Is it ethical to alter cards and sell them without disclosure?

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by raulus

Point of clarification - I thought there was a video out there with Kurt working a crease. He'd spray his magic juice on it, and then sort of press it or rub it with some plastic sheet. Lather, rinse, repeat, until it got to the point where the crease was less pronounced.

Thought it was on that 87 Fleer Jordan...

But maybe this is different than smashing out creases with a spoon?

Kurt used a tortillon to massage the wrinkle. Someone in the pro-doctoring camp would say that's fine as long you say "massage" instead of "smash," and "tortillon" instead of "spoon."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

Kurt used a tortillon to massage the wrinkle. Someone in the pro-doctoring camp would say that's fine as long you say "massage" instead of "smash," and "tortillon" instead of "spoon."

Kurt would vote 3, because nothing he does is altering cards.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Kurt would vote 3, because nothing he does is altering cards.

Kurt needs to show us what he does to the cards when the camera is not rolling. If you watch his videos you will see at the times he stops the video and then comes back that the clamps and paper are in different positions. Suggests he is taking the cards out and then working his magic. I have a very hard time believing a wrinkle and dents come out of cards when you spray them with his secret sauce and just let them dry.

Of course the island of defenders (same people who likely defend PWCC's actions) will say otherwise.

[philliesfan]

OK here are two more ethical or not questions like all the other examples in this thread....
If you sent a card to PSA and Beckett and both times it came back as trimmed and a third time sent to SGC and gets a numeric grade of 6, 7 whatever, would you have to disclose the two trimmed results when selling the SGC card?

OR, if you cracked out a PSA 4 and resubmitted and got a 7 the second time , would you need to disclose that it was previously a PSA 4 and now its a 7?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by philliesfan

OK here are two more ethical or not questions like all the other examples in this thread....
If you sent a card to PSA and Beckett and both times it came back as trimmed and a third time sent to SGC and gets a numeric grade of 6, 7 whatever, would you have to disclose the two trimmed results when selling the SGC card?

OR, if you cracked out a PSA 4 and resubmitted and got a 7 the second time , would you need to disclose that it was previously a PSA 4 and now its a 7?

In my opinion no, but if asked about prior history you have to answer honestly. One could argue it either way though.

ADD: If you KNOW the card is trimmed, but snuck it past SGC, I would say yes there is fraud unless disclosed.

[Leon]

+1. No need to tell of previous grades if it's graded UNLESS asked. It's never ok to not tell the truth.

As for the original subject, the term "altered" can mean too many different things to answer the question.

One thing I am always a bit amazed by - super sharp corners on a pre war card with tiny borders. I guess some people don't care or are just ignorant.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In my opinion no, but if asked about prior history you have to answer honestly. One could argue it either way though.

[packs]

I agree. Not sure why you'd need to disclose previous grades (assuming we're not talking about sneaking a trimmed card by). The grades rendered by TPG are opinions. I wouldn't tell someone, hey, two previous dealers thought this card was VG but a third guy said it was VG-EX while trying to sell my card.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by philliesfan

OK here are two more ethical or not questions like all the other examples in this thread....
If you sent a card to PSA and Beckett and both times it came back as trimmed and a third time sent to SGC and gets a numeric grade of 6, 7 whatever, would you have to disclose the two trimmed results when selling the SGC card?

OR, if you cracked out a PSA 4 and resubmitted and got a 7 the second time , would you need to disclose that it was previously a PSA 4 and now its a 7?

No, of course not. Unless of course you trimmed the card yourself and are just trying to resubmit until you can sneak one past the goalie, but I don't think that's what you meant here. Graders get stuff wrong often. Even the experienced ones.

I actually got into a huge bidding war recently over a 1953 Topps Jackie Robinson that was graded as "trimmed" by SGC. I ended up winning it for about 3.5x "comps". Clearly, I wasn't the only experienced grader who disagreed with their assessment. They typically sell for about $500 in an AA slab, but I paid $1670 for it, which is about the price of a 4. That's how confident I was that the graders were wrong. I cracked it out and sent it to PSA where they promptly gave it the PSA 6 that it deserved.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

Kurt used a tortillon to massage the wrinkle. Someone in the pro-doctoring camp would say that's fine as long you say "massage" instead of "smash," and "tortillon" instead of "spoon."

See? Precisely why we need more context.

Full disclosure: Previous to today, I had never heard of a tortillon, although I would have expected that if prepared correctly, they could be succulent.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

Kurt used a tortillon to massage the wrinkle. Someone in the pro-doctoring camp would say that's fine as long you say "massage" instead of "smash," and "tortillon" instead of "spoon."

