Alteration vs. Conservation Defined

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Depends on the jawbone.

What if it's the jawbone's job to smite the Philistines? Does that make Brent guilty?

I'll wait.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

What if it's the jawbone's job to smite the Philistines? Does that make Brent guilty?

I'll wait.

Well, Brent presumably has a jawbone, so there you go.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well, Brent presumably has a jawbone, so there you go.

Yes but I am proudly bolding this part of my response. Therefore the jawbone has a job it must do.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Well, you force me to a musical interlude, Peter Paul and Mary written by Rev. Gary Davis.

You read about Samson, you read about his birth
He was the strongest man that ever lived on Earth.
One day old Samson was walking alone
He looked down on the ground and he saw an old jaw-bone.
He lifted up that jaw-bone and he swung it over his head,
and when he got to moving ten thousand was dead.

If I had my way,
If I had my way in this wicked world,
If I had my way I would tear this building down.

[bounce]

"Evidence of alteration can be determined in two different ways; either in technical review by a reputable Third-Party Authenticator, or when digital content asserts beyond a reasonable doubt that an alteration took place (i.e. before and after photos of trimming, recoloring, etc)."

Couple things here.

First, where does "restoration" fit within these tenets? Is it conservation, alteration, or something else all together?

A recent example, which was discussed/debated here pretty thoroughly. Made it into a TPG case (more on that below).


Second, regarding alteration, so long as it's "disclosed" and "transparent", then it can be sold. Again using the Wagner as the example, I believe that card fits squarely in the "altered" tenet - recoloring, addition of paper, etc.

There was and is HUGE disagreement on the "minimum" level of disclosure that should be required, or what exactly constitutes "transparent". I know the Wagner was not a PWCC auction, but from a hobby standpoint I was certainly arguing that the description there was nowhere near a reasonable standard of "minimum" or "transparent". However, there were plenty of others that felt it was sufficient. Does that mean you also need a tenet to define what exactly is "transparent"?

Third, "technical review by a reputable Third-Party Authenticator...", and "beyond a reasonable doubt..." are basically the easy way out of saying that if it got into the TPG case it's fine, even if the TPG missed something.

There are plenty of recent threads around Lebron blacks, Harper Heritage autos, Trouts, etc. that clearly demonstrate work was done to the cards. Those cards have been altered, plain and simple, and it doesn't matter that the TPG put a number grade on them - they missed it. Using "technical review by a reputable Third-Party Authenticator..." is essentially just saying "NOT IT" when it comes to any enforcement against altered cards.

In conjunction with that, putting together a tenet that includes courtroom language shortly thereafter effectively invalidates the foundation of the tenet, if you ask me.

I do think I infer from the tenets a desire to "deal with facts", which I agree with. However, I believe these tenets is just leaving the door open to say "prove it beyond a reasonable doubt...", and just punts that decision to each market participant to make their own judgment. That's fine, but that's honestly where we kind of already are and have been. So why do I need tenets to tell me that?

Finally - the PWCC tenets are all well and good, but until the TPGs get together and establish consistent and/or similar/identical assessments of what constitutes alteration, restoration and conservation - including how those things are noted on the flips - it's all just another in a long line of opinions that the TPGs and auction houses hide behind when they make decisions that aren't necessarily in the best interest of the hobby or "transparency".

Rant over...get back to your legal mumbo jumbo.

[vintagetoppsguy]

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking,
People hearing without listening,
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dare
Disturb the sound of silence

There are 3 parties involved here - the doctor/consigner (I'll assume they're one in the same), PSA and PWCC. PWCC is the only party that's being called out here. I keep asking the same question, but I only hear crickets. Is it ethical to do business with a company that KNOWINGLY grades doctored cards?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking,
People hearing without listening,
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dare
Disturb the sound of silence

Great song by S & G, but I really like the way Disturbed does it.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

There are 3 parties involved here - the doctor/consigner (I'll assume they're one in the same), PSA and PWCC. PWCC is the only party that's being called out here. I keep asking the same question, but I only hear crickets. Is it ethical to do business with a company that KNOWINGLY grades doctored cards?

I always thought PSA graded "doctored" cards because they had some incompetent graders. What evidence do you have that it is the policy of PSA to "KNOWINGLY" assign a number grade to "doctored" cards? (It's okay to grade "doctored" cards as long as you "grade" them as altered.)

PWCC is being singled out because they put forth the idiotic definition of "conservation."

