PSA Response from President Steve Sloan

[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...…...

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

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

My conservator provided me pics. If I can find them I'll post.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

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

Here are some before and after pics. The bat dates to 1887 and was presented by the Boston Globe to Sam Wise of the Boston Base Ball Club for being its top batter.

Except for the first picture where the after-treatment pic is on the left, on the other three the after-treatment pics are on the right.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Here are some before and after pics. The bat dates to 1887 and was presented by the Boston Globe to Sam Wise of the Boston Base Ball Club for being its top batter.

Except for the first picture where the after-treatment pic is on the left, on the other three the after-treatment pics are on the right.

Corey, that bat is absolutely spectacular! It must be one of the most intricately detailed and elegantly designed examples extant.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Corey, that bat is absolutely spectacular! It must be one of the most intricately detailed and elegantly designed examples extant.

Thank you Brent.

[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.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

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

Are you saying by treating the bat in accordance with recommended conservation standards for antique silver I have committed fraud?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Are you saying by treating the bat in accordance with recommended conservation standards for antique silver I have committed fraud?

You haven't committed fraud, and you even said if you would sell the piece you would disclose the work done. That's all you have to do to stay on the right side of the law.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

You haven't committed fraud, and you even said if you would sell the piece you would disclose the work done. That's all you have to do to stay on the right side of the law.

That's what I thought and why I was taken by that comment.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Are you saying by treating the bat in accordance with recommended conservation standards for antique silver I have committed fraud?

The operative word always is disclosure.

Though if you offer for sale the shiny bad, it would be obvious that it was cleaned. And I admit that I don't know the hobby conservation rules/norms for silver

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by drcy

The operative word always is disclosure.

Though if you offer for sale the shiny bad, it would be obvious that it was cleaned. And I admit that I don't know the hobby conservation rules/norms for silver

Apparently the hobby conservation rules/norms for silver are a specialty within itself. When I first consulted with my long-time conservator, whom I have the highest regard for, his initial reaction was that because the tarnished look is part of the appeal maybe I should leave it as it is. He did add though that his expertise does not extend to treating antique silver, and it was he who referred me to the person who treated it. That person was quite adamant that it should be treated and that if it was not, it would continue to deteriorate.

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Apparently the hobby conservation rules/norms for silver are a specialty within itself. When I first consulted with my long-time conservator, whom I have the highest regard for, his initial reaction was that because the tarnished look is part of the appeal maybe I should leave it as it is. He did add though that his expertise does not extend to treating antique silver, and it was he who referred me to the person who treated it. That person was quite adamant that it should be treated and that if it was not, it would continue to deteriorate.

You are completely correct. There are different standards for different materials. Some pieces will deteriorate unless they receive periodic treatment. A museum treats cloth, metals, and wood artifacts differently than old baseball cards. Let's not lose perspective on this either. Conservators aim to limit deterioration of a piece. Just about every "treatment" a baseball card can receive isn't about the piece's longevity, it's about defrauding potential buyers.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Bugsy

You are completely correct. There are different standards for different materials. Some pieces will deteriorate unless they receive periodic treatment. A museum treats cloth, metals, and wood artifacts differently than old baseball cards. Let's not lose perspective on this either. Conservators aim to limit deterioration of a piece. Just about every "treatment" a baseball card can receive isn't about the piece's longevity, it's about defrauding potential buyers.

Well said, and utterly amazing it’s so difficult for so many people here to grasp. Starting to seem like a waste of time trying to explain the same thing over and over again. You’d think (being a vintage card forum) that this would be right in peoples’ wheelhouse.

A question to all who don’t think the alterations in question are fraud... Do you pay the same money for a high-number graded card as you do for one that’s graded “AUTH”?

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by drcy

The operative word always is disclosure.

Though if you offer for sale the shiny bad, it would be obvious that it was cleaned. And I admit that I don't know the hobby conservation rules/norms for silver

This is where I get lost. What needs to be disclosed? Any alterations? Some people clearly have different definitions of what alterations are. Do you have to abide by hobby norms? Hobby norms would be to advertise the condition assigned by a TPG as the condition of the card. Hobby norms have never been to disclose condition details beyond the TPG grade.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

This is where I get lost. What needs to be disclosed? Any alterations? Some people clearly have different definitions of what alterations are. Do you have to abide by hobby norms? Hobby norms would be to advertise the condition assigned by a TPG as the condition of the card. Hobby norms have never been to disclose condition details beyond the TPG grade.

