Alteration vs. Conservation Defined

[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.