Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
But suppose people don't care if it's fake, only what it looks like? Is it still material? Don't fight the hypothetical, assume my facts. Isn't that the analogy here at least to how many collectors now think? I would bet my life you could prove to many set registrants they had fake cards and they would not get rid of them, but would keep them because what matters to them is the registry ranking.
|
This is why I started at the beginning and used the example of an honestly listed card and the same card but untrimmed, both posted honestly and fully. Do we seriously dispute that the untrimmed one will sell for more and he seems a more valuable? No? Then we know the untrimmed example is worth more and we know exactly why nobody trimming cards is selling these cards as trimmed.
If the situation was completely different, then the conclusions would be completely different.
They only have the same value, as I said, if a company that people have outsourced their thinking too says it does because they are certifying it isn’t altered and is in Mint or Near Mint or whatever grade above an authentic altered that you’d like for the example. That is, if there is corruption or the grader is tricked. Again, I cannot think of an example where an alteration deceiving an authenticator or expert makes it no longer fraud.
The registry collector may be fine with it - because and only because their circle and buyer market also outsources their thinking to this corporation that has certified the card is just fine and believe the false certification. .
Successfully getting a dishonest item by an expert does not mean that it is not fraud. If succeeding in the crime for some time before someone catches it is grounds for it not bringing a crime, we better go open the floodgates. I’m not seeing any logical way this isn’t fraud as neither justifications makes any sense.