Oh, got it.

I wonder how much this phrasing might matter in that case?

"PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity."

The "bears evidence of" qualifier seems pretty important to me when I read this statement. You could send in one of those BODA-outed cards that were clearly trimmed if comparing before vs after photos, but unless the card itself actually "bears evidence of" trimming, then it really doesn't matter. The graders aren't magicians. If there is nothing there to detect, then there's nothing to detect, as Peter from SGC says.

+1
If it doesn't "bear" evid of trim but is trimmed? It seems PSA/SGC covered themselves, technically.

.

IF you can get into evidence a prior image of a card established to be the SAME card, and you can show that card is smaller than its current version, I would call that bearing evidence of trimming. I don't have expertise in the method Blowout uses, but if one can establish it is analogous to a card "fingerprint" and persuade a court to admit it into evidence, and again I'm not saying you can, I think that would be pretty compelling evidence of trimming. The cost to do this, though could be astronomical, in terms of the witnesses one would need to call to establish the reliability of the method.

So hypothetically you can prove a card is trimmed, but it bears no evidence of trimming? I don't think that would work for PSA. It's too cute and hypertechnical.

I don't really see it as a loophole or technicality though. It reads very straightforward to me. Saying that a card bears evidence of something is a statement about the card itself, not about scanned images of a card. In this case, to say that a card bears evidence of trimming means that upon close examination, the card's edges look like they've been trimmed and/or the card does not meet the required sizing specs.

PSA grades cards, not pictures of cards.

You argue to the jury that yes we admit the card is trimmed, but we don't have to honor our guarantee. I'll take the opposite all day long.

Of course there are ways to detect whether cards are trimmed visually, but if it's actually a court case, I wonder if the owner would allow invasive/destructive scientific testing of the card. If three edges show 100 years of exposure to air contaminants, and one only shows 10 years of exposure, that would be scientific evidence that PSA is incompetent. So on a card like a $500 EX-MT card that became a $100,000 PSA 10, it would be worth it for the owner (who already has some kind of visual evidence that the card is trimmed from before/after photos) to allow for destructive testing.

Travis your position reduces to the proposition that if I submit a card to PSA and I tell them I trimmed it and show them conclusive before and after photos, they should nevertheless slab it if I did such a good job they can't tell. To me that's absurd.

I was accepting the hypothetical for sake of argument. I agree that in most cases there would be ways to determine the card was trimmed even without before photos.

I don't understand why so many people adhere to this idea that all (or even most) trimmed cards are identifiable as such, and that any trimmed card that passes through grading represents a failure to detect something that should have been detected by an expert grader. It's simply not true, and anyone making such a claim is doing so based on hearsay, and not on experience.

Perhaps this belief stems from PSA posturing themselves as indeed being capable of doing precisely that and everyone just believing them, but it doesn't make it true. Unfortunately.

IMO the overwhelming majority of trimmed cards can be conclusively shown to be trimmed if forensically examined. Conversely, IMO, the overwhelming majority of trimmed cards cannot be shown to be trimmed by visual examination alone when altered by an experienced card doctor.

Inasmuch as (to my knowledge) PSA undertakes only visual examinations, the opinion it gives to any card where an uptick in grade equates to a significant bump to its market value, unless that card has documented provenance to a period before card doctors existed or there was no economic incentive to trim (or otherwise alter), is WORTHLESS.

So, the sin PSA is guilty of is not a failure to detect something that they could have detected, but their representation that a numerical grade gives a collector a reasonable assurance the card has not been trimmed.

No, it doesn't. What I wrote cannot be reduced down to anything that includes a signed confession of anything as part of the equation. You're adding that in.

Absolutely. Well said. And just one more reason why I hold SGC in much higher regard than PSA. At least SGC openly admits that some alterations simply cannot be detected. PSA refuses to even address the issue and continues to pretend as though they are fully capable.

What's the difference? The card still BEARS NO EVIDENCE of trimming. By your logic, the issue isn't whether it's trimmed or not, it's whether it bears evidence of trimming.

It is really not that absurd. A fellow member done almost exactly that and they graded the card a 9.

Seriously can't make this up. He sent in a counterfeit card. He is a data guy that writes a lot of papers. He included a paper describing in great detail the differences between it and a "real/normal" version of the card. It isn't even on the same card stock and they graded it a 9.

“So, the sin PSA is guilty of is not a failure to detect something that they could have detected, but their representation that a numerical grade gives a collector a reasonable assurance the card has not been trimmed.”

And wasn’t this pretty much the entire premise for their existence? :confused:

It was certainly one of the value adds they claimed to bring. A bit ironic perhaps. However, it is still true that despite their countless mistakes, they are considerably better at detecting this stuff than all the lemmings that launch criticism their way. The hobby is definitely better off with grading services than without.

When PSA came into existence, the main concern at that time was not altered cards, but instead the subjective nature of grading. One person's 8 was another person's 5. I remember quite vividly a major dealer at one of the card shows displaying altered cards in an attempt to alert the hobby about what he felt was coming. This dealer did this precisely because of his concern the threat of alterations was not sufficiently appreciated. To go further, I find it hard to fathom that PSA would have given the "8 Wagner" a numerical grade if at that time their business model was focused around detecting alterations. PSA might be arrogant and stupid, but not that stupid. Despite what they or anybody else might say today, based on what I have been told by reliable people with first-hand information, they KNEW the card was altered. So, despite their desire for the publicity grading the card could give them, it would seem crazy to give Serial No. 00000001 to a card their principal grader believed to be trimmed (and which, IMO any grader with a modicum of competence could plainly see was trimmed) if they knew such a grade would directly contradict their business model.

