Every slabbed card has a story, don't it?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Even if making money is the primary motivation for cleaning cards to some people, who cares? (it's certainly not for me, as I even clean $1 commons if it's a card I just want to look nicer for my set - and I promise you, there's no money in that). My motivation for cleaning my cards is the same motivation for me only wanting centered cards: I have OCD.

But even for those who earn money by cleaning cards, who cares? People earn money by cleaning all sorts of things. It's not fraud just because YOU (or whoever) don't like it.

We all know damn well why the current situation exists. I get that you love card doctoring and fraud. Here, you're about to say the same thing I did.

Originally Posted by Snowman

The only reason people are capable of making stupid money by improving a card's condition is because there are idiots out there that will pay stupid money for it. Don't be that stupid buyer if you don't like how the game is played. But this is how it's played whether you like it or not.

See? This is a rephrasing of what I said.

Originally Posted by Snowman

My favorite condition for a card is a 4 or a 5. I don't play the stupid prices game. And I can clean my cards myself if I don't like how they look. I'm not paying someone else to turn a 2 into a 4 for me.

You have repeatedly and frequently bragged on these boards about paying huge multiples of comps. Don't play the stupid prices game? This is about the only thing you post about besides defending fraud and card alteration. You just lie and make things up to serve your purpose at the moment, with no regard for contradicting your last post.

[G1911]

As for the Wagner, it seems deductively very very unlikely it was cut from a 'sheet' as in a full sheet or anything close to a full sheet.

If it was, where are the others?

[jggames]

Originally Posted by G1911

As for the Wagner, it seems deductively very very unlikely it was cut from a 'sheet' as in a full sheet or anything close to a full sheet.

If it was, where are the others?

According to Mastro there was a whole pile of others.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jggames

According to Mastro there was a whole pile of others.

Mastro did not claim there was a whole pile of other Wagners. There should be several Wagners if it was an uncut sheet.

[jggames]

Originally Posted by G1911

Mastro did not claim there was a whole pile of other Wagners. There should be several Wagners if it was an uncut sheet.

I don't want to derail this thread about alterations, but I should have clarified, I did not mean a whole pile of Wagners, he said the others were "obviously cut" from a sheet when he went in to pick up the Wagner

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jggames

I don't want to derail this thread about alterations, but I should have clarified, I did not mean a whole pile of Wagners, he said the others were "obviously cut" from a sheet when he went in to pick up the Wagner

A T206 sheet repeats a subject vertically. On some sheets this seems to go the entire length of the column, but sometimes the column changes subject part way through and then repeats that new subject over and over. All I am saying is that this Wagner is very, very unlikely to be from a sheet or near sheet. There may have been a couple strips that were destroyed. I've always heard it's a sheet and this just seems to not mesh with the actual evidence. A lot has been said about this find, its origin, and its location that doesn't add up.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

A T206 sheet repeats a subject vertically. On some sheets this seems to go the entire length of the column, but sometimes the column changes subject part way through and then repeats that new subject over and over. All I am saying is that this Wagner is very, very unlikely to be from a sheet or near sheet. There may have been a couple strips that were destroyed. I've always heard it's a sheet and this just seems to not mesh with the actual evidence. A lot has been said about this find, its origin, and its location that doesn't add up.

I could've sworn somewhere I read it was a strip of like 8 cards, but I won't swear to it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

As for the Wagner, it seems deductively very very unlikely it was cut from a 'sheet' as in a full sheet or anything close to a full sheet.

If it was, where are the others?

The Plank sold at the same time is said, I think, to be from the same sheet. Have to refresh my memory though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

As for the Wagner, it seems deductively very very unlikely it was cut from a 'sheet' as in a full sheet or anything close to a full sheet.

If it was, where are the others?

I thought part of the thinking was no pack issued Piedmont backs have been found. Could it have been a panel, i don't know, but the point is that it was not originally a factory issued single.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought part of the thinking was no pack issued Piedmont backs have been found. Could it have been a panel, i don't know, but the point is that it was not originally a factory issued single.

