Quote:
Originally Posted by campyfan39
So even though a card had been clearly altered and at least one of the graders has admitted (in the book and the 30 for 30) that he knew it, that was ok from a business perspective? So it is horrible to use substances to clean cards or improve creases but its fine to grade a card that should have been labeled "Altered" for business purposes? Yikes! He knew that it would kill PSA if they rejected that card. So for money they essentially lied. Not to mention the hundreds of millions made since for the company and the trimmed card itself.
|
Agreed this is wonky logic. If the "good for the hobby" argument that was used (depending on who you believe) when, wink wink, David Hall and others at PSA in the early 90's gave the Wagner they knew was trimmed an 8 assumes that profiting from such skulduggery is what makes it "good" - then nobody today should have any problem with any type of restoration or alteration so that all vintage cards can then be resubbed and get 8's and higher, and be sold at wildly higher prices.
Clearly this isn't the case.
Ironic to think - professional grading ostensibly came about because of the problems with card doctoring and the "wild west" scene in collecting 30+ years ago. Today however, due to the profit motive and ability to get such cards into high grade slabs anyway - the main driver that keeps alteration prevalent turns out to also be grading.