Baseball card restoration

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://restorationbyjm.com/

See under additional services. He has been doing this a long time. It would certainly be interesting to see a past and present (card) client list, and to know whether those clients disclose his work when they sell. If, of course, there is anything to disclose, maybe it's all just using water.

[drumback]

I don't know about baseball cards, but Jaime has restored a couple of movie posters for me, which is completely acceptable in the movie poster industry. One had several chunks of paper completely torn off at various places. Now it looks almost brand new. It is amazing work that he does. I would post before and after pics, but my pics are too large, and I don't know how to reduce them. Anyway, he is extremely talented at what he does.

[Peter_Spaeth]

No doubt most of what he does is not at all controversial.

[Leon]

I have mixed feelings. Certainly not illegal unless done to defraud.
.

[Casey2296]

Just like anything else, nobody takes it serious until someone goes to jail for fraud. Until then caveat emptor.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think it's a gray area if as a professional restorer you're not actively participating in any fraud, but you have a pretty good idea of why certain clients are using your services. Perhaps not gray legally, but ethically? I actually had a very productive conversation once with a woman who did this work (she had impeccable credentials in the museum world as I recall) and even though it was pointed out to her that certain cards she had "improved" had been graded by PSA (I forget the details now), she was insistent her responsibility ended when the customer paid the bill.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think it's a gray area if as a professional restorer you're not actively participating in any fraud, but you have a pretty good idea of why certain clients are using your services. Perhaps not gray legally, but ethically? I actually had a very productive conversation once with a woman who did this work (she had impeccable credentials in the museum world as I recall) and even though it was pointed out to her that certain cards she had "improved" had been graded by PSA (I forget the details now), she was insistent her responsibility ended when the customer paid the bill.

Haha, and the Germans had no idea about the camps. Very convenient.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Haha, and the Germans had no idea about the camps. Very convenient.

The bottom line was that we agreed to disagree. If memory serves this was at the beginning of the "scandal" and I sent her some links to information about what (at the time anyhow) seemed to be a serious federal investigation; whether that deterred her I dunno we did not speak again.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

It's a concept that's a struggle in all corners of the hobby. We pride ourselves on calling out altered cards, occasionally even if they're in a slab, but we can't control what's going to happen after we sell them, but we know that at least some items are probably going to be passed on without the same level of disclosure that we offered. So what's our responsibility or maybe ethical culpability? I'm sure dealers and even hobbyists find themselves in the same situation.

[gregndodgers]

Fraud requires a misrepresentation of the truth. In other words, a lie. The misrepresentation must be done knowingly or with intent to deceive. Finally, fraud also requires that the other party suffer damages. The best policy is full disclosure when selling an item that has been altered or is damaged.

Arguably, some card restoration requires no altering of the card. For example, when you use microfiber (or nylon panty hose) to rub out wax stains or a damp cloth to wipe off dirt. You are not affecting the integrity of the card.

On the other hand, spraying chemicals onto the card to clean it may qualify as an alteration because of the chemical reaction that physically alters the integrity of the card. Soaking a card requires extensive use of water and perhaps chemicals. The water actually penetrates the interior of the card, and because of that fact, that may qualify as an alteration.

Certainly, trimming is an alteration as is coloring.

I believe that grading companies are now checking for signs of soaking.

In my opinion, many vintage cards on the market have been altered in some way. There are many well documented cases of trimming high value pre-war cards. Some 33 Goudeys I believe. For that reason, I’m reluctant to spend a lot for certain cards.

If a seller of a card does misrepresent a card as not having been altered (but it has), the buyer would have to prove either that the seller knew it was altered or that the seller intended to deceive the buyer. Those elements can be hard to prove. Additionally, the buyer would have to prove damages. In other words, the value of the card purchased is not worth typical retail value (for that card) due to the alteration.

