On the other hand, has anyone who has seen the card questioned its authenticity as period?

Trimmed cards are a whole other ball of wax. Unlike with cleaned cards, there is often a very real risk involved if you buy a trimmed card in a slab (depending on if it's detectable or not). If you damage that slab and can't get it to pass grading again, you could be out a substantial amount of money. This is also why I avoid early PSA cert numbers, as those cards generally carry a similar risk due to them almost all being significantly over graded by today's standards. If you damage the slab of a PSA 7 T206 Cy Young with cert # 0635xxxx, it's apart guaranteed to regrade as a 5 today. This risk is not present with cleaned cards though. You can send those off for grading and they'll pass every time.

Why would a slab get damaged? That doesn't seem like a major risk, unless I suppose if you're lugging them to shows all the time.

I forget who it was, but I've read more than one account from dealers who claim they were offered the card before Mastro sold it but they passed on it because they believed it wasn't authentic.

If you can find that please post.

Ted was one of them...here's the thread where much of it was discussed:

https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=2284949

Corey has an interesting post later on where he talks about looping the Plank from the batch.

Sure. The OP was all about Kurts cleaning cards and so the debate was about whether its ethical to do things to cards that would get them back more to their original state. I only objected to the counterfeit thing because its original state is not legitimate (aka fake). I didn't see the comparison. Just IMO

" 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 then is it?"

This is what I was responding to -- not from you.

Can't tell and can't tell from the <1 minute they spend at a grading company are very different.

Complains in 147 about irrelevant comparisons, makes an irrelevant comparison a couple posts later.....

Having been priced out of a big chunk of the hobby, I really hate these threads.

Rather than go over to the dark side, lets do this.
If you believe the alterations done with the magic spray, a stick from the art store and a meth pipe are undetectable, send one my way and lets find out for real.

I wouldn't say I hate these threads, but I can empathize with the fact of feeling jaded. Not that I'm not happy for people making money, but some of these numbers being thrown out are obscene. The majority of the time we're talking about alteration in the Hobby, it's with cards that I'm so wildly priced out of. Don't get me wrong, I love the hobby and love looking at the Pre-War side of things. I'm fascinated by these cards, but they're a pipe dream at best.

When Travis, mentioned the price of the Wagner increasing to 75K, I thought "Wow that card is more than my entire years salary."

It's only partly how much everything costs now, even on the lower end.

It's more that people are making a lot doing fairly easy shady stuff.

Fair.

Hi Peter. That was me.

If I can expand a bit - No, if I'm looking at a card with obviously thin borders in a PSA 8 slab, I don't throw caution to the wind there, and say well. It's not altered because it's in the slab. There is a Mantle base card I know of in a PSA 10 slab that has suspiciously thin borders; but I digress.

I guess I was trying to draw a distinction between altered cards (I'm fine with using Kurt's methods as the example, since so many obviously tend to lean toward that being across the line) that at least currently cannot be detected, or cannot be detected definitively and/or easily.

I'm sure it's different for each person. Does it "not matter" only if you cannot tell yourself that the card "definitely' was altered before you add it to your collection? Or is hearsay about what did or did not happen to the card with it's previous owner or handler come into play? How much provenance is required?

Asking again as my only point here is that given current methods today, the "act" can usually be separated from the evidence it does or does not leave behind. And the major point of judgment on whether or not a card is "altered" continues to be tied to the physical evidence and what a grader does or does not say, or what a discerning collector can or cannot see regardless of a pronouncement on a flip. Until the technology improves, much of the discussion remains academic - even if we all agree Card Doctors Bad / the act itself even in abstentia remains deplorable.

Not sure if anyone cares at this point, but I suggested that it doesn't matter. That's not entirely accurate. My point was more to suggest the difficulty / current lack of concern in linking the two is problematic. It would be much easier for graders and collectors with any morals to point out "this was bad, and here's proof of how it was bad I can show you even much later..."

For what it is worth by my earlier quip logic - if a Rolex was entirely fake and you "can't tell" I think that places this situation in the same boat. We can deplore fake Rolex makers for the act, but in the meantime a lot of fake Rolexes may trade as authentic with nobody much the wiser.

Couldn't agree more.:) Unless there is a HUGE red flashing light or the card doctor was a blind drunk third grader. The quick look many graders take isn't going to catch much.

