|
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
1. I do not think there is anything wrong with removing a foreign substance from a card provided in so doing you are returning the card to its same original physical state. If, say, to remove a glue stain a minute layer of the original card is removed with the glue, then that removal will have morphed into an alteration. 2. Two reasons: First, the crease can return, and for that reason the removal needs to be disclosed. Second, we are not selling old cars. We are selling cards that are represented to be unaltered by recognized grading standards. Should the day ever come that used cars before being sold need to be evaluated by national TPGs who specialize in car grading and the car grading standards mandate that scratch removal be disclosed, then at that point not disclosing it would be violative of that evaluation process. 3. No reason you cannot provided you disclose what you did. Again, we come down to the recognized grading standards. FWIW, I am a collector of final production-run uncut sheets that contain the vintage card(s)/set I want to own because I believe pristine cards/sets in such sheets are more valuable than the factory-cut versions. But then again I make that statement as a collector who collects for his subjective pleasure only. If I should one day decide to cut the sheets and then submit the cards for grading, I would need to disclose what I did. In another thread I made the observation that in my ideal world all the flip would reveal is whether the card is genuine and what has been done to it. There would be no numerical grades. So for a card cut from a sheet (or recut if cut improperly the first time), a person who couldn't care less provided the card is real and of proper size would presumably value it along the lines you are suggesting. 4. It depends on how such cards are graded. Not being a collector of them, I do not know if any such card can ever receive a numerical grade. Provided they can, then once again the key point here is disclosure. 5. This one is bit trickier as one could argue the dealer who cut them did so at the behest of Topps and that Topps for some of the sheets subcontracted them out to be cut. From that perspective, one could reasonably opine that the cards, provided they were cut substantially at time of issue, be treated as cut by an authorized agent of the manufacturer and therefore be deemed to have been cut by Topps. Question - when the dealer cut them, did the borders exhibit the same physical characteristics as when Topps cut them? Assuming they did then to me there is nothing wrong with what was done. That is my view though. Others might feel disclosure is still mandated. Conclusion: If there is one "elephant in the room" that emerges from this discussion it is the absurdity of taking the subjective grading standards TPG companies employ and treating them with the same reverence as if they were an 11th commandment God gave Moses. BUT, because the hobby does IMO when submitting a card for grading one has a duty to disclose work done which if not picked up by the TPG would result in the card receiving a grade inconsistent with these standards. Last edited by benjulmag; 06-10-2019 at 05:59 AM. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| FS: 2 Christy Mathewson Books Pitcher Pollock & Second Base Sloan 1914 / 1917 | Moonlight Graham | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 3 | 11-12-2018 11:43 AM |
| A response... | Aquarian Sports Cards | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 11 | 10-30-2017 07:35 AM |
| FSH - 1972 Icee Bear PSA - Maravich, Havlicek, Sloan and Carr | Blwilson2 | Basketball / Cricket / Tennis Cards Forum | 0 | 09-30-2017 11:14 AM |
| Fs: Topps Baseball Books by Price Stern Sloan | greenmonster66 | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 6 | 04-07-2016 08:29 AM |
| 1917 Mathewson Book Second Base Sloan | bbcard1 | Live Auctions - Only 2-3 open, per member, at once. | 10 | 07-18-2011 12:02 PM |