I have no idea what the origin is. We've had members claim to have evidence of the origin but then stop posting once they are asked for it. There's the rumor photographs of the pre-trimmed state that nobody has ever shown. We have different versions, sometimes conflicting, told at different times from some of the people involved.

It seems very unlikely that there was an uncut sheet found, or a nearly uncut sheet. The single subject presentation of it and the Plank make this very, very unlikely - what we have does not match a sheet. Maybe it was strips. Maybe there were some oversized scraps. Maybe the cards are the product of the conspiracy theory of a 1950's perfect reprint ring that has been endorsed here. Maybe Santa made them in his shop.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have no idea what the origin is. We've had members claim to have evidence of the origin but then stop posting once they are asked for it. There's the rumor photographs of the pre-trimmed state that nobody has ever shown. We have different versions, sometimes conflicting, told at different times from some of the people involved.

It seems very unlikely that there was an uncut sheet found, or a nearly uncut sheet. The single subject presentation of it and the Plank make this very, very unlikely - what we have does not match a sheet. Maybe it was strips. Maybe there were some oversized scraps. Maybe the cards are the product of the conspiracy theory of a 1950's perfect reprint ring that has been endorsed here. Maybe Santa made them in his shop.

Perhaps it was a strip not a full sheet. Again, I think the Piedmont back is part of the analysis why it likely was not from a pack. Not my expertise though. I've heard that 50s rumor too, what more do you know about it, always found that interesting. Part of the issue is that the provenance does not go back beyond Alan Ray, as far as I know.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps it was a strip not a full sheet. Again, I think the Piedmont back is part of the analysis why it likely was not from a pack. Not my expertise though. I've heard that 50s rumor too, what more do you know about it, always found that interesting. Part of the issue is that the provenance does not go back beyond Alan Ray, as far as I know.

I believe the myth of the perfect-50's-fake-ring predates when I was even born. It was certainly circulating when I was a kid in the hobby even. It's a hobby oral tradition that crops up now and again, but I always hear a slightly different version. The consistent elements every time are that it was centered in the 50's and 60's, in New York or an unnamed place, had access to original equipment (often said to be plates, even though they didn't use printing plates at all for these) and involved multiple people (none of whom ever have a name). This ring produced fake Wagners and Planks and is sometimes said to have created the Doyle's that did not even exist at all originally. A number of the big cards to crop up in the 70's and 80's supposedly come from this ring. I doubt any of this is significantly different from what you and everyone else has heard over the years.

Obviously, it is untrue and just an old wives type of tale, like most 'perfect crime' stories where nobody telling it can state how they know this, who specifically did it, produce even a tiny shred of evidence, and wraps up too cleanly and vaguely.


Off memory, we had a poster claiming the sheet was found in New York and not the Florida market where I believe Ray claimed to find it in our last thread focused on the card. He declined to produce his alleged evidence (it doesn't exist) and stopped posting when asked for it. I would doubt the card was pack issued or that the card is fake, the back is a clue it's less likely to be pack issued but the circumstances of the find seem the stronger proof that this wasn't a card that was just found in somebody's things like all/most of the rest of the Wagner's and Plank's known. I don't know what the true origin is, but its almost certainly not an "uncut sheet" as is always said on this subject, because the output does not match that input.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I believe the myth of the perfect-50's-fake-ring predates when I was even born. It was certainly circulating when I was a kid in the hobby even. It's a hobby oral tradition that crops up now and again, but I always hear a slightly different version. The consistent elements every time are that it was centered in the 50's and 60's, in New York or an unnamed place, had access to original equipment (often said to be plates, even though they didn't use printing plates at all for these) and involved multiple people (none of whom ever have a name). This ring produced fake Wagners and Planks and is sometimes said to have created the Doyle's that did not even exist at all originally. A number of the big cards to crop up in the 70's and 80's supposedly come from this ring. I doubt any of this is significantly different from what you and everyone else has heard over the years.

Obviously, it is untrue and just an old wives type of tale, like most 'perfect crime' stories where nobody telling it can state how they know this, who specifically did it, produce even a tiny shred of evidence, and wraps up too cleanly and vaguely.


