![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Don’t mess with guys like this. They are basically in the business of altering cards to try and pass off as better for more money. Don’t think that they don’t ruin their fair share of not only cards but others reputations along the way for what they do. Steer clear if you want to keep your good name intact. Clear water soaking out of a scrapbook is not what they are all about.
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Say what you will about guys like Dick Towle, but unless he was just lying - my understanding is that the large majority of cards he worked on did wind up grading fine with PSA and SGC afterwards. If it's really that untraceable, you have to be a purist several degrees further along the spectrum than I am I guess to object...
It would definitely be something under the category of "Don't try this at home, kids..." for me.
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 02-10-2023 at 05:27 AM. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I don't like cards that are obviously altered, no, but the truth of the matter is that with most cards like those that come out of GWTS, many of us cannot tell the difference. Maybe it isn't that we shouldn't care - it's just that I don't see much room for change.
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 02-09-2023 at 11:16 AM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
But I don't think that is justification (very different from 'realistic'), and doesn't mean one shouldn't object to it. That the fraud goes undetected does not make it okay. Your original argument here is not that it's realistic to acknowledge it will happen and the graders will certify them anyways. Your statement as written is that frauds (as not disclosing alterations is) that are not detected are unobjectionable. Getting away with the crime doesn't make it unobjectionable. Selling a knock off to someone they don't know isn't real and looks pretty close isn't alright. Many in the hobby clearly feel that any and everything is fine if it gets into a slab and PSA certifies the fraud, but I have a hard time seeing any ethical argument for the original statement. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 02-09-2023 at 12:40 PM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Never have I insinuated, obviously, that people have the ability to stop other people from doing bad things. Where there is money there will be fraud. There are many, many far worse things than this in the world that A) I have no meaningful power to stop but B) am cognizant are wrong and am strongly against. One can only recognize a problem if they have the authority to stop it? That would be rather absurd. One can object to a plethora of wrong things while not having the power to stop it. Obviously I cannot snap my fingers and put an end to fraud. That is an absurdist setup. There isn't a crime in the world we could recognize as a crime if this was how it worked. People, of course, could greatly reduce the fraud by declining to be a party to it and continuing to pay card alterers, fraudsters, and paying many multiples of a cards value for a slab form a firm that cannot tell a CJ Mack from a Dover Mack. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
When is a Stain NOT a Frickin' Stain???? | JollyElm | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 17 | 04-20-2023 03:01 PM |