Now that the auction is over, I'll post a picture of a correctly graded card and ask:

Would you buy this, break it out, soak it, send it in for grading, and then sell it?

The card is graded a "1" due to the crud on the back. Watching Kurt's videos, I'm sure the crud could be easily removed.


The card has nice centering and could probably come back graded a 3.5 (or better). The price difference could be up to $1K (from the price for a "1").

Worst case, if it came back AUTH due to someone detected the soaking, you could still probably break even on the card because it has very nice visual appeal.

The final hammer (with BP, but no taxes or shipping added) was $900.

Any guesses if we'll see this card cracked, soaked, resubmitted and back to an AH? Probably better to just sell it without the AH this time around.



Attachment 606580

I personally would not but I don't see how it would be any different than buying a house, fixing it up and flipping it.

You can live in a House, you can't live in a Joe DiMaggio card :D

A house with the value of most Joe DiMaggio cards would need a LOT of work before you could live in it.:eek::D

I guess the incoming argument will be that people know the house has been renovated/remodeled.
I can see that side too.
Sticky (haha) subject

Chris,

I see your point and am not debating anything here (and I realize you're not trying to start a debate).

I was merely wondering what people thought about the question in post #178.

My opinion doesn't matter, but here it is.

I don't see anything wrong with a little "cleaning". For example erasing pencil marks and things like that. I never realize soaking could do as much as it did. I've only soaked one card. It was a T200 team card that was adhered to a page in a book. The card came off the page, but my impatience probably resulted in a few extra creases in the card. Lesson learned, you better be patient if you're going to soak. Do I see soaking as a problem? Still not sure about that one yet and if there are affects on the card material if something other than nice clean water is used

I do not support ANY kind of trimming. I still think TPGs should only give numerical grades to Zeenuts that have the coupon (for, example). Also, TPGs should avoid assigning numerical grades to cards razor sharp corners that don't meet the standard size requirement. I get it, people think there's a lot of variation in card sizes. I say, yes, but why is it that many cards with razor sharp corners are assigned numerical grades. The TPGs should err on the side of caution and rethink the grading philosophy.

Taking out creases? I've seen this going on for 40+ years. I remember the first time someone showed me how to do it. I was a bit surprised and tried it on a few new cards with great success. I don't have it in me to try it on true vintage cards. In many cases I can spot a card with a crease removed and cringe when I see it, especially in a graded holder.

If material (cardboard/ink) is added in anyway, then that's just wrong unless it's disclosed during a sale or through grading, but I can't imagine anybody would just tell the TPG about it because usually they're trying to get it slipped past the TPG. Counter to that, removing ink in an effort to create an error card is just wrong - I couldn't imagine anybody disagreeing with that. It's for that reason I'd never buy a graded T206 "nodgrass" error card.

This may be true for certain alterations, like subtle recoloring, a rebuilt corner done professionally, or a bad trim job, but for most of the stuff we're taking about in this thread (e.g., soaking or cleaning cards like the Wagner), you could stare at it for hours and you're not going to find evidence of the fact that it was cleaned because there's nothing there to detect.

Maybe the big borders crowd needs to also start insisting on buying them dirty to make sure that they haven’t also been soaked….

Yes, the buyer will certainly be attempting to clean this card up. Nearly every time a card like this gets auctioned, the buyer is someone that believes they can fix it. Cards like this sell closer to their potential, as opposed to their current state. They almost never sell for "comps" because people who know how to clean them compete against each other and will always outbid someone who is just bidding on the card with no intentions to improve it.

No, I did not win the card. But I do know who did.

As for whether it will end up back at an auction house in the near future in a higher slab? My guess is no, it won't. The buyer picked it up for their PC.

Should this card be soaked?
 

I recently "upgraded" the SweetCap460-25 in my T206Elberfeld,Washington Fielding back run. I decided that I preferred the 2.5 despite the grime over the 5, which looks altered. So, now I am curious if the Snowman thinks the 2.5 would benefit from soaking?

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1706014626
https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1706014631
https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1706014637
https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1706014641

The 2.5 could be improved, but it likely wouldn't result in a grade bump. Just an eye appeal improvement.

The 5 may have been cleaned at some point. I would say it's more likely than not. Whether it has been trimmed or not is difficult to say from a scan though.

