I estimated that it went from about a $35k card to a $75k card just by cleaning off some gunk.

Lesson learned? Clean off your gunk before submitting or it might cost you $40k.

We're not going to see eye to eye here, so I'll just respond to your direct points and move on.

I see a difference between what's "allowed" and what's simply accepted with a shrug because it's too difficult to police and business is good.

Frankly, I'm not that fussy about cards for my personal collection. You can soak them, spray them, glue them, tape them, roll them, dip them, or touch them up with crayon. But I respect that other collectors might not feel that way. If I know something's been done to one of my cards that might make a prospective buyer/trader uneasy, I'll disclose it.

No, and I directly addressed this earlier. This is a bad analogy because there's no real market for unwashed used cars. There is a large market for unwashed cards that haven't been touched up with mystery spray, even if you think those people are dumb.

In a far-fetched scenario where you know I'm in the market for a dirty car and you sell me a washed one anyway without disclosing it... yes, I'm comfortable calling you a fraudster.

All that said, I'm an imperfect being. I probably wouldn't lose sleep at night if I trimmed a card to 50/50 perfection, fuzzied the corners a bit to bring it to that PSA 4-5 sweet spot, snuck it through their alteration detectors, and sold it to you at 500% comps. You'd be happy as a clam and I'd have money in my pocket.

It's not actually fraud if we all look the other way, right? Trees falling in the forest and such.

How so? What do you think doesn't add up? That it wouldn't have survived in even as nice condition as when Ray sold it to Mastro? That it has a Piedmont back? That there's no provenance pre Ray or a relative acquiring it in Florida?

For whatever reason, the TPGs (and PSA in particular) have moved the goalposts on centering over the years. In the beginning, it was not uncommon to see cards with 85-15 centering receiving grades of 5 and 6, as long as the corners were sharp and there were no creases.

Over time, they have changed their standards. It used to be that the grade was primarily based on the amount of wear/damage the card had endured. Only later, did their grading shift to incorporate centering, print flaws, fish eyes, and other aspects pertaining to the cards' original production.

Just look at some of the earliest PSA-graded examples if you dispute this.

So the notion that "it doesn't matter if you can't detect the difference" applies to real but worked on cards, but not to counterfeits? That's fine, but doesn't that undercut the rationale for the former? We're just doing Socratic method here on that position, not suggesting it's exactly the same.

Respectfully, you missed my point and may not have understood why I made the reply I did. Also, I haven't even suggested "it doesn't matter if you can't detect the difference."
Chris

It was not my intent to mischaracterize what you said. What distinction were you attempting to draw then with counterfeits? I brought up fake Rolexes, and Greg brought up fake currency, to test the proposition some were floating (not you apparently) that it didn't matter if you couldn't detect it. But you called that a nonsequitur. So kindly explain.

The market clearly values cleaned cards more than it values dirty ones. The used car market is no different. Clean used cars sell for more than dirty ones. The only reason you see fewer dirty cars for sale is because everyone knows how to clean a car, but not everyone knows how to clean their cards. As more and more people learn how to do it, it'll become less and less taboo. People are simply afraid of what they don't understand. They think soaking a card should damage it somehow. But they're wrong.

And if they're slabbed, the market values trimmed cards whose grade has been improved by trimming more than the prior untrimmed versions. And therefore what?

It's all of that put together. Plus the fact that his story changed multiple times. And everyone involved just seems shady to begin with. And multiple experienced dealers claiming that they passed on the card when being offered it at the time. The provenance is a big problem to me.

On the other hand, has anyone who has seen the card questioned its authenticity as period?

Trimmed cards are a whole other ball of wax. Unlike with cleaned cards, there is often a very real risk involved if you buy a trimmed card in a slab (depending on if it's detectable or not). If you damage that slab and can't get it to pass grading again, you could be out a substantial amount of money. This is also why I avoid early PSA cert numbers, as those cards generally carry a similar risk due to them almost all being significantly over graded by today's standards. If you damage the slab of a PSA 7 T206 Cy Young with cert # 0635xxxx, it's apart guaranteed to regrade as a 5 today. This risk is not present with cleaned cards though. You can send those off for grading and they'll pass every time.