This has been explained so many times. Let's try a different approach. Have you ever bought or sold a home? Have you completed the disclosure? It is so detailed because it would be easy to forget something material to the decision to buy the house. There it is. Anything that would reasonably affect a person's decision to purchase NEEDS TO BE DISCLOSED. If it's in a PSA 10 holder but you know it's trimmed then you have to disclose it.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

This has been explained so many times. Let's try a different approach. Have you ever bought or sold a home? Have you completed the disclosure? It is so detailed because it would be easy to forget something material to the decision to buy the house. There it is. Anything that would reasonably affect a person's decision to purchase NEEDS TO BE DISCLOSED. If it's in a PSA 10 holder but you know it's trimmed then you have to disclose it.

If there is a problem with the roof of a house, it'll cost tens of thousands to replace. If there is a wax stain removed from a card, it will cost you nothing.

I'm a reasonable person, I don't require a wax stain removed to be disclosed. Some people do.

If I sold a card graded by a TPG, I would find it unreasonable if a buyer came back to me after learning that a wax stain was removed from the card.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

This is where I get lost. What needs to be disclosed? Any alterations? Some people clearly have different definitions of what alterations are. Do you have to abide by hobby norms? Hobby norms would be to advertise the condition assigned by a TPG as the condition of the card. Hobby norms have never been to disclose condition details beyond the TPG grade.

It is perfectly legal to trim, recolor and "conserve" a trading card. The illegality is when known financially material alterations are not disclosed.

Most people sell a graded card by what the holder says is the grade, and that, of course, is perfectly fine and normal. However, if you happen to know that a numerically graded card is actually altered, you legally have to disclose that. It would be considered fraud if it is proven you knew and didn't disclose. So it is fine and normal to defer to the TPG's opinion at sale, but the TPG opinion isn't a cover if you know that opinion is wrong. I'm, of course, not talking about a generous grade (A VgEx for a Vg card) but when the seller knows for a fact that, despite what the label says, a card has been altered, the label's identification is obviously incorrect (a T206 Heinie Wagner accidentally labelled a Honus Wagner) or the autograph is a forgery. A PSA typo does not allow the seller to sell a Heinie Wagner as a Honus Wagner, or a $5 bill as $500 bill.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by drcy

It is perfectly legal to trim, recolor and "conserve" a trading card. The illegality is when known the financially material alterations are not disclosed.

Most people sell a graded card by what the holder says is the grade and the buyer, and that, of course, is perfectly fine and normal. However, if you happen to know that a numerically graded card is actually altered, you legally have to disclose that. It would be considered fraud if it is proven you knew and didn't disclose. So it is fine and normal to defer to the TPG's opinion at sale, but the TPG opinion isn't a cover if you know that opinion is wrong. I'm not, of course, not talking about a generous grade (A VgEx for a Vg card) but when the seller knows for a fact that, despite what the label says, a card has been altered, the label's identification is obviously incorrect (a T206 Heinie Wagner accidentally labelled a Honus Wagner) or the autograph is a forgery. A PSA typo does not allow the seller to sell a Heinie Wagner as a Honus Wagner, or a $5 bill as $500 bill.

A number of us have explained until we're blue in the... fingers?

Apparently willful obtuseness is a sign of intelligence and debating skill now-a-days.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by drcy

It is perfectly legal to trim, recolor and "conserve" a trading card. The illegality is when known the financially material alterations are not disclosed.

Most people sell a graded card by what the holder says is the grade and the buyer, and that, of course, is perfectly fine and normal. However, if you happen to know that a numerically graded card is actually altered, you legally have to disclose that. It would be considered fraud if it is proven you knew and didn't disclose. So it is fine and normal to defer to the TPG's opinion at sale, but the TPG opinion isn't a cover if you know that opinion is wrong. I'm not, of course, not talking about a generous grade (A VgEx for a Vg card) but when the seller knows for a fact that, despite what the label says, a card has been altered, the label's identification is obviously incorrect (a T206 Heinie Wagner accidentally labelled a Honus Wagner) or the autograph is a forgery. A PSA typo does not allow the seller to sell a Heinie Wagner as a Honus Wagner, or a $5 bill as $500 bill.

What do you define as financially material? Who can define that? The buyer? A reasonable buyer? Hobby norms?