I could've sworn somewhere I read it was a strip of like 8 cards, but I won't swear to it.

It would be immensely helpful if we could ever show anything about this alleged item. Even if it's just a list of the other minty cards that were present, we might be able to align with other evidence and gain a bit more information on sheets.

T card sheets/sheet remnants are incredibly rare and it is unfortunate the baseball ones seem to get destroyed so quickly that they aren't even photographed first, leaving non-baseball sheets/remnants as the bulk of demonstrable uncut evidence.

A lot of what Kurt does is way beyond cleaning.

I don't see a problem with cleaning, I wouldn't try with the card from post 178, because some white glues don't dissolve with water. I might try a bit of water and a q tip to see if it will. But that would be a coin toss on wasting the money to reslab it.

Undetectable? maybe on some sets. Not on all sets.
The way curt presses out creases and other damage is almost for sure detectable.
And I've offered to prove it, with no takers.

A $15 coinflip for a gain of $1000? if it cleans up seems like a pretty easy decision from an EV standpoint.

I agree that pressing out creases is detectable. But Kurt doesn't press them out. Ever. In fact he expressly states numerous times that to do so is a bad idea and damages cards. He only adds moisture to the cards and then let's them dry slowly. Usually, the creases he works on do look somewhat better, but they rarely disappear. They typically just look more relaxed.

Did you even watch the video with the 86 Jordan?

Soak, poke at the crease with an artists blending stick, smooth with a glass tube on a stick, press between glass to dry out.
All that is right there in the video.

I can't see that as anything but pressing out a crease. Is it still visible in the video? Yes, a bit. But there's little enough that it would change the grade. If missed it would be a drastic change.

PSA 4 to PSA 7:

https://youtube.com/shorts/yM8EDunuN...BxrlCbAkVRCuQo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

If we have reached the point where people justify that, then I don't recognize what this hobby has become. We used to value the relative worth of cards on how well they had survived whatever they had been through, not who could do the slickest job of fixing them. What the (*&^& ever happened to originality?

Not long ago it was really just the one guy defending such conduct here, but after this thread there is apparently a large and growing contingent here who are openly in favor of any fraud, altering and misrepresentation that can be gotten away with now. I'd pretend to be surprised but $$$ > anything.

I'm resigned to it and acknowledge it, but I still hate it. It shifts the focus completely from originality to who can do the most and get away with it. And people twist themselves into pretzels to justify or downplay it.

I don't know, I think this is great for all of us commoner collectors. Now we don't need a million dollars to build a million dollar collection. We just need a box of creased cards, $20 worth of Kurt's Card Cream and our own sweat and blood. How much better can it get!

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Yes, I watched the video. He does not press it out at any point. He is not applying pressure to press it down. That's the difference. When people press out a crease, they literally soak the card and the smash the shit out of it with a spoon or a roller and try to smash it flat. He's not doing that. He's getting it wet and allowing the card stock to rise naturally. It's like working on a sponge that dried with something sitting on top of it and now has a dent in it. If you get the sponge wet, it will retake it's natural shape. Card stock is similar. That's all Kurt does.

The vast majority of collectors are completely OK with this. They've just been scared to express their opinions publicly because people like you are out there with pitchforks trying to crucify anyone who doesn't see things the same way as you. It takes someone like me who doesn't give two Fs about what others think of me to call it like it is. You can continue to call it fraud until the cows come home, but that will never make it actual fraud. You're in the minority here. It is what it is.

I know, I'm evil for being against altering items and selling without disclosure and criminal fraud. You're a strong hero for your courageous no two fucks given defense of non-disclosure and fraud.

My question is: Once I put in the work on my cards to remove all those unsightly wrinkles and polish them up a bit, can I just put them right up on BST for sale? Or do I have to send them to PSA first for a final cleansing?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

hahahahaa!

That's not a cleansing, that's a TPG certification that should indicate you don't have to disclose crap because "fix the card and slab it - and they will come".

:confused:PSA first of course.:confused:

I think the disappointment stems from people just now becoming aware of the fact that this stuff goes on behind the scenes. People create these romantic ideals in their heads of how something "ought" to be, and just assume or pretend that it is such. But make no mistake about it, this stuff has been going on since the beginning of the hobby. People have been soaking cards since the day they were made. It has never stopped happening and never will. As soon as someone soaks a card for the first time and realizes, "Wow! You can do that and it doesn't damage the card in any way!?" their perception changes. They tell their friends, their friends do the same, and it perpetuates. Then people also learn that soaking a card, or even just adding a little bit of moisture or humidity, can also improve things like bent corners and creases.

