"Improving" Cards: New poll

[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

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Fred]

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.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

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?"

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

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

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

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

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

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

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.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

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

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by 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

I think this is the most misunderstood modification on the board, not entirely sure why, but it really seems to be. The advertising for Kurt’s and the actual act of this is using moisture and rollers to press corners with damage to better and sharper condition.

How the understanding with some is that it would be flipping up a bent corner so it can slide in a toploader without an attempt to conceal is a silly debate. The corner is still bent and everyone can see it. If you have a card that is literally folded in half and you put it in a top loader it’s the same. Downgrading a repair method by comparing it with a logical manipulation to store it would be much the same as asking if deer hunting is the same as shooting up a 7-11.

[JollyElm]

I'll skip right past the burgeoning 'Snowman-Gate' (But remember when Leon put that over-the-top annoyance, Adrian, on a daily maximum post limit years ago and the site improved immeasurably overnight? Asking for a friend.), however I want to add to the 'whys' of improving cards.

Besides the two extremes (OCD and profiteering) that are the focus of most discussions (uh oh, I didn't read every thread to make sure those two topics do, in fact, make up at least 51% - or, more specifically, 50% plus a single additional mention - of the chats, so I may be in trouble with a certain data scientist), there is also the much less 'calculated' desire of just making your cards look better, because it does your heart good.

Mending a minorly bent corner, removing a stain or gunk and flattening a 'bubbly' surface are all things I've personally done to my own cards, and I think they're reasonable acts to make a card return to its proper glory. Trimming, recoloring and all of those fraudulent things are anathema to me, and are a completely different ball of wax, but I get excited if I'm able to slightly 'correct' one of my cards through far less than drastic means...and it simply makes me happy, and I do this .

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

… Adrian …

I haven’t thought about that guy in a long time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[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.