|
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dale, maybe you're confusing a soak in distilled water with a chemical bath with a bleaching agent. One is reasonably well accepted, the other is not. Moser is doing the latter, along with a whole host of other alterations.
As to whether the TPGs should catch them, they all claim to be able to, and that's why they charge up to $5,000 per card to authenticate, detect alterations, and grade cards. The fact that they're either not using the proper techniques to detect alterations or they're unable to detect them at all, they promise that they can. They should either do their jobs properly or stop lying to their customers.
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
I am unsure if the technology exists or not but if the TPG's don't have the technololgy that can detect bleach or peroxide, and the smell test doesn't work, then how can they not grade those cards? ![]() I have never sent a card in for grading nor have I ever soaked a card but I couldn't imagine having my cards sent back as ungradable because someone guessed that I had soaked them in bleach or peroxide. Edit: Just read Peter's thread here on the SGC Joe Jackson card. Do detectable means exist for detecting bleach or peroxide and if so, is it safe to say they weren't utilized when this card was graded? https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...postcount=3297
__________________
52 Topps cards. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144160280@N05/ http://www.net54baseball.com/album.php?albumid=922 Last edited by irv; 06-25-2019 at 01:23 PM. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
None of the traditional methods to detect bleach that I've heard of would be acceptable. It *may* be possible to check with a spectrograph, but I haven't read of anyone doing it. Bleaching is done sometimes in some actual conservation. https://www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/Bleaching_(PCC) See the section on appropriateness, and section 2.6 on testing. Note, none of that applies to some guy with a tray full of stuff from the grocery store.... |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
SGC needs to fix their cert lookup. Most of what I have bought from PWCC are in SGC holders. Since I am indifferent between SGA and PSA I tend to get outbid on most of the PSA cards I try for. Without the cert lookup the super smart people putting together Moser submissions cannot uncover additional SGC cards that are likely suspect.
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Four phrases I nave coined that sum up today's hobby: No consequences. Stuff trumps all. The flip is the commoodity. Animal Farm grading. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 06-26-2019 at 12:31 PM. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks Peter - was not aware of that. Still might uncover some older ones if they fixed it. Some of the submission runs published for PSA go back to 2017. However, would not help as much as I would have thought.
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Of course it would help, as well as consignment houses like Greg Morris and painthistorian and others who have sold raw cards to Whitman111 over the years to upload those scans to a file sharing service for the blowout guys to have more photos for comparisons to identify even more tainted cards.
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
![]() |
|
|