I think some people just tried to keep it a secret because they want to "hold all the cards" so-to-speak. They want to make money from it and they don't want competition. If too many people know how to clean cards, then there's no money in it for them. But with social media and the DIY/how-to culture of the younger generations, knowledge is power and is much more freely available. There are countless YouTube channels today that are dedicated to restoration techniques of anything and everything collectible from antique tools to box cars to casino chips to comic books to sports cards and anything and everything in between. Most people just like nice stuff. They don't care if it has been cleaned. In fact, they prefer it. They care that it is original & not counterfeit. I align much more closely with that viewpoint. I'd much rather everyone knows about what actually goes on and pull back the curtains than to sit there in silence and hope nobody else figures this out.

That some people choose to conflate an original item that has been cleaned with one that is counterfeit is not my concern. G1911 can continue on in his delusion as long as he chooses. The rest of us are going to continue to soak cards, push down bent-up corners, and wipe off fingerprints and smudges from the surfaces. Sorry, not sorry.

You're not evil, you're just delusional. The problem is that you keep calling it "alteration" and "fraud". Neither are true. Pushing down a bent corner with your thumb or even a stick is not an alteration. Soaking a card in water does not alter the card. Placing a card in a humidor does not alter the card.

If you brought a dress shirt to a tailor and said you wanted to get an alteration done on it and asked for a quote, they'd look at you like you were crazy after explaining to them that the "alteration" you'd like to have done is just to have it steamed (or ironed, steam cleaned, etc.).

How many cards have you … tailored into higher grade slabs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I think you are somewhat conflating "original" with "authentic." We may get into semantic knots on this one, but I think of original not as the opposite of counterfeit, but as a card without anything done to it. That's the sense I am using it in, anyhow. Now yeah all these things are slippery slopes and don't hold up at the far edges, I understand that. It's a Socratic method lover's dream. What if you flick something that's stuck to the surface off, what if you rub off a wax stain, blah blah blah.

Just curious btw, if you do these things yourself (and I acknowledge they are less concerning than the big three of trimming, recoloring and rebuilding), do you disclose, and if not why?

Next time, try and read first. I have not spoken a word against pushing on a corner with your finger or soaking whatsoever and actually said the opposite. I know this board largely struggles to read transcripts but it's right there. You just make things up to defend fraud, shilling, alteration, or whatever unethical act of the day has your fancy.

Here's another complete lie from our resident fraud guy. You cannot possibly be so stupid as to not understand the contextual use of 'original'. Again, where did I speak against pushing on a corner with your finger or wiping fingerprint? Nowhere. I said the opposite. You claim people argued against non-controversial things to then conflate them with egregious acts and non-disclosure to pretend it's all fine.

Completely agree Peter.

It's not just a Socratic exercise though or semantic slopes. The entire notion of "original" in the sense that you prefer is a moot construct. Every vintage card has been handled by oily grimy fingers. And even just the oils from our fingers do far more to "alter" (in the sense that many here are using the term) the original state of a card than water does. People get crud on their cards and they wipe it off. Greasy fingerprints change the state of a card. These facts are not merely semantics. You're free to pick and choose which changes from a card's original state you prefer to have in your collection, but it is rather silly, and arbitrary, to expect others to adhere to those same standards.


If I clean a card, I do so in a manner that does not damage the card in any way. I have never once had a card that I cleaned get rejected for cleaning from any grading company because I don't use any methods that would damage or alter the card in any way. I consider an alteration to be the same things that PSA and SGC would consider an alteration. Things like trimming, recoloring, rebuilding corners, smashing card stock to press out creases, using harsh chemicals that damage the print and gloss or make the cards brittle, etc. Basically anything that damages a card or changes it from its original state, I would consider to be an alteration (and that even includes some things that the grading companies allow, but I personally do not).

I have damaged cards in the past and later resold them with full disclosure, highlighting the damage in both the title and in the description along with clear images in my listings.

