| Archive |
12-21-2003 01:51 PM |
Grading Trimmed Cards
Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>I am not against the entombment of cards correctly identified as trimmed or otherwise altered-- and, if Doug Allen's thoughts on scarcity are correct, it is likely that there will more such grading in the future.<BR><BR>I do, however, wish to point out a practical point concerning authentication (for the sake of argument, this post will assume that identifying trimming and alterations is a part of authentication). This particularly relates to a common collector's misconception concerning cards rejected/returned by professional graders.<BR><BR>In common practice, authentication means that the expert (whether it's Jimmy Spence looking at autographs or a reputable card grader) picks out, from a larger group of items, the items that they are willing and very confident to place a label or letter saying "This is such-and-such." The rest of the items are not given such a label or letter because, either they are obviously not authentic or are in a grey area where a confident identication can't be given. Whether it's by a big auction house or a top grader, many items are rejected not because they are identified as fake but because they are not willing to attest to put their name and reputation in writing saying it's authentic ... I beleive it was Jimmy Spence who said that, when looking at autographs for authentication, he has three piles that the autographs go into after inspection: 1) Athuentic pile, 2) Forgery or fake pile and 3) Iffy pile (can't say it's a forgery, but won't say that it's authentic). Piles #2 and #3 don't get LOA's. <BR><BR>I point this out to show that, even though a card was rejected due to 'evidence of trimming' does not mean that a grader will neccesarilly be willing to give to entomb it with a 'trimmed' label.<BR><BR>
|
