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

[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.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

It should not be impossible to detect. I hope long term that in all cases, even Kurt's - that is not the conclusion. I would dearly love to be proven wrong, and that Kurt's spray in fact is traceable in some way, shape, or form - by some sleuth grader of the future. My point in this thread is simply that it's not, or at least not yet. It's clear from his advertising, YT videos, and social media posts that the cards he cleans / restores / alters - whatever you want to call it - are getting through the TPG's like PSA and SGC if not more with astonishing speed and consistency.

Make no mistake - my line is the physical proof. If a method is devised 240 years from now to tell exactly what was done to each of our cards at each perspective point in their histories - then yes, fine. Bang, you got me. You got Kurt.

But if you cannot provide physical proof that a card is in fact altered - the world we currently live in will conclude that it hasn't been. Frowning upon more than that at this point is an exercise in futility and kind of pointless, IMO.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

It should not be impossible to detect. I hope long term that in all cases, even Kurt's - that is not the conclusion. I would dearly love to be proven wrong, and that Kurt's spray in fact is traceable in some way, shape, or form - by some sleuth grader of the future. My point in this thread is simply that it's not, or at least not yet. It's clear from his advertising, YT videos, and social media posts that the cards he cleans / restores / alters - whatever you want to call it - are getting through the TPG's like PSA and SGC if not more with astonishing speed and consistency.

Make no mistake - my line is the physical proof. If a method is devised 240 years from now to tell exactly what was done to each of our cards at each perspective point in their histories - then yes, fine. Bang, you got me. You got Kurt.

But if you cannot provide physical proof that a card is in fact altered - the world we currently live in will conclude that it hasn't been. Frowning upon more than that at this point is an exercise in futility and kind of pointless, IMO.

I don’t see how I can reasonably ever endorse this standard, where if something passes a grading company it is then totally fine. I get this is what keeps the money train running, and clearly this board is growing in the support for such an anything-is-fine-if-corporate-grades-it-approach, but I don’t think a slab gets rid of the problem or the dishonesty.. It was not long ago we all used to say the same thing I am - altering a card and not disclosing that when selling it is wrong and can be fraud. The holder it is in does not change that. Again, many times we can show the card was indeed altered.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don’t see how I can reasonably ever endorse this standard, where if something passes a grading company it is then totally fine. I get this is what keeps the money train running, and clearly this board is growing in the support for such an anything-is-fine-if-corporate-grades-it-approach, but I don’t think a slab gets rid of the problem or the dishonesty.. It was not long ago we all used to say the same thing I am - altering a card and not disclosing that when selling it is wrong and can be fraud. The holder it is in does not change that. Again, many times we can show the card was indeed altered.

I was using the grading companies as an example, not the gold standard. Clearly all of them have had issues at this point, either with just making mistakes or in some cases actually being complicit in getting altered cards into legit slabs.

My point with the graders was that unlike many on this thread who seem to think it's enough to shake their fist at some card doctor in abstentia, grading at least is an attempt to evaluate the physical condition of the card that cannot talk about what did or did not happen to it a year ago, or 70 years ago. It is an attempt - such that it has evolved to at this point - to examine the physical evidence.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I was using the grading companies as an example, not the gold standard. Clearly all of them have had issues at this point, either with just making mistakes or in some cases actually being complicit in getting altered cards into legit slabs.

My point with the graders was that unlike many on this thread who seem to think it's enough to shake their fist at some card doctor in abstentia, grading at least is an attempt to evaluate the physical condition of the card that cannot talk about what did or did not happen to it a year ago, or 70 years ago. It is an attempt - such that it has evolved to at this point - to examine the physical evidence.

Even well into the future, if there is no obvious physical evidence of alteration, if high powered magnification and scans with x-ray devices cannot prove it - whether that is a grading company or just a collector detective on his own using such methods - then the card is not going to be called or considered altered. The speculation beyond that just leads back to the conclusion that we all already reached a long time ago: Alteration is bad. Sorry we can't prove more than that.