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Other than possibly the PSA 8 Wagner, what doctored cards has PSA KNOWINGLY graded with a number grade? You use plural so I assume you have multiple examples.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

What evidence do you have that it is the policy of PSA to "KNOWINGLY" assign a number grade to "doctored" cards?

Where's y'alls evidence that PWCC has knowledge of a doctored card prior to the auction?

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

What evidence do you have that it is the policy of PSA to "KNOWINGLY" assign a number grade to "doctored" cards? (It's okay to grade "doctored" cards as long as you "grade" them as altered.)

If you take PSA at their word, their founder Mr. Hall was not competent enough to "KNOWINGLY" call the Gretzky Wagner altered. Because he didn't know. Really, I'm sure he didn't...

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Great song by S & G, but I really like the way Disturbed does it.

The best rendition of that song (or any) that I have ever heard...period! His performance on Conan was EPIC!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk7RVw3I8eg

[steve B]

Originally Posted by calvindog

What if it's the jawbone's job to smite the Philistines? Does that make Brent guilty?

I'll wait.

Only if the jawbone was a 6 and is now an 8....

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

What if it's the jawbone's job to smite the Philistines? Does that make Brent guilty?

I'll wait.

I gave up smoting years ago.

"Anyone really care what some freaking hayseed in Oregon thinks about cards?"

Ted, best line of the year.

A Lord on high at one of the TPGs admitted to me years ago that they are all aware that cards are being altered but that they cannot detect a good job of removing a foreign substance from a card. Light erasures, soakings, etc., it has been going on ever since TPGs started minting money for their customers based on the perceived grade of the card and it is not going to stop.

No one is going to be swayed by anything said here. The fans of PWCC and those who don't care what happened to get a card into a TPG holder have their beliefs and nothing rational will shake them.

DRCY writes: "If this all a method to hide from bidders and buyers the presence of conservation or restoration or other alterations, it's wrong"

I view it as more of an effort to shift concern away from criticism of the piss-poor job the TPGs have done on delivering on their promises of no alterations getting through their sieves. PWCC's entire business rests on two concepts: the TPG-encapsulated cards are what they are and as long as they have the right capsules around them the cards themselves are basically interchangeable commodities. Well, we know that the TPGs are missing all sorts of stuff: fake signatures, trimmed cards, cleaned cards, etc. So what can you do in the face of the evidence? Change the discussion or change the parameters of what you define as a wrongful alteration. The discussion itself ain't gonna change, so the OP is just a way of trying to sell us on the idea that even if the PSA or BGS slab has a card that has had one of these procedures, like a bath and cleaning, that's fine because it merely brought the card back towards its original state and the TPG then blessed it. So what if it went from a 4 to a 7 and the person who rode that train will make a fortune?

It's bulls**t of the highest order tossed out there to keep the gravy train rolling.

[Bigdaddy]

So should I feel bad about wiping wax stains off of my 1970s Topps cards with my shirt-tail?

And should I disclose the deed? It may not warrant a numerical bump by a TPG, but it could eliminate the dreaded (ST) qualifier.

BTW, thank you BLong for putting some of the pieces together and shedding more light on all of this. Much like the college admissions scandal, I'm a bit disheartened, but not surprised.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

So should I feel bad about wiping wax stains off of my 1970s Topps cards with my shirt-tail?

And should I disclose the deed? It may not warrant a numerical bump by a TPG, but it could eliminate the dreaded (ST) qualifier.

BTW, thank you BLong for putting some of the pieces together and shedding more light on all of this. Much like the college admissions scandal, I'm a bit disheartened, but not surprised.

Shirt-tail wax removal isn’t woke. I’ve always thought panty-hose wax removal was the preferred technique. Then again I fully realize that everyone with shirt tails does not wear panty-hose. To make matters worse the Untuckit shirts eliminate the shirt tail alternative. The future should see a bump in panty-hose sales for this reason.

[ullmandds]

and in recent news:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BxQhjthHUpr/

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

and in recent news:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BxQhjthHUpr/

Funny how they get the same reaction everywhere.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Funny how they get the same reaction everywhere.

right! apparently noone cares!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Conserve - protect (something, especially an environmentally or culturally important place or thing) from harm or destruction.

Restore - repair or renovate (a building, work of art, vehicle, etc.) so as to return it to its original condition.

Alter - change or cause to change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way.

Oddly after a lot of digging I found there already ARE definitions for these words. It took seconds of mind-bending labor, but I found them.