My proposal
 

My proposal on this issue is that group of experts develop techniques and the use of scientific technology that can examine cards and judge if they have been altered. There are very sophisticated techniques used in other areas (art, antique artifacts) but not used in the sports hobby.

I envision the examination being done on expensive cards. At some point, enough expansive cards will have been examined that the onus will be on those who choose not to have theirs examined.

Documentation of provenance will be required.

I would prefer it not to be another $$-making business, as that obviously corrupts things, but more of an academic, non-profit entity. But that's lesser of an issue, as the development and use of the technology is what is important. And if grading companies wish to adopt the techniques that is fine.

As someone mentioned, it would be more of a scientific study giving reports, rather than a 'purple sticker' opinion service.

If you want more background on scientific methods used in different areas, see the following book.

Given that many high dollar cards require a $500 or $1,000 fee for the grade and review, I think a fundamental question is why this is not being done already.

Alas

+1

I anticipate someone eventually developing a software application (possibly even mobile) that could accurately assess cards' condition and possible alterations. Why isn't it being done now? People buy slabs, stickers, and flips.

Eventually, a TPG will implement software to grade cards. Not only will it remove the subjectivity (and potential liability), but it will also cut labor costs. However, they'll keep the application a tightly-guarded, proprietary secret, even though it will probably be using the same technology as the consumer mobile app.

Yes, I'm most likely full of crap. But you never know.

I don't think you can ever remove the subjectivity completely, though. I can understand having technology measure a card and maybe even detect certain alterations, but isn't there always subjectivity in deciding the difference between a 2 or 3 or between a 5 or 6? Is that something that can be programmed?

My question is often what is the difference between a 5 and a 9. I have 2 or 3 times sent in items I was 100 percent sure would grade high only to receive a 5 because of a crease so small that it could not be seen with a magnifying glass. Meanwhile, a card could have significant flaws and receive a 6 or 7. Who made up that rule? Also, the "1". I have some PSA 1's that are legitimately decent cards to look at. Yet, a card that goes through the washing machine also gets a 1. I don't understand this. Never have.

Yes. Even scientific results require human (preferably expert) judgement in interpreting it.

I'm talking about identifying altered cards, not grading, though. Grading has standards but also subjectivity.

As others have said, the subjectivity will always be a part of it. We all want 100% certainty, but try getting any expert to say that. I've been told that the only thing that a doctor will say on the stand with that degree of certainty is whether someone is alive or dead.

As a testifying expert witness, the standard that is applied is "within a reasonable degree of certainty" ... which is just fancy talk for "more likely than not." Basically, the expert is at least 51% sure. That is the standard here in civil courts. I suspect that level of certainty would not be thrilling for the objectivity sought by this type of investigation. That said, I like the idea.

I would totally support this sort of enterprise.

I'm not 100% sure of the provenance requirement, I have cards I bought 40 years ago and can recall in some but not all cases what dealer I bought them from. But that's not really solid provenance, as I don't know what their source was.

But even gathering some basic baseline data on all sets of cards would be a huge step forward.
I have basic equipment, and a just barely better then basic type collection, and could start almost right away.

I have already made a spreadsheet with images from Ebay showing a variety of print runs from the 49 Leaf common numbers set.
And I have some details on other sets.

Terjung sighting!

As I've said before, this is a grad student project. Maybe a team, but surely something that some students at one of our leading universities could tackle in short order. There are two keys, the first of which is to come up with a set of rules to grade the cards. Corner wear, wrinkles, creases, surface wear, centernedness (?), etc. And how do they add up to a grade. People keep saying that the human is required for 'subjectiveness', but isn't that what we want to eliminate? Consistency and a set of codified rules is what I want.

The second is a method to detect alterations - UV light, magnification, edge examination, ink patterns, etc. A couple of different sensors could accomplish this and then train the machine with a good set of unaltered cards (machine learning) and a set of known altered cards so that it can detect alterations. What are the min/max measurements of a factory cut. What should the edges look like? They should be at least as dirty/worn/frayed as the surface.

Both of these techniques could be automated and it would take the human part out of grading. No need to resubmit, looking for a bump. And it would take no more effort to grade a T206 than a 1978 Topps. Cost to grade would not be a function of the cost of the card.

if a company could do this, they could set up a registry for their own cards and include PSA (and SGC, Beckett, etc.) also, but levy a -2 pt bump on any card not graded by them.

This is not rocket science folks. We have carbon dating, we can find criminals through their relative's DNA samples, Facebook knows who is in your pictures before you tag them, cars can drive themselves and you can carry on a conversation with a $35 computer (Alexa). To have people still grading cards is like having a corded, rotary phone in your house. We can do better.

As I said in another thread, I think the "Purple Square" model will be the direction the card hobby is headed.

The slabbed coin market has had the "Green Bean" sticker for a decade now and it's fully entrenched to the point that many collectors will not buy a coin unless it's "Beaned".

The actual "Purple Square" may not be the one that catches on but there's definitely an opportunity for some hobby experts to create a market for an independent service.

Dear All
 

I think that David R Cycleback is on to something important. If someone were to develop a technology that detects alterations in sports cards, this would give a great opportunity to the first third party grading company that adopted it. Lots of incentives to put it into place.

