"Improving" Cards: New poll
 

The base question for this poll is:

If I "improve" one of my cards and put it up for sale in the BST section here without disclosing the "work" I did on it, by doing one of the things listed, would you consider that to be "unethical".

This is a multiple choice poll, so pick as many as items as you like. If you pick one of the items, that means you think that by me doing that to my card and putting it up for sale, that I am being unethical. If you think it is okay, then don't pick that item.

The last question is a bonus question, which asks if I would still be unethical if my "work" was submitted to PSA (again, without disclosure) and PSA gave the card a clean grade.

P.S. This poll is anonymous, you will not be "outed".

Another question, for those who are sharp enough tonlook and find these things: do any of these conditions return or deteriorate over time, say, the next 20 years?

I think what we already see in the poll what will be the prevailing thoughts going forward. There will always (it's some kind of scientific law) be naysayers. Happy collecting...

I feel the need for a card that could be an 8 in the wrong hands..:eek:

I vote "All of the Above" is unethical, assuming we're referring to selling or trading the card to someone else without disclosure of the alteration (or "restoration," "improvement," "cleaning," "wiping," "sprucing," or whatever phrase you like).

As for the PSA question, someone suggested in the previous thread that the card is whatever the PSA label says it is. I strongly disagree, and I'll use Fritsch W512 prints as an example. Because PSA dabbles in incompetence, it has slabbed a number of obvious Fritsch prints as original W512 strip cards.

https://i.ibb.co/PQHT9Xz/IMG-5824.png

Getting a lazy PSA grader to put "1926 W512" on the label doesn't magically transform an ersatz Ruth into an original one. Let's say I knowingly submitted the above Fritsch print to PSA, and PSA slabbed it as a W512 Grade 1. If I sold it to someone without disclosing that it's really a Fritsch print, then I committed fraud.

Bless your shriveled black heart if you're willing to give me a pass in that scenario, but the reality is that you're a scumbag enabling another scumbag.

Many of these methodologies were completely unknown to me, as a buyer ignorance is bliss I surmise. I’m going to use an eraser and remove these from my memory, just need the Men in Black!

I clicked the boxes for everything, but some of these are pretty minor in the category of "unethical".

Ultimately this is incredibly simple, but I know this group will bend itself into a pretzel to justify whatever is or may eventually be profitable. The average American types at somewhere around 40 WPM, apparently. "Rubbed off wax", "erased pencil mark", "removed ink with acetone", "Kurts spray for pinhole". These take literally less than 3 seconds to type into your listing. Why would you folks not just be open and honest? Far more time and effort is spent coming up with why things should not be disclosed than it would take to just spend less than 3 seconds to disclose it. The question is rhetorical, obviously it's because we want to stretch as much as we can to justify profitable things and pretend it's just too complicated or somehow ethical to not disclose rather than the obvious.

I am quite hard pressed to think of a case in the world where a lack of disclosure in a transaction is the ethical path and where people without a vested interest would by and large vote for that. It's the opposite, and we all know that when we aren't trying to justify things to boost values or make more money for ourselves or our friends.

Rub off wax with panty hose

I had never heard of this before today. Might be a reason for some us to search out an old school undergarment wearing significant other.

And I wonder if this panty hose method works for ear wax?


Brian

I've seen it done on occasion. It was the only box I did not check.

Some were pretty clear, others maybe not.

For example, I voted that using acetone etc to remove ink or other stuff was.
But
found an easy example just a few lines down with the black marker on 71s. That's clearly wrong.
But would removing that black marker be "bad" ... I don't think so. With the usual caution that we have no actual data on how that would affect the card long term.

The bonus question was difficult. I could do stuff to an already altered card like the above 71 and send it to PSA expecting nothing better than "Authentic"
If The self proclaimed experts cant spot it, and give it a number grade, that's an entirely different question. They could be incompetent, thus their claim of expertise is questionable and maybe unethical.
Or their stated standards are more flexible than I would like.

If I then sell that card without disclosure... again sort of a gray area. It would be a 71 whatever graded X...
Personally I would disclose the removed alteration, but I could see the argument that it's a PSA X because that's what the label says.

I have a card that I had graded, thought it was better than the VG it got. When I asked SGC at their booth, the guy there pointed out a well done erasure on the back that I'd totally missed.
Now, I still disagree with the grade, but not as much. I'd thought it was VG-EX, maybe a bit better, now maybe g-vg.
That probably should be disclosed so at least the next owner (Likely a long time from now) will know not to bother cracking it out in hoped of a better grade.

Yes, that's a big question with graded cards. If you trim a card and send it to PSA to launder it, and PSA grades it a 7, is it still trimmed? Or is it now a clean 7?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Is this like some "Schrödinger's Card" thought experiment?

If you trim a card and send it to PSA, it's still a trimmed card, regardless of the label that PSA slaps on it.