They have missed thousands upon thousands of altered cards that collectors have been able to show and prove just the last 2-3 years alone. They have been busted gifting grades to former graders. It is at best incompetent, sometimes corrupt.

We don't seem to be at the point where we have no idea when things have been altered - the graders are just bad at it and don't really care to improve (which is the most generous possible statement to give them). Your scenario is a future possibility, not really current reality. PSA is not the arbiter of actual truth.

I suppose we could declare being against literally anything as 'shaking ones fist in absentia' unless one has the active power to stop it (what am I realistically supposed to do? Private citizens are not really in a meaningful position to do anything about a host of bad things in the world and regulating crime, shock, does not eliminate it either). Because I cannot stop bad thing X does not mean I should not be against bad thing X. I know it is increasing in hobby popularity to support, tacitly or openly, alteration and fraud (which is the whole and entire point of the alteration - show me these sellers redoing corners, removing creases, micro trimming to sharp perfection and disclosing that honestly when selling them) but a number of folks are not going to go along with these soft justifications.

[Peter_Spaeth]

How much did the cleaning of the M116 Wagner bump its value? 15K? More? In a way, if you take a step back, it's insane.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How much did the cleaning of the M116 Wagner bump its value? 15K? More? In a way, if you take a step back, it's insane.

I estimated that it went from about a $35k card to a $75k card just by cleaning off some gunk.

Lesson learned? Clean off your gunk before submitting or it might cost you $40k.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

They have missed thousands upon thousands of altered cards that collectors have been able to show and prove just the last 2-3 years alone. They have been busted gifting grades to former graders. It is at best incompetent, sometimes corrupt.

We don't seem to be at the point where we have no idea when things have been altered - the graders are just bad at it and don't really care to improve (which is the most generous possible statement to give them). Your scenario is a future possibility, not really current reality. PSA is not the arbiter of actual truth.

I suppose we could declare being against literally anything as 'shaking ones fist in absentia' unless one has the active power to stop it (what am I realistically supposed to do? Private citizens are not really in a meaningful position to do anything about a host of bad things in the world and regulating crime, shock, does not eliminate it either). Because I cannot stop bad thing X does not mean I should not be against bad thing X. I know it is increasing in hobby popularity to support, tacitly or openly, alteration and fraud (which is the whole and entire point of the alteration - show me these sellers redoing corners, removing creases, micro trimming to sharp perfection and disclosing that honestly when selling them) but a number of folks are not going to go along with these soft justifications.

Greg, no real argument with you on the graders. In many respects, they are all horrible right now if their aim is to truly prevent such things. (It isn't). As I've said before, it's ironic that an industry supposedly born because of the widespread problem of alteration now helps perpetuate that very problem when they endorse and thus escalate the value of such cards by putting them into legit slabs.

As for the rest of it and what to be for, what to be against - to me there has to be evidence of a crime that can be proved a week later when you sell said card to someone totally unsuspecting that has no idea of its history. You can be mad all day long at people who fix corners and remove creases, and soak away dirt and grime and wrinkles - but if at the end of the day there is ZERO proof that the card has been physically altered - then how has the card truly been changed from it's original state? It hasn't.

I would agree with you in many cases even with numbered graded cards - that of course you can tell. I'm not talking about these cards. Here is where collector knowledge and a personal eye for something being "not right" has to come into play. But say for s&g that you truly CAN'T tell for decades that anything Kurt's Card Care products do actually change and alter cards? This whole thing - as it is right now for people who buy cards that people have worked on with his products and have no clue - is a gigantic moot point. Not only will they never know, there is nothing TO know if the true physical state of the card cannot be proven to be altered. Will this always be the case with the types of leaps and bounds technology is currently taking? Probably not.