Off memory, we had a poster claiming the sheet was found in New York and not the Florida market where I believe Ray claimed to find it in our last thread focused on the card. He declined to produce his alleged evidence (it doesn't exist) and stopped posting when asked for it. I would doubt the card was pack issued or that the card is fake, the back is a clue it's less likely to be pack issued but the circumstances of the find seem the stronger proof that this wasn't a card that was just found in somebody's things like all/most of the rest of the Wagner's and Plank's known. I don't know what the true origin is, but its almost certainly not an "uncut sheet" as is always said on this subject, because the output does not match that input.

If it's not pack issued, it was an AUTH even before Mastro cut it, would you agree with that or do you have a different take? All I recall about the rumor is it had something to do with Long Island which is also where Sevchuk had his shop.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

I get that you love card doctoring and fraud.

With due respect to what Travis may have said before or elsewhere nonwithstanding, this thread started out being about the Kurt's Card Care products. That is not doctoring or fraud in the state it's been presented, at least not yet. Folks may think it is, but I would challenge them to show me out of a huge pile of cards which ones specifically had doctoring perpetrated upon them or fraud then later employed in their sale if it was only Kurt's stuff that had been used on them.

Not saying it can't happen. i just haven't seen how it has happened yet with this particular stuff and the cards the products have been used on.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

With due respect to what Travis may have said before or elsewhere nonwithstanding, this thread started out being about the Kurt's Card Care products. That is not doctoring or fraud in the state it's been presented, at least not yet. Folks may think it is, but I would challenge them to show me out of a huge pile of cards which ones specifically had doctoring perpetrated upon them or fraud then later employed in their sale if it was only Kurt's stuff that had been used on them.

Not saying it can't happen. i just haven't seen how it has happened yet with this particular stuff and the cards the products have been used on.

See my first two posts in this thread. Nowhere have I had any real issue with the exact case in the OP. Kurt’s does way more than soaking, and is well known for removing creases, dings, etc. that is clearly alteration, except in the eyes of those who want to profit off of it.

The history here is obvious and we all know it.

[campyfan39]

Let’s please keep it civil so we can keep this thread alive
I have t seen anyone advocating for fraud and on this thread except for the post about what PSA did being good for business re: Wagner.

Do you believe if only using water and no other chemicals but pushing down on a corner is altering and is fraud? We all have pushed down a finger corner with our fingers or a book or to try to make it look better. I did that at 8 years old. Honest question. Is using panty hose to get wax off the back of a card an alteration?

Originally Posted by G1911

See my first two posts in this thread. Nowhere have I had any real issue with the exact case in the OP. Kurt’s does way more than soaking, and is well known for removing creases, dings, etc. that is clearly alteration, except in the eyes of those who want to profit off of it.

The history here is obvious and we all know it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

Let’s please keep it civil so we can keep this thread alive
I have t seen anyone advocating for fraud and on this thread except for the post about what PSA did being good for business re: Wagner.

Do you believe if only using water and no other chemicals but pushing down on a corner is altering and is fraud? We all have pushed down a finger corner with our fingers or a book or to try to make it look better. I did that at 8 years old. Honest question. Is using panty hose to get wax off the back of a card an alteration?

I've read a whole lot about alteration here. Kurt's openly alters cards and the people who do this want to legitimize it to cover their asses, so that it isn't fraud when they don't disclose their alterations.

The things are you asking have nothing to do what what I have actually said? I am not defining 'alter' in any strange, unusual, or unique way. When did I object to pushing a corner flat with your finger? When did I object to water or imply as such? Does not my first post suggest the exact opposite? Kurt's openly engages in practices almost everyone here, until convenient for it to change, has long held to be altering. Go check out their own advertising.

[campyfan39]

I'm simply ask for a definition of "altering"

Nobody on this thread has spoken in favor of adding anything to a card such as adding ink or rebuilding a corner using another card or trimming etc. Yet you seem to be very upset about the whole thing. I agreed with and quoted part of your first post but I was focused on your conclusion about what drives all of this.

Looking back at it now you said in the first line "Kurts has done far more than this. I've seen their crease/dent/corner fixes on the Discords."

