Alteration vs. Conservation Defined
 

PWCC will soon publish our Marketplace Tenets, which describes the rules of engagement for transacting on the PWCC Marketplace and the commitments and responsibilities of all parties involved. Among other things, the Tenets will describe what cards we will allow to be sold on our marketplace and will draw a distinction between cards that were altered and cards that were conserved. Cards that are proven altered through physical evidence are not allowed to be sold, while cards that are proven conserved are indeed allowed to be sold.

In an effort to define an enforceable PWCC policy, we want to open up the dialogue with the community to allow for feedback before our official Tenets are published. Acceptable forms of conservation exist in all collectibles markets, ranging from coins to comics to fine art, and we feel it’s time the trading card market better defines a stance on what is acceptable conservation. The following is a draft of our current understanding of majority opinion, and this is subject to edit.

Conservation. PWCC believes conservation, as defined, to be healthy, sustainable, and supportive of the marketplace and the investors and collectors who participate. Assets that have been conserved can be sold on the PWCC Marketplace.

Conservation is defined as an act which returns an asset closer to its as-manufactured condition but does not otherwise enhance or artificially distance the asset beyond the as-manufactured status. An act which removes a foreign substance from an asset and does so in a way which doesn’t otherwise alter the condition of the as-manufactured product is usually considered acceptable and generally renders the asset worthy of professional grading. Dirt, glue, writing, wax and other foreign substances can be removed from an asset and the result is considered acceptable conservation, so long as the professional Third-Party Authenticators agree the asset is void of unnatural aspects induced as a result of the conservation. Lying flat a warped or bent region of a card (i.e. in a screw down holder), so long as it doesn’t disrupt the card’s natural properties, is generally considered acceptable conservation, whereas pressing a card and thereby changing its as-manufactured properties (i.e. thickness of the card stock) is generally not acceptable and may render the card altered. Laying flat a nonplanar corner, crease, or edge, so long as the card stock is not pressed to a state of artificial thickness, is typically acceptable so long as no other unnatural change to the as-manufactured card stock is discernable.

Alteration. PWCC believes alteration, as defined, is damaging to the marketplace. Altered assets cannot be sold on the PWCC Marketplace unless this detail is disclosed during the sale.

Alteration includes any act which meaningfully renders a change to the as-manufactured qualities of the asset, outside of the normal wear and deterioration inherent to circulation. Any purposeful material addition or material removal to or from the as-manufactured asset, outside of normal wear or environmental degradation, is generally considered an alteration. Trimming, recoloring, autograph retracing, rebuilding of corners or other surfaces, swapping of patches, or any other action which distances a card from its as-manufactured attributes is considered an act of alteration. Altered cards which are stated as such in a transparent nature are permitted for sale on the Marketplace.

Alteration is only ever officially determined by the presence of physical evidence. Speculation is not considered evidence. Evidence of alteration can be determined in two different ways; either in technical review by a reputable Third-Party Authenticator, or when digital content asserts beyond a reasonable doubt that an alteration took place (i.e. before and after photos of trimming, recoloring, etc).

Your comments and feedback would be appreciated. The best way to share feedback is to send me a direct email at betsy@pwccmarketplace.com. I will come back onto this thread to gather feedback periodically, but won't be responding to comments actively. Thank you!

What is your policy on knowingly and publicly advertising record breaking sales where the transaction did not complete?

So maybe I don't understand, but where would each of these fall in your new definitions:

1) Pre-war soaking from a scrapbook with glue paste using only distilled water
2) Soaking stains out of any card using Dick Towle's solution
3) Buffing out modern chrome scratches using Meguiar's wax as detailed by dictoresno on blowout
4) Spooning out creases on cards
5) Erasing pencil marks
6) Soaking for the express reason of removing creases

lolololol

Seems it would just be easier to disclose what was actually done to a card than create a whole bunch of jargon to justify it in the least transparent way possible.