PS - I will say this again for those who maybe haven't read the entire missive of this thread. I quit using Kurt's products myself for my PC, not that I ever truly did anything much with them to begin with. They work to an extent yes, but it's just too much work. My more valuable cards with dinged corners and wrinkles can remain in their SGC 2 and 3 slabs. They are still beautiful without me doctoring them. ;-)

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

It should not be impossible to detect. I hope long term that in all cases, even Kurt's - that is not the conclusion. I would dearly love to be proven wrong, and that Kurt's spray in fact is traceable in some way, shape, or form - by some sleuth grader of the future. My point in this thread is simply that it's not, or at least not yet. It's clear from his advertising, YT videos, and social media posts that the cards he cleans / restores / alters - whatever you want to call it - are getting through the TPG's like PSA and SGC if not more with astonishing speed and consistency.

Make no mistake - my line is the physical proof. If a method is devised 240 years from now to tell exactly what was done to each of our cards at each perspective point in their histories - then yes, fine. Bang, you got me. You got Kurt.

But if you cannot provide physical proof that a card is in fact altered - the world we currently live in will conclude that it hasn't been. Frowning upon more than that at this point is an exercise in futility and kind of pointless, IMO.

Can't tell and can't tell from the <1 minute they spend at a grading company are very different.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by steve B

Can't tell and can't tell from the <1 minute they spend at a grading company are very different.

Fair.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by steve B

Can't tell and can't tell from the <1 minute they spend at a grading company are very different.

Couldn't agree more. Unless there is a HUGE red flashing light or the card doctor was a blind drunk third grader. The quick look many graders take isn't going to catch much.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Couldn't agree more. Unless there is a HUGE red flashing light or the card doctor was a blind drunk third grader. The quick look many graders take isn't going to catch much.

This may be true for certain alterations, like subtle recoloring, a rebuilt corner done professionally, or a bad trim job, but for most of the stuff we're taking about in this thread (e.g., soaking or cleaning cards like the Wagner), you could stare at it for hours and you're not going to find evidence of the fact that it was cleaned because there's nothing there to detect.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This may be true for certain alterations, like subtle recoloring, a rebuilt corner done professionally, or a bad trim job, but for most of the stuff we're taking about in this thread (e.g., soaking or cleaning cards like the Wagner), you could stare at it for hours and you're not going to find evidence of the fact that it was cleaned because there's nothing there to detect.

Maybe the big borders crowd needs to also start insisting on buying them dirty to make sure that they haven’t also been soaked….

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This may be true for certain alterations, like subtle recoloring, a rebuilt corner done professionally, or a bad trim job, but for most of the stuff we're taking about in this thread (e.g., soaking or cleaning cards like the Wagner), you could stare at it for hours and you're not going to find evidence of the fact that it was cleaned because there's nothing there to detect.

A lot of what Kurt does is way beyond cleaning.

I don't see a problem with cleaning, I wouldn't try with the card from post 178, because some white glues don't dissolve with water. I might try a bit of water and a q tip to see if it will. But that would be a coin toss on wasting the money to reslab it.

Undetectable? maybe on some sets. Not on all sets.
The way curt presses out creases and other damage is almost for sure detectable.
And I've offered to prove it, with no takers.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by steve B

A lot of what Kurt does is way beyond cleaning.

I don't see a problem with cleaning, I wouldn't try with the card from post 178, because some white glues don't dissolve with water. I might try a bit of water and a q tip to see if it will. But that would be a coin toss on wasting the money to reslab it.

Undetectable? maybe on some sets. Not on all sets.
The way curt presses out creases and other damage is almost for sure detectable.
And I've offered to prove it, with no takers.

A $15 coinflip for a gain of $1000? if it cleans up seems like a pretty easy decision from an EV standpoint.

I agree that pressing out creases is detectable. But Kurt doesn't press them out. Ever. In fact he expressly states numerous times that to do so is a bad idea and damages cards. He only adds moisture to the cards and then let's them dry slowly. Usually, the creases he works on do look somewhat better, but they rarely disappear. They typically just look more relaxed.

