"Improving" Cards: New poll

[gunboat82]

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.



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.

[brunswickreeves]

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!

[G1911]

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.

[brianp-beme]

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

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

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.

[steve B]

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.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by steve B

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"

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.

[vintagerookies51]

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

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

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.

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.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

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.



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.

It's going to seem like a dumb thing to argue, but that actually does have all the value of a W512 Grade 1 Babe Ruth because of their guarantee. So the flip does define what's inside...even if outside the slab it would be defined differently. Counterfeits, alterations, anything the flip doesn't mention doesn't exist while it's in the slab, value-wise anyway. True story.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

It's going to seem like a dumb thing to argue, but that actually does have all the value of a W512 Grade 1 Babe Ruth because of their guarantee. So the flip does define what's inside...even if outside the slab it would be defined differently. Counterfeits, alterations, anything the flip doesn't mention doesn't exist while it's in the slab, value-wise anyway. True story.

I'd argue that the flip still doesn't define what's inside. What you're describing isn't a "W512 Grade 1 Babe Ruth," it's a coupon for PSA reimbursement.

If you treat cards as nothing more than currency, then I suppose it's a distinction without a difference.