Conservation vs restoration defined by other genres of collectibles

[Goudey77]

Originally Posted by drcy

Real, useful conservation of trading cards, especially old ones, would involve them being deacidified by putting them in a solution. That's actually something good that could be done conservation-wise, and might be wise for photos and other items.

I've never stated that restoration and conservation are bad. And grading card companies labelling this work (if they can identify it) seems perfectly reasonable philosophy. It should be done right now if it could. If that's what Goudey is talking about, I agree. But the key is any work on the card has to be disclosed.

"Absolutely no incentive to try and get alterations “past” the TPG. As they sell for less."

I work in philosophy (logic), have a published peer-reviewed university philosophy textbook and am a lifetime member of the international philosophy society at Oxford, and I just have to note for the logic-record that that quoted line makes absolutely no sense. It makes anti-sense.

DRCY,
I do appreciate your comments so far. Very useful examples that you provided.
As for the comment about having no incentive for card doctors. If we keep it the way it is today the incentive to get a altered card past the TPG is profitable. If the TPG moves to a CGC model and can recognize restorations/conservations and place them in a separate "restored" label then the profit is marginal.

Bottom line though. TPG's in our card hobby need to step up their services.
Change is needed regardless.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Goudey77

DRCY,
I do appreciate your comments so far. Very useful examples that you provided.
As for the comment about having no incentive for card doctors. If we keep it the way it is today the incentive to get a altered card past the TPG is profitable. If the TPG moves to a CGC model and can recognize restorations/conservations and place them in a separate "restored" label then the profit is marginal.

Bottom line though. TPG's in our card hobby need to step up their services.
Change is needed regardless.

You're totally wrong IMO. As long as there is a large price differential between original and restored there is a huge incentive to try to deceive, to get the original not the restored designation. Why can't you see this, everyone else can. You keep asserting it in mantra like fashion and just ignore the logic on the other side.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're totally wrong IMO. As long as there is a large price differential between original and restored there is a huge incentive to try to deceive, to get the original not the restored designation. Why can't you see this, everyone else can. You keep asserting it in mantra like fashion and just ignore the logic on the other side.

I think he sees it, and always saw it.

Rhett: "I just am having a hard time believing that you don’t work for PWCC or are in some way associated with the company or at the minimum are close friends with one of the principal people within the company."

That would be a logical guess.

Or, as the old guy on Seinfeld said, "I may die tomorrow, but I wasn't born yesterday."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by drcy

I think he sees it, and always saw it.

It would seem, as it seemed to earlier poster, that he is here posting on PWCC's behalf.

As the old guy on Seinfeld said, "I may die tomorrow, but I wasn't born yesterday."

I'll take him at his word that he's not affiliated, but he isn't, at least so far, making much sense on his no incentive point, to me anyhow.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'll take him at his word that he's not affiliated, but he isn't, at least so far, making much sense on his no incentive point, to me anyhow.

It's not just you anyhow. There's no more further need to debate or discuss that that line of reasoning makes no sense. I think everyone here knows it makes no sense. Of course, it makes no sense. Or as I say when someone states a fact that is so obvious to everyone a fact that there's no need for the person to have even stated it: "And the sky is blue and Austin is the capital of Texas."

Now, the argument that the baseball card hobby should "mature" concerning conservation/alteration/labeling, that is a fair argument to which I can agree. Restoration (disclosed and labeled as restoration, and receiving a grade of AUTH) actually has become more accepted in the hobby in recent years. Collecting-wise, I'm not interested in restored or altered cards, but there are others in the hobby who are okay with it (when it's disclosed and the price is right), and the major auction houses has auctioned (disclosed as) restored cards. In cases, restoring and conserving a card is prudent. Obviously, the hobby 'maturing' would have to start, and only can start, with grading companies being able to identify alterations and conservation, which may be a high starting hurdle, because, despite what Goudey says, people WILL still try to sneak alterations past graders.

Here's a hobby 'maturing' rule for consideration: All trading cards that have been restored or conserved have to be clearly and permanently marked on the card itself. It may be a visible-light mark, or, if people don't like that idea, a black light identifiable mark. Any restored or conserved card that does not have such mark is automatically considered breaking the hobby rules and ethical standards written in black and white.