Sounds like you believe that is altering when there is nothing being added? To me what he is doing is just an upgraded/modern form of using pantyhose for wax stains or flattening a corner with your fingers.

Originally Posted by G1911

I've read a whole lot about alteration here. Kurt's openly alters cards and the people who do this want to legitimize it to cover their asses, so that it isn't fraud when they don't disclose their alterations.

The things are you asking have nothing to do what what I have actually said? I am not defining 'alter' in any strange, unusual, or unique way. When did I object to pushing a corner flat with your finger? When did I object to water or imply as such? Does not my first post suggest the exact opposite? Kurt's openly engages in practices almost everyone here, until convenient for it to change, has long held to be altering. Go check out their own advertising.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

I'm simply ask for a definition of "altering"

Nobody on this thread has spoken in favor of adding anything to a card such as adding ink or rebuilding a corner using another card or trimming etc. Yet you seem to be very upset about the whole thing. I agreed with and quoted part of your first post but I was focused on your conclusion about what drives all of this.

Looking back at it now you said in the first line "Kurts has done far more than this. I've seen their crease/dent/corner fixes on the Discords."

Sounds like you believe that is altering when there is nothing being added? To me what he is doing is just an upgraded/modern form of using pantyhose for wax stains or flattening a corner with your fingers.

I’m just using the standard that has been standard in vintage for many, many years. If a seller won’t state it was done, then it’s a good sign it was altered. I see tons of cards openly admitted to being soaked or waxing a chrome card fresh out of the pack. I don’t see anyone telling me they’ve had all the creases removed, bathed it in god knows what, made those worn edges razor sharp all of a sudden, and turned a 3 into a 6. Why isn’t that disclosed? Because it’s an alteration that lowers the value. I don’t see any real issue with soaking a card out of a scrapbook or pushing on a corner with your finger, nor has anything been said implicating that, ever (there’s long histories here interacting with other threads.)

The board is more than welcome to adopt a new standard gleaned from the modern crowd. It used to be considered that Dick’s operation was bad alteration. Now this stuff is growing in popularity here. It will probably help profit margins.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

Kurt’s does way more than soaking, and is well known for removing creases, dings, etc. that is clearly alteration, except in the eyes of those who want to profit off of it.

All fine and well, "that's alteration", except that you would not be able to prove it on a card 10 minutes later. Until you can, this discussion is entirely academic in the real world where people continue to add cards to their collections - oblivious now by what we have just said as to what may or may not have happened to them in the past to affect our perception of how desirable they should be considered.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

All fine and well, "that's alteration", except that you would not be able to prove it on a card 10 minutes later. Until you can, this discussion is entirely academic in the real world where people continue to add cards to their collections - oblivious now by what we have just said as to what may or may not have happened to them in the past to affect our perception of how desirable they should be considered.

It is hardly always impossible to prove. Many alterations leave signs. I'm not sure I can ever philosophically ascribe to a point of view that doing something and not being able to be caught or not being caught makes it okay and fine. That is a highly problematic path.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

It is hardly always impossible to prove. Many alterations leave signs. I'm not sure I can ever philosophically ascribe to a point of view that doing something and not being able to be caught or not being caught makes it okay and fine. That is a highly problematic path.

Ok, but at the end of the day you and everyone else judging only on the act would have to admit that it’s a theoretical problem. If by definition you “don’t know” that you may be collecting an altered card - and that doesn’t stop you - well then it must not be too big of a problem. Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

No, but at the end of the day you and everyone else judging only on the act would have to admit that it’s a theoretical problem. If by definition you “don’t know” that you may be collecting an altered card - and that doesn’t stop you - well then it must not be too big of a problem then is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting question for sure. Now, suppose someone sold you a fake Rolex so good you couldn't tell the difference. Same analysis?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Ok, but at the end of the day you and everyone else judging only on the act would have to admit that it’s a theoretical problem. If by definition you “don’t know” that you may be collecting an altered card - and that doesn’t stop you - well then it must not be too big of a problem. Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The biggest problem is your underlying assumption that card alteration is impossible to detect. That is big news to many of us!