If a card has been damaged or altered, I believe it should be disclosed. But if it has simply been cleaned in a manner that leaves nothing behind on the card and does not damage or alter the card stock in any way, then that's immaterial to the value of the card as it has no bearing on its market value. There is simply nothing to disclose in that case. It would be like disclosing that a truck had previously been farted in. The fart is gone now, so the market doesn't care. The card market cares about the present state of a card; its current condition, and whether a card has been damaged/altered (which are arguably interchangeable terms in this context). The market does not care if a card previously had something on it which is no longer there. You could take any card I've cleaned, crack it out of its slab, and resubmit it one hundred times and it's going to pass grading every time because what I do does not damage or alter them in any way. It is immaterial with respect to its market value. If there is nothing on the card or nothing missing from the card, then there is nothing there to disclose.

We should all care far more about sellers and auction houses listing cards with creases that aren't visible in their scans and not disclosed in the listings than we should about a card that used to have something on it that is no longer there. Or if it used to have a bent-over corner that has been laid back down. I only care about a card's present state, and so does the market.

Also, this idea that the only reason people don't disclose something as simple as having gently cleaned a card is because they're being deceitful and want to defraud others is nonsense. That may be true of something like trimming or recoloring, but it's not true of something as benign as card cleaning. The reason they don't disclose it is because there is nothing to disclose. It's absolutely immaterial. And unlike me, most people have no interest in getting into discussions with delusional people online who wish to publicly crucify them if they don't see things their way. This is the real reason people choose not to disclose these sorts of things. It's just not worth the drama.

BS. You have berated every post I've made in this thread and seemingly every other thread on this topic. I have only defended benign behaviors such as soaking cards in water, laying down a bent corner, cleaning smudges or gunk off the surfaces (as with the card in the OP), etc. Yet you continue to berate me and say I'm defending "altering" cards and repeatedly accuse me of fraud. It's getting old. You constantly chime in with the most ignorant takes on just about every topic this board has to offer. Maybe try reading a book or two? Have you ever thought about that? Maybe try to learn something for once in your life? Or not.

Also, it is you who needs a refresher on the definition of 'original', not me. Here is the contextually relevant entry from the Oxford Dictionary for 'original':

Words have meanings. If you don't like this one, then pick a different word.

Interesting thread. This is the same existential crisis that the Antiques Furniture went through years ago. It reached a point that anything done to a piece of furniture immensely reduced its price. I wonder if sports cards will go this pathway.

I assume you're talking about something different than this, but Instagram and YouTube have endless content from people who buy used antique furniture pieces for less than $100 (and often free) and then restore it and sell the items for thousands of dollars.

I recently saw this card posted on social media. It is not my card. But I'm curious which version of the card everyone here would prefer. The one on the left, or the one on the right after it was cleaned?

In my opinion, this card was rescued. In the image on the left, it was clearly altered. On the right, it was restored back to its original state.

...

Surely you know, it also depends on many factors: historical significance of the piece, rarity of the piece, age of the piece etc. If it’s a common piece that is 1950s vintage then yeah restoring or renovating the piece will increase it’s value. If it’s a pre-colonial piece never restored/renovated then yeah restoration/ renovation will greatly reduce it’s value exponentially. But you know this because you’re not that stupid and you only like to argue.

Since it's not perfectly centered (top to bottom), you probably wouldn't want it Travis. As long as you don't try to bring that top to bottom centering to 50/50, all is good. :p

Come on, that was somewhat funny, right.

This is an interesting thread regarding opinions/perceptions of "altering" or "enhancements". Shows some real passion on the collectors that are far right and far left. Ok, let's not start trying to figure out which is "far right".

It'd be interesting to run a poll that allowed for more than a single selection. The poll could keep a tally of all participants and a list of items considered "card doctoring". Now, for the soaking part, the poll should include soaking with only water or soaking with more than water. What would those polling items be? Trimming :mad:, adding color, adding material for fixing holes/corners, crease removal, what else?

And your position is that if selling it, there would be nothing to disclose?

Okay. So you cannot read what has actually been said, bitched I said the exact opposite of the actual transcript, and your only response to being caught lying for the hundredth time about something that is right here in front of your face is that you think I need to read a book? Why don't we start with you reading the relevant transcript before the next batch of fabrications you make up?