Why would a slab get damaged? That doesn't seem like a major risk, unless I suppose if you're lugging them to shows all the time.

I forget who it was, but I've read more than one account from dealers who claim they were offered the card before Mastro sold it but they passed on it because they believed it wasn't authentic.

If you can find that please post.

Ted was one of them...here's the thread where much of it was discussed:

https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=2284949

Corey has an interesting post later on where he talks about looping the Plank from the batch.

Sure. The OP was all about Kurts cleaning cards and so the debate was about whether its ethical to do things to cards that would get them back more to their original state. I only objected to the counterfeit thing because its original state is not legitimate (aka fake). I didn't see the comparison. Just IMO

" If by definition you “don’t know” that you may be collecting an altered card - and that doesn’t stop you - well then it must not be too big of a problem then is it?"

This is what I was responding to -- not from you.

Can't tell and can't tell from the <1 minute they spend at a grading company are very different.

Complains in 147 about irrelevant comparisons, makes an irrelevant comparison a couple posts later.....

Having been priced out of a big chunk of the hobby, I really hate these threads.

Rather than go over to the dark side, lets do this.
If you believe the alterations done with the magic spray, a stick from the art store and a meth pipe are undetectable, send one my way and lets find out for real.

I wouldn't say I hate these threads, but I can empathize with the fact of feeling jaded. Not that I'm not happy for people making money, but some of these numbers being thrown out are obscene. The majority of the time we're talking about alteration in the Hobby, it's with cards that I'm so wildly priced out of. Don't get me wrong, I love the hobby and love looking at the Pre-War side of things. I'm fascinated by these cards, but they're a pipe dream at best.

When Travis, mentioned the price of the Wagner increasing to 75K, I thought "Wow that card is more than my entire years salary."

It's only partly how much everything costs now, even on the lower end.

It's more that people are making a lot doing fairly easy shady stuff.

Fair.

Hi Peter. That was me.

If I can expand a bit - No, if I'm looking at a card with obviously thin borders in a PSA 8 slab, I don't throw caution to the wind there, and say well. It's not altered because it's in the slab. There is a Mantle base card I know of in a PSA 10 slab that has suspiciously thin borders; but I digress.

I guess I was trying to draw a distinction between altered cards (I'm fine with using Kurt's methods as the example, since so many obviously tend to lean toward that being across the line) that at least currently cannot be detected, or cannot be detected definitively and/or easily.

I'm sure it's different for each person. Does it "not matter" only if you cannot tell yourself that the card "definitely' was altered before you add it to your collection? Or is hearsay about what did or did not happen to the card with it's previous owner or handler come into play? How much provenance is required?

Asking again as my only point here is that given current methods today, the "act" can usually be separated from the evidence it does or does not leave behind. And the major point of judgment on whether or not a card is "altered" continues to be tied to the physical evidence and what a grader does or does not say, or what a discerning collector can or cannot see regardless of a pronouncement on a flip. Until the technology improves, much of the discussion remains academic - even if we all agree Card Doctors Bad / the act itself even in abstentia remains deplorable.

Not sure if anyone cares at this point, but I suggested that it doesn't matter. That's not entirely accurate. My point was more to suggest the difficulty / current lack of concern in linking the two is problematic. It would be much easier for graders and collectors with any morals to point out "this was bad, and here's proof of how it was bad I can show you even much later..."

For what it is worth by my earlier quip logic - if a Rolex was entirely fake and you "can't tell" I think that places this situation in the same boat. We can deplore fake Rolex makers for the act, but in the meantime a lot of fake Rolexes may trade as authentic with nobody much the wiser.

