PWCC planning to redefine the difference between altered and conserved in cards

[Leon]

I don't think pressing cards is a good thing. It is not the same as erasing a mark or soaking or pushing down a corner that flipped up. It seems the pressing would make the paper thinner which isn't the same as when it left the mfg....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't think pressing cards is a good thing. It is not the same as erasing a mark or soaking or pushing down a corner that flipped up. It seems the pressing would make the paper thinner which isn't the same as when it left the mfg....

That's because you have a hobby history and understand the collective wisdom on alteration. And so does PSA by the way, if in practice they fall short of being able to enforce their standards.

[jayshum]

How come they consider recoloration to be alteration instead of conservation? Wouldn't that just be an "act which returns a card closer to its as-manufactured condition and does not render the card artificially different from the as-manufactured state"? That's their definition of conservation.

Really corner rebuilding is also returning it to the as-manufactured state. Trimming would seem to be the only thing that would be classified as alteration based on the above definition of conservation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The sh*t going on out there is just evil. At some point does it reach a critical mass and people start asking what the %^&* is going on, or do we just go about our business and keep on praising all the major players and talking about how wonderful they are? Just the latest example by the super sleuth on blowout. If you check his ID you can find all his recent threads.
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showth...1#post14636793

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The sh*t going on out there is just evil. At some point does it reach a critical mass and people start asking what the %^&* is going on, or do we just go about our business and keep on praising all the major players and talking about how wonderful they are? Just the latest example by the super sleuth on blowout. If you check his ID you can find all his recent threads.
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showth...1#post14636793

The critical mass question is huge. But I'll pose a hypothesis: perhaps the collecting population is large enough that there is enough people out there who will tolerate this evil sh*t.
Of course, shenanigans with cards is not new. The recent trimming and forgery discoveries have been well-documented, but I don't think it's any new development in the hobby. I would presume that anybody bidding on "investment" cards, any cards that sell for five figures or more, etc. are well aware of the risks involved when it comes to alterations/restoration/etc. And yet the hobby still experiences record highs all over the place. People know, and they still bid.
Optimistic take: the hobby is in a strong place with a big population of collectors driving interest in all facets.
Pessimistic take: the buyers have the power to accept or veto this evil sh*t with their wallets. If people are accepting of obvious alterations, while also not expecting disclosure of them, then dang. From my time here, it seems that the general consensus of the board is that alterations suck and disclosure is necessary, which I'm in agreement with. If the future of the hobby is alterations everywhere and no disclosure, we're in a world of hurt.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think we already have alterations everywhere and no disclosure. And have had for some time. What I find troubling about recent events is that people are actually defending it, as opposed to being upset about it. Just today we have heard high praise from multiple sources for the very company proposing a preposterous new definition of altered cards. It's Kafkaesque, or something.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think we already have alterations everywhere and no disclosure. And have had for some time. What I find troubling about recent events is that people are actually defending it, as opposed to being upset about it. Just today we have heard high praise from multiple sources for the very company proposing a preposterous new definition of altered cards. It's Kafkaesque, or something.

What really struck me was those that continued purchasing/consigning to known/questionable businesses.

Lots of proof exists about some of the dealings these companies do but a blind eye is turned as long as money is involved. It's amazing what greed can do to a person.

I also have strong admiration for the likes of Jeffrey and others who try their best to convict these types only to find out, despite the evidence and convictions sometimes, that those doing some of the complaining are right back dealing with these types. I honestly don't know how they don't throw in the towel and just give up?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What I find troubling about recent events is that people are actually defending it, as opposed to being upset about it. Just today we have heard high praise from multiple sources for the very company proposing a preposterous new definition of altered cards. It's Kafkaesque, or something.

And you really don’t know why? It’s not Kafkaesque at all and you know it.

This is the hobby. The more it changes, the more it stays the same.

Edited to add: does anyone care that Heritage gives themselves permission to bid on their own lots? To me that’s way more bothersome than Brent helping people evade taxes.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Sometimes I'm glad to be a little guy. I don't even have to wonder what I would do in these situations. I just don't live in those rent districts. If I ever succumb to the temptation to cut ethical corners I officially invite the board to let me have it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

How come they consider recoloration to be alteration instead of conservation? Wouldn't that just be an "act which returns a card closer to its as-manufactured condition and does not render the card artificially different from the as-manufactured state"? That's their definition of conservation.

