When I read it last night, it definitely sounded you were replying to “other notorious card doctors” with a list of auction houses as examples. Peter and Al were very nice to allow you to clarify.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

So Heritage has "in-house card doctors" but they don't alter cards? That one, I don't follow?

The post I was responding to implied that PWCC was a notorious "card doctor" because doctored cards were regularly sold on their platform. My point was that none of them are immune. It's just part of the territory if you're an auction house. It's like the "shill-bidding" accusations against PWCC. It's ridiculous. Any consignment company that sells on eBay has "individuals associated with them" who were found to be shill bidding. And every auction house deals with this problem. Again, it just comes with the turf.

I thought it should have been obvious when I listed eBay first on my list. Surely, nobody thought that I was accusing eBay employees of doctoring cards.

They clean cards and remove stains. They don't, at least to my knowledge, trim, recolor, or rebuild corners or anything like that.

We're just quibbling over our differences of the definition of "altered". I am using the definition that the grading companies use in practice, which is that cleaned cards and soaked cards are acceptable and will receive numeric grades if they are cleaned properly. They all allow cleaned cards. Just look at the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of cards with white borders and beat-to-hell corners and other obvious significant surface wear that are graded as numeric. Those graders aren't stupid. You can't get a beat-up-looking card with white borders without cleaning it. Yet, they allow it. Every time. What they don't allow is a card with some soap scum on it or one that looks like it lost a 12-round title fight with a jug of Clorox.

I don't think they actually allow it anymore than they allow trimmed, recolored, creased removed, rebuilt cards to pass grading. If the job is done well enough or the work done is not actually detectable, they might not catch it or maybe it is that they catch it almost 100% of time except for submitters who have those privileges.

Unless the grading companies are complicit in that they see the work done and look the other way and slap a number on the card, responsibility is with the submitter (assuming he/she did the work) or the person submitting the card for the person who did the work. Not the cops' fault is they do not stop a robbery in progress.

I don't know how often they detect trimming, recoloring, crease removals, or rebuilt corners, but I can provide insight into how often I've had cards rejected for cleaning because that number is zero. I've cleaned thousands of cards. I've literally never had a single card ever once rejected by any grading company for me having cleaned it. Not once. That said, I also don't use anything that would damage the card or leave behind some sort of residue. Surely there are people out there who are in fact damaging cards because they don't know what they're doing and I'm sure the grading companies are flagging those with at least some degree of accuracy.

That's not an answer to my question. Why are you calling them "card doctors" if you don't think they're doctoring cards?

Because I'm not equating "card doctoring" with "altering cards". I think you can "doctor" a card in both acceptable and unacceptable manners.

Then why did you even mention it in your post? It was obviously meant to be provocative. Plus, you surely know the negative connotation of the term card doctor. So you must consider yourself a card doctor if you're doing acceptable things to cards?

So I guess the word “notorious” is ambiguous as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

In the near future, a card doctor may simply be someone who heals cards.

Someone from Snowman's corner throw in the towel.

I would love to see the evidence that the following are all "notorious card doctors": eBay, Probstein, Heritage, Goldin, REA, Mile High, LotG.

Of course, this won't be done because while there is some truth to a couple of those, the claim is presumably intentionally outrageous and wrong to obfuscate and switch direction away from PWCC, for which this poster frequently shills when he isn't claiming he can read strangers minds and tell their sins because he is a gambler.

Not every claim should be taken seriously.

Serious question. Do you ever add anything of value to any conversation? Or do you just stick to trolling at all times?

That is actually a hilarious question coming from you of all the members here, Travis.

By the way, you never answered me what size shirt I should order for you.

gfy

I find many of his answers extremely hilarious.

In case anyone doesn’t know what this means, here it is in Morse Code
:p

--. --- / ..-. ..- -.-. -.- / -.-- --- ..- .-. ... . .-.. ..-.

Ben I do too. He is very amusing.

Good for you ?
Great food yum ?
Giants Flyers Yankees ?
Gluten free yogurt

“Cleaning”

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...2dc504cee7.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...cfd1077e55.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yep a great example of "soaking" a card. It is why so many do it.

My card took two aspirin and felt fine the next morning.

Me thinks some of those wrinkles on Mays will come back over time. But I don't have any experience with removing creases like that so maybe I am wrong.
.

I am sure the defenders and contrarians will defend this. To me, it's just wrong unless disclosed.

They're still there. They didn't go away. The light angle is just different so you can't see them as clearly, and the wrinkles are less severe now that the card has regained some of its shape by introducing moisture. But I guarantee you these creases did not disappear.

In the top photo, the light source is placed parallel to the card surface, which highlights creasing (if you don't do this when self-grading your cards, you should). In the second photo, the light source is above and to the right, which hides the creases.

Completely agree.... the differences you see are more a function of lighting and clever photography than Kurt's Card Care. I'd estimate about 75% of the supposed "difference" is positioning of the light source and maybe 25% is the soaking (much of which will revert back over time).

He has shown some before and afters where he claims he simply sprayed the stuff on the card and clamped it under those pieces of plexiglass and the wrinkles vanished. Cards went SGC/PSA 3s to SGC/PSA 7s.

Posted this before and will post it again. I want to see what Kurt is doing to those cards after he stops taking the video...you know...the time while the card is drying. I just cannot believe one gets a 4 grade bump with Kurt's spray.

In general, the rumor that you can just soak or spray some magic sauce on a card with creases and then watch those creases vanish it's a farse. If you look closely at most of Kurt's before & after photos, or better yet by watching his videos, you'll see that the vast majority of creases he's worked on are still there. They just look better. Only certain types of creases, usually very minor ones, can truly disappear by adding moisture. It can happen, but it's certainly the exception, not the rule. And if you have a large crease on a card, that's not going to come out no matter what you do.

