PSA Response from President Steve Sloan

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 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.

If people don't mind, they can keep them. It's really about disclosure more than what was done to the cards. If I know a card has been cleaned and how, I may well not care, but it's wrong not to tell me so I can decide for myself. And let's not be naïve -- ALL this is being done to deceive. First the TPGs, then the buying community.

[steve B]

Cleaning is a topic in other hobbies, but doesn't get as much discussion. It has at times in the past.

In coins, the old rule was "never clean a coin" And yet, silver tarnishes easily, and there are thousands of pretty old coins that are nice and shiny.

As the dealer I go to and in college worked for explained it, if the cleaning is done in a way that doesn't do any damage, it's considered ok. So many people think that their work "cleaning that old penny up to sell it" is fine despite being done with a pencil eraser...
There is also currently a decent bonus for coins that have really nice looking tarnish(toning), some of the envelopes that used to be used to put coins in give them a rainbow like sheen.

Stamps are closer to cards, but have a few technical issues that most cards don't have. Some German stamps had acidic gum that has been known as something that will eventually destroy the paper for a very long time. The Michel catalog (The primary German catalog for German stamps) specifically states that the gum should be removed.
It's also common to remove stamps from pieces of envelope by soaking (Just make sure the cancel isn't one that adds a lot of value. )
And some series are typically dipped in a solvent to see if it has a watermark and if so which one. Or to look for damage like thins and creases (Some creases naturally get pressed from the stamp being in an album for 50+ years) doing that also typically washes off some surface dirt.
So it's sort of accepted.

A cleaning to remove stuff that really doesn't belong on the card and that will easily come off - like a wax stain on the front, or a bit of elastic band that's gotten stuck or general airborne dirt it's picked up over time should be ok.
Overcleaning probably shouldn't be ok.

I'm really on the fence about things that will prevent a decaying item from further decay. An example and a bit of an explanation
https://pastispresent.org/2014/libra...testant-tutor/

https://ritaudina.com/en/answers-on-...-deacidifying/

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by steve B

Cleaning is a topic in other hobbies, but doesn't get as much discussion. It has at times in the past.

In coins, the old rule was "never clean a coin" And yet, silver tarnishes easily, and there are thousands of pretty old coins that are nice and shiny.

As the dealer I go to and in college worked for explained it, if the cleaning is done in a way that doesn't do any damage, it's considered ok. So many people think that their work "cleaning that old penny up to sell it" is fine despite being done with a pencil eraser...
There is also currently a decent bonus for coins that have really nice looking tarnish(toning), some of the envelopes that used to be used to put coins in give them a rainbow like sheen.

Stamps are closer to cards, but have a few technical issues that most cards don't have. Some German stamps had acidic gum that has been known as something that will eventually destroy the paper for a very long time. The Michel catalog (The primary German catalog for German stamps) specifically states that the gum should be removed.
It's also common to remove stamps from pieces of envelope by soaking (Just make sure the cancel isn't one that adds a lot of value. )
And some series are typically dipped in a solvent to see if it has a watermark and if so which one. Or to look for damage like thins and creases (Some creases naturally get pressed from the stamp being in an album for 50+ years) doing that also typically washes off some surface dirt.
So it's sort of accepted.

A cleaning to remove stuff that really doesn't belong on the card and that will easily come off - like a wax stain on the front, or a bit of elastic band that's gotten stuck or general airborne dirt it's picked up over time should be ok.
Overcleaning probably shouldn't be ok.

I'm really on the fence about things that will prevent a decaying item from further decay. An example and a bit of an explanation
https://pastispresent.org/2014/libra...testant-tutor/

https://ritaudina.com/en/answers-on-...-deacidifying/

I would think cleaning in some cases is not only acceptable, but necessary.

Recently I acquired an old baseball trophy bat made of of silver. Being very old (19th century), it was tarnished. The general consensus was NOT to treat it as the tarnish was integral to its look and cleaning it would "sterilize" the bat to the point where it would not look natural.

I then consulted with a person who earned her living as a forensic conservator of antique silver. She told me that if I did not treat it, the corrosion would continue and the three dimensional figures on the bat would begin to deteriorate. So I treated it. It now looks beautiful, is no longer deteriorating and still has a bit of a patina indicating that it is very old.

if I ever sell it, I would disclose what I did (though to any purchaser with any knowledge of antique silver, he/she would know the bat was treated). But this is an instance where the treatment being forensically necessary I think enhances the bat's value.

[1880nonsports]

think it's time for a picture?! I'd love to see it...…...

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I would think cleaning in some cases is not only acceptable, but necessary.

Recently I acquired an old baseball trophy bat made of of silver. Being very old (19th century), it was tarnished. The general consensus was NOT to treat it as the tarnish was integral to its look and cleaning it would "sterilize" the bat to the point where it would not look natural.

I then consulted with a person who earned her living as a forensic conservator of antique silver. She told me that if I did not treat it, the corrosion would continue and the three dimensional figures on the bat would begin to deteriorate. So I treated it. It now looks beautiful, is no longer deteriorating and still has a bit of a patina indicating that it is very old.

if I ever sell it, I would disclose what I did (though to any purchaser with any knowledge of antique silver, he/she would know the bat was treated). But this is an instance where the treatment being forensically necessary I think enhances the bat's value.

of course .Enjoy your shiny trophy! but this is PLAIN and simple fraud. Nothing remarkable about it.

[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.