Criminal penalties could result when there is some type of large scale fraudulent scheme or the value of the card in question is extremely high.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I would add to that summary that failure to disclose a material fact with intent to deceive can also be fraud, it doesn't necessarily require an affirmative misrepresentation.

[drcy]

With movie posters and such, restored posters are much more widely accepted, but the existence of alteration has to be disclosed and affects the value. Not disclosing it is considered fraud.

Much of the acceptance of restoration is due to old posters often being delicate (old movie poster paper is often thin and fragile), and that they are large and meant to be hung on a wall.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Disclosure negates fraud. But with baseball cards, the crowd claiming X Y and Z are acceptable, and/or that people don't care, NEVER have a good answer to the question, so why don't you disclose? Ask them and watch the BS start.

[theshowandme]

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would add to that summary that failure to disclose a material fact with intent to deceive can also be fraud, it doesn't necessarily require an affirmative misrepresentation.

That’s a good point. Concealment of a material fact can also be fraud, but I believe it’s fraud only when there is a duty to disclose. Typically, real estate transactions have a duty to disclose material facts. I’m not sure whether there is a duty to disclose when selling personal property like sports cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

That’s a good point. Concealment of a material fact can also be fraud, but I believe it’s fraud only when there is a duty to disclose. Typically, real estate transactions have a duty to disclose material facts. I’m not sure whether there is a duty to disclose when selling personal property like sports cards.

If I sell you a car, and know it's defective but don't tell you, of course I had a duty to disclose that. I don't see why it's any different with any other good, if the concealed fact (here alteration) is material to the transaction.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

Fraud requires a misrepresentation of the truth. In other words, a lie. The misrepresentation must be done knowingly or with intent to deceive.

From PSA's terms you have to agree to before you can submit a card:

"PSA will not grade items which bear evidence of trimming, recoloring, restoration, or any other form of alteration or tampering, or that are of questionable authenticity, and you agree not to knowingly submit any such items."

Anyone who uses PSA's grading services on a card they had restored must knowingly lie in order to get the card graded.

I think the restorer's responsibility in all this is somewhat gray. If the restorer knows that (A) the person who asked for the restored card is going to submit it to PSA and if they know that (B) the person has to agree not to send restored cards to PSA in order to get it graded, then I think they are complicit. If the restorer doesn't knows (A) or they know (A) but not (B), then I think they are not complicit.

[gregndodgers]

A car and a piece of cardboard are very different goods.

I took a look at the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) which provides standard rules for the sale of goods, and I believe most states have adopted the UCC.

Here’s what is says regarding the sale of goods (I.e., not real estate).

“Merchants” are held to a higher standard than “nonmerchants.” For example, UCC Section 2-103(1)(b) provides: ” ‘Good faith’ in the case of a merchant means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade.” [FN4]

On the other hand, with respect to nonmerchants, Section 1-201(19) provides: “Good faith means honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned.” Therefore, nonmerchants have an obligation of mere subjective good faith while merchants are also held to an objective standard. [FN5] A nonmerchant can meet its good faith duty if he or she has an honest but unreasonable belief that he or she acting in good faith.

So the first issue is whether the seller is a merchant, which is an individual who regularly deals in sports cards. The merchant has a higher duty when selling than a non-merchant does. Next, we must understand what “honesty in fact” means. Essentially, it means the seller cannot misrepresent a material fact. That definition implies that there is no duty to disclose a defect when a non merchant sells a good. Finally, every contract has a good faith requirement. The UCC says that the non-merchant must have a genuine belief they are acting in good faith.

Good faith means acting honestly, fairly, and in accordance with reasonable standards. Critically, this is not an objective standard for non-merchants: rather, it’s a subjective one. So as long as the seller (non-merchant) says they were acting honestly, that should be sufficient.

The bottom line: unless I’m told differently, I’m not sure that non-merchants have a duty to disclose material facts (I.e., facts that could change buyer’s decision to buy a card). Additionally, when the buyer has an opportunity to inspect an item before buying, there is typically a shifting of the burden here such that the buyer has less protection when it comes to defects.

