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.

Putting aside the question whether a chemical that does not change the look, feel or smell is an alteration, it none of those things are taking place, then why on earth is someone willing to pay somebody to apply to apply such a chemical?

No one has addressed my original questions. I've seem enough scumbaggery within this hobby to not put it above somebody to drive down bidding with unfounded allegations. I have no dog in the fight and don't know anyone in the hobby. I find the timing of the post interesting; the auction has been open for weeks and the post occurs two days before it is due to end. Why wait if you have evidence or inside information? People have bid been tens of thousands of dollars on the cards that they may have not have bid on if this allegation was made earlier. Why does the title of the post have a ? at the end if he is sure? How could PSA miss a rebuilt corner on the Cobb? I think these are all legitimate questions.

Jeff has made his opinion crystal clear. As to the (?) in the OP, I think that was his way of inviting conversation. I welcome such post before an auction ends rather than after.

In the art world it is perfectly acceptable to remove old varnish and layers of dirt and nicotine using solvents. Holding baseball cards to a higher standard than masterpiece paintings seems a bit much.

These pieces of art are 1 of a kind original masterpieces...so without preservation they would be gone...whilst most baseball cards were mass produced...kinda like artist lithographs...which would not be as acceptable to clean/preserve in my opinion.

A vintage bb card that is a one of a kind would likely receive less scrutiny if restored/cleaned...like the just so young.

Maybe it's just me, but ...

To be honest, I don't see soaking in water as any different than using another chemical. The ultimate intent is to remove something you don't want on the card for whatever the reason - for it to sit in your collection, for financial gain, etc. What does it matter if it's a chemical instead of water?

I'm willing to concede that some chemicals may cause harm to the card over the years, but that's another discussion. If we're talking about altering cards for deceitful purposes (assuming there's no disclosure), aren't soaking in water and chemicals pretty much the same thing?

Is soaking/chemical removal okay? That's up to each individual person to decide. But frankly, I just don't see the difference since the intent is exactly the same - to improve the quality of the card.

The intent of soaking in water can be just to get the cards out of a scrapbook in the first place.

It's all a question of what is considered acceptable in the community. Probably for the reasons Pete says, restoration that is undisclosed has never been considered acceptable, and originality is of paramount importance, in the card community.

That's true, but it's still altering the card from it's current state, isn't it?

Soaking a card in water with glued paper on the back is still altering the card from its current condition. The card was glued and has residue/paper now stuck to it. I am removing that residue/paper and that changes the card (in my mind). It wasn't intended to be there but neither were ink marks, stains, etc. that are removed by chemical.

I don't know, maybe I'm splitting hairs here. But I consider that pretty much the same thing.

I have no issue with being as purist, but at the same time I would point out that soaking out of a scrapbook is (I think) generally accepted by the community whereas most other things are not.

Oh yeah, I totally agree with you, Peter. It's definitely considered to be more acceptable. I just don't necessarily think it should be.

And as full disclosure here, I've soaked cards in water but haven't used any other chemicals, etc., so this definitely isn't a holier than thou kick against soakers. :) I just have a hard time separating the two as much as the majority.

I assume one rationale for the distinction is that water is not generally believed to adversely affect the integrity of the underlying card whereas chemical solvents (using the term in its common sense) generally are believed to do so. But it's probably hard to articulate a distinction that one couldn't find some fault with.

Peter, if there were a chemical solvent that could remove any stain, tape residue, ink, etc and research proved that it was totally undetctable and had no long term effects, would that be acceptable to you?

Peter?

(Anybody else can answer the question as well)

David- if it were totally undectable, how would anybody even know it was used?

Exactly, Barry! That's the same statement Dick Towell makes about his service - that the TPGs (or anybody else for that matter) can't detect it. So why is DT taking so much crap!?!

Obviously the idea that some kind of restoration can be done to improve a card without detection does not sit well with collectors who spend a lot of money on high grade cards. I can't speak for everyone, but that certainly bothers people.

Because he is enabling fraud. And i do not for a minute believe they could not detect it if they tried hard enough. Ask Steve B. and read his post from yesterday. Ask people who really know paper. Dick Towle does not have magic potions that defy the laws of nature. He and his clients are taking advantage of a flawed grading system and limited detection capabilities. David you are engaged in magical thinking.

Including YOU, I hope.

You said yesterday you did not approve of crease/wrinkle removal. Suppose someone could do it in a way that the TPGs could not detect. Happens all the time, actually. So do you now think that's fine?

