|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Taking a thing and cleaning the thing so that it presents nicer is not fraud. Nor is it an alteration. If a bird poops on your car, you don't have to attach a letter to the bill of sale for having cleaned it off. And if you get a piece of gunk on a baseball card, you don't have to attach a letter to it either for having removed said gunk from the card just because some delusional nutjob collector (or even an army of them) wishes the world worked that way because "god dammit! I don't want any cards that used to have gunk on them in my collection!!!" It's not fraud and you're a dumbass for thinking it is. |
What cards did Forman ever acknowledge he had cleaned? I missed that?
|
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that normal people do not see cleaning a thing and later reselling the thing as fraudulent behavior. You can scream fraud all day long from the rooftops, but nobody is going to listen to you because it's utter nonsense. If you think your viewpoint is closer to public opinion on this topic than mine, you're completely delusional. Now if we're talking about trimming or rebuilding corners, or recoloring a card or something else where you are in fact changing something about the card itself, as opposed to simply cleaning it or removing something from it, then that's a different discussion. But when it comes to merely cleaning a card, you're an idiot if you think that requires disclosure. |
Quote:
If you think I'll come off as a dumbass to a jury, you're a dumbass in this thread. I have expertise pursuading juries for 19 years and am quite good at it. You, on the other hand, are an armchair lawyer without a logical bone in your body. I'd wipe the floor with you. I notice you have ignored the legal points I made in favor of the "hur dur you can't convince a jury hur dur" argument. I wonder why that is? Hmm. One thing your inexperienced legal brain either has forgotten, or doesn't know, is that the judge gives the jury instructions on the law. And the instructions for the charges I am refrencing will specifically instruct the jury to disregard your stupid argument. Good luck with that, smart guy. Again, internet talk is cheap. Clearly any idiot can do it. Come and see how well your argument actually works. I dare you. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Furthermore, I never said that being a lawyer makes me more in tune with what the general public thinks. That's a strawman. I said my experience trying cases like this to a jury makes me better at predicting what juries will do. And you're ignorant if you think otherwise. Cases aren't won based on what a jury thinks coming into a case. In fact, we weed those people out in voir dire. Juries aren't "the general public." They are a captive audience, chosen for their objectivity and willingness to hear evidence and apply the law the judge instructs them with, and educated by me over the course of a trial. If your skills in logic and argument here are any indication, you'd convict yourself. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Anyway, if cleaning is no big deal why have none of your graded card listings mentioned it? Do you never sell cleaned cards but only clean those you retain in your collection? |
Quote:
Anyway, if you are keeping score at home no lawyers have piped in to support the indictment argument he waged. So the score is 3-0 and feeling like a shutout. |
Quote:
|
Have fun jerking each other off as always. The Net54 legal experts are always hot on the trail! I'm excited to watch all these card cleaners behind bars coming to an Ohio courtroom near you!
What's the count again on that FBI investigation from 5+ years ago where all you clowns said these guys would all be going down in flames? Ah yes, I almost forgot. Any day now, any day now, right? :rolleyes: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Note that he's gleeful that the FBI ultimately did not pursue the investigation. How pathetic is that? Anyone concerned about the hobby should be disappointed in their decision, and the freedom it confers on criminals to keep up the same shit without fear of reprisal, not gleeful about it. Not our boy though. He's giddy. Taunting, because (for the wrong reasons) he predicted this one right.