Let's just assume this assumption is true, even though it quite obviously is not. If I can make a fake $100 bill so good that you can't detect it and the authenticator you bring it to can't detect and the US Mint doesn't catch me, is it okay for me do this? Is it okay for me to pass off this item when I sell it or use it in a commercial transaction as a real $100 bill? Is it not "too big of a problem" because you can't see it's fake?

I don't think it takes a moral high horse to see the massive problems here with this train of ethics, or lack thereof.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

With due respect to what Travis may have said before or elsewhere nonwithstanding, this thread started out being about the Kurt's Card Care products. That is not doctoring or fraud in the state it's been presented, at least not yet. Folks may think it is, but I would challenge them to show me out of a huge pile of cards which ones specifically had doctoring perpetrated upon them or fraud then later employed in their sale if it was only Kurt's stuff that had been used on them.

Not saying it can't happen. i just haven't seen how it has happened yet with this particular stuff and the cards the products have been used on.

I think part of the disconnect is that you seem to take for granted that Kurt's Card Care products are no different from water, or moist air, or any other natural substance. Others are not willing to take that on good faith without knowing what's in the product.

Spray distilled water on my card - maybe I don't care. Alcohol - eh, maybe I'm not so sure. Acetone or bleach - OK, please drop the bottle and step away from the card.

Focusing on whether the card appears doctored when Kurt is done with working his magic is beside the point. Undetected alterations are still alterations, so the eyeball test isn't dispositive. All you'd really prove is that he's good at doctoring -- not that he didn't do it.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

Undetected alterations are still alterations, so the eyeball test isn't dispositive. All you'd really prove is that he's good at doctoring -- not that he didn't do it.

If undetected alterations are still alterations, or cards that are literally physically unchanged are capable of still having been "doctored", then prove to me that every vintage card in a numbered slab anywhere isn't somehow altered? Or taking it a step further - that every raw card you've ever had in your possession in your collection since you originally pulled it from a pack is not altered? Did you have surveillance cameras on every card every minute to see what did or did not happen to them while you were not physically present? Absurdity.

This whole thing seems to be much more a slippery slope about people being po'd at the INTENT of messing with cards than it is what was actually done in the final analysis to the physical card.

Just based on the "act" of someone doing something which may or may not be illicit - then what is the point of all of this empty discussion? Alteration has to be provable on a card later, or it isn't alteration, by any practical or realistic judgment. Period. If Kurt's alteration cannot be detected later, anymore than 9 year-old Billy immediately wiping a booger off of a card in 1957 can be detected in 2024, then neither should be realistically considered "altering" cards. The cards as ephemera / artifacts are not logged upon some blockchain of history where you can go back and see what was or was not done to them over the course of their existence. They are not conscious beings who can say "Hey, a dealer pressed my left corner back down for a little bit too long at a show in 1982, maybe you should tell PSA I'm altered!"

To me this starts to cross a strange boundary where realism / sanity in the judgment of "what is" is no longer a factor. And that is where I cannot continue to follow the script.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

If undetected alterations are still alterations, or cards that are literally physically unchanged are capable of still having been "doctored", then prove to me that every vintage card in a numbered slab anywhere isn't somehow altered? Or taking it a step further - that every raw card you've ever had in your possession in your collection since you originally pulled it from a pack is not altered? Did you have surveillance cameras on every card every minute to see what did or did not happen to them while you were not physically present? Absurdity.

This whole thing seems to be much more a slippery slope about people being po'd at the INTENT of messing with cards than it is what was actually done in the final analysis to the physical card.

Just based on the "act" of someone doing something which may or may not be illicit - then what is the point of all of this empty discussion? Alteration has to be provable on a card later, or it isn't alteration, by any practical or realistic judgment. Period. If Kurt's alteration cannot be detected later, anymore than 9 year-old Billy immediately wiping a booger off of a card in 1957 can be detected in 2024, then neither should be realistically considered "altering" cards. The cards as ephemera / artifacts are not logged upon some blockchain of history where you can go back and see what was or was not done to them over the course of their existence. They are not conscious beings who can say "Hey, a dealer pressed my left corner back down for a little bit too long at a show in 1982, maybe you should tell PSA I'm altered!"