Real estate and to a lesser degree, automobiles, are much more difficult to inspect than sports cards, so the burden is still on the seller to disclose.

As always, anyone buying or selling an expensive sports card should consult an attorney and / or their local laws for guidance.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

From PSA's terms you have to agree to before you can submit a card:

"PSA will not grade items which bear evidence of trimming, recoloring, restoration, or any other form of alteration or tampering, or that are of questionable authenticity, and you agree not to knowingly submit any such items."

Anyone who uses PSA's grading services on a card they had restored must knowingly lie in order to get the card graded.

I think the restorer's responsibility in all this is somewhat gray. If the restorer knows that (A) the person who asked for the restored card is going to submit it to PSA and if they know that (B) the person has to agree not to send restored cards to PSA in order to get it graded, then I think they are complicit. If the restorer doesn't knows (A) or they know (A) but not (B), then I think they are not complicit.

That’s a fair analysis, but remember, the law and logic do not go hand in hand.

The laws in the particular state in which the sale occurs should govern the seller’s duties. Simply stating that a buyer was harmed in a transaction and the seller should have disclosed (to prevent that harm) is good logic, but it may not hold in court.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If I know a card is altered and that it would matter to the buyer, how can I be acting in good faith by not saying anything? I am acting with the intent to deceive which by definition is bad faith. And the issue is not what the seller SAYS was his state of mind, it's what the fact finder concludes WAS his actual state of mind. People lie all the time.

Sure, if the seller can convince the fact finder that he truly didn't know the card was altered, it would not be fraud. It could still be innocent misrepresentation or mutual mistake entitling the buyer to rescission though.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If I know a card is altered and that it would matter to the buyer, how can I be acting in good faith by not saying anything? I am acting with the intent to deceive which by definition is bad faith. And the issue is not what the seller SAYS was his state of mind, it's what the fact finder concludes WAS his actual state of mind. People lie all the time.

Sure, if the seller can convince the fact finder that he truly didn't know the card was altered, it would not be fraud. It could still be innocent misrepresentation or mutual mistake entitling the buyer to rescission though.

And you are nailing a key issue in sports cards. What obligations / duties do sellers have? Ethically, I think you are exactly correct. People should disclose material facts. But in the legal realm, I don’t believe non-merchants have that same duty. They only have a duty of telling the truth.

So when I buy, I always ask if the seller knows of any defects, trimming, alterations, etc. and if I later discover such, I can go back to the seller and ask for my money back. Same thing if you believe the card is a counterfeit or reprint. Always ask before buying.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

And you are nailing a key issue in sports cards. What obligations / duties do sellers have? Ethically, I think you are exactly correct. People should disclose material facts. But in the legal realm, I don’t believe non-merchants have that same duty. They only have a duty of telling the truth.

So when I buy, I always ask if the seller knows of any defects, trimming, alterations, etc. and if I later discover such, I can go back to the seller and ask for my money back. Same thing if you believe the card is a counterfeit or reprint. Always ask before buying.

Your legal statement is not, in my opinion, supported by the UCC provisions you quoted, for the reasons stated in my previous post. It is not subjective good faith to knowingly conceal a material fact. But I would agree as a practical matter it's best to ask.

[gregndodgers]

I think the key issue what is “good faith” mean in the sports card industry / hobby?

If a card has been trimmed or recolored (e.g., touched up), I think most agree that the standard is disclosure.

If wax or dirt has been rubbed off a card, I think the standard is that non-disclosure is okay. But that’s only my opinion.

Card soaking? Not sure if there is a standard. Now if more and more cards are graded and found to have been “soaked,” then the standard would be more clear.

What if a card has been “restored.” Take the Hans Wagner card in this thread as an example. I think most would agree that disclosure is required. However, should that affect the value? I think it does reduce value to a certain degree. Sports card enthusiasts value originality and condition, so the value will be negatively affected to some degree.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Your legal statement is not, in my opinion, supported by the UCC provisions you quoted, for the reasons stated in my previous post. It is not subjective good faith to knowingly conceal a material fact. But I would agree as a practical matter it's best to ask.