You say that as if there is no difference between someone gently dabbing water onto a card with a soft, rolled up, wet piece of paper vs smashing the shit out of it with a piece of metal. You're free to disagree with both techniques, but let's not pretend that the two are equivalent.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You say that as if there is no difference between someone gently dabbing water onto a card with a soft, rolled up, wet piece of paper vs smashing the shit out of it with a piece of metal. You're free to disagree with both techniques, but let's not pretend that the two are equivalent.

And you say "water" as if Kurt uses "water." If Kurt is peddling regular ol' distilled H20 as his proprietary "Card Care" "polish and spray" solution, then that's a separate conversation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

And you say "water" as if Kurt uses "water." If Kurt is peddling regular ol' distilled H20 as his proprietary "Card Care" "polish and spray" solution, then that's a separate conversation.

Ask Kurt if he's willing to drink it.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Ask Kurt if he's willing to drink it.

I see we have a new litmus test. Would you lick your cards?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I see we have a new litmus test. Would you lick your cards?

No, they don't taste good.

[vintagerookies51]

To echo what others have said, this poll is meaningless without a definition of altered. People then fall on a spectrum of how far they deem something to be acceptable, and won't be captured by 2 or 3 poll responses. Personally, I couldn't care less if a card I buy formerly had a stain on it. I see it as no different than someone wiping away some dirt on a vintage car they're trying to sell. But if that car had a part that was replaced without disclosing it (or a card that had color added to it without disclosure), that's a problem.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I see we have a new litmus test. Would you lick your cards?

Originally Posted by steve B

No, they don't taste good.

Actually the Cracker Jacks taste pretty good; the more stains the better. T205 and T206 don't have much taste, and T3 taste awful - like old cardboard.

Of the post-war issues, cards cut from Milk Dud boxes taste the best.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I see we have a new litmus test. Would you lick your cards?

This might have been tongue-in-cheek, but I'll bite. A core premise among many defenders of card soaking is that distilled water is acceptable. Presumably, distilled water is acceptable because they've used it before, seen no adverse side effects, and made their own determination that it doesn't change the card's composition once it dries. They can't make the same assumptions about Kurt's Card Care solution because Kurt doesn't disclose what's in it.

So the litmus test would be "if you're not sure you can safely drink Kurt's Card Care because you don't know what's in it, then you shouldn't be making unsupported claims it works just like water."

And, no, I wouldn't lick my cards. But if I did, I'd consider them "Altered - Saliva Added."

[Peter_Spaeth]

I guess the good news is much of this may be moot when the hobby moves on to counterfeits so good they can't be detected. Then the name of the game will be to alter cards to make them look worse, to ward off any suspicion they just look too nice for what they are.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Ask Kurt if he's willing to drink it.

Or provide a MSDS as he should.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

And you say "water" as if Kurt uses "water." If Kurt is peddling regular ol' distilled H20 as his proprietary "Card Care" "polish and spray" solution, then that's a separate conversation.

I don't know what he uses in his card spray. But if it doesn't leave any residue behind and it doesn't damage the card, then it doesn't alter the cards.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I don't know what he uses in his card spray. But if it doesn't leave any residue behind and it doesn't damage the card, then it doesn't alter the cards.

Fair enough. In Brian's Bob Ewing example above, can we stipulate that the mustache doesn't have to be disclosed if we call it "natural growth?" And removing the mustache again is fine as long as it's "shaving" and not "erasing?"

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

Fair enough. In Brian's Bob Ewing example above, can we stipulate that the mustache doesn't have to be disclosed if we call it "natural growth?" And removing the mustache again is fine as long as it's "shaving" and not "erasing?"

Unfortunately Ewing's mustache is not natural, being a construct of horse hairs and porcupine quills, and is held on by adhesive that would leave sticky residue if this facial hair substitute was removed. Ethical calisthenics would be required if I were to remove the adhesive and decide to go down the nondisclosure route.

Brian

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Snowman

… if it doesn't leave any residue behind and it doesn't damage the card, then it doesn't alter the cards.

I believe George Costanza said something similar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Casey2296]

Semantic rabbit hole, the value has increased on some of these cards so much we should disclose any work like a fine art listing does.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Semantic rabbit hole, the value has increased on some of these cards so much we should disclose any work like a fine art listing does.

So true. And the information provided is very exhaustive. It will note the type of and reason for the restoration, the year the restoration was done, the person who did the restoration, and the name of owner who commisioned the restoration.