Alteration vs. Conservation Defined

[calvindog]

If PWCC doesn’t acknowledge the altered cards they’re selling why would the card doctors acknowledge it? And what’s the point in expecting the card doctors to announce their work? After all, they slipped the cards past the TPG for a reason.

I think Brent and Betsy need better advisers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

If PWCC doesn’t acknowledge the altered cards they’re selling why would the card doctors acknowledge it? And what’s the point in expecting the card doctors to announce their work? After all, they slipped the cards past the TPG for a reason.

I think Brent and Betsy need better advisers.

The consignment form will be modified to include, if you submitted any of these cards yourself, please state all work you did on the card, so PWCC can determine whether it is altered or conserved nd what to disclose.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Man there is some serious apathy going on around here. PWCC proposes to adopt a significantly different definition of altered cards than the TPGs and the hobby in general have embraced for decades, and there's less response than if someone complained about shipping costs on an ebay card.

[frankbmd]

Shipping costs less than the vault.

Sales tax avoidance is a straw man.

Alteration is monetary.

Restoration is monetary.

The soaker, the fixer, the TPG, the consignor and the vendor are all in the same boat, which is not yet sinking.

Will anything change as a result of a definition rewrite? Unlikely.

Money talks.

I really don’t know but I suspect that high grade tobacco cards are more prevalent today than 25 years ago.

I have neuropathy, not apathy.

[MattyC]

PWCC's "tenet" is just another opinion, in an infinite sea of opinions. I value my time and don't see why I should pay much of it to what some eBay seller says. I don't have to subscribe to what PWCC says anymore than I have to obey PSA's opinion, when they say one card is better than another. Life's way too short to let opinions cause aggravation— especially in one's hobby, which is a source of enjoyment, relaxation, and escape from big problems.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Man there is some serious apathy going on around here. PWCC proposes to adopt a significantly different definition of altered cards than the TPGs and the hobby in general have embraced for decades, and there's less response than if someone complained about shipping costs on an ebay card.

Peter,

I'm not sure that its apathy, per se, so much as resignation. I agree with you that the proposed "definition" of altered cards is substantially different from what has historically been the norm, obviously for overtly financial reasons, and that it is complete BS given what's going on. It is actually meaningless. But after years of shilling complaints, false bid complaints, failure to disqualify shill/retracting bidders according to the stated "policy," etc., why would people get too exorcised about this? What most collectors care about is the number, not what happened to get it there. I think I disagree with Leon that PWCC is doing anything good for the hobby, but that's an argument for another day. And, I will have to admit that I've bought cards from them before.

In any event, stuff trumps all. Always has, probably always will. They are perceived as having good stuff. Evidently that's what matters. Doesn't matter how or why. Too sad.

[glynparson]

Sorry Brent but conservation is anything done so the item exists for a longer period of time that’s it. Restoration is done to improve the items appearance and can be used to deceive buyers into thinking an item is in better natural condition than it truly is (if not disclosed)That is it end of definitions. All this other stuff is spin to try and justify what in my opinion is altering a card. Even some of the things I hear Leon and others saying are ok is altering. Erasing marks is altering a card in my opinion. Any chemicals that could degrade or change the paper in anyway is alteration in my opinion. Really not a fan of this statement at all and I think You, Brent, have done some positive things so this isn’t just an i hate PWCC opinion. I have used your consignment services and was generally impressed with how you guys handled my cards. The final things that worry me are the issues brought up on blowout that seem to indicate a preference for giving your own cards these stickers that seem to add significant value. That is an issue I’d love to see you adddress openly and honestly. Also the apparent partnering that was supposedly exposed on blowout with someone many consider a prolific card doctor. Those issues are important to many of us who have used your services as a buyer and a seller.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by glynparson

Erasing marks is altering a card in my opinion.

The mark IS an alteration to the card. The opposite of an alteration is preservation. So if erasing the mark removes it, then erasing is preservation whether you agree or not. I'm not saying that it's ok and I believe it should be disclosed when known. I'm just trying to clear up the difference concerning the mark.

[glynparson]

No David that would be restoring. Not preserving nice try though. Because you are taking something that was changed and restoring it to how it was originally. That isn’t preservation. Stopping one from marking it in the first place would be preserving it. You really get off trying to be mr cool and edgy on the net don’t you. And why do you hide your name with characters if you type David and James into google there are over 2 billion hits seriously what the hell are you so worried about someone seeing out of that many hits.

Plus people Erase marks that are from The factory like print marks on the border. Seriously let this conversation for those that know what the hell they are talking about. But as we know you just need the drama must make you feel important or something. Once the alteration occurs it’s altered there’s no going back. Making more alterations is t doing anything but making more alterations.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glynparson

Sorry Brent but conservation is anything done so the item exists for a longer period of time that’s it. Restoration is done to improve the items appearance and can be used to deceive buyers into thinking an item is in better natural condition than it truly is (if not disclosed)That is it end of definitions. All this other stuff is spin to try and justify what in my opinion is altering a card. Even some of the things I hear Leon and others saying are ok is altering. Erasing marks is altering a card in my opinion. Any chemicals that could degrade or change the paper in anyway is alteration in my opinion. Really not a fan of this statement at all and I think You, Brent, have done some positive things so this isn’t just an i hate PWCC opinion. I have used your consignment services and was generally impressed with how you guys handled my cards. The final things that worry me are the issues brought up on blowout that seem to indicate a preference for giving your own cards these stickers that seem to add significant value. That is an issue I’d love to see you adddress openly and honestly. Also the apparent partnering that was supposedly exposed on blowout with someone many consider a prolific card doctor. Those issues are important to many of us who have used your services as a buyer and a seller.

