Fixing corners
 

Are there any methods of fixing dinged corners that are considered ethical before submitting a card for grading? Thanks!

No but there are several unethical ways to fix them.:)

Hahahaa

Thanks.

I've never seen anything unethical about "flipping down" a dinged corner on a lower grade (and sometimes higher) card that is either raw or was slabbed "as-is". This is frustrating to me. I had a '48 Leaf Ted Williams that was a PSA 2.5, slabbed with a smashed lower left corner. I popped it, and "fixed" the corner by flipping it down. Submitted raw to SGC, where it remained a 2.5, with a much better looking corner. (The corner was not the problem leading to the grade.)

Somebody somewhere I'm sure would call this fraudulent, and label me a card doctor for such an action. If so, so be it. This specific example involves a PC card that is not going anywhere in any case. PSA thought it was a 2.5 even with a busted corner, SGC apparently could not tell that anything had been done to the corner and also thought it was a 2.5. I don't know how prevalent something like this is with lower grade cards on the whole, but figuring I'm not the first person to have ever flipped a corner down.

If with other means of "fixing" a corner you add color or paper stock, that's generally going to be looked upon as taboo by any grader worth their fees.

corner
 

Oh yes, Ive casually flipped over a bad corner on a card, then casually squeezed it in a 2 ton press between to sheets of hard plastic..then casually put it back in a holder

Maybe ask PSA what they used on mine to “fix” a corner damaged during sonic sealing.
Spoon perhaps :)

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...005681c58d.jpg

Thanks for the response. I don't see anything wrong with flattening a corner either. I've done it myself (without much success) but I never submit cards for grading. I was asking for a friend who thinks his Gretzky rookie would be a 7 or 8 if not for one corner.

Did they fix the corner or is it just held in place by the holder? And did they grade as if the corner is damaged? Thanks.

Exactly to my point. PSA themselves does this too.

Exactly, if PSA does it, it has to be OK.:D

Must remember to add the "wink" emoji (like so). ;)

My point is simply that if I do something to a card which literally leaves no trace that a PSA or SGC can detect, I don't see how that's a problem. It's basically handling the card. I'm not using a marker or a brush or an exacto knife to do something to the corner to alter its original state. I won't go so far as to get into a "Conservation" argument like PWCC did, but issues resulting from handling of cards are something that TPG's should be able to detect. My aim with flipping a corner is not to try to improve a grade, or indeed to try to get any certain grade.

The problem is that pretty much anything gets by PSA and SGC and Beckett.

PSA has so many that got by that should have been obvious that I have to think they either just can't spot even passably competent alterations, or are part of the problem.

I would disagree with that statement in the absence of additional context.

Maybe if you are PWCC or Probstein anything gets by? I know way too many average Joe collectors who routinely get stuff rejected as altered or slabbed "AA" by PSA.

Remind me, was this a hockey card or something and had a seperate thread devoted to it once upon a time? I seem to remember something about this.

Would be interesting
 

to see % of cards getting numeric grades vs rejected as well as percentages of numeric grade distribution reported by submitter for the top 50 (by dollar volume) vs. a random sampling of 50 other submitters. Oh sorry, daydreaming for a second.

PSA fixed the bent corner and the PSA 8 71 OPC #594 remained a PSA 8 after fixing.

I think yours may be the post I was remembering. Here's what I don't understand:

If a card has a flipped corner that is "fixed", isn't that "layering" that would be obvious at that corner? Back in the late 80's / early 90's - "layering" was supposedly an obvious flaw that resulted in a steep downgrade. So would PSA fix the corner and say that they could not tell it was layered? If people fix their own corners and press them just so - is that not still layering?

For the record on the '48 Ted Williams I mentioned I did not press the corner. I simply flipped it down. Put the card in a Card Saver I, packed well, sent to SGC, and then (back in the days of somewhat normalcy...) I had it back 3 weeks or so later and it was graded a 2.5. My understanding since PSA had also rendered the same grade with an obviously layered and much worse looking corner is that it can be as layered as it wants to be and still get a 2.5. But for cards like that to get an 8? Not saying it's wrong, just wondering. I had a '68 Willie Stargell I sold once after busting it from a PSA 7 slab (I'm weird...) and it had the same type of mild layering along with I think some edge damage on the back. The buyer flipped out at that and sent it back to me, saying no way was that a NM card. Upon closer inspection I agreed with him. So now I still have that card lol.

A hockey card, yes (Gretzky rookie) but I haven't posted about it before. It's not my card & I haven't even seen it.

Isn't it enough that thousands of altered cards got by them regularly and probably still do?
And if as you think it's "only" PWCC or Probstein, that would mean PSA and at least SGC are complicit. Not exactly a positive thing.

My point was simply that cards are rejected, and labeled "altered" regularly. Are things "getting by" and receiving number grades too? Probably, I don't know. If that is the case I'm sure it is indeed more than just two large well known dealers.

You weren't aware of this? And this is only one thread, 289 pgs worth. There are others.
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1290614

Oh good grief. I'm totally aware of it. Steve's statement was that "everything" gets by. That's not true. Sorry, I take things literally sometimes.

Ok, maybe some stuff gets rejected. But so much that's obvious doesn't.
The Dover reprint cracker jack that didn't even have the perforations trimmed off.... (And isn't on cardstock that's even close. )

I would have to think PSA grading a Dover reprint is an extreme anomaly, best case. But I don't doubt that it's happened. I saw a thread a while back about a fake '67 Topps Seaver RC that Beckett graded, I think as a 7 or 8. It was a good fake, but the color on the back was wrong, and there were light smudges to the facsimile signatures which are not present on real cards.

I am not missing your point, Steve. Slabgate, whatever you want to call it was a huge black eye on the hobby. I have no doubt that there are all kinds of altered cards still residing in numbered slabs today. It's really sad.