I don't have a problem with Dick's service as long as there are no long term effects and that it can't be detected in any way by myself or any other card expert (i.e. TPGs).

I disagree that stain removal is 'altering' a card. If I spill wine on my carpet and hire a professional cleaning service to remove the stain, is that altering the carpet, or is it removing something that shouldn't have been there in the first place?

I know my opinion may be in the minority, but so be it.

So if you're REALLY good at card doctoring and it can't be detected, at least in the cursory review TPGs give, that isn't card doctoring. Oh that's great David. Very cogent. Whatever.

And your carpet example is completely irrelevant and you know it.

I disagree that soaking a card to remove a stain is 'doctoring'. There is another thread on the main page about scrap book soaking. Do you consider that 'doctoring' too?

Soaking something out of a scrapbook with water is fine with me. Getting out stains with solvents or taking out wrinkles is not.

In the scrapbook thread, he soaked the cards in more than water. He used Bestine (a solvent). Unfortunately, it didn't work for him as you can see by the results. But, if it had worked for him, would you be as vocal in that thread?

It depends on what he did with the cards. If he sold them without disclosure, perhaps. If he kept them for his collection, no.

Isn't water a solvent?

Not as I think of the term, no. Not a chemical solvent, anyhow. I believe it is generally accepted that water does not affect the integrity of the surface. I don't believe that is the case for chemical solvents. And I am virtually certain that if you told a TPG that you had used a chemical solvent, that would be considered an unacceptable alteration.

I guess I just don't see the difference. If I have a card with a stain and I soak it to remove the stain, what difference does it make what I used (water or chemical solvent), as long as no one can tell and there are no long term effects? Whether it was water or a chemical solvent, isn't the result still the same? So, what does it matter what was used?

So why do the TPGs say you can't do it? Probably because it is not established that the solvents don't do damage. Indeed look at the faded colors on the E93s.

By your logic it's OK to take out a major crease if you can't tell. I guess I just don't feel the same way. And neither do the TPGs. It's deception, and someone who does it for clients who then submit the cards without disclosure is enabling fraud.

PS I bet if you used sophisticated enough equipment you could tell that solvents had been used.

Which TPG's say you can't do it? That is a common misconception. They don't say you can't do it, they say there can be no evidence of it. Quite a difference.

I completely disagree with the conclusion you draw from that wording. Do you REALLY think a TPG's position is that it blesses really good card doctoring? IMO there is no way Dave Forman or Joe Orlando would say that.

Quite different. Removing a crease is altering the paper stock of the card. If removing a stain doesn't effect the card in any way, then the paper stock has not been altered.

And your evidence that solvents don't is.......

I don't read this as saying it's inappropriate only if PSA can detect it and otherwise it is OK. I don't think anybody could, reasonably.

N-7 Evidence of Cleaning - When a whitener is used to whiten borders or a solution is used to remove wax, candy, gum or tobacco stains.

cards
 

To All, All of my work comes with an invoice and full disclosure on every card that is done- All detail is there to see what was done on the card. When the cards leave my home back to clients, what they do is there business, not mine.

I hope this answer's any question about my work and the integrity behind our family business.

:D

I completely disagree that that lets you off the hook, Dick. You know exactly what your clients are doing (or some of them), and that makes you an enabler, in my opinion. Unless you are going to tell us that dealers don't use your services and it's only collectors. By the TPGs' standards you are making unacceptable alterations to cards, and you well know your services are sought in order to profit from deception.

PS those invoices would certainly make interesting reading.

so
 

as a solution would you suggest suppressing DT's right to perform such an activity and an individuals right to have something like a stain removed from a card or do you have another idea? Where does the actual responsibility lie and where is the line drawn?

Cards
 

PETER, SEND ME A CARD TO WORK AND I WILL SEND YOU A INVOICE OF MY WORK--- :confused:

"By the TPGs' standards you are making unacceptable alterations to cards."

How can such practices be unacceptable to the TPG'ers if they can't even tell if they were done?

No thanks Dick. I don't believe in altering cards, in case you missed that. But feel free to send me, or law enforcement, your other invoices.

