Quote:
Originally Posted by swarmee
The card was originally not worthy of a PSA 10 grade. It was then altered and fixed, and then garnered a PSA 10 grade. Really no different than trimming or patch-swapping.
If the card was graded by PSA as ALTERED with Auto AUTHENTIC presuming they evaluated the autograph (which they didn't), then the flip would be accurate and the buyer would know what they're getting. As of right now, it's a Frankenstein card.
Similar to the 1994 Griffey and Mantle autos. Many were released unsigned, some were released with Griffey auto, some with Mantle autos, and some with both autos. Do you just assume that all cards you would come into contact with having both autos are authentic as released cards? Who's to say Mantle didn't sign afterwards, or Griffey did? Does that make the cards less valuable? Yes. Or did a forger put either's auto on there?
I just don't get you. Perfectly okay with fraud. Just a cost of doing business. Why not just buy counterfeit Jackie Robinson cards? Why are they worse than originals?
|
First things first. And this is BY FAR my biggest beef with all you card "alteration" hunters. Maybe read this part twice. THE CARD IN QUESTION HASN'T EVEN BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE HAD THE AUTO WIPED TO BEGIN WITH. What we're discussing here is a hypothetical situation about whether it should be acceptable or not for an athlete to have signed a card twice. Yet here you are, pretending as if this has already been proven or something. You're free to cast a vote on that question, but you don't get to just decide on behalf of everyone that to do so constitutes "fraud" or some such nonsense. I would wager everything I own that if someone were to try to take this case to court, they'd be laughed out of any courtroom. There is just no scenario whatsoever that the majority of people would find this to be some sort of fraud, let alone even remotely questionable behavior.
Regardless, back to the card itself. Let's keep the facts straight here. Someone posted a picture of a signed Pujols RC and said essentially that the auto just looked too nice/clean to him for it to have been an auto from 2001, and that it looked more like autos he's seen from 2004 (face-palm added). He provided zero evidence of his claim and made no mention of the sample size of how many autos he might game tried comparing it against. But he just "knows it in his heart", which is good enough for all you clowns to hop on board declaring "Look! MORE FRAUD!!!" Meanwhile, someone else responds with a photo of another Pujols signed RC where the auto looks nearly identical to the one in question. And the response is, "see, there's another one! Look how much fraud exists in this hobby. AVOID PUJOLS AUTOS EVERYONE! THEY'RE FAKE!... er, um, I mean, ya they're signed by Pujols, BUT NOT IN THE DAY YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE! WHICH IS FRAUD!!!"