Card doctoring...

[xplainer]

How would soaking fit into this discussion? Removing glue or tobacco stains from PBs for example. Just curious how this is looked upon.

[AGuinness]

Does anybody have an estimation of what percentage of cards presently residing in TPG cases have been altered? Or has a sample ever been taken?

[murphy8276]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Does anybody have an estimation of what percentage of cards presently residing in TPG cases have been altered? Or has a sample ever been taken?

If it is every proven it is more than .0001%, we are all in deep **** with our collection value.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by murphy8276

If it is every proven it is more than .0001%, we are all in deep **** with our collection value.

Why? Judging by what I see, a whole heck of a lot of people don't care. They only care about getting the pretty card and flip they paid for, quickly, and well-packaged.

[mechanicalman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why? Judging by what I see, a whole heck of a lot of people don't care. They only care about getting the pretty card and flip they paid for, quickly, and well-packaged.

Peter, for argument’s sake, let’s say I agree with your premise that many altered cards reside in graded holders, AND I care about it, what’s your conclusion? What would you recommend one do? Avoid graded cards? Avoid high grade? To be clear, this is not intended to be a confrontational question. I’m genuinely interested on the advice you’d give a new collector given the reality of the things you’re mentioning.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by mechanicalman

Peter, for argument’s sake, let’s say I agree with your premise that many altered cards reside in graded holders, AND I care about it, what’s your conclusion? What would you recommend one do? Avoid graded cards? Avoid high grade? To be clear, this is not intended to be a confrontational question. I’m genuinely interested on the advice you’d give a new collector given the reality of the things you’re mentioning.

That's the question. What would you do? How would you approach your collecting? What would you think the hobby and other collectors should do? Would it change the grades you collect, or the pricing of grades? Would you want more history (provenance) on cards? Would you be willing to pay $50,000 for a graded 10 1957 Sandy Koufax, or would you say "I think I'll stick with $20 for the 3 version."?

If you learned that a percentage of TPA LOAs for autographs were incorrect, how would that affect your collecting of autographs? Would you still accept them as 100% accurate and cross your fingers? Or would you educate yourself about autograph authentication, take more care in picking autographs? What would you think of an industry that uses TPA LOAs as the final arbiter?

Duly note it is not the autograph and game used experts who take TPA LOAs as infallible and the final arbiters as what is authentic and not (go to the autograph section or the game used universe form to see this). It is collectors who lack knowledge, auction houses who want "insurance" and resellers who want something to move their product. You will find that expert collectors in these areas are DIY types.

My collecting personal advice on cards would to stick to mid to lower grades. Don't get price enamored by the grade on the label. There are a lot of great looking cards in lower grade, many presentable even good to poor grade. You skip all that Gem Mint, resubmit a card 10 times until you raise the grade by 0.5 crapola. If there's a missed flaw, saw a small wrinkle, on a 'Gem Mint' card that's a travesty; on a low grade card its no big deal. If you want to buy raw cards, that's great, but find reputable and trustworthy dealers to buy them from. Some people look for the cards, then see who is the seller. As a collector, I would find my favorite sellers and see what they were selling. Just my opinion-- everyone will have his own take and advice.

[packs]

Provenance will never matter when it comes to something like baseball cards. They were collected by children and rarely does a 100 plus year old card stay in one collection for the life of the card. So what provenance could there possibly be on a high grade T206? A notarized statement from an 8 year old in 1909? It'll never work.

My advice to anyone would be to avoid high grade pre-war cards entirely. I'd pay the same amount of money for a PSA 9 T206 that I would an Auth because I highly doubt there's any difference between them. But to each their own.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by murphy8276

If it is every proven it is more than .0001%, we are all in deep **** with our collection value.

It's almost certainly more than that. They've done 29 million things, so that percentage means only about 3000 bad things getting through.

Considering that it's done by people, that percentage would mean they're doing a pretty good job.

[steve B]

I've said this before, but I think it bears some repeating.

The entire process for authentication and grading is backwards.

Sure, there are a lot of cards that can be done by pretty much anyone. Stuff that's not particularly prone to recoloring, and is in pretty worn condition. I'd say that cards with colored borders are more likely to be recolored even in lower grades - we've seen a great example right here.