I’m sure this new policy will be enforced with equal rigor as the no bid retraction policy from a few years back

The reason I'm laughing can be found in these threads which make a total mockery of Brent's "Marketplace Tenets" on issues of alterations and disclosure of alterations. His refusal to acknowledge the 600 pound gorilla on his shoulders is almost Mastronian.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1290614

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1292005

Suffice it to say, this isn't going to end well for him.

Assets and tenets and vaults, oh my!

Number 10, a strong word called consignment
Strictly for live men, not for freshmen
If you ain't got the clientele, say "hell no!"
'Cause they gon' want they money rain sleet hail snow

You could make this so much simpler. Stop affiliating with card doctors. If you do that, you'll have an occasional inevitable issue but not a colossal problem as Blowout is just beginning to unravel. Until then, this is just noise, in my opinion. Carefully crafted, no doubt, but noise.

PS "asset" sounds so pretentious. How about .... wait for it ... card.

Just laughing remembering Doug Allen's Code of Conduct.

Why don't you just admit that you are trying to change the hobby to a point where all "alterations" and "Modifications" are the norm.

There is so much gray area now, or what you're trying to accomplish, that most anyone will feel comfortable to do almost anything to a card now with no ill feelings in doing so. Imo, your policies to define open the door even further for doctors and the like to further their skills. Before long, everything nefarious will become acceptable.

Any "tenet" that says taking out a crease is OK is a crock, in my opinion. Man, the hubris.

What, you don't see the similarity between a '52 Topps and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?

Who made this guy king?

New Rule: Every new thread needs a Biggie quote :cool:

This is the driving defense. My concern is not about an n162 that had stains cleaned off. It's about an n162 that is hot off the press. Just my .02. I mostly buy cards graded 3 and lower. Rob

Collectors have become tenants in the world of Investorites
 

With tenets, he would more rightly be identified as The Landlord, and with this proclamation the rent is now due for all asset-minded investors.

Brian (Words are so darn confusing)

The question PWCC is why? Why would you want your business model to involve what many view as alterations?

You are promoting the fact of ENCOURAGING collectors to "conserve" cards. Seems ridiculous to me.

We the king and queen of High Commission evermore from this date forward hereby proclaim that the law of the land shall officially be: "It's Only Cheating If You Get Caught".

Attention oh weary card doctor: sharpen your tools! Your skills from this date henceforth shall be in demand as never before!

It seems to me that what you're advocating is, if you can alter a card and get away with it, it's fine. And, if you alter a card and get away with it, we're going to call that (wink, wink) "conservation". If we catch you, it's still fine, but we're going to (unless the card would net us a very high commission) label your card as altered.

I have got to be honest I always thought he said line men.

The Lady Of The Lake when she held aloft Excalibur?

If PWCC doesn’t acknowledge the altered cards they’re selling why would the card doctors acknowledge it? And what’s the point in expecting the card doctors to announce their work? After all, they slipped the cards past the TPG for a reason.

I think Brent and Betsy need better advisers.

He who makes the money, makes the rules.

The consignment form will be modified to include, if you submitted any of these cards yourself, please state all work you did on the card, so PWCC can determine whether it is altered or conserved nd what to disclose.

Man there is some serious apathy going on around here. PWCC proposes to adopt a significantly different definition of altered cards than the TPGs and the hobby in general have embraced for decades, and there's less response than if someone complained about shipping costs on an ebay card.

Shipping costs less than the vault.

Sales tax avoidance is a straw man.

Alteration is monetary.

Restoration is monetary.

The soaker, the fixer, the TPG, the consignor and the vendor are all in the same boat, which is not yet sinking.

Will anything change as a result of a definition rewrite? Unlikely.

Money talks.

I really don’t know but I suspect that high grade tobacco cards are more prevalent today than 25 years ago.:eek::confused:

I have neuropathy, not apathy.;)

PWCC's "tenet" is just another opinion, in an infinite sea of opinions. I value my time and don't see why I should pay much of it to what some eBay seller says. I don't have to subscribe to what PWCC says anymore than I have to obey PSA's opinion, when they say one card is better than another. Life's way too short to let opinions cause aggravation— especially in one's hobby, which is a source of enjoyment, relaxation, and escape from big problems.