Correct if a crease breaks the paper you can spay, spit, and massage all you want if it broke the paper, which these creases in the 1970 Willie Mays does it isn't coming out.

???

You were fine when Jolly soaked his Mays card. With all well-deserved respect, what is the difference here?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Agree with you that a lot of it is angles or different lighting but I have seen at least two videos where cards had more than a minor wrinkle and the card went from graded 3s to graded 6s or 7s. I hate referring to something like this without being able to link the back up but no time for me to look right now.

I am not saying that Kurt is doing more to the cards than what he is showing because I do not know him and have no proof but I am stating I would like to know if he is because 3 to 7 is a big bump and as you allude to, wrinkles do not vanish with spraying and drying.

You would be amazed what a soaking and a little pressing will do after some practice. There is a easy way to tell if a card has had the creases removed by soaking. Bad part is the card owner will blame you for creasing their card when you are just bringing back old creases.

Darren used only water on a minor dent, and would disclose it. This dude used some top sercret chemical bath on a shitload of major creases, and doubtless without disclosure. If you think that's the same thing, fine, but I don't.

You're making quite a few assumptions here. First, I don't believe this card was even worked on by Kurt at all. I could be wrong, but I believe it was just a card that one of his followers sent him before and after pics of, and Kurt shared it because he thought it was cool. Second, you don't need Kurt's spray to achieve those results. He probably just soaked it in water. Why waste money on expensive "card spray" for a card that is worth less than the spray itself would have cost? Third, whoever did soak the card clearly didn't do it in an attempt to "scam" some would be buyer. This was obviously just a science experiment. Someone was just having fun with the most trashed card they could find and wanted to share the results.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...92c905fbcc.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You start your post by saying someone made quite a few assumptions in their post, and then you proceed to make three assumptions of your own in your post. Based on the post after yours, it appears that your first assumption was correct but the second one was wrong. Hard to tell about the third.

LOL, that is awesome. Someone used an expensive spray to soak a card in when just plain water will do the exact same thing.

Back when Mastro was going full-bore, Doug Allen went very public stating that they would 'repair' any card with wrinkles and creases before submitting for grading. And look what happened to him.

There is no way to really know. If we could find out I would bet the farm it is the majority that do it and not just a few. Card soaking is an accepted practice on here. It is by far the easiest to do and gives the best bang for the buck by a mile when it comes to making a card look better.

Didn't Doug get most of his time for being a moron after getting busted and not what he actually done in the card world?

Peter, absolutely correct. I believe the FBI agent who interviewed him wore a wire and Doug perjured himself. I bring up the wrinkle erasing as an example of where his moral compass stood at the time. But he has served his time, and I hope he is rebuilding his life in a more productive manner.

You're not recalling that right.


https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/...vist-of-fbi-r/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2014/...osecutors-say/

I have been against card doctoring in all of its many forms, but this video has completely changed my mind. Peter, I’m leaving the island. Frosty, I’m taking a boat to the mainland!

https://youtu.be/hO5lTeA4iGE?si=rX7V9zYL82KWRWuE

“.. Guaranteed to change the grade of your card “ 😬

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...here we go. Well it has been a week since the last rabbit hole.

You seem to be conflating making assumptions with making predictions. There is a difference between making explicit claims without evidence based on assumptions and making predictions based on observable evidence and logic. There is also a difference in the language Peter used and the language I used above.

Peter made explicit claims about what Kurt did to a card, without evidence, when it wasn't even Kurt's card.

I used qualifiers like, "I don't believe ...", "I could be wrong, but I believe ...", "He probably just ..." to make predictions about what I believed most likely occurred.

Even my third claim, which I phrased as a certainty, was based on observable evidence (a completely trashed card with nearly as many creases as I have responses in this thread). A claim that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with, as I said, "whoever did soak the card clearly didn't do it in an attempt to "scam" some would-be buyer. This was obviously just a science experiment. Someone was just having fun with the most trashed card they could find and wanted to share the results."

If you want to argue that I couldn't possibly know his motives and that it is in fact likely that he was trying to "fix" that Mays in an effort to cash in on a payday, then you're being disingenuous. There's zero chance anyone here actually believes that.

Where did I say it was Kurt? I said "the dude", and as the Facebook post shows, "the dude" did indeed use a chemical bath. And if I had said Kurt, it would have been a reasonable assumption given that Kurt posted it.

You clearly believed and implied it was Kurt.

A prediction is something that you think will happen in the future not an explanation for why something happened in the past. Saying you "believe" something is an explanation of why you think someone did something which requires you to make an assumption about their motivation. You can't predict why someone did something after they did it.

According to you I made an "explicit" claim. Now you are talking about what I believed and "implied." You do know the difference between explicit and implicit I assume? And suppose I had "implied" that even though I obviously chose to use "the dude" rather than Kurt, even after I used Darren's name. Would that have been unreasonable given that it was Kurt who posted the before and after? Do you have a point here?

"This dude used some top sercret chemical bath on a shitload of major creases, and doubtless without disclosure."

The first cause is a claim to fact - and it appears undebatably true. The dude bathed it in Kurt's Spray, not water, according to the original source. Nobody seems able to deny this or offer any refutation, though one would like to.

The second clause is an opinion - the 'doubtless' denoting that it can not be proven but the poster has no doubt what will happen. Debatable, but it's a claim to future probability of what will happen with the card, "making predictions". A prediction is also a future speculation, not oft a claim to the past.

There's nothing to play logic with here. The assumption is that "the dude" = Kurt and the resulting false claim that "Peter made explicit claims about what Kurt did to a card, without evidence, when it wasn't even Kurt's card", which does not seem to appear in the actual statement.