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

[Peter_Spaeth]

It was not my intent to mischaracterize what you said. What distinction were you attempting to draw then with counterfeits? I brought up fake Rolexes, and Greg brought up fake currency, to test the proposition some were floating (not you apparently) that it didn't matter if you couldn't detect it. But you called that a nonsequitur. So kindly explain.

[campyfan39]

Sure. The OP was all about Kurts cleaning cards and so the debate was about whether its ethical to do things to cards that would get them back more to their original state. I only objected to the counterfeit thing because its original state is not legitimate (aka fake). I didn't see the comparison. Just IMO

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It was not my intent to mischaracterize what you said. What distinction were you attempting to draw then with counterfeits? I brought up fake Rolexes, and Greg brought up fake currency, to test the proposition some were floating (not you apparently) that it didn't matter if you couldn't detect it. But you called that a nonsequitur. So kindly explain.

[Peter_Spaeth]

" 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?"

This is what I was responding to -- not from you.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

" 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?"

This is what I was responding to -- not from you.

Hi Peter. That was me.

If I can expand a bit - No, if I'm looking at a card with obviously thin borders in a PSA 8 slab, I don't throw caution to the wind there, and say well. It's not altered because it's in the slab. There is a Mantle base card I know of in a PSA 10 slab that has suspiciously thin borders; but I digress.

I guess I was trying to draw a distinction between altered cards (I'm fine with using Kurt's methods as the example, since so many obviously tend to lean toward that being across the line) that at least currently cannot be detected, or cannot be detected definitively and/or easily.

I'm sure it's different for each person. Does it "not matter" only if you cannot tell yourself that the card "definitely' was altered before you add it to your collection? Or is hearsay about what did or did not happen to the card with it's previous owner or handler come into play? How much provenance is required?

Asking again as my only point here is that given current methods today, the "act" can usually be separated from the evidence it does or does not leave behind. And the major point of judgment on whether or not a card is "altered" continues to be tied to the physical evidence and what a grader does or does not say, or what a discerning collector can or cannot see regardless of a pronouncement on a flip. Until the technology improves, much of the discussion remains academic - even if we all agree Card Doctors Bad / the act itself even in abstentia remains deplorable.