Hobby norms generally accept erasing a dealer's pencil mark "$5" from the back of a postcard, right? Many collectors are fine with removing wax stains, but others aren't. Most people here are fine with soaking cards.

I've never seen any of these things disclosed on the BST here, have you?

[1880nonsports]

either way although with the patina the aesthetics marry the suggestion of it's age (I collect 19th century fine sterling safes and cases) BUT if an item is degrading - remediation/conservation is common sense and accepted everywhere. THAT HANDLE IS OFF THE CHARTS!
As for baseball cards - the people that do these manipulations are just carrion looking for and often times finding easy prey. The registry and it's mine is bigger allows the scammers (and tpgs) to exploit a human flaw most of us have.
As for the doctors - unlike what their mothers had been telling them all their adult lives while living in her basement - THEY ALL FOUND JOBS.....

[LOUCARDFAN]

Yes, Brent Huigens and Gary Moser are pretty much scum of the earth but for PSA to deflect with this sorry excuse of an announcement is just pathetic and inexcusable.

PSA - Professional Sports AUTHENTICATOR. PSA's main job is to authenticate the item before any grading takes place.

Straight from their website - PSA states that "a SERIES of PSA graders review your card for authenticity. If genuine, PSA looks for evidence of doctoring such as re-coloring and trimming".

A SERIES - meaning MORE than two graders are supposed to inspect the card to confirm that it is authentic and that it has not been doctored.

One of two things can be explained. 1 - either the SERIES of graders that are looking at these cards are ALL inept and can't be counted on to spot a doctored card or 2 - a SERIES of graders ARE NOT inspecting each card as stated by PSA. If you go by the sheer numbers of submissions that PSA touts, I'm pretty sure that a SERIES of graders aren't looking at each card.

I am pretty sure that this has been happening with PSA since it's inception but hopefully not to the scale that we are seeing now.

How does PSA choose to handle this? Do they choose to blame the card doctors for engaging in deception while also proving that their certified card graders suck at spotting altered cards and have so for may years now?

Or do they make a couple of card graders out to be the sacrificial lambs and state that they were acting in cahoots with Brent, Gary and whoever else to get doctored cards in holders?

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by LOUCARDFAN

Yes, Brent Huigens and Gary Moser are pretty much scum of the earth but for PSA to deflect with this sorry excuse of an announcement is just pathetic and inexcusable.

PSA - Professional Sports AUTHENTICATOR. PSA's main job is to authenticate the item before any grading takes place.

Straight from their website - PSA states that "a SERIES of PSA graders review your card for authenticity. If genuine, PSA looks for evidence of doctoring such as re-coloring and trimming".

A SERIES - meaning MORE than two graders are supposed to inspect the card to confirm that it is authentic and that it has not been doctored.

One of two things can be explained. 1 - either the SERIES of graders that are looking at these cards are ALL inept and can't be counted on to spot a doctored card or 2 - a SERIES of graders ARE NOT inspecting each card as stated by PSA. If you go by the sheer numbers of submissions that PSA touts, I'm pretty sure that a SERIES of graders aren't looking at each card.

I am pretty sure that this has been happening with PSA since it's inception but hopefully not to the scale that we are seeing now.

How does PSA choose to handle this? Do they choose to blame the card doctors for engaging in deception while also proving that their certified card graders suck at spotting altered cards and have so for may years now?

Or do they make a couple of card graders out to be the sacrificial lambs and state that they were acting in cahoots with Brent, Gary and whoever else to get doctored cards in holders?

Honest question, what if there is no evidence of doctoring?

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Honest question, what if there is no evidence of doctoring?

If there's truly no evidence then obviously they won't find it, but in some of these cases we're talking about examples where we can make out the recoloring work just from a scan of slabbed card. In other cases, even if the doctors can do a trim that replicates a factory cut the card should have been sent back with a "Min. Sz." card saver.

[LOUCARDFAN]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Honest question, what if there is no evidence of doctoring?

With the amount of re-coloring that has taken place on many of these cards, it just proves that PSA's graders are either truly inept in performing PSA's main objective of being in business or they are conspiring along with the card doctors and Brent.


One thing I do wonder is will Brent have security with him if he shows up at this years National Convention? I would say it would be in his best interest to do so as I am sure there are plenty of people out there that would love to do him bodily harm. He seems to have that kind of face that makes you want to punch it and that was before everything went down with PWCC...lol

PSA would probably be wise to have extra security as well as I can see this being a very entertaining show this year.