As an aside, I find it amusing that people often repeat the mantra, "Buy the card, not the slab," suggesting that the card is the actual product and the slab is just a plastic vessel that someone slapped a number on.

But when we're talking about card doctoring, the conversation quickly morphs into a philosophical discussion over whether the slab is the product, and the card itself is just window dressing.

I'm guessing that we've got the majority of votes in now. Kind of fascinating to see how they line up.

Basically 3 big groupings here:

-Activities that almost everyone is okay with
-Activities that most people are okay with
-Activities that the vast preponderance of people are not okay with

Pantyhose falls into the category of activities that almost everyone is okay with, with only 9% reporting it as unethical.

Bending corners back, erasing pencil marks, and soaking cards to remove glue, dirt, or stains falls into the bucket of activities that most people are okay with, with around 20-33% reporting it as unethical.

And finally, most everyone seems to think that the rest are highly unethical, as they line up with 74-95% reporting it as unethical. The application of black marker to a 71T takes the cake with 95%+ reporting it as unethical.

Even more excitingly, right in the middle at 57%, almost half of us find no ethical conundrum with getting PSA to grade improved cards. Some of this could be driven by the fact that it probably depends on whether we're talking about submitting any of them, or all of them. For example, I'm guessing that some portion of respondents who find pantyhose acceptable are also fine with taking the card so hosed by panties and submitting it to PSA, and ergo declined to check the PSA box.

Of course, some of the responses to the bonus question could also be driven by basic antipathy towards PSA in general - anyone who buys slabs certified by a perfectly imperfect TPG deserves what they get, so caveat emptor and all that.

I think it's a bit funny that there is a group of around 10-15% of responders as of now that are perfectly ok with trimming, using nail polish remover, random chemicals with unknown results (especially when the resulting chemicals are trapped in a plastic tomb with the card to air out for years), and press out creases with Kurt's magic rollers but using a sharpie on a 71' Topps...well that's just over the line buddy! :cool:

Haha. My 71T's are being unfairly discriminated against.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

The bonus question really isn't that difficult. When sending items to PSA you agree to the following:

2. PSA will not grade items which bear evidence of trimming, recoloring, restoration or any other form of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity, and Customer agrees not to knowingly submit any such items.

By knowingly sending in "such items," you are breaking your agreement and are therefore, unethical.

I'm most amazed by the percentage for the first one. If I accidentally bend the corner of a card then put it back into place before selling on the BST, that's unethical? To some people, even fraud? That's ridiculous to me

Key words here are bear evidence. More than one member says that if done right (i.e. don't bear evidence) there is nothing wrong with tampering or restoring. I disagree. Does not matter if the cards bear evidence or not it is the act of improving the cards that deem the act of submitting them unethical if your plan is to not disclose it upon sale.

Some of that comes down to points of clarification I'm sure. When I responded to the poll, I checked the option for 'trimming', but when I read it again, I realized he was asking something different. He was asking if it's ok to trim off the "fuzzy edges" of a card. Sometimes cards have fuzz sticking off of them. I think it's pretty common for people to pluck off little pieces of fuzz from their cards. Surely, this is how some people interpreted that option, while others were responding to trimming in general. That's why we see a higher percentage of people who checked off using a sharpie on a 71 Topps than we see for people who checked off the "trimmed fuzzy edges" option. I assume if you were to facet the trimming response by people who thought of trimming in general vs people who were thinking of picking off a few pieces of fuzz that you'd get two vastly different percentages here.

Welcome to Net54. Now go ask these questions of the general public (I've actually done this for fun). Nobody thinks any of this stuff is unethical outside of the hobby.

Regarding the BONUS question - TPGs are supposed to pick up alterations. However, if you knowingly submit altered cards and you get them passed by the TPG (numerical grade) and you then sell the card(s) without disclosing the alteration because the TPG didn't catch it, then my thoughts are you're a douche bag and validated the reason why TPGs are useless.

Eh, I'm skeptical that you're the most objective pollster.

"Poll Question 1: Do think it's unethical to improve the appearance of a trading card that belongs to you, especially when you're just restoring it to its natural state, there's no damage whatsoever, and it brings you great joy?"

"Poll Question 2: Polling shows that the vast majority of experts and even casual hobbyists don't see any problem with enhancing a card's natural beauty; in fact, they say it adds tremendous value. Given that information, are you personally offended by people who take bad things and make them better?"

"Poll Question 3: As stated in the previous question, improving a card's appearance adds tremendous value in a completely unobjectionable way. Do you think it's unethical to share that value with others?"

"Poll Question 3A: Assuming you answered no (like most rational people), do you think it's necessary to give others an itemized receipt of all the nice things you did, or should they just shut up and be grateful?"

"People outside the hobby" aren't really a relevant sample population for questions about the hobby.

