York and not the Florida market where I believe Ray claimed to find it in our last thread focused on the card. He declined to produce his alleged evidence (it doesn't exist) and stopped posting when asked for it. I would doubt the card was pack issued or that the card is fake, the back is a clue it's less likely to be pack issued but the circumstances of the find seem the stronger proof that this wasn't a card that was just found in somebody's things like all/most of the rest of the Wagner's and Plank's known. I don't know what the true origin is, but its almost certainly not an "uncut sheet" as is always said on this subject, because the output does not match that input. |
Quote:
Let's just assume this assumption is true, even though it quite obviously is not. If I can make a fake $100 bill so good that you can't detect it and the authenticator you bring it to can't detect and the US Mint doesn't catch me, is it okay for me do this? Is it okay for me to pass off this item when I sell it or use it in a commercial transaction as a real $100 bill? Is it not "too big of a problem" because you can't see it's fake? I don't think it takes a moral high horse to see the massive problems here with this train of ethics, or lack thereof. |
Quote:
I think the embarrassment / possibility here that we all don't want to admit is that someday fakes that good will be so common, that none of us know the difference. And that thought genuinely terrifies me. |
Quote:
Make no mistake - my line is the physical proof. If a method is devised 240 years from now to tell exactly what was done to each of our cards at each perspective point in their histories - then yes, fine. Bang, you got me. You got Kurt. But if you cannot provide physical proof that a card is in fact altered - the world we currently live in will conclude that it hasn't been. Frowning upon more than that at this point is an exercise in futility and kind of pointless, IMO. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not advocating for the unsuspecting guy who bought an improbably sharp PSA 9 from Probstein to flog himself and surrender the card to local authorities. I am advocating for full disclosure of known facts whenever possible, with varying degrees of moral culpability along the "blockchain." Hypothetically speaking: If Evan trims a card and sends it to PSA without disclosing what he did, then he's a cheat. It's clear-cut. "PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity." If PSA knows Evan trimmed the card but gives it a 9 anyway, then PSA is complicit in the fraud. If PSA doesn't know the card is trimmed and gives it a 9, then PSA's actions may fall somewhere on the negligence spectrum, but there's no ill intent. If Probstein knows Evan trimmed the card and sells it as a PSA 9 without disclosing the known alteration, then he's complicit in Evan's fraud. Probstein might be tempted to argue that PSA's failure to detect the trimming absolves him of blame, but he'd be wrong. Another party's negligence doesn't mitigate Probstein's own knowledge and intent to deceive for profit. On the other hand, if Probstein suspects Evan trimmed the card but takes a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach, it becomes a moral gray area for Probstein. If I buy the card from Probstein without knowledge that Evan trimmed it, I'm a blameless victim in the scheme, even when I go to re-sell it as a PSA 9. Now, if Evan tells me he trimmed it and I turn a blind eye because it's his word against PSA's, we're venturing into that gray area where self-interest leads to lame rationalizations. It might not be fraud, but it certainly raises an ethical eyebrow. Finally, let's say Evan tells me he trimmed it, shows me a video of him doing it, and even points to unique markers that leave no doubt that he chopped that particular card before sending it off to PSA. If I sell you the PSA 9 slab without disclosing what Evan showed me, then I'm a PSA-10, PWCC-S Top 5% Certified scumbag, and I deserve to be tarred, feathered, and strung up by my thumbs. That might not be a popular viewpoint, but I'm a little more Kant and a little less Rand. |
I'm simply ask for a definition of "altering"
Nobody on this thread has spoken in favor of adding anything to a card such as adding ink or rebuilding a corner using another card or trimming etc. Yet you seem to be very upset about the whole thing. I agreed with and quoted part of your first post but I was focused on your conclusion about what drives all of this. Looking back at it now you said in the first line "Kurts has done far more than this. I've seen their crease/dent/corner fixes on the Discords." Sounds like you believe that is altering when there is nothing being added? To me what he is doing is just an upgraded/modern form of using pantyhose for wax stains or flattening a corner with your fingers. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
A total non sequitur.