That’s ok. As a lawyer, I’m used to people disagreeing with my legal conclusions. That’s why we have a judge and / or a jury to decide who is correct.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

I think the key issue what is “good faith” mean in the sports card industry / hobby?

If a card has been trimmed or recolored (e.g., touched up), I think most agree that the standard is disclosure.

If wax or dirt has been rubbed off a card, I think the standard is that non-disclosure is okay. But that’s only my opinion.

Card soaking? Not sure if there is a standard. Now if more and more cards are graded and found to have been “soaked,” then the standard would be more clear.

What if a card has been “restored.” Take the Hans Wagner card in this thread as an example. I think most would agree that disclosure is required. However, should that affect the value? I think it does reduce value to a certain degree. Sports card enthusiasts value originality and condition, so the value will be negatively affected to some degree.

You've moved on to a very different question, which is what alterations are considered material such that a seller needs to disclose them, and yes, on some there is clear consensus, on others less so. And the less there is a consensus, the harder a fraud claim gets because the seller's claim of good faith is more plausible.

[gregndodgers]

Sometimes, examples are needed to help explain the law.

I bought a 10,000 card collection a few years back that included cards from different sports cards from the 60s thru the 80s. Most of the cards were in fair to good condition except that the 80s were all near mint. One card was the 84 fleer Don Mattingly RC, which although not rare or pricy, is one of my favorite 80s cards. I was ecstatic to see that the card’s corners were razor sharp and the centering was perfect. However, upon close inspection, I saw a very small indentation that looked like the card had been stabbed by a ball point pen. Fortunately, the indentation was not very deep.

Well, I instantly thought that if I applied a tiny bit of water to the hole and then some pressure, I could push out the indentation. Sure enough, it worked. Using a 10x loop, I looked at the area where the hole had been. There was no evidence a hole had been there.

So was this act a “alteration?” I think the answer is yes. However, if I sold that card, should I have to disclose what I did? That’s a harder question. Under the UCC, I must be honest in fact, so my statements to a potential buyer must be true. Next, I must use good faith. That means beside honesty, I must be fair and reasonable, and have a genuine belief that I am acting in good faith.

In the case of the Mattingly card, I do not feel that I must disclose what I did to the card. First, the UCC has no duty to disclose in this case. Second, as long as I believe that I am acting fairly and reasonably under the circumstances, there is no harm.

In my opinion, I am acting fairly and reasonably even if I don’t disclose the previous indentation. There is no evidence that the indentation was ever there. It was extremely small to begin with. Also, if a very small dent (on an expensive car) is pulled / pushed out, I’m not sure the seller would feel a need to disclose that. Finally, what would be the industry standard for a situation like this? I’m not sure, but I would bet many hobbyists do this at some point, and as long as the card’s value is not impacted, I’m not sure anyone would care.

So this is an example where my subjective belief would be examined, and I don’t think anyone could find that I acted in bad faith here. However, I understand that these issues are not black and white, so I’m sure some would disagree with me.

The key is that I can make a decent subjective argument for why I believe I have acted in good faith, and since subjective intent typically is a low bar, I believe I have met it here.

Every situation / legal issue is fact intensive, and that’s why lawyers must hear all the facts before drawing any conclusions.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Of course you can posit a set of facts which would show good faith by the seller. However, you stated as a general proposition in post 18 that as long as a seller SAYS he is acting honestly, he would NEVER have a duty to disclose. Goalposts moving.

Your own words:

"So as long as the seller (non-merchant) says they were acting honestly, that should be sufficient.

The bottom line: unless I’m told differently, I’m not sure that non-merchants have a duty to disclose material facts (I.e., facts that could change buyer’s decision to buy a card)."