Peter,

I'm not sure that its apathy, per se, so much as resignation. I agree with you that the proposed "definition" of altered cards is substantially different from what has historically been the norm, obviously for overtly financial reasons, and that it is complete BS given what's going on. It is actually meaningless. But after years of shilling complaints, false bid complaints, failure to disqualify shill/retracting bidders according to the stated "policy," etc., why would people get too exorcised about this? What most collectors care about is the number, not what happened to get it there. I think I disagree with Leon that PWCC is doing anything good for the hobby, but that's an argument for another day. And, I will have to admit that I've bought cards from them before.

In any event, stuff trumps all. Always has, probably always will. They are perceived as having good stuff. Evidently that's what matters. Doesn't matter how or why. Too sad.

Sorry Brent but conservation is anything done so the item exists for a longer period of time that’s it. Restoration is done to improve the items appearance and can be used to deceive buyers into thinking an item is in better natural condition than it truly is (if not disclosed)That is it end of definitions. All this other stuff is spin to try and justify what in my opinion is altering a card. Even some of the things I hear Leon and others saying are ok is altering. Erasing marks is altering a card in my opinion. Any chemicals that could degrade or change the paper in anyway is alteration in my opinion. Really not a fan of this statement at all and I think You, Brent, have done some positive things so this isn’t just an i hate PWCC opinion. I have used your consignment services and was generally impressed with how you guys handled my cards. The final things that worry me are the issues brought up on blowout that seem to indicate a preference for giving your own cards these stickers that seem to add significant value. That is an issue I’d love to see you adddress openly and honestly. Also the apparent partnering that was supposedly exposed on blowout with someone many consider a prolific card doctor. Those issues are important to many of us who have used your services as a buyer and a seller.

The mark IS an alteration to the card. The opposite of an alteration is preservation. So if erasing the mark removes it, then erasing is preservation whether you agree or not. I'm not saying that it's ok and I believe it should be disclosed when known. I'm just trying to clear up the difference concerning the mark.

No David that would be restoring. Not preserving nice try though. Because you are taking something that was changed and restoring it to how it was originally. That isn’t preservation. Stopping one from marking it in the first place would be preserving it. You really get off trying to be mr cool and edgy on the net don’t you. And why do you hide your name with characters if you type David and James into google there are over 2 billion hits seriously what the hell are you so worried about someone seeing out of that many hits.

Plus people Erase marks that are from The factory like print marks on the border. Seriously let this conversation for those that know what the hell they are talking about. But as we know you just need the drama must make you feel important or something. Once the alteration occurs it’s altered there’s no going back. Making more alterations is t doing anything but making more alterations.

In plain English this translates to: conservation is any action/procedure performed on a card to improve its appearance provided that the card doesn't look better than the day it was made.

In plain English, your definition of conservation is total BS!

In my opinion, your definition is close to what the definition of alteration should be. In your language: alteration is defined as an act which returns an asset closer to its as-manufactured condition. In plain English, alteration is defined as an act which improves the appearance of a card.

This just sounds like a way to legitimize the fraud that has been uncovered over the last several months on some of the other forums. The "tenets" proposed above do not state how PWCC will manage the dissemination of information to the buying public that a card has been restored, conserved or otherwise monkeyed with...

I totally agree that this "move" is an attempt to rationalize the deceptive/corrupt/unethical practices that PWCC has engaged in.

LOL, you took the time to Google my name. I didn't know you cared so much. Thanks, Glyn.

So, if some 8 year old marked on a card in 1953, what do you consider that? I consider it an alteration. But let's hear what you have to say. Impart some wisdom on us, Glyn.

Anyone really care what some freaking hayseed in Oregon thinks about cards? The hobby has been around, and will be around longer than he has.

How about fraud vs deception defined?

Shilling vs bid retractions?

