So, what is the norm now?

[chalupacollects]

Personally the card should be cracked re-holdered and marked with an invisible ink or ink that can be seen under a black light notating it is altered....

[RedsFan1941]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

Personally the card should be cracked re-holdered and marked with an invisible ink or ink that can be seen under a black light notating it is altered....

how would you suggest that happen? should the auction house, which doesn’t own the card, ship it to sgc on their own? should the consignor of the card be told beforehand or will he just open his mailbox one day to find a former SGC 8 Ruth card now in an A holder? should sgc crack, mark and reholder without the owner’s permission? maybe all consignors from this point on should sign a waiver that if anyone in the hobby alleges fault with their cards, the owner forfeits any right to that card immediately. it sounds great for all the white knights to proclaim how the hobby needs cleaned up, but maybe spend 30 seconds giving some thought on what realistically can happen.

also, nothing takes the air out of a thread filled with righteous indignation and sideline quarterbacks quicker than the one auction house you would expect to do the right thing quickly does the right thing. poof! silence.

[Snapolit1]

Was thinking about a house sale, where the seller needs to do a disclosure of known issues. I wonder if it would have any conceivable effect if major AHs required some disclosure form where the consignor had to sign a statement that he took no steps to alter the cards and was unaware of any alteration by a third party. Not sure what that would accomplish but would at least be a sworn statement that you are unaware of fraud and not perpetrating a fraud.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Was thinking about a house sale, where the seller needs to do a disclosure of known issues. I wonder if it would have any conceivable effect if major AHs required some disclosure form where the consignor had to sign a statement that he took no steps to alter the cards and was unaware of any alteration by a third party. Not sure what that would accomplish but would at least be a sworn statement that you are unaware of fraud and not perpetrating a fraud.

I think it’s a decent idea. If a consignor signed it and then something is amuck and can be traced back to being done while in their possession, they’d certainly have some explaining to do. It could be a step in the right direction anyway.

[swarmee]

PSA's submission form includes language stating that already. Obviously, people lie.