Bottom line for me, if you trim a card and sell it to me without disclosing it, it makes no difference if you are a merchant or non-merchant, it's fraud.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

That’s ok. As a lawyer, I’m used to people disagreeing with my legal conclusions. That’s why we have a judge and / or a jury to decide who is correct.

As a lawyer, I would be embarrassed to stand in front of a judge and argue that my client knew the card was materially altered but that he still acted in good faith when he failed to disclose it.

I think you are confused about what is good faith, and what is material. You've gone off in the weeds talking about which types of alterations need disclosed. That is an issue of materiality, not good faith. Of course, for non-merchants, that is subjective. But collateral evidence can be used to prove subjective belief. If you sold me an altered card, you better believe I would dig into your hobby knowledge to establish you knew it was material.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

As a lawyer, I would be embarrassed to stand in front of a judge and argue that my client knew the card was materially altered but that he still acted in good faith when he failed to disclose it.

I think you are confused about what is good faith, and what is material. You've gone off in the weeds talking about which types of alterations need disclosed. That is an issue of materiality, not good faith. Of course, for non-merchants, that is subjective. But collateral evidence can be used to prove subjective belief. If you sold me an altered card, you better believe I would dig into your hobby knowledge to establish you knew it was material.

Exactly. We don't have to take the seller's word for it, as Greg for some reason seems to think given what he says in post 18.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Of course you can posit a set of facts which would show good faith by the seller. However, you stated as a general proposition in post 18 that as long as a seller SAYS he is acting honestly, he would NEVER have a duty to disclose. Goalposts moving.

Your own words:

"So as long as the seller (non-merchant) says they were acting honestly, that should be sufficient.

The bottom line: unless I’m told differently, I’m not sure that non-merchants have a duty to disclose material facts (I.e., facts that could change buyer’s decision to buy a card)."

Bottom line for me, if you trim a card and sell it to me without disclosing it, it makes no difference if you are a merchant or non-merchant, it's fraud.

Uhh…when did I ever use the word “NEVER?”

Any lawyer worth his / her weight does not deal in absolutes. My words were “should” not “never.”

But my main goal in responding to this thread was to help clarify some of the issues. That’s all. It’s not to argue.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You're now confusing your own words. You stated as a general proposition that you did not believe a non-merchant had a duty to disclose material facts, so long as he said he acted in good faith.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

As a lawyer, I would be embarrassed to stand in front of a judge and argue that my client knew the card was materially altered but that he still acted in good faith when he failed to disclose it.

I think you are confused about what is good faith, and what is material. You've gone off in the weeds talking about which types of alterations need disclosed. That is an issue of materiality, not good faith. Of course, for non-merchants, that is subjective. But collateral evidence can be used to prove subjective belief. If you sold me an altered card, you better believe I would dig into your hobby knowledge to establish you knew it was material.

We will simply have to agree to disagree. LoL.

[G1911]

How long does it take to put into a listing:

"Trimmed"

"Soaked out of scrapbook"

"Pencil erased"

"Corner rebuilt"

Should take 3 seconds for even a very slow typer. Why would somebody not just tell the truth? Every time there's a line of people trying to come up with reasons not to just tell the truth, for the blatantly obvious reason that if people don't know the history they might pay more, but usually pretending it's something else. Far, far more time is spent trying to justify why not disclosing or lying or covering up are totally okay than it would take to just be honest. It's the only hobby I've been apart of where just being honest is treated as such a problem.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

We will simply have to agree to disagree. LoL.

Sure, but I don't even know what you disagree with. You started out questioning if the fraud 101 principle that concealment of a material fact can be fraud applied at all to baseball cards. Post 15. I really don't even know now what you're trying to show. Anyhow, fine to leave it there.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

https://restorationbyjm.com/

See under additional services. He has been doing this a long time. It would certainly be interesting to see a past and present (card) client list, and to know whether those clients disclose his work when they sell. If, of course, there is anything to disclose, maybe it's all just using water.