Glyn, there is no question -- none -- that that individual has been consigning to PWCC since the very beginning.

Edit to add accepting consignments from questionable sources is, of course, not even remotely unique to PWCC.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Man there is some serious apathy going on around here. PWCC proposes to adopt a significantly different definition of altered cards than the TPGs and the hobby in general have embraced for decades, and there's less response than if someone complained about shipping costs on an ebay card.

I think what is missing from this thread that is causing the Blowout Forums thread to blow up, so to speak, are some of the examples over there, illustrating, perhaps, what the new PWCC tenets are trying to support. Here are a few of the examples, which you can see in the links Calvindog provided:

[tschock]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

I think what is missing from this thread that is causing the Blowout Forums thread to blow up, so to speak, are some of the examples over there, illustrating, perhaps, what the new PWCC tenets are trying to support. Here are a few of the examples, which you can see in the links Calvindog provided:

Even if these aren't the same cards (and I do believe they are), it is obvious from the borders that they have been trimmed. So the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the tenets are an attempt at one hand washing the other. I mean so what if the card was trimmed? All of what is left is original, right? And the creases, dings, rounded corners weren't part of the original card anyway, right? So we are simply conserving what is left, and why should that be a problem if the TPGs don't catch it (or care)? Maybe not giving total legitimacy to 'trimming as preservation', but at least 'trimming as not a big deal'. I mean really, trimming a painting doesn't change the fact that it is original, does it?

[Leon]

A few days ago before this thread was posted Brent and I spoke for 30 minutes to an hour on the phone (hey Brent). I told him the hobby has already decided what is altering and what isn't. While some agree or disagree, the hobby spoke many years ago. This is old news. While I think Brent wants to have the conversation to get it in the open I doubt any minds will be changed. These tenets are just one person's opinion. I know Brent thinks altering a card is bad but the definition of altering is the issue. Purists think erasing a light pencil mark is altering. It is but not in a bad way, to me. Using water to get dirt off of a card isn't bad in many collectors eyes, mine included. But some see it as altering in a bad way. Brent agreed that pressing a corner to make it larger is bad. Trimming is bad. Flipping down a corner that flipped up, not so bad. We have been talking about this stuff, on this forum, for well over 10 yrs and closer to 20. Minds aren't going to change soon. I am not so sure that only cleaning a card is alteration. For those that think Brent is knowingly doing bad things in the hobby I couldn't disagree more. Sure he is an advertiser here but if I thought he was doing bad stuff he wouldn't be. To each their own. BTW, holding a TPG accountable for something that can't be seen is absurd.

[calvindog]

How do you know what Brent is thinking? Or what he is doing knowingly? From what he tells you?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

A few days ago before this thread was posted Brent and I spoke for 30 minutes to an hour on the phone (hey Brent). I told him the hobby has already decided what is altering and what isn't. While some agree or disagree, the hobby spoke many years ago. This is old news. While I think Brent wants to have the conversation to get it in the open I doubt any minds will be changed. These tenets are just one person's opinion. I know Brent thinks altering a card is bad but the definition of altering is the issue. Purists think erasing a light pencil mark is altering. It is but not in a bad way, to me. Using water to get dirt off of a card isn't bad in many collectors eyes, mine included. But some see it as altering in a bad way. Brent agreed that pressing a corner to make it larger is bad. Trimming is bad. Flipping down a corner that flipped up, not so bad. We have been talking about this stuff, on this forum, for well over 10 yrs and closer to 20. Minds aren't going to change soon. I am not so sure that only cleaning a card is alteration. For those that think Brent is knowingly doing bad things in the hobby I couldn't disagree more. Sure he is an advertiser here but if I thought he was doing bad stuff he wouldn't be. To each their own. BTW, holding a TPG accountable for something that can't be seen is absurd.

Your thoughts on accepting consignments from card doctors? Good thing or bad thing?

[frankbmd]

Rereading Brent’s definitions it seems that the ultimate conservation can make the card appear as manufactured, theoretical in PSA 10 pack fresh condition.

However the restored card has no such upper limit, suggesting that a restored card theoretically could receive a PSA 11, or even in rare cases a PSA 12.

If only PSA would award such grades, Brent’s definitions might make sense.



C’mon Man!!!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

I think what is missing from this thread that is causing the Blowout Forums thread to blow up, so to speak, are some of the examples over there, illustrating, perhaps, what the new PWCC tenets are trying to support. Here are a few of the examples, which you can see in the links Calvindog provided:

A picture really does tell 1,000 words. I understand everyone's frustrations with PWCC. I really do. And some very good questions have been presented that I think they need to address. But what I truly don't understand is that no one is holding PSA accountable. Are they not to blame too? Why aren't they detecting the work being done on these cards? PWCC is being raked over the coals, but everyone turns a blind eye to PSA's involvement. Why? Why do people continue to submit cards to PSA when they can't do what you're paying them to do? That makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm sorry, everyone can complain all they want to but truly nothing will ever change until the people that you pay to do their job (the TPGs) actually does their job. If PSA did their job, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Things will never change until the TPGs are held accountable. Otherwise this thread is just useless whiney chatter.

One of the first things I educated myself on 35 years ago when I started this hobby was how to tell the difference between a factory cut and a non-factory cut. If I can do it, so can the TPGs.