Pete that is just not worthy of you. The practices are unacceptable, period, in the eyes of the TPGs. They say so, right in their standards. That there are people good enough to DECEIVE the TPGs -- who by the way don't have crime labs -- is a completely different point, and shows only that there are fraudsters out there.

By your logic, Pete, it's OK to rob a bank if you get away with it. Think about it.

I hate to disagree with anyone who can quote Hendrix while discussing altered cards. But.................

Water is a solvent. Many things are described as "water soluble" or "oil soluble" And that difference is what the process that produced the cards is based on.

I think there's room for both some restoration with disclosure and an approach of no restoration. Fortunately or not - for me the difference between a 6 and 9 on most prewar cards isn't an everyday issue. I can't afford either. But if I could, I'd want to know about alterations/cleaning/etc that had been done.

If a TPG wanted to they could probably detect most oil based solvents or cleaning done with water plus other substances. They could also probably detect cleaning done with water.
But that would take time, and their entire business model is reversed so that the cards that should get a very close look are less likely to get that. A common from many sets could lay around for a while before it gets looked at, but the expensive stuff gets in and out in a day or two, maybe less.

Yes, most dealers probably need to get their cards back quickly so they can be resold. And that need drives the TPGs. It also allows a lot of space for "inappropriate shenanigans" since the TPGs don't have the time for a proper examination. As such they're probably bigger enablers than nearly anyone.


Whether stain removal or cleaning or any other alteration/restoration is acceptable is a topic that won't be an easy one for the hobby to deal with until the TPGs can take the time to pick that stuff up. I don't really have a problem with it other than the issue I think Peter points out, that being the deception and the money involved in that deception. Many stains will or can do damage long term, and probably should be removed. Not mentioning the removal is wrong in any number of ways.

Steve Birmingham

PS - Rewriting that song to make it about the hobby would be pretty interesting.
"If that scrapbook all came free....let it be
If the doctors cut of any border that'd be out of order"

Nah, not quite good enough.

No they're not. They say no "Evidence" of it. Again, there is a difference.

If there is no evidence that you robbed the bank, how can you be convicted?

That is lame beyond belief. So you think they are saying, it's unacceptable to alter a card only if you leave evidence that it was altered? That is one of the most absurd things I ever have read. No, David, they are saying the practice is unacceptable. Now they might screw up and miss the evidence, or they might not have equipment sophisticated enough to detect the evidence, but that sure as hell does not mean really good alteration is acceptable.

Lemme put it another way for you. They will reject a card when there is EVIDENCE of alteration. That does not mean it is ACCEPTABLE to alter a card in such a way that they might miss the evidence, or be unable to detect it due to technical limitations or lack of resources.

Would it be ethical to sell this 1958 Blue Front Hank Aaron #30 Topps card knowing it is altered if PSA or SGC would give it a # grade? It is a only known version. It has the blue background, Missing yellow in Milwaukee Braves, but has perfect yellow in the Braves logo. It is an amazing card. If your answer is yes PM me with outrageous offer.;):D:eek:

This is like watching Godzilla vs. Mothra -- in the battle of cunning linguists. First guy to pass out cold from splitting hairs loses.

SGC only uses the word "evidence" for trimmed cards, not for Altered, Bleached, Color Added, Power Erased, Pressed, Rebuilt, or Resurfaced.

http://sgccard.com/GradingScale.aspx

Attachment 196807

Do you really think if I have a card with wax residue on the front and I clean it with a solution that can't be detected and doesn't alter the stock in any way, that PSA really gives a crap???

Until they change their public standards, David, I will take them at face value.

The logical extension of the argument that it is okay to alter cards if the alteration is undetectable is that it would also be okay to CREATE a card if the creation is undetectable. So if hypothetically the original printing plate of the T206 Wagner is someday found, and if I can find period paper and period dyes that forensically test and look identical how a "real" Wagner would test and look, it is okay that I just created a $3 million plus card?

So let's say this happens and it gets slabbed a 9. The overjoyed buyer, having no knowledge of what happened (because after all I am the only person who knows what went on), would be totally cool if I should later divulge what happened? Don't you think anyone in that position would be outraged, feeling he/she had been defrauded and that such a thing should not be allowed to take place in the hobby?