On the memorabilia side, I look forward to the day when PSA DNA starts living up to its name and uses touch DNA to verify a game used bat or jersey.

Sneak Peek of Our New Product:

Purple Label, LLC brings you

The Silver Sticker

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...57569409_n.jpg


Affordable Alteration & Breached Slab Detection

Industry's First 4th Party Slab Verification

There are a lot more variables than you would think when it comes to alterations. The data on actual card size hasn't really even been gathered yet.
What's correct for a T206 isn't for a 1978 Topps.

And when you get to more modern cards, the edge quality can be different on different edges of the same card.
I can think of at least 4-5 sets that would be difficult, even for a computer, assuming it could do the imaging.

Consider a simple set. Something with no varieties, and few cards.
Maybe 78 Zest soap. Only 5 cards. And not expensive. Getting a nice high res scan for comparison wouldn't be hard, so far so good.
But for a device that compares things to see of they're exactly alike, if one has the magenta printed more towards the top than the blue, and the one the machine is grading doesn't, they will appear to be different. So you'll need some leeway for slight misregistration. say the scan is 1200dpi, that means you can measure the misregistration down to 1/1200th of an inch. Way finer than the factory guys could or would. How much misregistration is too much? And that needs to be figured for all four colors.

A slightly more complicated set?
Most of the early UD sets have at least two different holograms. And most scanners have a very difficult time imaging them. And scratches can make them sort of illegible.

More complicated?
88 Score has three different die cut patterns, and each color group has at least two different angles of screening.
T206 is not four colors, not even the usually claimed six, but more like eight. And the registration is usually off. And plate wear and inking levels and changes in the actual art add a bit more.
1993 UD has - for a portion of the set- three different gloss patterns. And they are really hard to image.
Most of the modern Gypsy queen sets have cards that are knife cut on at least one side, but die cut on the others. Another imaging challenge.

So there's 6 sets in a variety of complexity.

By the time the kids can code that and figure out how to do the imaging, I could probably authenticate thousands... And can teach someone else to do the same.

Good luck, currently I'll take people over the machine.

(Recently had a college get a grant to work on a project. 3 months, 30K. They accomplished... learning that one part was proprietary, and that the company wouldn't license it. And not much more. )

For whatever the outlying reason is, the real answer to head scratching questions is often, money. It wouldn't surprise me if technology wasn't already bought out by the current TPG's to keep it from being used.

Wouldn't surprise me either... Such technology would make it tougher to grant favorable grades to preferred entities. They need to retain that human element, in order to subversively keep their key customers fat and happy.

Just add one more piece to the puzzle of TPG corruption.

You make good points David - I had an art background before my law background and have always respected your opinions on that end. I get where you're coming from and support it. I want to say there should be a human element to this but PSA sucks. Bring on the bots.

I'm sure it's been mentioned somewhere before, but how realistic would it be for a company to leave off the grades and give only facts from the examination? Example: "card measures exactly 2.48" x 3.5"; centering 52/48 L/R, 54/46 T/B; print defect near top left corner; 7/8 inch crease on left arm; chipping on back right edge".

No adjectives necessary. No "looks better than a 3" listings. A reputable, 3rd party, semi-scientific examination that lays out exactly what a card is - good or bad.

It would be up to the buyers to take a closer look, interpret that information, and make a judgement call on the card's value.

Does technology really need to be brought into this? No one will ever convince me that the alterations aren't clear if you're actually looking for them. The issue seems to be with the name on the submission form more than anything else.

This has me thinking about a grading system similar to GIA for diamonds. Instead of having a single numeric grade, each attribute would be rated on its own scale. Sure, it adds complexity. But it would somewhat normalize lopsided characteristics that end up creating a lot of confusion with single numeric grades.

A great idea, IMO...

It takes away the subjectivity currently plaguing PSA and the TPGs. It also might actually help to reduce favorable grades granted to certain submitters.

In order for any new grading service to endure, it will have to present significant differences from PSA. Any new entry who simply emulates PSA's grading system is destined for failure.

There needs to be a fact-based alternative that offers a true difference from PSA and eliminates the subjective aspect. If it ever became the predominant TPG, such a system would severely reduce the "earnings" of Card Doctors, and would serve as a huge deterrent. Hope it someday comes about.

If someone wants to bankroll it, I can assemble a business plan. Bringing transparency to the card's attributes would also allow people to choose those that are personally important to them (e.g. centering, corners, etc..) Instead of a blanket VG 3, you could have a similar system for rating inclusions. Creases and wrinkles could be rated like gemstone inclusions. You could also account for things like diamond cuts or large borders. Just typing as I think.

And how much time could be devoted to each card to achieve this multi-faceted grade?:eek:

More than the 20-30 seconds you're paying good money for now. The right tools will greatly help the efficiency of the process.

Ah....But there's the rub. Any longer than 30 seconds and it would be tough for a TPG to keep pace with the expected workload....unless of course they hire ex-PSA graders to flesh out the crew..........:D

I agree. I don't need a third party to weigh in on eye appeal. I want a service to review for forgeries and alterations. Relying on the naked eye alone isn't helpful either. I can do that myself.

I also think a service should be comfortable with punting on items. If a card's dimensions are a little short, it might be within the margin of error, but it could also be trimmed. If you aren't 100% certain that it is unaltered, don't authenticate it and issue a refund on the grading fees.