30 plus years ago, there was a guy who restored old cards, usually Goudeys, by building up the corners with foreign paper and glue. And apparently, he did an excellent job.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by drcy

It's not just you anyhow. There's no more further need to debate or discuss that that line of reasoning makes no sense. I think everyone here knows it makes no sense. Of course, it makes no sense.

It seems to me if anything, legitimizing "restored" would increase the incentive to doctor, because the worst case becomes something that has a decent residual value instead of a rejected and tainted card.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It seems to me if anything, legitimizing "restored" would increase the incentive to doctor, because the worst case becomes something that has a decent residual value instead of a rejected and tainted card.

I think there are cases where restoration have been reasonable (a torn card where the tear will be getting worse with time, a card where half is missing or has major damage to the central graphics), but have always been of the sentiment that restored cards should the rare exceptions. I believe it should be the norm, as it is, that alterations are considered detrimental to the card, lowers the value and the hobby should be against it.

Your point, and what I just said, may go against the idea of graders being able to label conservation/restoration, but just label all alterations as altered AUTH. If they get into the conservation/restoration etc labels, then it may make the practices seem more legitimate and acceptable, when restoration should be the rare exception for specific reasons. You may have just convinced me that graders should simply label altered cards as altered AUTH. If an AUTH card was restored for good reason, the owner of the card can make his case-- but the card doesn't get a special label.

Graders are actually by name condition graders, and they should say "We condition grade (assign numbers) only cards that are unaltered, and the cards have been altered. You people can debate the merits of restoration and conservation or what types of alterations are okay-- fine and dandy--, but we are strictly in the technical business of authenticating identity, condition grading unaltered cards and identifying cards that have been altered."

[Goudey77]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're totally wrong IMO. As long as there is a large price differential between original and restored there is a huge incentive to try to deceive, to get the original not the restored designation. Why can't you see this, everyone else can. You keep asserting it in mantra like fashion and just ignore the logic on the other side.

Peter,

I get what you are saying. I won't argue that price gap. But this comes down to better analysis of cards and identifying restorations. Also defining tolerances so we can clearly address before and after photos popping up on message boards claiming fraud. TPG's simply need to take a stance. PWCC tenets did this.

CGC took a stance and it became a big part of their everyday operations. Who here questions card TPG's ability to do the same.

Ask a comic book veteran if they think a comic restoration expert can slip a book past CGC graders into the un-restored blue label.

Ask a sports card hobby veteran the same question about PSA or SGC.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Goudey77

Peter,

I get what you are saying. I won't argue that price gap. But this comes down to better analysis of cards and identifying restorations. Also defining tolerances so we can clearly address before and after photos popping up on message boards claiming fraud. TPG's simply need to take a stance. PWCC tenets did this.

CGC took a stance and it became a big part of their everyday operations. Who here questions card TPG's ability to do the same.

Ask a comic book veteran if they think a comic restoration expert can slip a book past CGC graders into the un-restored blue label.

Ask a sports card hobby veteran the same question about PSA or SGC.

I think PSA's current standards reflect, with some gray area perhaps around the edges, the collective hobby ethos of what is and is not acceptable. I see no need for any change to that. I don't think PWCC's proposals to change standards, leaving aside my personal sense of their disingenuousness, are helpful. The key is to improve detection and discourage card doctors and their enablers. Anyhow, I keep saying this so I'll stop.

[Goudey77]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think PSA's current standards reflect, with some gray area perhaps around the edges, the collective hobby ethos of what is and is not acceptable. I see no need for any change to that. I don't think PWCC's proposals to change standards, leaving aside my personal sense of their disingenuousness, are helpful. The key is to improve detection and discourage card doctors and their enablers. Anyhow, I keep saying this so I'll stop.

Glad you finally agree to what i've been saying Peter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Goudey77

Glad you finally agree to what i've been saying Peter.

I've said this till I'm blue in the face all along, I have no idea what you're talking about but whatever.

[drcy]

Duly note that I live in and am posting from the Pacific Northwest