Really corner rebuilding is also returning it to the as-manufactured state. Trimming would seem to be the only thing that would be classified as alteration based on the above definition of conservation.

Certainly taking out creases would pass muster. It's hard to even take this crap seriously. It's just stunning to me that we have reached this point. But the cash register just keeps on ringing.

[ullmandds]

It would be a major injustice if Pwcc is allowed to define what an altered card is and isn’t!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

It would be a major injustice if Pwcc is allowed to define what an altered card is and isn’t!

ya think?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I was just reflecting back on how I started in this hobby -- riding my bike with my friend to the 7-11 to buy 65 Topps packs with our allowances. I've always loved cards, most fundamentally I guess because I've always loved baseball and later sports in general. I understand that it's become a business, and that they've become valuable collectibles. No issue with that. I understand the advantages of TPG in the internet age. No real issue with that. But on days like this, I am just so pissed off at the criminal and sleaze elements, and those who enable them and defend them, that I almost want to quit.

End of speech.

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

It would be a major injustice if Pwcc is allowed to define what an altered card is and isn’t!

Personally I only think of them as an ebay seller greedy for cash. Nothing I have ever read about them makes me think of them as "the" card experts though they seem to try and portray themselves as such (see disclaimers on not being graders and then grading the grade and slapping a sticker on it) smh

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

Personally I only think of them as an ebay seller greedy for cash. Nothing I have ever read about them makes me think of them as "the" card experts though they seem to try and portray themselves as such (see disclaimers on not being graders and then grading the grade and slapping a sticker on it) smh

Yes...but venture away from this board and you will find hoards of zombies muttering PSA...PWWC...as if they were the Last Word in the hobby...and these are the masses...we are the minority.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by jayshum

How come they consider recoloration to be alteration instead of conservation? Wouldn't that just be an "act which returns a card closer to its as-manufactured condition and does not render the card artificially different from the as-manufactured state"? That's their definition of conservation.

Really corner rebuilding is also returning it to the as-manufactured state. Trimming would seem to be the only thing that would be classified as alteration based on the above definition of conservation.

It is my understanding of what they posted that if you are adding (adding color to a corner or edge) or taking away (trimming), that is alteration. They are OK with anything else, pressing corners, creases, removing stains, whitening borders or anything else that removes something from the card that wasn't originally there. That is considered "conservation" by PWCC. The Joe DiMaggio rookie from last year and this 52 Topps Mantle are OK by their standards as I understand them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

It is my understanding of what they posted that if you are adding (adding color to a corner or edge) or taking away (trimming), that is alteration. They are OK with anything else, pressing corners, creases, removing stains, whitening borders or anything else that removes something from the card that wasn't originally there. That is considered "conservation" by PWCC. The Joe DiMaggio rookie from last year and this 52 Topps Mantle are OK by their standards as I understand them.

And if it's trimmed, they'll just hide behind PSA. All the bases are covered.

[Leon]

While I disagree with the pressing out of corners I still like most of what else PWCC is doing. I won't throw the whole business out with one disagreement. If that were the case the PSA 8 Wagner would make PSA go out of business and it hasn't.

Actually, pressing the corners does change the composition of the card so maybe they will backtrack on that one aspect. Pressing out a soaked corner can only lead to a thinner card and then trimming to make it the correct size again. Not a good idea.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

While I disagree with the pressing out of corners I still like most of what else PWCC is doing. I won't throw the whole business out with one disagreement. If that were the case the PSA 8 Wagner would make PSA go out of business and it hasn't.

It's not just the pressing out of corners, it's a global contempt for the collective ethos of the hobby on altered cards, in order to justify the sale of obviously altered cards. Let's be honest about this. It goes well beyond this particular Mantle card.

[topcat61]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't think pressing cards is a good thing. It is not the same as erasing a mark or soaking or pushing down a corner that flipped up. It seems the pressing would make the paper thinner which isn't the same as when it left the mfg....

Hey Leon, I'm curious cause I really don't know, but what is card "pressing"? Can you give me an example so I'll know what to look for? Thanks.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by topcat61

Hey Leon, I'm curious cause I really don't know, but what is card "pressing"? Can you give me an example so I'll know what to look for? Thanks.