I didn't quote your enitre post because we can stop right there. That is where we disagree. To me, soaking a card is not altering it. If you think it is, you need to go look up the word alter in the dictionary. After that, if you still think soaking a card is a form of alteration, then we'll just have to disagree.

David, do you disagree with Steve B. that even soaking in water is detectable (as I understood him) if one looks hard enough with good enough equipment?

Do you remove creases/wrinkles, yes or no?

Do you remove stains with chemical solvents that change the physical composition of the card compared to when first issued, yes or no?

If the answer to either of these questions is yes, IMO you are altering a card. And if the hobby feels it is okay to sell such "altered" cards without disclosure, knowing it will not be detected by TPG, then we can assume the practice will become widespread. The end result will be a substantial increase in the pop reports of higher-graded cards, resulting in a significant price reduction.

So Henry here is the problem. Let's suppose I send Dick a card, or work it myself, with the intent of simply improving its appearance and keeping it in my collection. And let's suppose hypothetically that if submitted, or viewed by the average buyer raw, the work done while generally viewed as an alteration would not be detected. Now eventually, that card, unless I burn it, is going to get into the marketplace. And be graded. So thus, even in this circumstance, I have created the potential for a deceptive transaction to occur. So if pushed I would take an absolute position that it is not proper, ever, to alter a card. Now yes, someone could make a slippery slope argument back, but one can almost always do that with an absolute position. if there is some other better place to draw the line, I don't know what it is right now.

No. I consider that an alteration.

No. I don't belive I've ever soaked a card in anything other than water. However, I am not opposed to soaking cards in chemicals if they do not change the composition of the card - the look (washed out colors), the feel, the smell, etc. If anything changes the look, feel or smell of the card, then that is an alteration in my opinion.

So which chemicals, in your opinion, do not change anything about a card?

Peter, I don't know enough about checmicals to answer that.

But if there is a chemical(s) that can remove a stain and NEVER be detected, I don't have any problem with it - again as long as it doesn't change the look, feel or smell of the card.

And your analogy above is silly. You can't be responsible 'creating the potential for a deceptive transaction to occur' when you can't control what happens after the sale.

That's like saying wax vendors shouldn't sell wax packs/boxes because somewhere down the road those packs could possibly be opened, searched and resealed.

Lol, How can anything clean it without changing the look? The 58 Aaron card I pictured has no chemical residue would it be ok to sell if graded?

So David at the end of all this back and forth we pretty much are where we started, with me saying I thought water soaking was OK, and you now saying water soaking is the only thing you know of that is OK. What did we just have a two hour debate for?:confused::confused:

I don't buy that analogy at all. By your logic I could without any ethical issue sell a gun to Jesse Holmes or Adam Lanza strongly suspecting what his plans were, because I have no control over it. Or maybe you believe that I could?

When I say clean it w/o changing the look, I am referring to fading the colors, removing original gloss, etc.

As far as the Aaron, I'm not even sure why that is part of the discussion. You sun bleached that, right?

I'm talking about selling something in 'good faith'. Huge difference.

What if you take a card that is a little dark and murky and simply put it in the sun a bit and it lightens and clears in a very pleasing way--is that okay because it's organic?

No, Peter, that's not what I'm saying. I don't care if DT uses Raid Bug Spray to remove the stains or any other checmical as long as it has no lasting effects, can't be detected and doesn't change the look, feel or smell of the card.

Let's make one thing perfectly clear: 99+ % of the people who use the services of someone like Mr. Towle do so for one reason and one reason only- to resubmit the card to TPG in order to get a higher than merited grade. And this in turn makes them lots of money. Which leads me to what I always say about TPG's- that they mint money. It's like having a printing press and making hundred dollar bills with it. TPG's have too much power, period.

Second, it is in the interests of all businesses to have satisfied customers. And one way to do that is to make sure customers are happy with the grades they are getting. As a result, there is a distressing number of high grade cards in holders that have been altered, cleaned, or processed in some way. This is a very bad sign for the future of the hobby.

Ok, understand your meaning of changing the looks.

The Aaron is altered and it is undetectable by the grading companies. So it fits the description of what you and Peter are talking about. No it was not faded in the sun.

+1, agree with Barry. I have always been confused about "soaking cards". Doesnt that compromise the structure of the card? To me, it would take huge balls to do this in the first place...