That's an odd point. I can see that people who have no interest in our hobby don't care how we manage our conduct, but I don't know how their indifference would be helpful to us.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

People who don't play chess think the obsession with chess is stupid, therefore the obsession with chess is stupid.

Because we often debate whether or not these actions constitute fraud. I think asking people outside the hobby (and thus a potential jury) what their viewpoints are is helpful if seeking a reality check.

Should leave this one up to any of the trial lawyers on the board but even I can address this...

Typically people who sit on a jury hear testimony and while they are not experts they have been provided two sides of an argument over a period of time. Absent doing that, people outside the hobby rendering their opinion is utterly useless and pointless.

And your own bias surely doesn't enter into how you frame the questions. Not to mention you're not qualified to explain what fraud is, legally anyhow.

I just asked the two closest people in my house who know nothing about baseball cards if one should disclose alterations that have been made to an item whens selling said item or if the seller should cover it up. They said it should be disclosed. Pack it up, folks, we have our answer.

Can we see how absolutely stupid of an argument this is?

You would think a data scientist would know better, I dunno.

I'm a natural born sceptic, but I suspect there's also no data science in pretending you can tell if complete strangers are gamblers by your amazing intuition.

It's almost like some people just completely make things up and their justifying appeal to their self-authority is absurdist.

There are like a half a dozen threads on the front page I could post this on but Travis, what size are you? I am buying this one for you. Use it as a reminder.


https://i.postimg.cc/4yFXJtZJ/tshirt.jpg

There is no confusion on my part about how to phrase a question objectively so as to obtain unbiased responses. It's an important part of my job as a data scientist. Uncovering hidden biases in data is probably the single most important aspect of what I do at work every day.

Hint... This phrasing above, ain't it.

Perhaps time for a Court-Martial? Or even better, let’s bring this debate to the US Supreme Court. No, rather, the Augusta National Golf Club Board of Trustees!

I am confident there is no way, no matter how you frame it or them, you can elicit a meaningful answer from an outsider about the subject of alteration in one or a few questions.

Think about how fast trials would go if they were all conducted by snowman. I am all in favor of this if it meant I would no longer be required to participate in jury duty.

In the real world there are jury consulting firms who do focus groups, help structure mock trials, etc. to help lawyers gain insight into how a jury might react to a case. Who knew it was as simple as having a data scientist ask a couple of (undoubtedly unbiased) questions.

That was then, this is now. You might have to become a professional gambler now and give up that law degree. Are you prepared?

I checked all the boxes. I'm curious why anyone would want to restore a card to begin with, unless it's purely for the $ value. Pencil marks, glue, etc are all a part of the card's journey through the decades.

I could see someone wanting to restore a card for OCD reasons. But the Venn diagram of people who obsess over a card's appearance and people who resell those cards without disclosure seems to be a full circle.

And equally importantly, how well they have survived the journey (or not) should determine their relative value -- not the skill of a card doctor/restorer/whatever. It means something if a 100 year old card has actually survived in, say, near mint condition. It means nothing if someone is able to doctor it to make it look near mint.

100%!!!

Well stated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Wouldn't the erasure of a pencil mark also be part of the card's journey?

There’s also this prediction that has yet to come to fruition.

ChatGPT did pass the bar exam though...

Yes I'm sure the guy who mostly dedicates himself to here to functioning as PWCC's PR department and incredible arrogance assigning himself godly powers to discern at a great remove other peoples habits he knows nothing about whatsoever is an objective questioner and conducted a scientific study that will hold up to standard :rolleyes:

I don't really have a dog in this hunt but I am surprised that, as a lawyer, you took Snowman's word at face value and didn't recognize that he may have deployed a classic argument from authority. He may very well have experience creating and administering opinion polls to the public, but his LinkedIn profile indicates significant experience mainly working with complex data sets. I am not a data scientist, but I know enough statistics to know they are very different disciplines.

If you keep this up you might earn yourself a gfy and not 1 but 2 aggro PMs but ya have to wait until the wee hours of the morning for those...between 2 and 3 AM PST.

Well this is obviously correct of him to do, because he is a data scientist with perfect intuition and the main character, after all. Everyone else is always wrong, without any need for evidence or actually looking at the thing in question or even considering if the thing he is claiming is even humanly possible whatsoever, because the appeal to his ego is paramount.

This clown claiming he can detect heavy gamblers he has never met or interacted with or seen by his gut intuition with great accuracy is possibly the stupidest brag I have ever seen on this board.

As to his incredible intuition on the gambling behaviors of people he will never meet, he says he has been a gambler for more than a decade or was that decades? Anyway, since he was 9...How long have you been gambling where you can question the validity of his in depth characterization of Ohtani?

Snowman is our board's Most Interesting Snowman In The World...Stay thirsty my friends.