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

[Lorewalker]

If it is so accepted and so immaterial then why not just tell the world? I know snowman lists a lot of cards for sale. He also openly, to his credit, admits here to cleaning and improving cards. Not sure where he actually draws the line. Anyway, when I look at his ebay listings oddly I never see him disclose any work done...I guess those cards he has listed are not the ones he has worked on.

And I do think with each passing day fewer collectors care what has been done to the card. I imagine a majority of the collectors who read a disclosure that a card was worked on would be discouraged from buying. They see it passed grading so the assumption is that whatever was done must not have been considered improper. The concept of improving cards is more widely accepted in the hobby than it was even a few years ago.

If TPG is not seeing evidence of the improvements, the question is, should they? And if not then is the work just that good or is that work too subtle to be detected. Evidence should not just be applied to sloppy work but if a tree falls in a forest...

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

If it is so accepted and so immaterial then why not just tell the world? I know snowman lists a lot of cards for sale. He also openly, to his credit, admits here to cleaning and improving cards. Not sure where he actually draws the line. Anyway, when I look at his ebay listings oddly I never see him disclose any work done...I guess those cards he has listed are not the ones he has worked on.

And I do think with each passing day fewer collectors care what has been done to the card. I imagine a majority of the collectors who read a disclosure that a card was worked on would be discouraged from buying. They see it passed grading so the assumption is that whatever was done must not have been considered improper. The concept of improving cards is more widely accepted in the hobby than it was even a few years ago.

If TPG is not seeing evidence of the improvements, the question is, should they? And if not then is the work just that good or is that work too subtle to be detected. Evidence should not just be applied to sloppy work but if a tree falls in a forest...

If I'm selling an altered card, I mention it in both the listing title and description. You can look through my sold listings and you'll see plenty of disclosures like "TRIMMED", "CREASED", "PAPER LOSS", etc. Those are alterations, and if I have a card that is altered, I will disclose it. But if I did something to a card as benign as pushing back down a bent corner with my thumb or safely cleaned something off the surface of my card without damaging it, then no, of course I'm not going to advertise it because there's nothing to disclose in that case. If you're interested in the card and ask me point blank, I'll tell you, but I'm not going to advertise it. That's not an alteration and I couldn't care less if a small faction of hobby ultra-purists disagrees with me. This is the main problem. Many of you guys are casting your preferences onto others and making absurd "criminal" accusations about anyone who sees things differently. And with stuff like card cleaning, polishing a modern chrome card, or soaking a vintage card, your viewpoints are in the minority.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'm not going to disclose it because there's nothing to disclose strikes me as circular reasoning? There is something that could potentially be disclosed, and you acknowledge there are people who would care, but you've made a judgment not to disclose. So the question is, is it too much effort? Are you worried it might affect the sale price? Something else?

[Swadewade51]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'm not going to disclose it because there's nothing to disclose strikes me as circular reasoning?

Encountered this line of thinking recently.

X sells Y raw card for cash and slabbed card. Y subs raw card and gets an A back. X then discloses they cleaned the card. X takes the card back and pays back Y fully vut cracked their to clean that one too. Y is still out cards they would've never given up if it had been disclosed. X will clean card and try and make more money still with both the first and traded card.

Better to ask forgiveness than permission (disclose the cleaning).

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Swadewade51

Encountered this line of thinking recently.

X sells Y raw card for cash and slabbed card. Y subs raw card and gets an A back. X then discloses they cleaned the card. X takes the card back and pays back Y fully vut cracked their to clean that one too. Y is still out cards they would've never given up if it had been disclosed. X will clean card and try and make more money still with both the first and traded card.

Better to ask forgiveness than permission (disclose the cleaning).

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

I know which card/s you're referring to. I agree, the seller should not have sold it to the buyer without it having passed grading first, and after having some so, he shouldn't have done anything to the other cards until the buyer got it back from grading.

That said, the reason that particular card was rejected had nothing to do with it having been cleaned. It also later passed grading - and at a higher grade than he guaranteed to the buyer at that.

[Swadewade51]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I know which card/s you're referring to. I agree, the seller should not have sold it to the buyer without it having passed grading first, and after having some so, he shouldn't have done anything to the other cards until the buyer got it back from grading.



That said, the reason that particular card was rejected had nothing to do with it having been cleaned. It also later passed grading - and at a higher grade than he guaranteed to the buyer at that.

🥱 funny the seller/fraudster said the same thing about why it didn't pass grading when both PSA and SGC didn't give it a number. Neither of you actually know.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Swadewade51

�� funny the seller/fraudster said the same thing about why it didn't pass grading when both PSA and SGC didn't give it a number. Neither of you actually know.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

You don't know what you're talking about. I've seen the card in person. Have you?

It passed grading at SGC the first time. The seller didn't like the grade, so they sent it to PSA. That's when PSA rejected it. They gave it an N5 designation ("altered stock"), not an N7 which would be for "evidence of cleaning". The reason it was rejected had nothing to do with him cleaning it. The flaw that they were looking at was already there when he bought it. The seller then asked me to examine the card for him because he couldn't find anything wrong with it. I looked at it and showed him what PSA was looking at and I advised him that it would likely pass grading at SGC, but that it wasn't a guarantee. It's a flaw that different graders disagree about how to grade. Based on my opinion, and the fact that SGC had previously graded it as numeric, he chose to sell it raw and guaranteed the buyer a particular grade with SGC. The buyer sent the card to SGC and they graded it as altered. I scolded the seller, who then owned up to his mistake and promptly refunded the buyer. I then learned that it was actually a partial trade deal and that he had cracked open one of the buyers cards already, before the deal was finalized, and I scolded him again. After refunding the buyer, he regraded it, and it passed grading again.

Calling the seller a "fraudster" is ridiculous. He made some stupid choices, then owned up to his mistakes and promptly refunded the buyer. That's not what fraudsters do.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'm not going to disclose it because there's nothing to disclose strikes me as circular reasoning? There is something that could potentially be disclosed, and you acknowledge there are people who would care, but you've made a judgment not to disclose. So the question is, is it too much effort? Are you worried it might affect the sale price? Something else?

If someone bumps into your car in a parking lot with a shopping cart, and it leaves a black mark on your car but you're able to buff it out when you get home and the car looks as good as new, did you commit fraud when you later traded it in at the dealership without disclosing it? Serious question. And if you think this isn't a perfect parallel to someone cleaning a card and not disclosing it, then you're on an island.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

If someone bumps into your car in a parking lot with a shopping cart, and it leaves a black mark on your car but you're able to buff it out when you get home and the car looks as good as new, did you commit fraud when you later traded it in at the dealership without disclosing it? Serious question. And if you think this isn't a perfect parallel to someone cleaning a card and not disclosing it, then you're on an island.

I may be on an island, but I have lots of company still. Big island. Hell, Australia is an island.