If DT says that it can't be detected by a TPG, I take him at his word. Do you know of any cards a TPG has rejected as a result of DT's process? The cards seem to make it past PSA and SGC. If his process was being detected by TPGs, don't you think the word would get around and those that send him cards in hopes of better grades would stop doing so?

I'll answer your question as ridiculously as you answered mine: Peter, you are engaged in magical thinking. :D

Are you serious? This is not an all or nothing endeavor. Suppose half the cards, or a quarter, make it through. Do you have any idea how much money is involved? David in your zeal to be contrarian you are not making good arguments here.

Only because you keep pushing this silly discussion. :D

If I'm pushing it, it's because you won't answer my question as it was worded. I asked "Peter, if there were a chemical solvent that could remove any stain, tape residue, ink, etc and research proved that it was totally undetctable and had no long term effects, would that be acceptable to you?"

Instead of giving me a yes or no answer, you just say that you "not for a minute believe they could not detect it if they tried hard enough."

How about answering the question as asked - with a yes or a no?

David, I think the hypothetical is magical thinking, but no, I would not consider it acceptable just because it couldn't be detected. That to me suggests that the better the fraud is, the more acceptable it is. Not going there.

So you're saying then that if such work is undetectable, it is okay to do so without disclosure, even though a prospective buyer would regard such information to be material to his/her decision whether or not to purchase the card?

If the answer is yes, then I repeat what I said yesterday; the logical extension of this argument is that it is okay to create cards. I don't agree with you that that is something different. Both instances -- new creation and alteration of an existing card without disclosure -- involve withholding material information that a prospective buyer would reasonably want to know in deciding whether to purchase the item and how much to pay.

And, as to Peter's point that such an argument is analogous to saying what's wrong with robbing a bank if the crime is never detected, I agree.

Fine, Peter. I respect your opinion. I feel otherwise and my position is based on the premises that his work is undetectable as has been proven so far. If at some point it is proven that it is detectable, I would feel different. Until then, that’s where I stand. Thanks for the discussion.

How has that been proven, David? We have no information one way or the other about what percentage of his doctored cards get through. Have you made an extensive study of his clients' PSA or SGC submissions?

Your question is based on the assumption that the buyer would want to know as if might influence his/her purchasing decision. If it were me, and I was buying a card that had had a stain removed and there was absolutely no trace, I couldn't care less and it wouldn't make a difference in my buying decision one way or another.

Let me turn the question around on you. So, let's say you're buying a card that had a stain removed, but there was absolutely no detectable trace. What difference does it make in your purchasing decision if you (or anyone else) can't tell?

Whether or not the work itself is ethical is a fine line. It sounds like the problem many have is that people are then submitting these cards for grading without disclosing the alteration. Since they pass grading they are then sold as authentic and unaltered for large sums of money. This is where the problem lies.

Just because you can get away with something doesn't mean you should.

I haven't heard of one person come forward and say that his process has been detected by TPGs. In this hobby, word of mouth would spread quickly.

Let me know when that happens.

David- I'll ask you a question:

Suppose you bought a baseball card in an 8 holder and paid $5000 for it. Then sometime afterwards you discovered it once resided in a 4 holder because of a light crease and a tiny stain. The card was worked on, and the work was so good that it was undectable and thus graded an 8. And you also discovered that when it sold in a 4 holder, it went for $500. Would you still feel that since the work was undetectable, you would be entirely comfortable with the transaction?

Oh please, the people who use his services are going to come on here and admit it? I tried to get an altered card by PSA, but that damn Towle let me down!! And no word of mouth does not spread quickly when people have incentive to cover up. The vast majority of the hobby has no idea the extent of fraud.

Barry, the way your question is worded, yes, I would feel very uncomfortable with the transaction.

Now, take out the words 'light crease' with the rest of the question being the same, and I have absolutely no problem with it.

Sure, why not? I have never used his service, but I would have no problem admitting so if I did.

Let's put it to the test though, Peter. Let's give him a try and then submit the results to PSA and SGC and see what heppens. Want to give it a shot, or do you just want to complain about it?

Wait, I thought I was trying to keep the prices down with my first post and now you're saying that I could have kept them down even more by posting weeks ago? Where were you when I needed help?

PS -- I'm still refusing to put my full name on my posts and there's not a thing you can do to stop me.

I feel perfectly justified in complaining about the enabling of fraud, David. And I would not pay him a dime, for anything.

It'll be on my dime. How about that? :cool:

Please show before and after pictures along with a copy of the receipt. You do that and I will show my altered Blue Hank Aaron in a SGC slab with a # grade.