Tax avoidance vs tax differal?

Handling vs shipping charges?

He needs a whole team of spin doctors

Glyn, there is no question -- none -- that that individual has been consigning to PWCC since the very beginning.

Edit to add accepting consignments from questionable sources is, of course, not even remotely unique to PWCC.

Or it may be directed at a target audience that is new to the game and doesn't know any better.

yes...that too!

I doubt very much it's the case here, more likely just laughing all the way to the bank, but if I ran a business and read the overwhelmingly negative opinions being expressed here and elsewhere, it might give me pause.

A Picture Tells 1,000 Words
 

I think what is missing from this thread that is causing the Blowout Forums thread to blow up, so to speak, are some of the examples over there, illustrating, perhaps, what the new PWCC tenets are trying to support. Here are a few of the examples, which you can see in the links Calvindog provided:

Even if these aren't the same cards (and I do believe they are), it is obvious from the borders that they have been trimmed. So the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the tenets are an attempt at one hand washing the other. I mean so what if the card was trimmed? All of what is left is original, right? And the creases, dings, rounded corners weren't part of the original card anyway, right? So we are simply conserving what is left, and why should that be a problem if the TPGs don't catch it (or care)? Maybe not giving total legitimacy to 'trimming as preservation', but at least 'trimming as not a big deal'. I mean really, trimming a painting doesn't change the fact that it is original, does it? :cool:

Rereading Brent’s definitions it seems that the ultimate conservation can make the card appear as manufactured, theoretical in PSA 10 pack fresh condition.

However the restored card has no such upper limit, suggesting that a restored card theoretically could receive a PSA 11, or even in rare cases a PSA 12.

If only PSA would award such grades, Brent’s definitions might make sense.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

C’mon Man!!!

A picture really does tell 1,000 words. I understand everyone's frustrations with PWCC. I really do. And some very good questions have been presented that I think they need to address. But what I truly don't understand is that no one is holding PSA accountable. Are they not to blame too? Why aren't they detecting the work being done on these cards? PWCC is being raked over the coals, but everyone turns a blind eye to PSA's involvement. Why? Why do people continue to submit cards to PSA when they can't do what you're paying them to do? That makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm sorry, everyone can complain all they want to but truly nothing will ever change until the people that you pay to do their job (the TPGs) actually does their job. If PSA did their job, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Things will never change until the TPGs are held accountable. Otherwise this thread is just useless whiney chatter.

One of the first things I educated myself on 35 years ago when I started this hobby was how to tell the difference between a factory cut and a non-factory cut. If I can do it, so can the TPGs.

A few days ago before this thread was posted Brent and I spoke for 30 minutes to an hour on the phone (hey Brent). I told him the hobby has already decided what is altering and what isn't. While some agree or disagree, the hobby spoke many years ago. This is old news. While I think Brent wants to have the conversation to get it in the open I doubt any minds will be changed. These tenets are just one person's opinion. I know Brent thinks altering a card is bad but the definition of altering is the issue. Purists think erasing a light pencil mark is altering. It is but not in a bad way, to me. Using water to get dirt off of a card isn't bad in many collectors eyes, mine included. But some see it as altering in a bad way. Brent agreed that pressing a corner to make it larger is bad. Trimming is bad. Flipping down a corner that flipped up, not so bad. We have been talking about this stuff, on this forum, for well over 10 yrs and closer to 20. Minds aren't going to change soon. I am not so sure that only cleaning a card is alteration. For those that think Brent is knowingly doing bad things in the hobby I couldn't disagree more. Sure he is an advertiser here but if I thought he was doing bad stuff he wouldn't be. To each their own. BTW, holding a TPG accountable for something that can't be seen is absurd.

How do you know what Brent is thinking? Or what he is doing knowingly? From what he tells you?

A much less biased discussion is occurring on the blowout forum.

Maybe because I spoke with him about it? Not really rocket science. How many times have you spoken with him?

Your thoughts on accepting consignments from card doctors? Good thing or bad thing?