|
Quote:
The natural state of the Topps cards I collected in the 1960s came in wax packs. Sometimes the gum was lightly stuck to a card, and I altered that original, from-the-factory natural state by separating the gum from the card. Often, powdered sugar residue might be in a card, and I'd wipe it off. If there was wax residue on a card back it left a stain and there wasn't much I could do, but if it was on the glossy side, I removed wax by rubbing it with a cloth. It's a slippery slope, which is why I say the word "cleaning" is much too ambiguous. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Thank you gentlemen. Seriously, thank you. Im laughing so hard over this thread, Im coughing and unable to breathe. My wife, lawyer, is just.......speechless. Its been a great time for both of us.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
This is what I mean by a slippery slope and no, I don't want to progress from mouse poop to bird poop just to make the analogy more solid. |
Quote:
|
There is no way I can watch/listen to 2 hrs of Brian Grey.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Just stop. The adults are talking. |
Quote:
I have to think, in prison hierarchy, doing time in the slammer for not disclosing bird poop removal puts one on a pretty low rung. Bad enough to be doing 1 to 5, but to do so in constant dread of your cellmate asking "So, what are you in for?" would make it absolute hell. |
Quote:
All things considered, you're delusional if you think the graders at PSA and SGC merit trust. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
:rolleyes: |
Quote:
Quote:
;) |
Sometime in the mid to late ‘90’s (I forget exactly when) Alan Rosen, aka Mr. Mint, used to proudly sell a magical potion guaranteed to remove all stains from cards. He openly sold it at card shows. I never bought any but wish I did because ever since I’ve wondered if it worked.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
You have taken my comment to him out of context for some inexplicable reason and are attempting to turn it into a slippery slope discussion...maybe for the amusement of section103 and his wife but really there is no slippery slope here. Sorry to disappoint but you get an A for effort. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I can't wait for these numerous hobby lawyers to be identified. Any minute now. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
How Many altered cards been slabbed
I brought and sold a Ty Cobb graded 3.5 due to the fact the card had 4 smashed corners, done on purpose or was strewed down tight in a holder, the problem I found later was very obvious using a Black Light-the card was overall nice, but I didn't want it---its issue showed strong on the reverse--you might want to check yours--if it doesn't brother you, that's okay, but the card was not for me--
|
Quote:
On this point (and this point specifically) I agree with Travis. Rich |
I am assuming that the change in PSA's language was / is a direct result of Kurt's products, but can anyone confirm that?
Can it also be confirmed that only one (what I first heard) of Kurt's subs was invalidated by PSA? Or did they blackball him completely? |
Quote:
|
Darn, of all the times to be on vacation, I missed all the fun. My favorite topic! :) Peter, thanks for referencing the post from last year.
Yes Peter, you can charge someone with whatever the hell charges you want in an indictment. Obviously, some threshold has to be met, but just because something is listed on an indictment doesn't mean they are guilty of said charges. Hence in a trial, the jury gives verdicts for each charge. One of my favorite quotes "You could indict a ham sandwich". How about your garden variety card, let's just arbitrarily say a 1956 Mantle PSA 6. Let's say I have two very similar examples. Both are trimmed, but it isn't obvious to most. I sell one with no disclosure. I sell the other in the same venue, but disclose prominently that I lightly trimmed it. Same price? Sadly, as long as they are in slabs, I think a large percentage of buyers wouldn't care. Lastly, I thoroughly enjoyed the interview and would recommend watching it in its entirety. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Therefore rubbing sugar, gum and wax stains or wiping bird droppings off a card is not considered restoration, but a card on which Alan Rosen's "magic potion" had been used would definitely be considered restored, i.e. altered in card terminology. :) |
Quote:
+1 Exactly how i feel. I tried but had to skip to the 1:06 mark . Made me want to edit the soda drinker out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Every 200 posts there must be a card; Read the damn rules , lawyers !
|
Quote:
|
As someone who grew up in the 90s and had a small understanding of the events that took place, it was an interesting listen (whether he was telling the truth or not).
Do I think anything different of Bill Mastro? No. He still was a terrible person in the hobby (in my opinion). Kudos for Brian to have an interview with him, but the way he was fan boying the whole time in the interview drove me nuts. He is not a good interviewer. His personality of "I need to constantly talk and express my opinion" does not fit for an interviewer. But I can see why Bill took the interview, because Brian basically kissed the ground he walked on for two hours. One other little thing that really bugged me was every time Brian took a sip of his drink, he licked in lips with a lot of emphasis. Drove me nuts. Eric B. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But the usage of any solvents should get you the dreaded Purple label from CGC if the graders were of course on the ball that day. ;) |
Quote:
|
An interesting and now very controversial question. For 25+ years the definite guide to restoration procedures could be found in the annual Overstreet Price Guide. Then CGC came around in 2000 and unbeknown to all but a few dealers close to CGC, their definition of restoration did not include all the procedures included in Overstreet's guide to restoration. Most contentious was pressing.