[campyfan39]

A total non sequitur.
You would be creating a fake Rolex or fake $100 bill from scratch. Those are counterfeits. Nobody is advocating that so you are fighting a straw man. Kurts is not producing fake cards

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

A total non sequitur.
You would be creating a fake Rolex or fake $100 bill from scratch. Those are counterfeits. Nobody is advocating that so you are fighting a straw man. Kurts is not producing fake cards

Yes that’s the entire point - a consequentialist standard allows anything. If something is okay because a grader signed off or you can’t detect it, then a whole lot of things become okay. That’s not a reasonable standard - if you’re really good at the deception it’s totally fine.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

A total non sequitur.
You would be creating a fake Rolex or fake $100 bill from scratch. Those are counterfeits. Nobody is advocating that so you are fighting a straw man. Kurts is not producing fake cards

So the notion that "it doesn't matter if you can't detect the difference" applies to real but worked on cards, but not to counterfeits? That's fine, but doesn't that undercut the rationale for the former? We're just doing Socratic method here on that position, not suggesting it's exactly the same.

[campyfan39]

Respectfully, you missed my point and may not have understood why I made the reply I did. Also, I haven't even suggested "it doesn't matter if you can't detect the difference."
Chris

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So the notion that "it doesn't matter if you can't detect the difference" applies to real but worked on cards, but not to counterfeits? That's fine, but doesn't that undercut the rationale for the former? We're just doing Socratic method here on that position, not suggesting it's exactly the same.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It was not my intent to mischaracterize what you said. What distinction were you attempting to draw then with counterfeits? I brought up fake Rolexes, and Greg brought up fake currency, to test the proposition some were floating (not you apparently) that it didn't matter if you couldn't detect it. But you called that a nonsequitur. So kindly explain.

[campyfan39]

Sure. The OP was all about Kurts cleaning cards and so the debate was about whether its ethical to do things to cards that would get them back more to their original state. I only objected to the counterfeit thing because its original state is not legitimate (aka fake). I didn't see the comparison. Just IMO

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It was not my intent to mischaracterize what you said. What distinction were you attempting to draw then with counterfeits? I brought up fake Rolexes, and Greg brought up fake currency, to test the proposition some were floating (not you apparently) that it didn't matter if you couldn't detect it. But you called that a nonsequitur. So kindly explain.

[Peter_Spaeth]

" 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?"

This is what I was responding to -- not from you.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So the notion that "it doesn't matter if you can't detect the difference" applies to real but worked on cards, but not to counterfeits? That's fine, but doesn't that undercut the rationale for the former? We're just doing Socratic method here on that position, not suggesting it's exactly the same.

Not sure if anyone cares at this point, but I suggested that it doesn't matter. That's not entirely accurate. My point was more to suggest the difficulty / current lack of concern in linking the two is problematic. It would be much easier for graders and collectors with any morals to point out "this was bad, and here's proof of how it was bad I can show you even much later..."

For what it is worth by my earlier quip logic - if a Rolex was entirely fake and you "can't tell" I think that places this situation in the same boat. We can deplore fake Rolex makers for the act, but in the meantime a lot of fake Rolexes may trade as authentic with nobody much the wiser.

[Fred]

Now that the auction is over, I'll post a picture of a correctly graded card and ask:

Would you buy this, break it out, soak it, send it in for grading, and then sell it?

The card is graded a "1" due to the crud on the back. Watching Kurt's videos, I'm sure the crud could be easily removed.


The card has nice centering and could probably come back graded a 3.5 (or better). The price difference could be up to $1K (from the price for a "1").

Worst case, if it came back AUTH due to someone detected the soaking, you could still probably break even on the card because it has very nice visual appeal.

The final hammer (with BP, but no taxes or shipping added) was $900.

Any guesses if we'll see this card cracked, soaked, resubmitted and back to an AH? Probably better to just sell it without the AH this time around.



JoeD-REA-21JAN24-B.jpg

[campyfan39]

I personally would not but I don't see how it would be any different than buying a house, fixing it up and flipping it.

Originally Posted by Fred

Now that the auction is over, I'll post a picture of a correctly graded card and ask:

Would you buy this, break it out, soak it, send it in for grading, and then sell it?

The card is graded a "1" due to the crud on the back. Watching Kurt's videos, I'm sure the crud could be easily removed.


The card has nice centering and could probably come back graded a 3.5 (or better). The price difference could be up to $1K (from the price for a "1").