But to take the cards, and push them through faster based on value is not what makes any sense. I suspect that actually only means the cards that are expensive get their limited inspection sooner, probably to make the insurance company happy.

Even if you can't accept a system that handles higher value cards more slowly, maybe a system that triaged where effort was spent?
Send in a box of VG anything, and it goes to the new guy. Send in a bunch of cards that might be in higher grades, send them to more experienced people. Possible high grade cards with fairly high value if they are high grade should get much more scrutiny. And I mean actually taking time to be sure everything is "right" with the card.
And if something isn't "right" put the opinion of that in writing so it's clear. No "questionable" authenticity, No "we won't slab it because it's been tampered with" none of that nonsense.
It wouldn't work for less expensive cards, but ultimately all card graded should have the flaws explained, and in writing.

Steve B

[conor912]

Originally Posted by steve B

I've said this before, but I think it bears some repeating.

The entire process for authentication and grading is backwards.

Sure, there are a lot of cards that can be done by pretty much anyone. Stuff that's not particularly prone to recoloring, and is in pretty worn condition. I'd say that cards with colored borders are more likely to be recolored even in lower grades - we've seen a great example right here.

But to take the cards, and push them through faster based on value is not what makes any sense. I suspect that actually only means the cards that are expensive get their limited inspection sooner, probably to make the insurance company happy.

Even if you can't accept a system that handles higher value cards more slowly, maybe a system that triaged where effort was spent?
Send in a box of VG anything, and it goes to the new guy. Send in a bunch of cards that might be in higher grades, send them to more experienced people. Possible high grade cards with fairly high value if they are high grade should get much more scrutiny. And I mean actually taking time to be sure everything is "right" with the card.
And if something isn't "right" put the opinion of that in writing so it's clear. No "questionable" authenticity, No "we won't slab it because it's been tampered with" none of that nonsense.
It wouldn't work for less expensive cards, but ultimately all card graded should have the flaws explained, and in writing.

Steve B

Agreed. It would be like paying an appraiser to assess an antique and having him tell you it's fake but refusing to tell you why he thinks so. If you're happy with that scenario, then grade away.

[drcy]

My advice was just for a single new collector if he asked.

Just one thing that I would do hobby wide is to estimate is the margin of error just in assigning the grade, for example as exemplified as through all those resubmissions to get a different grade, and put that margin of error on the label. In science, identifying and expressing the margin of error is integral and essential when communicating results. If a label said "ExMt 6 with margin of error of 5%" that would change things quite a bit.

If with numbers people, this margin of error is well known and talked about, if indirectly. There are those who resubmit to get a different grade, people who say "Do you this could get a bump?" and people who say one card looks better than another though in the same number grade. All I'm saying this margin of error should be explicitly expressed on the product for everyone to see, and for this margin of error be expressed in all calculations and considerations.

Everything-- in science, life and grading-- has a margin of error. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem is when people, and a system, act as if there is no margin of error.

And would that margin of error have to be reflected in the registry numbers? Of course.

Would it change pricing on many cards and all that? Probably, but so be it. But much of the hobby is based on bad math and statistics.

Do I think this will happen? Of course not. The collectors would fight this more than the graders. PSA registry people would probably have a stroke.

Another practical and specific fix would be there should be formal grades for photographs. And I don't say that as some vague, generalized rule, but for specific reason.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by steve B

It's almost certainly more than that. They've done 29 million things, so that percentage means only about 3000 bad things getting through.

Considering that it's done by people, that percentage would mean they're doing a pretty good job.

Steve, over .0001% of 29 million things is not 3,000, it's 30.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Steve, over .0001% of 29 million things is not 3,000, it's 30.

DOH! I took it as 1/10000, and forgot the percentage.

My math is bad, but the right math makes the margin of error a lot smaller.

I'm really sure more then 30 items have made it through PSA that really shouldn't have.

[egbeachley]

I know you did. But as they say, technically correct is the best kind of correct.

I'm not sure what he meant by we would be in deep **** valuewise if it was proven that 30 cards got through undetected. I'm pretty sure that NM/Mint collectors would have over 10% altered cards in their collections.