Quote:
Originally Posted by gunboat82
I'd disagree that focusing on intent sends us down a slippery slope. That particular battle line is drawn pretty clearly. If you mess with a card with the specific intent to conceal that fact from a third-party grader and/or potential buyer, then you're choosing to deceive others to advance your self-interest.
This is where we simply disagree. You're taking a purely consequentialist approach, i.e., if I can't prove you did it, and you're not saying whether you did, then it didn't happen and no one was harmed. I say that card doctors who profit from deception are still acting unethically, even if the target is oblivious.
I'll grant you the point that cards aren't sentient historians, but you seem to be spinning off into a separate discussion about whether the original deception is negated when the card changes hands among unwitting parties.
I'm not advocating for the unsuspecting guy who bought an improbably sharp PSA 9 from Probstein to flog himself and surrender the card to local authorities. I am advocating for full disclosure of known facts whenever possible, with varying degrees of moral culpability along the "blockchain."
Hypothetically speaking:
If Evan trims a card and sends it to PSA without disclosing what he did, then he's a cheat. It's clear-cut. "PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity."
If PSA knows Evan trimmed the card but gives it a 9 anyway, then PSA is complicit in the fraud. If PSA doesn't know the card is trimmed and gives it a 9, then PSA's actions may fall somewhere on the negligence spectrum, but there's no ill intent.
If Probstein knows Evan trimmed the card and sells it as a PSA 9 without disclosing the known alteration, then he's complicit in Evan's fraud. Probstein might be tempted to argue that PSA's failure to detect the trimming absolves him of blame, but he'd be wrong. Another party's negligence doesn't mitigate Probstein's own knowledge and intent to deceive for profit. On the other hand, if Probstein suspects Evan trimmed the card but takes a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach, it becomes a moral gray area for Probstein.
If I buy the card from Probstein without knowledge that Evan trimmed it, I'm a blameless victim in the scheme, even when I go to re-sell it as a PSA 9. Now, if Evan tells me he trimmed it and I turn a blind eye because it's his word against PSA's, we're venturing into that gray area where self-interest leads to lame rationalizations. It might not be fraud, but it certainly raises an ethical eyebrow.
Finally, let's say Evan tells me he trimmed it, shows me a video of him doing it, and even points to unique markers that leave no doubt that he chopped that particular card before sending it off to PSA. If I sell you the PSA 9 slab without disclosing what Evan showed me, then I'm a PSA-10, PWCC-S Top 5% Certified scumbag, and I deserve to be tarred, feathered, and strung up by my thumbs.
That might not be a popular viewpoint, but I'm a little more Kant and a little less Rand.
|
The slippery slope is not about intent, no. I think we can all agree "Card Doctors Bad". Even I would concede that. The slippery slope right now is leveling accusations at someone of being a card doctor while throwing the need for physical proof out the window oh, just because "Card Doctors Bad." You guys can hold Kurt and his ilk in all the contempt you want, but at the end of the day - if with the techniques that now exist we cannot tell that he either added to or took away from the original physical card - then it's a hard case to prove that he's "definitely" a card doctor just because you don't like how a crease seemed to be quickly minimized, or that a corner can look that much better without using tools and glue. The proof has to be in the pudding here. Just because you think someone is a card doctor doing alteration, if there is no proof later that the card in question was altered, then can you say that for sure? That seems illogical at best.
Yes, if you don't say that you did it, and I can't prove that you did it, and some grading company either can't prove it, or more likely just doesn't care - that doesn't make things right, but my point is how often is this a situation of consequence in reality? Are you going to stop collecting cards just because you don't know either way on all the new cards you buy? I'm not. How often do you know the person or history of the specific piece of cardboard you are buying? Whether that is from Rick Probstein or Greg Morris or your LCS dealer 10 minutes away? How often do THEY know? They don't. People can fret over this, or they can get on with life and collect cards and enjoy the hobby. The truth is that the vast majority of time - you aren't going to know.
All of your Evan scenarios aside from I think 2B (PSA knows it's trimmed, and labels it as such - Authentic Altered) are in theory true - but in reality highly improbable. Neither of the two largest graders that deal with vintage cards (PSA and SGC) are in the business of detective operations to see who "intentionally" submits altered cards to them. It's a policy that's buried in the fine print somewhere, but realistically impossible to enforce unless they take time and resources away from their grading operations to go on an improbable witch hunt for card doctors. Ain't gonna happen. The rest are the same. Yeah, if we hear of impropriety in the process somewhere, we should probably throw up a red flag. But how often in reality are folks going to do that? You have to temper this whole "Card Doctors Bad" with reality. This is why the physical proof to me is so important. It's the whole essence of the extent to which people care or do not care about alteration as a real issue in this hobby, with some chance to actually DO something about it and not just be pissed and post on message boards about card doctors whose names we don't know being so awful.
Graders certainly aren't perfect but they at least attempt to set a standard for authentic and unaltered cards based on physical proof that isn't reliant on the telephone game and unrealistic proactive honesty for collectors such as some on this board to out bad characters and altered cards that otherwise we would never know about. They are if nothing more - a starting point for now despite their flaws, given the percentage of collectors that continue to heavily use them and collect / invest in cards that reside in their slabs.