Every slabbed card has a story, don't it?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

With due respect to what Travis may have said before or elsewhere nonwithstanding, this thread started out being about the Kurt's Card Care products. That is not doctoring or fraud in the state it's been presented, at least not yet. Folks may think it is, but I would challenge them to show me out of a huge pile of cards which ones specifically had doctoring perpetrated upon them or fraud then later employed in their sale if it was only Kurt's stuff that had been used on them.

Not saying it can't happen. i just haven't seen how it has happened yet with this particular stuff and the cards the products have been used on.

See my first two posts in this thread. Nowhere have I had any real issue with the exact case in the OP. Kurt’s does way more than soaking, and is well known for removing creases, dings, etc. that is clearly alteration, except in the eyes of those who want to profit off of it.

The history here is obvious and we all know it.

[campyfan39]

Let’s please keep it civil so we can keep this thread alive
I have t seen anyone advocating for fraud and on this thread except for the post about what PSA did being good for business re: Wagner.

Do you believe if only using water and no other chemicals but pushing down on a corner is altering and is fraud? We all have pushed down a finger corner with our fingers or a book or to try to make it look better. I did that at 8 years old. Honest question. Is using panty hose to get wax off the back of a card an alteration?

Originally Posted by G1911

See my first two posts in this thread. Nowhere have I had any real issue with the exact case in the OP. Kurt’s does way more than soaking, and is well known for removing creases, dings, etc. that is clearly alteration, except in the eyes of those who want to profit off of it.

The history here is obvious and we all know it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

Let’s please keep it civil so we can keep this thread alive
I have t seen anyone advocating for fraud and on this thread except for the post about what PSA did being good for business re: Wagner.

Do you believe if only using water and no other chemicals but pushing down on a corner is altering and is fraud? We all have pushed down a finger corner with our fingers or a book or to try to make it look better. I did that at 8 years old. Honest question. Is using panty hose to get wax off the back of a card an alteration?

I've read a whole lot about alteration here. Kurt's openly alters cards and the people who do this want to legitimize it to cover their asses, so that it isn't fraud when they don't disclose their alterations.

The things are you asking have nothing to do what what I have actually said? I am not defining 'alter' in any strange, unusual, or unique way. When did I object to pushing a corner flat with your finger? When did I object to water or imply as such? Does not my first post suggest the exact opposite? Kurt's openly engages in practices almost everyone here, until convenient for it to change, has long held to be altering. Go check out their own advertising.

[campyfan39]

I'm simply ask for a definition of "altering"

Nobody on this thread has spoken in favor of adding anything to a card such as adding ink or rebuilding a corner using another card or trimming etc. Yet you seem to be very upset about the whole thing. I agreed with and quoted part of your first post but I was focused on your conclusion about what drives all of this.

Looking back at it now you said in the first line "Kurts has done far more than this. I've seen their crease/dent/corner fixes on the Discords."

Sounds like you believe that is altering when there is nothing being added? To me what he is doing is just an upgraded/modern form of using pantyhose for wax stains or flattening a corner with your fingers.

Originally Posted by G1911

I've read a whole lot about alteration here. Kurt's openly alters cards and the people who do this want to legitimize it to cover their asses, so that it isn't fraud when they don't disclose their alterations.

The things are you asking have nothing to do what what I have actually said? I am not defining 'alter' in any strange, unusual, or unique way. When did I object to pushing a corner flat with your finger? When did I object to water or imply as such? Does not my first post suggest the exact opposite? Kurt's openly engages in practices almost everyone here, until convenient for it to change, has long held to be altering. Go check out their own advertising.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

I'm simply ask for a definition of "altering"

Nobody on this thread has spoken in favor of adding anything to a card such as adding ink or rebuilding a corner using another card or trimming etc. Yet you seem to be very upset about the whole thing. I agreed with and quoted part of your first post but I was focused on your conclusion about what drives all of this.

