[the 'stache]

Peter et all, the one thing that most surprises me when examining these altered cards is that unique identifiers are being left in place by the card doctors. These may well serve as the one saving grace for those seeking restitution.

Knowing these perpetrators are skilled enough to materially improve cards, slipping their changes past PSA in the process, one would think they'd have the foresight to spend just a few extra minutes to get rid of these obvious marks, whenever feasible. Their mere existence constitutes irrefutable evidence of alteration, analogous to a burglar leaving their fingerprints at the scene of a robbery.

Consider the back of this '53 Parkhurst Dickie Moore:



Forget the egregious whiff the graders are guilty of in not detecting trimming. And set aside, for a moment, the gnawing suspicion that PSA could possibly be complicit in something nefarious, their opinions improved upon in deference to one of their biggest clients. The card doctors know that scans of the card they are about to alter exist, for both sides. Why then would they leave these fingerprints behind?

I don't know what the PSA population is for 1953 Parkhurst Dickie Moores, nor do I care. But I wouldn't expect that mid and high grade examples shows up every day. If PSA is dutifully protecting the consumer against fraud, how hard would it be for a grader to pull up scans of the same card, say PSA 5, or higher, especially when their concerted professional opinion assigns the card a 9 grade, only the sixth one ever to grade at that level? A healthy amount of skepticism is warranted, wouldn't you agree?

These card doctors and sellers should be held accountable to the fullest extent of civil law. But it is my sneaking suspicion that they are not the biggest fish in this malodorous pond.