To me this starts to cross a strange boundary where realism / sanity in the judgment of "what is" is no longer a factor. And that is where I cannot continue to follow the script.

Well said

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

This whole thing seems to be much more a slippery slope about people being po'd at the INTENT of messing with cards than it is what was actually done in the final analysis to the physical card.

Yes, I think we agree that this debate is about intent, rather than a metaphysical debate about whether a card with a Dorito stain or booger can announce that it's been wiped clean. I'd disagree that focusing on intent sends us down a slippery slope. That particular battle line is drawn pretty clearly. If you mess with a card with the specific intent to conceal that fact from a third-party grader and/or potential buyer, then you're choosing to deceive others to advance your self-interest.

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Just based on the "act" of someone doing something which may or may not be illicit - then what is the point of all of this empty discussion and wasted emotion? Alteration has to be provable on a card later, or it isn't alteration, by any practical or realistic judgment. Period.

This is where we simply disagree. You're taking a purely consequentialist approach, i.e., if I can't prove you did it, and you're not saying whether you did, then it didn't happen and no one was harmed. I say that card doctors who profit from deception are still acting unethically, even if the target is oblivious.

Originally Posted by jchcollins

The cards as ephemera / artifacts are not logged upon some blockchain of history where you can go back and see what was or was not done to them over the course of their existence. They are not conscious beings who can say "Hey, a dealer pressed my left corner back down for a little bit too long at a show in 1982, maybe you should tell PSA I'm altered!"

I'll grant you the point that cards aren't sentient historians, but you seem to be spinning off into a separate discussion about whether the original deception is negated when the card changes hands among unwitting parties.

I'm not advocating for the unsuspecting guy who bought an improbably sharp PSA 9 from Probstein to flog himself and surrender the card to local authorities. I am advocating for full disclosure of known facts whenever possible, with varying degrees of moral culpability along the "blockchain."

Hypothetically speaking:

If Evan trims a card and sends it to PSA without disclosing what he did, then he's a cheat. It's clear-cut. "PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity."

If PSA knows Evan trimmed the card but gives it a 9 anyway, then PSA is complicit in the fraud. If PSA doesn't know the card is trimmed and gives it a 9, then PSA's actions may fall somewhere on the negligence spectrum, but there's no ill intent.

If Probstein knows Evan trimmed the card and sells it as a PSA 9 without disclosing the known alteration, then he's complicit in Evan's fraud. Probstein might be tempted to argue that PSA's failure to detect the trimming absolves him of blame, but he'd be wrong. Another party's negligence doesn't mitigate Probstein's own knowledge and intent to deceive for profit. On the other hand, if Probstein suspects Evan trimmed the card but takes a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach, it becomes a moral gray area for Probstein.

If I buy the card from Probstein without knowledge that Evan trimmed it, I'm a blameless victim in the scheme, even when I go to re-sell it as a PSA 9. Now, if Evan tells me he trimmed it and I turn a blind eye because it's his word against PSA's, we're venturing into that gray area where self-interest leads to lame rationalizations. It might not be fraud, but it certainly raises an ethical eyebrow.

Finally, let's say Evan tells me he trimmed it, shows me a video of him doing it, and even points to unique markers that leave no doubt that he chopped that particular card before sending it off to PSA. If I sell you the PSA 9 slab without disclosing what Evan showed me, then I'm a PSA-10, PWCC-S Top 5% Certified scumbag, and I deserve to be tarred, feathered, and strung up by my thumbs.

That might not be a popular viewpoint, but I'm a little more Kant and a little less Rand.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

I'd disagree that focusing on intent sends us down a slippery slope. That particular battle line is drawn pretty clearly. If you mess with a card with the specific intent to conceal that fact from a third-party grader and/or potential buyer, then you're choosing to deceive others to advance your self-interest.

This is where we simply disagree. You're taking a purely consequentialist approach, i.e., if I can't prove you did it, and you're not saying whether you did, then it didn't happen and no one was harmed. I say that card doctors who profit from deception are still acting unethically, even if the target is oblivious.

I'll grant you the point that cards aren't sentient historians, but you seem to be spinning off into a separate discussion about whether the original deception is negated when the card changes hands among unwitting parties.