Looking back at it now you said in the first line "Kurts has done far more than this. I've seen their crease/dent/corner fixes on the Discords."

Sounds like you believe that is altering when there is nothing being added? To me what he is doing is just an upgraded/modern form of using pantyhose for wax stains or flattening a corner with your fingers.

I’m just using the standard that has been standard in vintage for many, many years. If a seller won’t state it was done, then it’s a good sign it was altered. I see tons of cards openly admitted to being soaked or waxing a chrome card fresh out of the pack. I don’t see anyone telling me they’ve had all the creases removed, bathed it in god knows what, made those worn edges razor sharp all of a sudden, and turned a 3 into a 6. Why isn’t that disclosed? Because it’s an alteration that lowers the value. I don’t see any real issue with soaking a card out of a scrapbook or pushing on a corner with your finger, nor has anything been said implicating that, ever (there’s long histories here interacting with other threads.)

The board is more than welcome to adopt a new standard gleaned from the modern crowd. It used to be considered that Dick’s operation was bad alteration. Now this stuff is growing in popularity here. It will probably help profit margins.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

Kurt’s does way more than soaking, and is well known for removing creases, dings, etc. that is clearly alteration, except in the eyes of those who want to profit off of it.

All fine and well, "that's alteration", except that you would not be able to prove it on a card 10 minutes later. Until you can, this discussion is entirely academic in the real world where people continue to add cards to their collections - oblivious now by what we have just said as to what may or may not have happened to them in the past to affect our perception of how desirable they should be considered.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

All fine and well, "that's alteration", except that you would not be able to prove it on a card 10 minutes later. Until you can, this discussion is entirely academic in the real world where people continue to add cards to their collections - oblivious now by what we have just said as to what may or may not have happened to them in the past to affect our perception of how desirable they should be considered.

It is hardly always impossible to prove. Many alterations leave signs. I'm not sure I can ever philosophically ascribe to a point of view that doing something and not being able to be caught or not being caught makes it okay and fine. That is a highly problematic path.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

It is hardly always impossible to prove. Many alterations leave signs. I'm not sure I can ever philosophically ascribe to a point of view that doing something and not being able to be caught or not being caught makes it okay and fine. That is a highly problematic path.

Ok, but at the end of the day you and everyone else judging only on the act would have to admit that it’s a theoretical problem. If by definition you “don’t know” that you may be collecting an altered card - and that doesn’t stop you - well then it must not be too big of a problem. Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

No, but at the end of the day you and everyone else judging only on the act would have to admit that it’s a theoretical problem. If by definition you “don’t know” that you may be collecting an altered card - and that doesn’t stop you - well then it must not be too big of a problem then is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting question for sure. Now, suppose someone sold you a fake Rolex so good you couldn't tell the difference. Same analysis?

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Interesting question for sure. Now, suppose someone sold you a fake Rolex so good you couldn't tell the difference. Same analysis?

Next logical step - thank you. So yes, this is basically my fear with vintage cards. What if someone invests enough in AI combined with old school practices to where suddenly someday soon the market is rife with fakes so good (everything being perfectly centered might be the one dead tell...) that even longtime experts, collectors, N54 members, what have you - can't tell the difference?

I think the embarrassment / possibility here that we all don't want to admit is that someday fakes that good will be so common, that none of us know the difference. And that thought genuinely terrifies me.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Next logical step - thank you. So yes, this is basically my fear with vintage cards. What if someone invests enough in AI combined with old school practices to where suddenly someday soon the market is rife with fakes so good (everything being perfectly centered might be the one dead tell...) that even longtime experts, collectors, N54 members, what have you - can't tell the difference?

I think the embarrassment / possibility here that we all don't want to admit is that someday fakes that good will be so common, that none of us know the difference. And that thought genuinely terrifies me.