Yes I have strongly criticized your constant defenses of altering cards without disclosure among another other highly dubious, at best, behavior. This should not be difficult to see why. Altering items and selling them without disclosure is unethical and illegal. If it did not matter and no one cared, then there would be no problem discussing the work done on a card. There would not need to be a cover up every time it gets sold. If it was not illegal to alter cards and sell them as if they were not altered, then Mastro wouldn't have had it included in his deal.

Did you even read the definition of original you copied in? Look closely. Read it. "the form or language in which something was first produced or created." You genuinely can't see why hobbyists have long used 'original' to refer to form?

Now here's the bigger problem - where did I use the term "original" at all here? I didn't refer to undoctored cards as original at all in the transcript. I used "original" and "originally" twice in the digression on the fictional perfect fake ring in post 108 and don't seem to have used the words any other time in any context whatsoever. Where did I use it wrong? Again, this is a forum. There is a transcript. Reading a transcript is not difficult. You can do it. You do not need completely make things up about even the most pedantic things lol. Yet you choose to every single time. I guess that fits with an ethic that non-disclosure and fraud are just fine and dandy though, so it makes some sense.

Nobody but you, I don't think, would call the card on the left altered. It's incurred some wear/damage, that is not alteration. Altered implies something intentionally being done to it. Again, if you were selling the "restored" version on the right would you disclose the work or not?

This is getting silly. What if my 6 year old brat nephew intentionally spilled some soda on it? Now its altered?
Also, G1911 is the most negative poster on this board. Soooo many threads. He has got be pushing 50 posts on this thread alone and they are all combative or snarky. We will get 4 more soon attacking me now.

...

I give up. How do you get that info about a thread?

Go to the page where the most recent threads are listed. Click on the number of replies.

Thanks.

I'm done conversing with you. Have a good life.

Again, I'll restate that words have meaning. If you don't like the definition of a word, then choose a different one. I challenge you to find even one dictionary that mentions anything at all about intent when providing a definition for 'altered'.

Whatever any of us thinks about the ethics of improving cards, it is happening. And it will continue to happen to the extent the work done is undetectable. People can rationalize all sorts of things if it is their interest to do so, and the economics of turning low-grade cards into PSA 7's is in a lot of peoples' self-interests.

I am wondering how material this will be to the overall market. Soaking and cleaning seems to me to be prevalent already, and Greg Morris doesn't even lower their grades for wax stains anymore, probably figuring the buyer will just rub it off. So some of these improvements are already being commonly done, and I think don't have much potential to increase significantly.

I guess if you have a card with a crease and nice corners, you should expect to get more for it now. I'm not really sure how many of those cards are out there though, and if "fixing" them would be enough to skew the market. If there are enough 3's that turn into 6's and 7's it could cause those top end values to slide, but who knows.

So bottom line what I am wondering is whether this is a big deal or not.




Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

And I challenge you to answer the question I've now asked twice. :)

As to what you did say, straw man, it has a different more specific meaning with respect to collectibles and you have been in this hobby long enough to know it. Everyone here understands the concept of altering cards, whether or not we disagree on what is acceptable and what is not.

The Williams on the left is not altered, the one on the right is. Is the alteration acceptable? One could I suppose debate that. But you've jumped the shark if your claim is that the one on the left is altered. Or you're just doing the contrarian thing again.

I'd like to live in a world where anything done to cards would be openly disclosed and discussed. In fact, I'm one of the very few sellers I see on eBay that puts "CREASE" or "WRINKLE" in my listing titles. In my other hobbies, everyone discloses everything because there's no blowback. In the rare casino and poker chip collecting world, everyone cleans their chips openly. There are countless threads in those communities where people discuss cleaning techniques and everyone chimes in. Zero people stand by with pitchforks trying to crucify people.

In this hobby, the interpersonal landscape is extremely unhealthy. It's a whole different ball of wax. Perhaps unironically, I've even had people from this hobby (Blowhard forums) stalk/follow me over to the casino chip hobby and try to "out me" there for cleaning chips and creating YT videos showing people how to do it and how to make custom chips, as if I was some sort of con artist. It was actually quite hilarious. Because in that world, nobody cares. No one. They just laughed at the sports card guy screaming at clouds.