Looking over the website, part of me wonders how much work he gets on cards. His assertions seem like they could be mostly/entirely puffery, and maybe he hasn't done much or anything?

Of course, it's possible that he's worked on millions of cards, many of which are now safely ensconced in slabs.

I'm guessing either way, simply seeing these services advertised in a public forum is enough to make one mad enough to chew nails and spit rust.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

Looking over the website, part of me wonders how much work he gets on cards. His assertions seem like they could be mostly/entirely puffery, and maybe he hasn't done much or anything?

Of course, it's possible that he's worked on millions of cards, many of which are now safely ensconced in slabs.

I'm guessing either way, simply seeing these services advertised in a public forum is enough to make one mad enough to chew nails and spit rust.

Oh, I think he has worked on cards.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh, I think he has worked on cards.

For the great unwashed, is there some intel that you can share with us?

I was hoping to see some before/after pics on the website, just to showcase the skills and induce everyone to hire him for all of their cardboard restoration needs. But I wasn't seeing anything on the website.

Not only that, the list of services that he does provide seems to run the entire gamut. With such wide and disparate services offered, it just made me wonder how much he really does with cardboard.

But maybe all he really does is cardboard, and the other stuff is just smoke and mirrors to throw us off the trail.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

For the great unwashed, is there some intel that you can share with us?

I was hoping to see some before/after pics on the website, just to showcase the skills and induce everyone to hire him for all of their cardboard restoration needs. But I wasn't seeing anything on the website.

Not only that, the list of services that he does provide seems to run the entire gamut. With such wide and disparate services offered, it just made me wonder how much he really does with cardboard.

But maybe all he really does is cardboard, and the other stuff is just smoke and mirrors to throw us off the trail.

He's no fool, he's not going to put those on his website. I am sure he does not need his website to get card business. He is known. I am sure people on this board have used him for cards.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by raulus

For the great unwashed, is there some intel that you can share with us?

I was hoping to see some before/after pics on the website, just to showcase the skills and induce everyone to hire him for all of their cardboard restoration needs. But I wasn't seeing anything on the website.

Not only that, the list of services that he does provide seems to run the entire gamut. With such wide and disparate services offered, it just made me wonder how much he really does with cardboard.

But maybe all he really does is cardboard, and the other stuff is just smoke and mirrors to throw us off the trail.

In the second paragraph of the About section, it says "...revive beloved Baseball Cards..." so it appears they've done some work on cards. Just how much is not clear.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by jayshum

In the second paragraph of the About section, it says "...revive beloved Baseball Cards..." so it appears they've done some work on cards. Just how much is not clear.

Why does that quote evoke images of a Bayou Queen, chicken sacrifice, and a promise to get your beloved back.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jayshum

In the second paragraph of the About section, it says "...revive beloved Baseball Cards..." so it appears they've done some work on cards. Just how much is not clear.

Right right. Saw that masterful description, but it didn’t go a long way to convincing me this is the next Mastro. But he’s probably just hiding his candle lest he be accused of improprieties.

[Snowman]

I think the main thing some of you lawyers are missing here is that your conclusions assume that your viewpoint must be shared by everyone in order to be correct.

But it is completely valid for someone to hold the opinion that cleaning a baseball card or soaking one in water is not an alteration and that there is no need to disclose something like that because there is in fact nothing to disclose. It has no material effect on the value of the cards and the buyers are not out any money. Thus there is no fraud and nobody has been defrauded.

Here's a strawman that highlights how absurd some of your positions are. There is a cohort of collectors in this hobby who are under the delusion that the majority of cards which have at some point been sold through PWCC are likely altered. This is of course utter nonsense. If you follow Peter's et al logic, then I would have an obligation to disclose that a card I'm selling was once sold by PWCC in order to avoid being guilty of fraud because if the buyer knew it's history and were "informed" of this cohort's viewpoint, then the card's value would surely be impacted. *facepalm*