This is the exact reason buying high end cards or investing any real money in cards is something I would never ever do. AI isn't needed for any reason. It was made by a very simple process that can very simply be done again on similar equipment. I can't give names but I can 100% guarantee it has happened in the past on a small scale with star player cards from the 60s.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Next logical step - thank you. So yes, this is basically my fear with vintage cards. What if someone invests enough in AI combined with old school practices to where suddenly someday soon the market is rife with fakes so good (everything being perfectly centered might be the one dead tell...) that even longtime experts, collectors, N54 members, what have you - can't tell the difference?

I think the embarrassment / possibility here that we all don't want to admit is that someday fakes that good will be so common, that none of us know the difference. And that thought genuinely terrifies me.

It would be a concern if you still are an active buyer, for sure. At least for slabbed cards, older certs would only be subject to the current risks.

[rjackson44]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Interesting question for sure. Now, suppose someone sold you a fake Rolex so good you couldn't tell the difference. Same analysis?

I own a stainlees steel Daytona there are copies that are very scary now very scary,box and paperwork look scary

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by rjackson44

I own a stainlees steel Daytona there are copies that are very scary now very scary,box and paperwork look scary

I know it is off topic but I am on a watch forum. They have shown Rolex replicas so good you can exchange any piece on them with a real Rolex part.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by peter_spaeth

interesting question for sure. Now, suppose someone sold you a fake rolex so good that rolex can’t tell the difference. Same analysis?

fify

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Ok, but at the end of the day you and everyone else judging only on the act would have to admit that it’s a theoretical problem. If by definition you “don’t know” that you may be collecting an altered card - and that doesn’t stop you - well then it must not be too big of a problem. Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The biggest problem is your underlying assumption that card alteration is impossible to detect. That is big news to many of us!

Let's just assume this assumption is true, even though it quite obviously is not. If I can make a fake $100 bill so good that you can't detect it and the authenticator you bring it to can't detect and the US Mint doesn't catch me, is it okay for me do this? Is it okay for me to pass off this item when I sell it or use it in a commercial transaction as a real $100 bill? Is it not "too big of a problem" because you can't see it's fake?

I don't think it takes a moral high horse to see the massive problems here with this train of ethics, or lack thereof.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

The biggest problem is your underlying assumption that card alteration is impossible to detect. That is big news to many of us!

It should not be impossible to detect. I hope long term that in all cases, even Kurt's - that is not the conclusion. I would dearly love to be proven wrong, and that Kurt's spray in fact is traceable in some way, shape, or form - by some sleuth grader of the future. My point in this thread is simply that it's not, or at least not yet. It's clear from his advertising, YT videos, and social media posts that the cards he cleans / restores / alters - whatever you want to call it - are getting through the TPG's like PSA and SGC if not more with astonishing speed and consistency.

Make no mistake - my line is the physical proof. If a method is devised 240 years from now to tell exactly what was done to each of our cards at each perspective point in their histories - then yes, fine. Bang, you got me. You got Kurt.

But if you cannot provide physical proof that a card is in fact altered - the world we currently live in will conclude that it hasn't been. Frowning upon more than that at this point is an exercise in futility and kind of pointless, IMO.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

It should not be impossible to detect. I hope long term that in all cases, even Kurt's - that is not the conclusion. I would dearly love to be proven wrong, and that Kurt's spray in fact is traceable in some way, shape, or form - by some sleuth grader of the future. My point in this thread is simply that it's not, or at least not yet. It's clear from his advertising, YT videos, and social media posts that the cards he cleans / restores / alters - whatever you want to call it - are getting through the TPG's like PSA and SGC if not more with astonishing speed and consistency.

Make no mistake - my line is the physical proof. If a method is devised 240 years from now to tell exactly what was done to each of our cards at each perspective point in their histories - then yes, fine. Bang, you got me. You got Kurt.

But if you cannot provide physical proof that a card is in fact altered - the world we currently live in will conclude that it hasn't been. Frowning upon more than that at this point is an exercise in futility and kind of pointless, IMO.