I'm not advocating for the unsuspecting guy who bought an improbably sharp PSA 9 from Probstein to flog himself and surrender the card to local authorities. I am advocating for full disclosure of known facts whenever possible, with varying degrees of moral culpability along the "blockchain."

Hypothetically speaking:

If Evan trims a card and sends it to PSA without disclosing what he did, then he's a cheat. It's clear-cut. "PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity."

If PSA knows Evan trimmed the card but gives it a 9 anyway, then PSA is complicit in the fraud. If PSA doesn't know the card is trimmed and gives it a 9, then PSA's actions may fall somewhere on the negligence spectrum, but there's no ill intent.

If Probstein knows Evan trimmed the card and sells it as a PSA 9 without disclosing the known alteration, then he's complicit in Evan's fraud. Probstein might be tempted to argue that PSA's failure to detect the trimming absolves him of blame, but he'd be wrong. Another party's negligence doesn't mitigate Probstein's own knowledge and intent to deceive for profit. On the other hand, if Probstein suspects Evan trimmed the card but takes a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach, it becomes a moral gray area for Probstein.

If I buy the card from Probstein without knowledge that Evan trimmed it, I'm a blameless victim in the scheme, even when I go to re-sell it as a PSA 9. Now, if Evan tells me he trimmed it and I turn a blind eye because it's his word against PSA's, we're venturing into that gray area where self-interest leads to lame rationalizations. It might not be fraud, but it certainly raises an ethical eyebrow.

Finally, let's say Evan tells me he trimmed it, shows me a video of him doing it, and even points to unique markers that leave no doubt that he chopped that particular card before sending it off to PSA. If I sell you the PSA 9 slab without disclosing what Evan showed me, then I'm a PSA-10, PWCC-S Top 5% Certified scumbag, and I deserve to be tarred, feathered, and strung up by my thumbs.

That might not be a popular viewpoint, but I'm a little more Kant and a little less Rand.

The slippery slope is not about intent, no. I think we can all agree "Card Doctors Bad". Even I would concede that. The slippery slope right now is leveling accusations at someone of being a card doctor while throwing the need for physical proof out the window oh, just because "Card Doctors Bad." You guys can hold Kurt and his ilk in all the contempt you want, but at the end of the day - if with the techniques that now exist we cannot tell that he either added to or took away from the original physical card - then it's a hard case to prove that he's "definitely" a card doctor just because you don't like how a crease seemed to be quickly minimized, or that a corner can look that much better without using tools and glue. The proof has to be in the pudding here. Just because you think someone is a card doctor doing alteration, if there is no proof later that the card in question was altered, then can you say that for sure? That seems illogical at best.

Yes, if you don't say that you did it, and I can't prove that you did it, and some grading company either can't prove it, or more likely just doesn't care - that doesn't make things right, but my point is how often is this a situation of consequence in reality? Are you going to stop collecting cards just because you don't know either way on all the new cards you buy? I'm not. How often do you know the person or history of the specific piece of cardboard you are buying? Whether that is from Rick Probstein or Greg Morris or your LCS dealer 10 minutes away? How often do THEY know? They don't. People can fret over this, or they can get on with life and collect cards and enjoy the hobby. The truth is that the vast majority of time - you aren't going to know.

All of your Evan scenarios aside from I think 2B (PSA knows it's trimmed, and labels it as such - Authentic Altered) are in theory true - but in reality highly improbable. Neither of the two largest graders that deal with vintage cards (PSA and SGC) are in the business of detective operations to see who "intentionally" submits altered cards to them. It's a policy that's buried in the fine print somewhere, but realistically impossible to enforce unless they take time and resources away from their grading operations to go on an improbable witch hunt for card doctors. Ain't gonna happen. The rest are the same. Yeah, if we hear of impropriety in the process somewhere, we should probably throw up a red flag. But how often in reality are folks going to do that? You have to temper this whole "Card Doctors Bad" with reality. This is why the physical proof to me is so important. It's the whole essence of the extent to which people care or do not care about alteration as a real issue in this hobby, with some chance to actually DO something about it and not just be pissed and post on message boards about card doctors whose names we don't know being so awful.

