Alteration vs. Conservation Defined

[swarmee]

PSA has tremendous liability in this issue for their failure to detect these alterations, because of their Grade Guarantee. They don't really need to say anything about Brent's tenets because they run counter to PSA's longstanding grading practice. Many of the things Brent calls "conservation" is clearly defined in PSA's grading rules as Alteration; the rub is that they're not nearly as good at detecting them as they claim they are. Brent is putting this out there because he bears little to no risk; PSA is on the hook for doctored cards.

In the submission with the Mantle PSA 4.5, which was presumably submitted by Brent based on the number of cards that were immediately resold by PWCC, 29 of the cards were returned ungraded. Was it for Altered, MinSize, min grade? We don't know. Just that the certs aren't there for some reason. That's out of 79 cards submitted. So it's quite possible that PSA caught 29 of 79 with some type of alteration. That's a huge number. Should they have caught more in the same order? Maybe. Should they tell the submitter: you're dead to us! ? I don't know the answer to that. Were these directly submitted by PWCC or are some owned by PWCC? We don't know that either.

Someone on Blowout pointed out when you submit cards, you certify that the cards you're submitting are unaltered in the first place. Can they use this to invalidate claims against their Grade Guarantee against submitters that intentionally submit trimmed and altered cards? Guess we'll find out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I have certainly heard in the past that PSA banned people from submitting, but as has been pointed out that's a pretty simple workaround.

It's certainly easier to hide, in general, in a world where so many sales are consignments to auction houses and major ebay sellers.

Way back in the day, everyone knew who the card doctors were, they were the guys buying centered EX and EX MT cards at shows, who at the next show would have the same cards in 8s and 9s.

Now they're buying online under anonymous IDs, and selling through third parties.

[oldjudge]

Pretty simple solution to all this, if you don’t like the way PWCC does business don’t deal with them. I was unhappy with a card I bought on EBay several months back. I returned it to PWCC, got a refund, and will not deal with them again. Everyone needs to decide for themselves who they choose to deal with.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Pretty simple solution to all this, if you don’t like the way PWCC does business don’t deal with them. I was unhappy with a card I bought on EBay several months back. I returned it to PWCC, got a refund, and will not deal with them again. Everyone needs to decide for themselves who they choose to deal with.

This.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Why do you need to define Alteration vs. Conservation unless you are planning on knowingly selling altered (er conserved) cards and need to justify it to the hobby. This means you know you're wrong but are trying to pull one over on everyone.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Pretty simple solution to all this, if you don’t like the way PWCC does business don’t deal with them. I was unhappy with a card I bought on EBay several months back. I returned it to PWCC, got a refund, and will not deal with them again. Everyone needs to decide for themselves who they choose to deal with.

It depends how you define "all this." If you define it as the problem of altered cards being slabbed, that problem is pervasive and the solution if there is one is going to involve law enforcement coming down on card doctors who for decades now have just mocked the hobby and become rich in the process, and the TPGs especially PSA improving their detection methods.

[oldjudge]

Extraneous words on my part. If you delete "to all this" from my post my thought remains as intended.

[AGuinness]

After taking time to think about what PWCC's Marketplace Tenets might mean, I'm not sure it moves the needle that much. The broad reason is because these tenets are for dealing with PWCC, and while Brent and people there can refer to it as the "Market" (with a capital 'M'), they're talking about the PWCC marketplace and not the larger market. And as has been mentioned, the larger market has its established opinions on alterations.
What remains to be seen is if PWCC will include anything about disclosures in their tenets, which will go a long way in knowing how this will all play out. Altering, conserving, rebuilding, rejuvenating... whatever anybody wants to call it; this stuff happens and as long as this is disclosed to buyers, then that's between the seller and the potential buyers. But if any seller doesn't disclose what was done to a card, no matter what they call it, then that's a problem.
Somebody mentioned the adage that stuff trumps all. I think that's partly true. Stuff matters, but relationships also matter. And I know I'm not the only one that will flat-out not buy from a seller who doesn't disclose alterations/conservation/whatever that's been done to a card that they know of. If a "bent region of a card" has been laid flat (as given as an example in the first post), I want to know about it before bidding (much less buying) and I believe that is a reasonable expectation to have. And if any seller doesn't disclose this, I would no longer do business with them. It doesn't matter what stuff they have, I wouldn't touch it based on principle.
I'm also curious how the final wording of the PWCC tenets will look, as it is described as the "rules of engagement" for dealing with PWCC. If conservation is not a necessity to disclose and a buyer finds out after the fact, I believe that eBay's rules will dictate a return is possible - will these tenets follow suit? To that end, I believe it is held that PWCC has a different seller fee schedule than others; does PWCC also have a different set of rules and regulations with eBay that would potentially eliminate the right for buyers to return items "not as described," should they discover some conservation efforts that were not disclosed? These tenets would make more sense if PWCC had its own platform, which may or may not be the end goal for this business.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Please name one seller who does disclose? How can you know who doesn't so as to avoid them?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