I don’t see how I can reasonably ever endorse this standard, where if something passes a grading company it is then totally fine. I get this is what keeps the money train running, and clearly this board is growing in the support for such an anything-is-fine-if-corporate-grades-it-approach, but I don’t think a slab gets rid of the problem or the dishonesty.. It was not long ago we all used to say the same thing I am - altering a card and not disclosing that when selling it is wrong and can be fraud. The holder it is in does not change that. Again, many times we can show the card was indeed altered.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

It should not be impossible to detect. I hope long term that in all cases, even Kurt's - that is not the conclusion. I would dearly love to be proven wrong, and that Kurt's spray in fact is traceable in some way, shape, or form - by some sleuth grader of the future. My point in this thread is simply that it's not, or at least not yet. It's clear from his advertising, YT videos, and social media posts that the cards he cleans / restores / alters - whatever you want to call it - are getting through the TPG's like PSA and SGC if not more with astonishing speed and consistency.

Make no mistake - my line is the physical proof. If a method is devised 240 years from now to tell exactly what was done to each of our cards at each perspective point in their histories - then yes, fine. Bang, you got me. You got Kurt.

But if you cannot provide physical proof that a card is in fact altered - the world we currently live in will conclude that it hasn't been. Frowning upon more than that at this point is an exercise in futility and kind of pointless, IMO.

Can't tell and can't tell from the <1 minute they spend at a grading company are very different.

[campyfan39]

A total non sequitur.
You would be creating a fake Rolex or fake $100 bill from scratch. Those are counterfeits. Nobody is advocating that so you are fighting a straw man. Kurts is not producing fake cards

Originally Posted by G1911

Let's just assume this assumption is true, even though it quite obviously is not. If I can make a fake $100 bill so good that you can't detect it and the authenticator you bring it to can't detect and the US Mint doesn't catch me, is it okay for me do this? Is it okay for me to pass off this item when I sell it or use it in a commercial transaction as a real $100 bill? Is it not "too big of a problem" because you can't see it's fake?

I don't think it takes a moral high horse to see the massive problems here with this train of ethics, or lack thereof.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

A total non sequitur.
You would be creating a fake Rolex or fake $100 bill from scratch. Those are counterfeits. Nobody is advocating that so you are fighting a straw man. Kurts is not producing fake cards

Yes that’s the entire point - a consequentialist standard allows anything. If something is okay because a grader signed off or you can’t detect it, then a whole lot of things become okay. That’s not a reasonable standard - if you’re really good at the deception it’s totally fine.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

A total non sequitur.
You would be creating a fake Rolex or fake $100 bill from scratch. Those are counterfeits. Nobody is advocating that so you are fighting a straw man. Kurts is not producing fake cards

So the notion that "it doesn't matter if you can't detect the difference" applies to real but worked on cards, but not to counterfeits? That's fine, but doesn't that undercut the rationale for the former? We're just doing Socratic method here on that position, not suggesting it's exactly the same.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

The biggest problem is your underlying assumption that card alteration is impossible to detect. That is big news to many of us!

Let's just assume this assumption is true, even though it quite obviously is not. If I can make a fake $100 bill so good that you can't detect it and the authenticator you bring it to can't detect and the US Mint doesn't catch me, is it okay for me do this? Is it okay for me to pass off this item when I sell it or use it in a commercial transaction as a real $100 bill? Is it not "too big of a problem" because you can't see it's fake?

I don't think it takes a moral high horse to see the massive problems here with this train of ethics, or lack thereof.

Why do you guys keep making these false comparisons to counterfeit items like fake Rolexes and $100 bills? How is this even remotely relevant to the topic of this thread which is whether or not cleaning a card (as in the Wagner from the OP) ought to result in someone going to hell?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by snowman

why do you guys keep making these false comparisons to counterfeit items like fake rolexes and $100 bills? How is this even remotely relevant to the topic of this thread which is whether or not cleaning a card (as in the wagner from the op) ought to result in someone going to hell?

#117.