Couldn't agree more.:) Unless there is a HUGE red flashing light or the card doctor was a blind drunk third grader. The quick look many graders take isn't going to catch much.

Now that the auction is over, I'll post a picture of a correctly graded card and ask:

Would you buy this, break it out, soak it, send it in for grading, and then sell it?

The card is graded a "1" due to the crud on the back. Watching Kurt's videos, I'm sure the crud could be easily removed.


The card has nice centering and could probably come back graded a 3.5 (or better). The price difference could be up to $1K (from the price for a "1").

Worst case, if it came back AUTH due to someone detected the soaking, you could still probably break even on the card because it has very nice visual appeal.

The final hammer (with BP, but no taxes or shipping added) was $900.

Any guesses if we'll see this card cracked, soaked, resubmitted and back to an AH? Probably better to just sell it without the AH this time around.



Attachment 606580

I personally would not but I don't see how it would be any different than buying a house, fixing it up and flipping it.

You can live in a House, you can't live in a Joe DiMaggio card :D

A house with the value of most Joe DiMaggio cards would need a LOT of work before you could live in it.:eek::D

I guess the incoming argument will be that people know the house has been renovated/remodeled.
I can see that side too.
Sticky (haha) subject

Chris,

I see your point and am not debating anything here (and I realize you're not trying to start a debate).

I was merely wondering what people thought about the question in post #178.

My opinion doesn't matter, but here it is.

I don't see anything wrong with a little "cleaning". For example erasing pencil marks and things like that. I never realize soaking could do as much as it did. I've only soaked one card. It was a T200 team card that was adhered to a page in a book. The card came off the page, but my impatience probably resulted in a few extra creases in the card. Lesson learned, you better be patient if you're going to soak. Do I see soaking as a problem? Still not sure about that one yet and if there are affects on the card material if something other than nice clean water is used

I do not support ANY kind of trimming. I still think TPGs should only give numerical grades to Zeenuts that have the coupon (for, example). Also, TPGs should avoid assigning numerical grades to cards razor sharp corners that don't meet the standard size requirement. I get it, people think there's a lot of variation in card sizes. I say, yes, but why is it that many cards with razor sharp corners are assigned numerical grades. The TPGs should err on the side of caution and rethink the grading philosophy.

Taking out creases? I've seen this going on for 40+ years. I remember the first time someone showed me how to do it. I was a bit surprised and tried it on a few new cards with great success. I don't have it in me to try it on true vintage cards. In many cases I can spot a card with a crease removed and cringe when I see it, especially in a graded holder.

If material (cardboard/ink) is added in anyway, then that's just wrong unless it's disclosed during a sale or through grading, but I can't imagine anybody would just tell the TPG about it because usually they're trying to get it slipped past the TPG. Counter to that, removing ink in an effort to create an error card is just wrong - I couldn't imagine anybody disagreeing with that. It's for that reason I'd never buy a graded T206 "nodgrass" error card.

This may be true for certain alterations, like subtle recoloring, a rebuilt corner done professionally, or a bad trim job, but for most of the stuff we're taking about in this thread (e.g., soaking or cleaning cards like the Wagner), you could stare at it for hours and you're not going to find evidence of the fact that it was cleaned because there's nothing there to detect.

Maybe the big borders crowd needs to also start insisting on buying them dirty to make sure that they haven’t also been soaked….

Yes, the buyer will certainly be attempting to clean this card up. Nearly every time a card like this gets auctioned, the buyer is someone that believes they can fix it. Cards like this sell closer to their potential, as opposed to their current state. They almost never sell for "comps" because people who know how to clean them compete against each other and will always outbid someone who is just bidding on the card with no intentions to improve it.

No, I did not win the card. But I do know who did.

As for whether it will end up back at an auction house in the near future in a higher slab? My guess is no, it won't. The buyer picked it up for their PC.

Should this card be soaked?
 