Graders certainly aren't perfect but they at least attempt to set a standard for authentic and unaltered cards based on physical proof that isn't reliant on the telephone game and unrealistic proactive honesty for collectors such as some on this board to out bad characters and altered cards that otherwise we would never know about. They are if nothing more - a starting point for now despite their flaws, given the percentage of collectors that continue to heavily use them and collect / invest in cards that reside in their slabs.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

If you mess with a card with the specific intent to conceal that fact from a third-party grader and/or potential buyer, then you're choosing to deceive others to advance your self-interest.

There's nothing to conceal though lol. This is 100% allowed. How do you not get this? Do you also call people a fraudster for not revealing the fact that they washed their car prior to selling it to you? They didn't tell you because it is widely understood and accepted that cleaning cars is OK. If some paranoid schizophrenic decides that they don't want cars to be washed and that anyone doing so without concealing that fact was somehow a fraudster, the world doesn't have to cater to his delusional demands. They just roll their eyes, laugh at him and move along to someone living in the real world.

Don't be the paranoid schizophrenic of the hobby screaming at clouds.

[gunboat82]

We're not going to see eye to eye here, so I'll just respond to your direct points and move on.

Originally Posted by Snowman

There's nothing to conceal though lol. This is 100% allowed. How do you not get this?

I see a difference between what's "allowed" and what's simply accepted with a shrug because it's too difficult to police and business is good.

Frankly, I'm not that fussy about cards for my personal collection. You can soak them, spray them, glue them, tape them, roll them, dip them, or touch them up with crayon. But I respect that other collectors might not feel that way. If I know something's been done to one of my cards that might make a prospective buyer/trader uneasy, I'll disclose it.

Originally Posted by Snowman

Do you also call people a fraudster for not revealing the fact that they washed their car prior to selling it to you? They didn't tell you because it is widely understood and accepted that cleaning cars is OK.

No, and I directly addressed this earlier. This is a bad analogy because there's no real market for unwashed used cars. There is a large market for unwashed cards that haven't been touched up with mystery spray, even if you think those people are dumb.

Originally Posted by Snowman

If some paranoid schizophrenic decides that they don't want cars to be washed and that anyone doing so without concealing that fact was somehow a fraudster, the world doesn't have to cater to his delusional demands. They just roll their eyes, laugh at him and move along to someone living in the real world.

In a far-fetched scenario where you know I'm in the market for a dirty car and you sell me a washed one anyway without disclosing it... yes, I'm comfortable calling you a fraudster.

All that said, I'm an imperfect being. I probably wouldn't lose sleep at night if I trimmed a card to 50/50 perfection, fuzzied the corners a bit to bring it to that PSA 4-5 sweet spot, snuck it through their alteration detectors, and sold it to you at 500% comps. You'd be happy as a clam and I'd have money in my pocket.

It's not actually fraud if we all look the other way, right? Trees falling in the forest and such.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

There's nothing to conceal though lol. This is 100% allowed. How do you not get this? Do you also call people a fraudster for not revealing the fact that they washed their car prior to selling it to you? They didn't tell you because it is widely understood and accepted that cleaning cars is OK. If some paranoid schizophrenic decides that they don't want cars to be washed and that anyone doing so without concealing that fact was somehow a fraudster, the world doesn't have to cater to his delusional demands. They just roll their eyes, laugh at him and move along to someone living in the real world.

Don't be the paranoid schizophrenic of the hobby screaming at clouds.

Complains in 147 about irrelevant comparisons, makes an irrelevant comparison a couple posts later.....

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

Undetected alterations are still alterations, so the eyeball test isn't dispositive.

Respectfully, I don't think you realize how ridiculous this sounds. If you pour a beer into a glass, and then later wash that glass, you have not altered the glass. It's still the same glass. In order for a card to be altered, you have to actually alter the card itself, not just remove something from it. You can't just call it "altered" because you dislike the practice.

[perezfan]

For those who’ve been following this for a while… Brent Huigens’ “tenets” now prevail. He never should’ve been an FBI target… he was a hobby trailblazer!