My estimation of pressing as a nefarious act would be to soak a card then apply a lot of pressure to a corner (pressing) to make it thinner and longer. I have never done it or seen it done, but read what is said just like everyone else does.
Other pressing would be merely drying a card after it was soaked to prevent a curl to it. I don't have an issue with someone doing that (drying the card). But I do with the heavy pressing of corners because it can easily lead to trimming. As far as detection I would guess a loupe and holding it up to light would be useful. I don't study this crap like some others so maybe I am mistaking. If any card doctors want to come forward and let us know it would be most appreciated.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I found this online.

For cards, I think that there are three variations of this, and pressing in general is not accepted.

(1) Soaking - this is usually fairly common especially in prewar cards where you usually soak the card in water to remove it from a scrapbook, etc. It is also sometimes used to remove excess dirt or other residue that has accumulated on the card. After the water soak, the card is usually dried and then placed under some heavy objects such as books to ensure that it dries flat. This process may also remove some warping in the card. I believe this is usually acceptable in the card community as long as NO CHEMICALS ARE USED. Only water or distilled water is acceptable. Anything else is considered altering the card.

(2) Pressing - this is the process to remove wrinkles or creases in the card. This is not acceptable as sometimes over time, the wrinkles or creases may come back. A card may look to be crease-free when it is originally submitted to a TPG. However, at a later time, the creases re-appear, and observers wonder how such a card with creases got such as high grade and got past the graders.

(3) Pressing to trim - one of the reasons that there is a minimum size requirements to cards is to prevent unscrupulous sellers from trimming a card with soft corners so that the end product is a card with sharp corners. They then submit this card for a grade, but it will often fail due to minimum size requirement. However, one way to get around this is to press the card so strongly that the size of the card increases (but it becomes thinner). Then the card is trimmed, so that the corners are now sharp and it is still within the minimum size requirements. Obviously, this is not acceptable to the collecting community. >>

The pressing(#2 above) aspect reminds me of what many did in the 80's/90's with a process called "spooning". Where one rolled a spoon,the bottom/curved part of the part of the spoon that holds the liquid, back/forth over a crease/bubble to flatten it. Also the pressing to trim(#3 above) was accomplished via pressing a card under a certain tonage (PSI) in a mechanical press of sorts to "stretch" the cardboard thereby allowing more material to be trimmed from the edges. This does in fact result in a thinner stock card.

[drcy]

An issue is you don't know what pressing will do to a card later, and don't know that what the pressing does is permanent. There have been instances of wrinkles re-appearing after being holdered.

Clearly, a collector or dealer removing wax stain or pencil mark isn't like trimming and recoloring, and many would argue those are okay and reasonable things to do. However, I wouldn't catalog that as 'conservation,' with conservation be done by a trained professional, or expert amateur, who is considering and is educated in the longterm health and preservation of the item.

I don't want eBay sellers to be able to get away with saying "No, no, I wasn't altering it. I was conserving it."

Unless it's been professionally, or otherwise expertly, conserved, do not use the term conserve.

I do know a collector and board member who is a self-trained expert in conservation (does more than paper items), and I would consider what he does as conservation (deacification of documents, etc). He's also very ethical and transparent about what he does, and, for items such as antique prints and paintings, real conservation is considered a selling point.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Didn't read the whole thread, but there's a difference in card pressing and card stretching. Card pressing is usually used to remove a crease. Card stretching is used to make it slightly larger than it's normal size so that it can be trimmed back down to size. Both are wrong IMO.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by drcy

An issue is you don't know what pressing will do to a card later, and don't know that what the pressing does is permanent. There have been instances of wrinkles re-appearing after being holdered.

Clearly, a collector or dealer removing wax stain or pencil mark isn't like trimming and recoloring, and many would argue those are okay and reasonable things to do. However, I wouldn't catalog that as 'conservation,' with conservation be done by a trained professional, or expert amateur, who is considering and is educated in the longterm health and preservation of the item.

I don't want eBay sellers to be able to get away with saying "No, no, I wasn't altering it. I was conserving it."

Unless it's been professionally, or otherwise expertly, conserved, do not use the term conserve.

I do know a collector and board member who is a self-trained expert in conservation (does more than paper items), and I would consider what he does as conservation (deacification of documents, etc). He's also very ethical and transparent about what he does, and, for items such as antique prints and paintings, real conservation is considered a selling point.

Conservation is a complete misnomer here. That, to me, implies as David says something necessary to protect the item from further decay. PWCC, if anything, is talking about restoration, that is, returning the item closer to its original state. It just further betrays the ignorance.