You would be creating a fake Rolex or fake $100 bill from scratch. Those are counterfeits. Nobody is advocating that so you are fighting a straw man. Kurts is not producing fake cards Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The board is more than welcome to adopt a new standard gleaned from the modern crowd. It used to be considered that Dick’s operation was bad alteration. Now this stuff is growing in popularity here. It will probably help profit margins. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ray’s story is his sheet was from a Florida flea market, as I recall. He took it to Sevchuck’s shop, but there’s no one besides Ray who can attest to anything before he did that, just his story. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
A few people mentioned the Wagner and stories that it was cut from a sheet. I’ve seen a five card strip. This photo is from the Hager book. Have there been documented instances of larger panels/strips of T206 cards?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
T25 - A large part of a sheet, later destroyed and cut into strips T51 - 12 card proofing sheet, not production size T62 - 12 card proofing sheet, not productions size, and part of another T107 - 13 card proofing sheet, not production size. T206 - the mysterious Wagner strip that is on a different stock T220 Silver - 96% of a sheet, cut into 8 card panels E229 - significant part of a sheet, also cut into panels and with multiple owners. Not for the ATC, but from one of their printers, exists a partial proof sheet with most of the T225 subjects in Fullgraff's book. EDT: Also separate and notable is the T212 Obak sheet and strips, and the destroyed before being photographed T204 Ramly sheet. But these are from different companies and probably are not relevant as to what was done with T206. Can't think of anything else from the top of my head that is provably known and extant. |
Quote:
Yes, if you don't say that you did it, and I can't prove that you did it, and some grading company either can't prove it, or more likely just doesn't care - that doesn't make things right, but my point is how often is this a situation of consequence in reality? Are you going to stop collecting cards just because you don't know either way on all the new cards you buy? I'm not. How often do you know the person or history of the specific piece of cardboard you are buying? Whether that is from Rick Probstein or Greg Morris or your LCS dealer 10 minutes away? How often do THEY know? They don't. People can fret over this, or they can get on with life and collect cards and enjoy the hobby. The truth is that the vast majority of time - you aren't going to know. All of your Evan scenarios aside from I think 2B (PSA knows it's trimmed, and labels it as such - Authentic Altered) are in theory true - but in reality highly improbable. Neither of the two largest graders that deal with vintage cards (PSA and SGC) are in the business of detective operations to see who "intentionally" submits altered cards to them. It's a policy that's buried in the fine print somewhere, but realistically impossible to enforce unless they take time and resources away from their grading operations to go on an improbable witch hunt for card doctors. Ain't gonna happen. The rest are the same. Yeah, if we hear of impropriety in the process somewhere, we should probably throw up a red flag. But how often in reality are folks going to do that? You have to temper this whole "Card Doctors Bad" with reality. This is why the physical proof to me is so important. It's the whole essence of the extent to which people care or do not care about alteration as a real issue in this hobby, with some chance to actually DO something about it and not just be pissed and post on message boards about card doctors whose names we don't know being so awful. Graders certainly aren't perfect but they at least attempt to set a standard for authentic and unaltered cards based on physical proof that isn't reliant on the telephone game and unrealistic proactive honesty for collectors such as some on this board to out bad characters and altered cards that otherwise we would never know about. They are if nothing more - a starting point for now despite their flaws, given the percentage of collectors that continue to heavily use them and collect / invest in cards that reside in their slabs. |
Quote:
My point with the graders was that unlike many on this thread who seem to think it's enough to shake their fist at some card doctor in abstentia, grading at least is an attempt to evaluate the physical condition of the card that cannot talk about what did or did not happen to it a year ago, or 70 years ago. It is an attempt - such that it has evolved to at this point - to examine the physical evidence. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We don't seem to be at the point where we have no idea when things have been altered - the graders are just bad at it and don't really care to improve (which is the most generous possible statement to give them). Your scenario is a future possibility, not really current reality. PSA is not the arbiter of actual truth. I suppose we could declare being against literally anything as 'shaking ones fist in absentia' unless one has the active power to stop it (what am I realistically supposed to do? Private citizens are not really in a meaningful position to do anything about a host of bad things in the world and regulating crime, shock, does not eliminate it either). Because I cannot stop bad thing X does not mean I should not be against bad thing X. I know it is increasing in hobby popularity to support, tacitly or openly, alteration and fraud (which is the whole and entire point of the alteration - show me these sellers redoing corners, removing creases, micro trimming to sharp perfection and disclosing that honestly when selling them) but a number of folks are not going to go along with these soft justifications. |