As a result, those dealers close to CGC had comics cleaned and pressed and got Blue(unrestored) labels for the comics they'd submitted to CGC. But buyers of these early slabs were under the impression that the comics contained were unrestored under Overstreet's previous guidelines to comic restoration. This of course gave those dealers who were close to CGC a tremendous and very unfair advantage in the marketplace. Nonetheless, CGC classifies trimming as well as cleaning with solvents as restoration and in particular notes any trimming detected on the label (or so I understand). |
What's also interesting is stamp collecting started way back in the 1840's which is far earlier than trade card or comic collecting. Are there any stamp collectors on this board who can tell us what can be done to stamps without raising hackles/alarm bells?
:confused: |
I've always found it odd to compare restoration in the fine art world to restoration of baseball cards. The two are incomprable. A one of a kind painting being restored and preserved is not even remotely similar to a mass produced baseball card where the market places a value difference between cards of different conditions. It's literally the condition that gives the card its value, relative to other copies of the same card. So no, it's nothing like restoring a one of a kind painting.
The better analogy would be the ephemera market. A movie poster, or advertisement that was mass produced. Altering and restoring those things will decrease the value compared to a similarly conditioned untouched copy. Or if you insist on fine art, a statue cast from a mold, where hundreds of copies exist. If Remington's famous Broncho Buster statue had the cowboy's arm broken off and glued back on, take a guess of it's value compared to an unrestored version. |
Quote:
LOL just recalling the Brent Huigens nonsense about "conservation." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And yes, it's a slippery slope, and there's no perfect definition of what is material alteration and what isn't that will satisfy everyone, I get that. But that doesn't invalidate the overarching point. I can have a valid general principle even if I can't perfectly and consistently apply it in every case. And anyhow, disclosure is the perfect solution, let people decide for themselves if they care. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
At the same time, a couple of cautionary tales come to mind, where disclosure has become meaningless: 1) In the great state of CA, there are disclosures on just about everything about how it may cause cancer. They've grown so ubiquitous that they're meaningless. I could see a situation where just about every card includes some throwaway disclosure like, "This card may have been altered by a previous owner." Obviously, once it's everywhere, it starts to lose its potency, and buyers would probably no longer care. 2) As one of my accounting professors used to say, "If you want to hide something in your financial statements, put it in the footnotes, because no one ever reads them." While it's not a thing today, it's not inconceivable to have a long list of boilerplate for every item at auction. If the boilerplate is long enough, you could disclose just about anything in there, and no one would ever read it. Just to be clear, I don't condone card doctoring. I don't doctor cards myself (except in industry-approved fashion, like trimming down a card that is intended to be hand cut, like a 71 Bazooka). And I do support disclosure of any work done to a card, because knowing is half the battle. But sometimes I do like to poke the bear. And in this case, I do worry that disclosure might not lead to the outcomes we might hope to accomplish. |
I think you're overcomplicating it. It's not going to bury collectors to add one line to an auction, I used Kurt's Card Care to clean some residue off this card, or, this card was stained and I used X to remove it.
|
It takes me about 1 second to write "card is trimmed". It should take less than 1 second for the buyer to read that.
Honest disclosure is very, very easy and uncomplicated. The reasons people try to come up with to justify not telling the truth are usually pretty funny though. |
Quote:
Naturally, as much as we're in favor of disclosure, I don't see any rush by sellers to go there. Obviously (at least to my knowledge) there's nothing to disclose with the stuff that I'm selling. Conversely, the people who know they have stuff to disclose are the least motivated and least likely to disclose it, for all the obvious reasons. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Figures this topic would bring 237 posts in 5 days.
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:31 PM. |