PSA Response from President Steve Sloan

[mark evans]

One of the problems is that there is no consensus as to what treatment/alteration/conservation, if any, is acceptable with regard to cards. Hopefully, one of the results of the current scandal will be an agreed-upon standard for these activities.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by mark evans

One of the problems is that there is no consensus as to what treatment/alteration/conservation, if any, is acceptable with regard to cards. Hopefully, one of the results of the current scandal will be an agreed-upon standard for these activities.

Yes, and when attempting a conversation about it, fortunately, most who chime in recognize what you're saying, and are constructive.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Say hey!!
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...postcount=2822

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by mark evans

One of the problems is that there is no consensus as to what treatment/alteration/conservation, if any, is acceptable with regard to cards. Hopefully, one of the results of the current scandal will be an agreed-upon standard for these activities.

Who thinks trimming and recoloring are acceptable? Or shaving corners? Or regraining (is that the word?) borders to hide trimming? That's what's being done to a large percentage of these cards. Furthermore, PSA has clear authentication standards, so any alteration that doesn't meet those standards and is concealed is fraud for a card being sold in a PSA holder. Sorry Chuck had to say it once more.

[Leon]

It should be "nobody" on all accounts.
It's the "cleaning" that is a gray area somewhat.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who thinks trimming and recoloring are acceptable? Or shaving corners?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

It should be "nobody" on all accounts.
It's the "cleaning" that is a gray area somewhat.

Thank you. I agree with that last statement as well to some extent, but if the cleaning is unacceptable to PSA as its standards state, and you sell a PSA card as unaltered that has been cleaned in a way PSA would have rejected had it seen it, and you know it, still not kosher.

Now yes, maybe at some point that part of it changes, could happen. But that's not relevant right now and it's a red herring in this discussion.

[Leon]

So lets say I use a Qtip and distilled water to get some residue off of a caramel card. Then I send it to be graded at PSA. That is wrong? If so, my guess is thousands of people have done something wrong and didn't even know it. It might be a red herring this moment but I see a ton of before and after pics of cards only cleaned.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Thank you. I agree with that last statement as well to some extent, but if the cleaning is unacceptable to PSA as its standards state, and you sell a PSA card as unaltered that has been cleaned in a way PSA would have rejected had it seen it, and you know it, still not kosher.

Now yes, maybe at some point that part of it changes, could happen. But that's not relevant right now and it's a red herring in this discussion.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

So lets say I use a Qtip and distilled water to get some residue off of a caramel card. Then I send it to be graded at PSA. That is wrong? If so, my guess is thousands of people have done something wrong and didn't even know it.

It isn't wrong to do it per se. if in fact PSA would reject it if it knew that had been done, and I guess that's how I would read their standards, then technically it's wrong not to disclose it when you sell the card. Now that said, some violations are less offensive than others, it's like driving 56 versus driving 90 in a 55 MPH zone. Imperfect world, there are always slippery slope arguments like you're making, and one can almost always identify a case where a law or rule doesn't make sense, but you have to be practical.

Anyhow, there are obviously major things being done to these cards that the vast majority of the hobby would deem unacceptable. Therefore, it's fraud not to disclose them. The fact that there is no perfect consensus in the hobby is a red herring. Intentional misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. Fraud 101.

[Leon]

I agree with you. I was just making the other sides argument. . Also, because I see so many of the cards that are only cleaned it is a little worrisome they will wear red hats when many of them shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It isn't wrong to do it per se. if in fact PSA would reject it if it knew that had been done, and I guess that's how I would read their standards, then technically it's wrong not to disclose it when you sell the card. Now that said, some violations are less offensive than others, it's like driving 56 versus driving 90 in a 55 MPH zone. Imperfect world, there are always slippery slope arguments like you're making, and one can almost always identify a case where a law or rule doesn't make sense, but you have to be practical.

Anyhow, there are obviously major things being done to these cards that the vast majority of the hobby would deem unacceptable. Therefore, it's fraud not to disclose them. The fact that there is no perfect consensus in the hobby is a red herring. Intentional misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. Fraud 101.

[drcy]

The answer is if disclosing what was done (cleaning, spooning a wrinkle) would lower the sales value or grade it would be assigned by a grader, it is unethical not to disclose.

If you have for the same price two identical Mint-looking cards, and you say the first is untouched and the second had a couple of wrinkles spooned out, 100 out of 100 times the buyer will pick first card. All 100 give the first a higher value, or the second a lesser value. And 100 includes the spooners themselves. This shows that, ethically, and likely even legally. you have to disclose even that the card was spooned.

Obviously, this disclosure isn't always done and won't always be found out, but that's beside the point as far as judging the ethics and need for disclosure goes.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by mark evans

One of the problems is that there is no consensus as to what treatment/alteration/conservation, if any, is acceptable with regard to cards. Hopefully, one of the results of the current scandal will be an agreed-upon standard for these activities.

ZERO, is acceptable if you do not disclose it. This was done to deceive FOR $$$$$ Hence, Fraudulent business practices.