How much did the cleaning of the M116 Wagner bump its value? 15K? More? In a way, if you take a step back, it's insane.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
As for the rest of it and what to be for, what to be against - to me there has to be evidence of a crime that can be proved a week later when you sell said card to someone totally unsuspecting that has no idea of its history. You can be mad all day long at people who fix corners and remove creases, and soak away dirt and grime and wrinkles - but if at the end of the day there is ZERO proof that the card has been physically altered - then how has the card truly been changed from it's original state? It hasn't. I would agree with you in many cases even with numbered graded cards - that of course you can tell. I'm not talking about these cards. Here is where collector knowledge and a personal eye for something being "not right" has to come into play. But say for s&g that you truly CAN'T tell for decades that anything Kurt's Card Care products do actually change and alter cards? This whole thing - as it is right now for people who buy cards that people have worked on with his products and have no clue - is a gigantic moot point. Not only will they never know, there is nothing TO know if the true physical state of the card cannot be proven to be altered. Will this always be the case with the types of leaps and bounds technology is currently taking? Probably not. PS - I will say this again for those who maybe haven't read the entire missive of this thread. I quit using Kurt's products myself for my PC, not that I ever truly did anything much with them to begin with. They work to an extent yes, but it's just too much work. My more valuable cards with dinged corners and wrinkles can remain in their SGC 2 and 3 slabs. They are still beautiful without me doctoring them. ;-) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Your answers, when stitched together, do help me in some small way. I asked "Have there been documented instances of larger panels/strips of T206 cards?" Apparently, you don't know of any. Thanks. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I asked a straightforward question. You responded with lots of information; however, nothing in that first post was an actual answer. Rather than continue our conversation, I'd rather just say, "Happy Collecting" and call it there. |
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Congrats on hijacking and derailing an otherwise interesting and informative thread with lots of people giving opinions and perspectives. While you are it please leave Jesus out of it.
Maybe this will make you happy….. at least the graders caught this one. I wonder if the submitter disclosed the alteration? At least he didn’t soak it right. Quote:
|
Quote:
Now, the T206 Wagner here was first brought up in 54 by somebody else. You first discussed it in post 62. The OP expanded the discussion on it in post 72. I first mentioned it in post post 86. If answering a question on it is hijacking, then you hijacked over 20 posts before me. Congrats on... hijacking by following the ebb and flow of a thread? I don't know what you from me on this Mantle. You guys are welcome to be triggered by people against defrauding people and altering cards and selling without disclosure. This card is obviously not altered to deceive and in any way an example of anything here. If you are truly offended by the common phrase of "Jesus" in exasperation, well, oh well. |
Quote:
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say there was a "huge centering pump and dump a few years ago", and neither do you. The "centering craze" is not some fad like WNBA cards or Wresling cards that kids are trying to pump. Centered vintage cards always have been and always will be the ocean front property of this hobby whether you like it or not. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Don't be the paranoid schizophrenic of the hobby screaming at clouds. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Lesson learned? Clean off your gunk before submitting or it might cost you $40k. |
We're not going to see eye to eye here, so I'll just respond to your direct points and move on.
Quote:
Frankly, I'm not that fussy about cards for my personal collection. You can soak them, spray them, glue them, tape them, roll them, dip them, or touch them up with crayon. But I respect that other collectors might not feel that way. If I know something's been done to one of my cards that might make a prospective buyer/trader uneasy, I'll disclose it. Quote:
Quote:
All that said, I'm an imperfect being. I probably wouldn't lose sleep at night if I trimmed a card to 50/50 perfection, fuzzied the corners a bit to bring it to that PSA 4-5 sweet spot, snuck it through their alteration detectors, and sold it to you at 500% comps. You'd be happy as a clam and I'd have money in my pocket. It's not actually fraud if we all look the other way, right? Trees falling in the forest and such. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Over time, they have changed their standards. It used to be that the grade was primarily based on the amount of wear/damage the card had endured. Only later, did their grading shift to incorporate centering, print flaws, fish eyes, and other aspects pertaining to the cards' original production. Just look at some of the earliest PSA-graded examples if you dispute this. |
Quote:
|
Respectfully, you missed my point and may not have understood why I made the reply I did. Also, I haven't even suggested "it doesn't matter if you can't detect the difference."
Chris Quote:
|
It was not my intent to mischaracterize what you said. What distinction were you attempting to draw then with counterfeits? I brought up fake Rolexes, and Greg brought up fake currency, to test the proposition some were floating (not you apparently) that it didn't matter if you couldn't detect it. But you called that a nonsequitur. So kindly explain.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:03 PM. |