Quote:
Originally Posted by freakhappy
And just because it's detectable doesn't make it unethical. So it seems like a good deal of people are on both sides of the fence...so who actually makes the call on ethics here?
|
I was hoping Wonka's post would get that question discussed, but it didn't, so I'll discuss it with myself. Unfortunately, it seems to be PSA's call. They said they wouldn't put a number on a trimmed card, so the Gretzky Wagner eventually landed people in prison. If they were to say they wouldn't slab cards treated with chemicals, then something similar could occur. If PSA says they will assign numeric grades to such 'chemical' cards, and won't indicate the chemical component, then deception (and thus, ethics) become a moot point, at least legally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freakhappy
Ok, so some people believe that by cleaning a card, you take it out of it's natural state. How about all of the chemicals that every t-card absorbed when they were around cigarette smoke or maybe inside the package before opened? I mean, which chemicals are we going to allow? I think we have to put the ethics debate on hold until we actually know what we are talking about.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
My read is that the beef is about making money through deception - the final state of the card is irrelevant.
I'm on the fence primarily because I don't collect graded cards, so if I could not tell that the card had been changed, I wouldn't care; however, I also realize that some people do care, and they have every right to want their cards to not be touched by chemicals.
Also, some cards end up in slabs, and I have to be aware of the implications of that for chemicalized cards.