I recently "upgraded" the SweetCap460-25 in my T206Elberfeld,Washington Fielding back run. I decided that I preferred the 2.5 despite the grime over the 5, which looks altered. So, now I am curious if the Snowman thinks the 2.5 would benefit from soaking?

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1706014626
https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1706014631
https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1706014637
https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1706014641

The 2.5 could be improved, but it likely wouldn't result in a grade bump. Just an eye appeal improvement.

The 5 may have been cleaned at some point. I would say it's more likely than not. Whether it has been trimmed or not is difficult to say from a scan though.

I could've sworn somewhere I read it was a strip of like 8 cards, but I won't swear to it.

It would be immensely helpful if we could ever show anything about this alleged item. Even if it's just a list of the other minty cards that were present, we might be able to align with other evidence and gain a bit more information on sheets.

T card sheets/sheet remnants are incredibly rare and it is unfortunate the baseball ones seem to get destroyed so quickly that they aren't even photographed first, leaving non-baseball sheets/remnants as the bulk of demonstrable uncut evidence.

A lot of what Kurt does is way beyond cleaning.

I don't see a problem with cleaning, I wouldn't try with the card from post 178, because some white glues don't dissolve with water. I might try a bit of water and a q tip to see if it will. But that would be a coin toss on wasting the money to reslab it.

Undetectable? maybe on some sets. Not on all sets.
The way curt presses out creases and other damage is almost for sure detectable.
And I've offered to prove it, with no takers.

A $15 coinflip for a gain of $1000? if it cleans up seems like a pretty easy decision from an EV standpoint.

I agree that pressing out creases is detectable. But Kurt doesn't press them out. Ever. In fact he expressly states numerous times that to do so is a bad idea and damages cards. He only adds moisture to the cards and then let's them dry slowly. Usually, the creases he works on do look somewhat better, but they rarely disappear. They typically just look more relaxed.

Did you even watch the video with the 86 Jordan?

Soak, poke at the crease with an artists blending stick, smooth with a glass tube on a stick, press between glass to dry out.
All that is right there in the video.

I can't see that as anything but pressing out a crease. Is it still visible in the video? Yes, a bit. But there's little enough that it would change the grade. If missed it would be a drastic change.

PSA 4 to PSA 7:

https://youtube.com/shorts/yM8EDunuN...BxrlCbAkVRCuQo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

If we have reached the point where people justify that, then I don't recognize what this hobby has become. We used to value the relative worth of cards on how well they had survived whatever they had been through, not who could do the slickest job of fixing them. What the (*&^& ever happened to originality?

Not long ago it was really just the one guy defending such conduct here, but after this thread there is apparently a large and growing contingent here who are openly in favor of any fraud, altering and misrepresentation that can be gotten away with now. I'd pretend to be surprised but $$$ > anything.

I'm resigned to it and acknowledge it, but I still hate it. It shifts the focus completely from originality to who can do the most and get away with it. And people twist themselves into pretzels to justify or downplay it.

I don't know, I think this is great for all of us commoner collectors. Now we don't need a million dollars to build a million dollar collection. We just need a box of creased cards, $20 worth of Kurt's Card Cream and our own sweat and blood. How much better can it get!

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Yes, I watched the video. He does not press it out at any point. He is not applying pressure to press it down. That's the difference. When people press out a crease, they literally soak the card and the smash the shit out of it with a spoon or a roller and try to smash it flat. He's not doing that. He's getting it wet and allowing the card stock to rise naturally. It's like working on a sponge that dried with something sitting on top of it and now has a dent in it. If you get the sponge wet, it will retake it's natural shape. Card stock is similar. That's all Kurt does.

The vast majority of collectors are completely OK with this. They've just been scared to express their opinions publicly because people like you are out there with pitchforks trying to crucify anyone who doesn't see things the same way as you. It takes someone like me who doesn't give two Fs about what others think of me to call it like it is. You can continue to call it fraud until the cows come home, but that will never make it actual fraud. You're in the minority here. It is what it is.