To go further, I don't think anybody at that time could have forecast where we are today -- cards selling for levels exponentially greater than they did 30 years ago when a one grade uptick could add 5 to 6 figures of value. What all this tells me is that the next evolution in grading will be forensic grading. THAT would mean something in giving a reasonable assurance the card has not been altered. As to how or if that will ever happen, I don't know. But if I had the capital and inclination to start such a company, I would do it.

Skeptics will say such a company will never come into being because there will be no market demand for it, that the great majority of the hobby doesn't care if a card is trimmed as long as they get the number they want on the almighty slab. Well, that may be true now because there is no viable option. If there were, I would think an informed collector contemplating buying an expensive card that is a prime candidate for being trimmed would be economically incentivized to spend an additional few percent to get meaningful assurance the card is what it is purported to be.

Today, I learned that the Wagner was not actually the first card PSA graded. That serial number was merely reserved and used for the Wagner, but there were many cards graded before it. According to Mike Baker, who would know, as he was the person who slabbed it. He had a great interview on Jeremy Lee's latest episode of Sports Cards Live where he goes into great depth on all things grading, including card alterations.

Thank you for this information. I changed "their FRST card graded" to Serial No. 00000001. The point remains, though.

Bill Hughes was the head grader back then, See The Card by O'Keefe. Or ask Leon, who has talked to Hughes about slabbing the Wagner. Baker came later he was not there at the time.

Cannot let this one slide. Let's look at the definition of a "lemming"...

What does it mean to call someone a lemming?
A person who follows the will of others, especially in a mass movement, and heads straight into a situation or circumstance that is dangerous, stupid, or destructive: These lemmings that eat up conspiracy theories are so blinded by lies, they don't even see the cliff they're about to plummet over.

I would argue that definition applies flawlessly to the hypnotized/addicted TPG apologists.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lemm...hrome&ie=UTF-8

Baker claimed he was there during his interview with Jeremy Lee. He said he just wasn't a grader yet. This interview was from yesterday. He said he was the person who encapsulated the Wagner. But he did not grade it. He operated the slabbing machine.

To each their own, I suppose. I view the ignorant forum posters on Blowout who know nothing at all about grading cards, yet still launch criticisms at the TPGs for not catching trimmed edges as lemmings. These people would do no better than a monkey picking bananas at identifying trimmed cards if handed a stack for grading. But they read how easy it is on some forum, so they all just parrot the same information. Lemmings.

Sounds very interesting. What card was it?

SGC isn't much better at picking up some kinds of fakes and alterations.
And also sticks with their mistakes if they're big enough.

There are tells for any manufacturing process. The ones for card factory cuts are known and clear. The biggest one actually survives a lot of wear, being present on cards that would only grade a 1, and even some that might be worse than that. I could teach my kids to spot this in a few minutes.
Some maybe most trimming can be spotted even if the card is in a slab.

And that's without even getting into things like how much gunk a card has absorbed from the air, on the edges or otherwise. Or if the internal angle of the cut from the cutter is the same (that last one is not always easy to spot, especially if the blade was sharp. )

Either grading companies aren't making the effort, which seems likely.
Or they don't know what effort to make
Or they know whose cards to not make the effort on.

The person who graded the Wagner told me that he couldn't see evidence of trimming, and without any other evidence to any alteration, gave it it's rightful grade of 8. I believe him.

I agree with your other assessments, Cory. Hope you are well...

edited to say, I have always believed detecting trimming is not close to foolproof or scientific (yet). Most graders, of any consequence, would agree.
.

I think 1 and 3 explain more than 2.

This is a good list. As a man whose business is selling time and expertise where efficiency is everything, I might add the possibility that they are moving so fast that they don’t have the time to invest in each card to really investigate. At least when it comes to quality hack jobs.

I’ve read some theories that suggest that the amount of time spent with any single card is pretty minimal. Like a minute or two.

I was thinking of that as part of Steve's #1 but for sure.

Leon,

I'm not going to name names, but that is not the information I have, which is first-hand info coming directly from those involved in inspecting the card when it was first submitted to PSA. Their head grader at the time was a friend of mine who I did a fair amount of business with. So if you were told something else, the story has changed.

From a common-sense perspective, I find it hard to believe that PSA could not know it was trimmed, the trimming IMO being so obvious to anyone experienced in T206s. In another thread about the card, one poster, an experienced card dealer, said he was offered the card at the Willow Grove show where Mastro took it immediately after purchasing it from Sevchuck, and he (and others) turned it down precisely because they thought it was trimmed.

Variation on a theme, I grant you.

The weird thing with that first point is that in a different hobby I had an expert examine two different items in person at an international show.
The opinions that had taken me some non trivial amount of time to reach were correct. But it took him probably under 2 min for one and under 30 seconds for the other. One I thought was not what it seemed in a bad way, the other I thought was good. (The good one has since received a certificate, that hobbies equivalent of tpg just without the grade)

The stuff was more involved than trimming of cardboard.

I see you were using "slabbed" literally. I did not know he was there in that capacity, had not heard his name associated in any way with the original grading. I do know he saw the card later when it was reholdered and I've heard his opinion of it.