David it's a meaningless hypothetical, because other than water (and Steve B disagrees here) you cannot name one chemical that fits that category. So what is the point?

Dick Towell's chemical. How about that?

Where that line is drawn is certainly up to the individual. Depending on the collector, "altering" is somewhere on the spectrum between removing a stray toast crumb and manipulation of the card stock itself. I doubt many of us stand on the exact grey line , and while I see the wisdom in the various opinions, I don't see onevthat I'm complete agreement with. I just know we need slot more honesty in the hobby.

They might get past some graders at some times, but I seriously doubt they meet your criteria. Just look at the washed out cards that started this thread. Stuff gets by them.

I will defer to Steve B. here, but certainly I had thought there was close to a consensus that just soaking in water doesn't compromise the card in any meaningful way.

Thanks Peter, this is just a very confusing task to understand. If you have a high profile T206 graded psa 5 with some stains, what exactly is the process? thanks...Kevin

Of course it alters the integrity of the card stock. That's why all recommendations for soaking include pressing the soaked cards under a huge stack of books as part of the process. This removes the warping and wrinkles.... which sounds like "altering" under some people definition

Yea....this takes bigger balls than I have...

in terms of 19th century cards
 

without accepting the practice of soaking them in water (what I'm comfortable with in terms of application and what I believe the majority accepts at least up to this point) likely more than 75% of the cards in the marketplace would have to be entombed adhered to tobacco album pages (and scrapbooks) and would result in a defacto inability to see anything on their backs. The percentage obviously smaller in most T sets but that's a lot of cards!

Search me. Maybe Dick can help you.

I did not mean that Peter, I was simply asking what the process was for someone doing this....This is all new to me, even with 25 years in the hobby....I simply don't know...

Kevin I was just being sarcastic. I really don't know how it's done, but there are a lot of soakers on the Board who likely can explain.

I highly doubt any card doctor will come on here and give you directions on how exactly to alter your card.

One just came on the board today and defended the integrity of his family business, so ya never know. But seriously I think a lot of guys soak and feel it's OK so they might well explain how they go about it.

There are several threads already that explain in detail how to soak a card. I doubt DT is going to be giving away his family secrets on altering cards any time soon.

That's silly! There have been gum and wax removing solutions long before TPGs even came into existence. What was the motivation before the TPGs?

TPGs could all go out of business tomorrow and I highly doubt Dick's business would skip a beat.

Exactly what Barry said.

I would bet if Dick supplied his client list it would confirm what Barry said.

And if there were no TPGs the motivation would be the same -- to get more money for altered cards.

Gum and wax removal is minimal David. I'm talking about any process that will add grading points to a card. That's a whole different thing. There are people who build corners, who glue the fronts and backs of two different cards together and then submit them and get high numerical grades. Some of these alterations are caught by the graders, but many of them are missed too. That would concern me greatly if I were buying expensive high grade cards ( I don't).

Getting back to the original post, the poster claims he has information that he does not want to share. I see no conclusive evidence. Who's to say this guy doesn't want to buy the card himself and is just trying to dampen bidding? I wonder if he can be sued by the consignor if the bidding suddenly dries up?

ejharrington,

I believe the person who started this thread is an attorney. I also believe, if what he says is true, that he would WELCOME a lawsuit. That way, the person or people who own the cards that he is saying have been doctored will have to prove they haven't been doctored.

David

I'm not a lawyer but I think the poster has to prove the cards are doctored...not the other way around. I don't know how the owner would prove a negative.

I refuse to give my name. And how on earth did you figure out my true motive? You damn pesky kids!

I didn't claim any motives; I just asked the questions.

I know you ... you're J3ff L!(h+m@n.

I must say Jeff, you took that a lot more calmly than I would have.

And how do people keep missing your name in your posts?

Kid gloves

The old Hal Lewis playbook.

I love when nonlawyers make pronouncements about the law. Is our resident class action expert Kevin Quinn still out there?

As a Plaintiff lawyer, I think it would be awesome if in a civil case the defendant had the burden of persuasion to disprove the plaintiff's allegations. That would make my job exponentially easier. On the criminal side, those pesky constitutional considerations cause me to grudgingly say that I guess the status quo should be maintained and that the prosecution has to still be able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.