Quote:
Originally Posted by benjulmag
Probably easiest to respond to your points in your order. In doing so, I am not representing that I am stating the hobby's view (to the extent one can ascertain what that is) as opposed to only my view.
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 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 be regarded as cut substantially at time of issue 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 retreating them with the same reverence as if they were an 11th commandment God gave Moses.
|
Thank you for your very thoughtful reply. I pretty much agree with you all the way down the list. Here are my thoughts to your comments:
1. Removing a foreign substance that causes paper loss... I am not sure how that is substantially different than handling my cards and creating a bit of paper loss from normal wear. It seems that your standard is that you can't do something that alters the card from its original state. Well, my cards had sharp corners in their original state, and now the corners show some fraying and rounding. Must I state to the TPG or buyer that I handled the cards a little, to account for their current non-mint condition?
2. "Unaltered by recognized grading standards." Are those standards universally accepted and codified in law somewhere? I'm being rhetorical - I think this is what is lacking in terms of being able to prosecute.
3. The problem with being able to do things to cards as long as you disclose what you did only goes one generation. Do I disclose what I did to the TPG and let them then grade the card (and now it is "officially" a 7 or 8 or whatever, after they take into consideration what I did) or do I disclose what I did to the buyer? Once the card has left my hands, there is no certainty the story of what I did will be recounted every subsequent time that card changes owners.
4. I don't think disclosure would be needed with cards that every collector knows were issued on the sides of boxes (cereal, jello, bubble gum pieces, cupcakes, etc.) What would the disclosure reveal? I cut these really cleanly? That would be self-evident.
5. I agree with the first part of what you said - Stephen Juskiewicz Inc. bought authentic cards from Topps and cut them with their blessing - but not with their equipment. As I mentioned in my post, looking at an 800 count box, the edges of the cards looked like glass, which is not how the edges of the cards in a Topps vending box look. They also paid much better attention to centering. In short, they did a superior job than Topps, which is why I suspect their cards were prime candidates for the top grades.
Your conclusion was good and I agree. But with all this gray area, I really wonder what the card doctors could be charged with, from a purely legal, prosecute-able standpoint. Not to get into a head-butting contest about who's elephant is bigger, but I think the biggest elephant in the room is that there might not be much of a legal leg for any prosecutor to stand on, even with all the evidence.
06-10-2019, 06:15 AM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode