disclosure issues

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Rather than clutter or offend Jay <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> by slightly hijacking the Mastro thread, I will start a new one. Which, if any, of the following situations do people think should be disclosed by auction houses/dealers/private sellers (I assume the answer would be the same as to each class of seller but if not please explain).<br /><br />1. Card was rejected for alterations by a grading service but, with nothing being done to it, subsequently was graded by the same service.<br /><br />2. Card was rejected for alterations by a grading service but, with nothing being done to it, subsequently was graded by a different service.<br /><br />3. Card was cracked out or resubmitted, with nothing being done to it, and received a higher grade from either the same or a different service.<br /><br />4. Card was cracked out, improved, resubmitted, and received a higher grade. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1180546204.JPG"> <br /><br />1. Card was rejected for alterations by a grading service but, with nothing being done to it, subsequently was graded by the same service.<br /><br />This one I have a problem with. If there is an alteration the fact that it had been rejected should be disclosed irrespective of whether it passed the second time through. On the other hand if it could be conclusively shown that there was NO alteration I have no disclosure issue here.<br />_____________________________________ <br /><br />2. Card was rejected for alterations by a grading service but, with nothing being done to it, subsequently was graded by a different service.<br /><br />Same response as to number 1.<br />______________________________________ <br /><br />3. Card was cracked out or resubmitted, with nothing being done to it, and received a higher grade from either the same or a different service.<br /><br />No problem with this one.<br />______________________________________ <br /><br />4. Card was cracked out, improved, resubmitted, and received a higher grade.<br /><br />No problem with this one.<br />EDIT EDIT Misread. I have a big problem with this one. This is a No No period.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>1...<br />If I disagree with the first grader and resubmit... I don't see a need to disclose the first grader's opinion. If I do not disagree with the first grader - I wouldn't resubmit.<br /><br />2...<br />same as 1<br /><br />3...<br />same as 1<br /><br />4...<br />"improved"? are we talking alterations?<br />I could say - I don't mind if a pencil mark/writing is erased or tape is removed.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>I should have mentioned on 4, does it depend on what was done to improve the card? I can see three different types of positions: one, I want to know everything even if what was done might not bother me, two, I only want to know if something I don't approve of was done, and three, as long as it graded I don't care.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Im hesitant to supply and answer to this as I dont want any assumptions being made about my selling practices - I sell rarely sell and as noted below, make disclosures even when arguably none are required. Answering as a buyer, I would only be upset if I did not receive disclosure as to item number 4 - and then only if it was something more than soaking off paper or erasing pencil. I probably wouldnt even be upset to learn that a wrinkle was pressed out (provided the wrinkle never came back and that the card was not otherwise altered).<br /><br />I think arguably that no disclosure is required as to the first three since nothing was done to the cards - each situation can be chalked up to a subjective difference of opinion. Even the rejected card that is subsequently graded by a different company, IMO, doesnt necessarily require disclosure as it too amounts to a difference of opinion between two companies - who is to say which company is right and which is wrong. That being said, I once had an e95 plank that was slabbed by psa. I sent it to sgc in the slab and was told it was trimmed. I sold it, still slabbed by psa and with full disclosure that sgc deemed it trimmed, and ended up taking a loss on the card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Why can't they have a service like "carfax.com" for cards, thus not making buyers rely on sellers' (mis)representations?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>because cars have unique serial numbers that are difficult to replace. there is no way to "tag" a raw card that Im aware of. Thus, once out of a slab, who's to say whether a card submitted last year is the same one being submitted this year.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>We all know that slabbers mess up. As long as you don't know anything was done to the card, I would chalk it up to that. If you know the card was altered, improved, or whatever other euphamism you would like to use, then sent in, you have a disclosure issue.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Is taking something off of the card that wasn't originally mfg on it still altering? It came from the factory without it......all you would be doing is taking something off that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. I would say it was altering it more when whatever got put on it, after the mfg process, was done. Taking off whatever it is gets it back to original unaltered, no?.... Just a hypothetical real question....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>1.No<br />2.No<br />3.No<br />4.Yes<br /><br />Leon, you've mentioned the 'removing something not originally intended to be on it at the point of manufacture' idea before - eg. the booger phenomenon.<br />Is a good powerwash ok then to remove a layer of grime, soot or other that inevitably settles on a card surface over many years? <br /><br /><br />Sincerely<br /><br /><br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Maybe we're screwed on tracking raw cards. But once they're graded, it should be illegal to re-serial # them, much like they do with VIN's!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Good question in the essence of what you ask...although I think you missed the part about what a powerwash really is...it's not washing a card it's trimming a card. I think cleaning a whole card might be a little overboard for what I would consider to be ok....a little gunk yes, the whole card.....no.....but that is a toughie for me to answer quite honestly, as I have never really thought about it. I think the extent of what you mention is more than I would be ok with ......hope that answers your question. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>, why don't words mean what they suggest?<br /><br /><br />Thanks though for considering the essence of what I was trying to say, and tell me why the all-over clean isn't so good under the 'removing what wasn't meant to be there' hypothesis?<br /><br /><br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>The "all over clean" is farther than I am comfortable with....It sounds too much like a total restoration and not just taking some gunk off.....regards