The amount of vitriol spewed by people like G1911 fosters an environment where people simply don't care to have open and honest conversations like these. When stating that I prefer to clean my cards is met with claims like, "You're a fraudster and a con artist!", that door to open and honest conversation gets closed. Unless and until that changes, I don't think people are going to feel comfortable making such disclosures. It's the same reason people don't express their political beliefs anymore on social media. They don't want to deal with the blowback at work or in their personal lives caused by a band of cancel culture psychopaths whose only goal in life is to take down anyone and everyone they disagree with.

So, in short. I'd like to see anything and everything openly disclosed and discussed in this hobby. Is that realistic though? No, of course not. Not as long as there are legitimate psychopaths running around trying to set people on fire for cleaning their baseball cards.

My contention would be that the way the term is often used in this hobby, particularly by PSA, is completely arbitrary. They consider a card that was stored in a screwdown to be "altered" despite that being the hobby standard for protecting cards for decades. Meanwhile, if you stick a thumbtack through a card to hang it on your wall, that's somehow acceptable and not an "alteration"? The list goes on.

At the end of the day though, what is it that people actually care about when it comes to their cards? They want to know if there are any flaws on it and what those flaws are. The whole concept of "Authentic Altered" is an arbitrarily applied construct. Perhaps best exemplified by your statement below where you wrote:

I can't wrap my head around your viewpoint here. Honestly, I can't comprehend how anyone could come to the conclusion that the Williams on the left is not altered but the one on the right is. Yet, it's your honest opinion. I see this as a rather arbitrary application of what it means for a card to be altered. Different strokes and all.

It is a huge deal and has been for decades. There are MANY people that just look for cards to "improve". It is a major business. The thing that many don't get is it is at ALL levels of cards. Yes no matter what you collect there are MANY people altering/making them nicer looking.

Yes, that's all true. People are soaking cards, using art erasers to remove pencil marks and rubbing pantyhose to get rid of wax stains. Those practices are all widely done, and from reading Net54, widely accepted. It just seems to me that those "improvements" are already being done on a large scale and priced into the market.

If it's a problem ethically, we can debate, but we're already across the Rubicon on those things. It's being done, and the cards are out there.

So, if every collector bought a Kurt's Card Care Kit and cleaned all their cards, I don't think it would matter much because I think most cards that needed to be cleaned already have been.

Working out creases is new to me, but I wonder how many cards there are out there that would be high-grade except for a crease. Are there enough that, if they were all fixed, it would affect the market? I don't know.






Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[QUOTE



I can't wrap my head around your viewpoint here. Honestly, I can't comprehend how anyone could come to the conclusion that the Williams on the left is not altered but the one on the right is. Yet, it's your honest opinion. I see this as a rather arbitrary application of what it means for a card to be altered. Different strokes and all.[/QUOTE]

Maybe we should do a poll. I would bet a tiny percentage of people would think the Williams with a big stain is "altered."

Interesting debate. Correct me if I'm wrong on this - perhaps I'm just misremembering: When I first got back into the hobby about 8 or so years ago, whenever a card was in an authentic altered slab or something to that effect, it was looked at as a Scarlett Letter and could have been had for considerably less than a raw unaltered or low grade example. Now I feel as though as long as it has good eye appeal, an altered version of a sought after vintage card is worth considerably more than a lower grade example. Again, I could be way off on this, but I feel like that's the way it's trending.

That's an interesting conversation as well, but a little different than the issues we've been discussing here, in my opinion. I don't know that any cards have gotten AA grades because of soaking or corners being bent back.

I think AA cards are for the most part trimmed, re-colored or otherwise structurally altered.

I remember good looking AA cards used to sell above ugly PSA 1's and 2's, but I don't know if that has changed at all.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

The card on the left has been altered by your own definition. Something was done to it that changed its appearance and value.

Maybe we should do a poll. I would bet a tiny percentage of people would think the Williams with a big stain is "altered."[/QUOTE]

So every card that doesn't look like it did out of the pack is altered?

It'd be interesting to run a poll that allowed for more than a single selection. The poll could keep a tally of all participants and a list of items considered "card doctoring". The percentage of each would be tracked.

What's doctoring or would be accepted? Soaking? Perhaps the poll should include soaking with only water or soaking with more than water.

What would the polling items be? Trimming :mad:, adding color, adding material for fixing holes/corners, crease removal, what else?

I just don't know how to set up such a poll.