After taking time to think about what PWCC's Marketplace Tenets might mean, I'm not sure it moves the needle that much. The broad reason is because these tenets are for dealing with PWCC, and while Brent and people there can refer to it as the "Market" (with a capital 'M'), they're talking about the PWCC marketplace and not the larger market. And as has been mentioned, the larger market has its established opinions on alterations.
What remains to be seen is if PWCC will include anything about disclosures in their tenets, which will go a long way in knowing how this will all play out. Altering, conserving, rebuilding, rejuvenating... whatever anybody wants to call it; this stuff happens and as long as this is disclosed to buyers, then that's between the seller and the potential buyers. But if any seller doesn't disclose what was done to a card, no matter what they call it, then that's a problem.
Somebody mentioned the adage that stuff trumps all. I think that's partly true. Stuff matters, but relationships also matter. And I know I'm not the only one that will flat-out not buy from a seller who doesn't disclose alterations/conservation/whatever that's been done to a card that they know of. If a "bent region of a card" has been laid flat (as given as an example in the first post), I want to know about it before bidding (much less buying) and I believe that is a reasonable expectation to have. And if any seller doesn't disclose this, I would no longer do business with them. It doesn't matter what stuff they have, I wouldn't touch it based on principle.
I'm also curious how the final wording of the PWCC tenets will look, as it is described as the "rules of engagement" for dealing with PWCC. If conservation is not a necessity to disclose and a buyer finds out after the fact, I believe that eBay's rules will dictate a return is possible - will these tenets follow suit? To that end, I believe it is held that PWCC has a different seller fee schedule than others; does PWCC also have a different set of rules and regulations with eBay that would potentially eliminate the right for buyers to return items "not as described," should they discover some conservation efforts that were not disclosed? These tenets would make more sense if PWCC had its own platform, which may or may not be the end goal for this business.

But once an "asset" is sold by PWCC it will likely be sold/traded at a later date no longer under PWCC's tenets. So this tainted asset will flourish without the disclosure of PWCC's tenets.

This is all so Ree-dickulous!!!!

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by swarmee

PSA has tremendous liability in this issue for their failure to detect these alterations, because of their Grade Guarantee. They don't really need to say anything about Brent's tenets because they run counter to PSA's longstanding grading practice. Many of the things Brent calls "conservation" is clearly defined in PSA's grading rules as Alteration; the rub is that they're not nearly as good at detecting them as they claim they are. Brent is putting this out there because he bears little to no risk; PSA is on the hook for doctored cards.

In the submission with the Mantle PSA 4.5, which was presumably submitted by Brent based on the number of cards that were immediately resold by PWCC, 29 of the cards were returned ungraded. Was it for Altered, MinSize, min grade? We don't know. Just that the certs aren't there for some reason. That's out of 79 cards submitted. So it's quite possible that PSA caught 29 of 79 with some type of alteration. That's a huge number. Should they have caught more in the same order? Maybe. Should they tell the submitter: you're dead to us! ? I don't know the answer to that. Were these directly submitted by PWCC or are some owned by PWCC? We don't know that either.

Someone on Blowout pointed out when you submit cards, you certify that the cards you're submitting are unaltered in the first place. Can they use this to invalidate claims against their Grade Guarantee against submitters that intentionally submit trimmed and altered cards? Guess we'll find out.

Well...if our cards are no longer "cards" now they are "ASSets"...there has to be some form of regulation/control/accountability from all parties involved in the supply chain.