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

[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.

[Rascal1010]

I think everyone needs to relax a little bit, PWCC may very well be doing the collectors in this hobby a huge favor with this new definition. If PWCC feels comfortable selling by their definition "conserved" cards, then let them go about their business. As long as they are willing to sell "doctored" cards in their auctions, that is where consignors will consign them, and thankfully they will be off of the market and out of the general hobby, since a good portion of these will be purchased "tax-free" and stored in the vault in Oregon, hopefully to never see the light of day again. Maybe the new definition of what is "altered" or "conserved" just goes hand in hand with the vault business model. I say consign all the "doctored" cards to PWCC and let them store them.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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.

This blows my mind more than anything else I've ever encountered if that makes you feel better.

I'v always been amazed that there hasn't been more hue and cry about it, but then again as an auctioneer I know nobody actually reads terms and conditions besides auctioneers and lawyers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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.

I always wanted to mention Kafka in a post, leave me alone.

[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.

[calvindog]

People laughed at Walt Disney too. He showed em, just like Brent will.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by 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. I've always loved cards. 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.

I share these sentiments. As someone who regularly reads and reflects on issues such as these, I just think the influence over our hobby so many have allowed elements like this to have is a load of crap. How so many people could just roll over and be so weak-minded is unreal to me. I don't regularly spend huge money on cards and I am not a blip on the radar, but I do make fairly regular purchases. When I do make purchases, I take these discussions to heart and avoid doing business with anyone who knowingly is doing this. This board has opened my eyes, and I am appreciative of that. Peter, it's like you have said before, "Stuff trumps all."

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

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.

On this board too, my friend.

[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.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

I disagree. They are trying to change the hobby for the better and, imo, misstepped on this one idea. There is no justification for pressing a cards corners out after soaking it. It all goes back to changing the card. Don't change it and I am ok with it. If it came from the factory with thinner corners than the rest of the card then it would be fine. But as far as I know that isn't how any cards have been made.