Worst case, if it came back AUTH due to someone detected the soaking, you could still probably break even on the card because it has very nice visual appeal.

The final hammer (with BP, but no taxes or shipping added) was $900.

Any guesses if we'll see this card cracked, soaked, resubmitted and back to an AH? Probably better to just sell it without the AH this time around.



Attachment 606580

[Seven]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

I personally would not but I don't see how it would be any different than buying a house, fixing it up and flipping it.

You can live in a House, you can't live in a Joe DiMaggio card

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Fred

Now that the auction is over, I'll post a picture of a correctly graded card and ask:

Would you buy this, break it out, soak it, send it in for grading, and then sell it?

The card is graded a "1" due to the crud on the back. Watching Kurt's videos, I'm sure the crud could be easily removed.


The card has nice centering and could probably come back graded a 3.5 (or better). The price difference could be up to $1K (from the price for a "1").

Worst case, if it came back AUTH due to someone detected the soaking, you could still probably break even on the card because it has very nice visual appeal.

The final hammer (with BP, but no taxes or shipping added) was $900.

Any guesses if we'll see this card cracked, soaked, resubmitted and back to an AH? Probably better to just sell it without the AH this time around.

Yes, the buyer will certainly be attempting to clean this card up. Nearly every time a card like this gets auctioned, the buyer is someone that believes they can fix it. Cards like this sell closer to their potential, as opposed to their current state. They almost never sell for "comps" because people who know how to clean them compete against each other and will always outbid someone who is just bidding on the card with no intentions to improve it.

No, I did not win the card. But I do know who did.

As for whether it will end up back at an auction house in the near future in a higher slab? My guess is no, it won't. The buyer picked it up for their PC.

[GeoPoto]

I recently "upgraded" the SweetCap460-25 in my T206Elberfeld,Washington Fielding back run. I decided that I preferred the 2.5 despite the grime over the 5, which looks altered. So, now I am curious if the Snowman thinks the 2.5 would benefit from soaking?

https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1706014626
https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1706014631
https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1706014637
https://www.net54baseball.com/attach...1&d=1706014641

[tjisonline]

The card was graded poor because it has a pinhole. Everything else is irrelevant.

Would make zero sense financially to soak this card with its pinhole.
I assume it be enjoyed as a nice eye appeal card.

Originally Posted by Fred

Now that the auction is over, I'll post a picture of a correctly graded card and ask:

Would you buy this, break it out, soak it, send it in for grading, and then sell it?

The card is graded a "1" due to the crud on the back. Watching Kurt's videos, I'm sure the crud could be easily removed.


The card has nice centering and could probably come back graded a 3.5 (or better). The price difference could be up to $1K (from the price for a "1").

Worst case, if it came back AUTH due to someone detected the soaking, you could still probably break even on the card because it has very nice visual appeal.

The final hammer (with BP, but no taxes or shipping added) was $900.

Any guesses if we'll see this card cracked, soaked, resubmitted and back to an AH? Probably better to just sell it without the AH this time around.



Attachment 606580

[Fred]

Wow, I had to go back to post 178 to refresh.

I didn't see the pin hole in the card, however, my thought was that the card looks pretty nice beyond the paste at the corners.

If it were cleaned, it could be resubmitted and there's the possibility the TPG misses that "very tiny" pin hole. I wouldn't promote the resubmission in the attempt to get it by the TPG, but I'm sure others might see the potential benefit.

I suppose the next question would bring up debate. If it were soaked and result in no damage to the card, then an assumption is that card would look awesome (front is centered fairly well). Would anybody soak it just to have a nicer looking card (assuming no damage to the card occurs).

For arguements sake (or to alleviate most reasons for a debate), lets say the card was soaked only in water.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Why do you guys keep making these false comparisons to counterfeit items like fake Rolexes and $100 bills? How is this even remotely relevant to the topic of this thread which is whether or not cleaning a card (as in the Wagner from the OP) ought to result in someone going to hell?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by snowman

why do you guys keep making these false comparisons to counterfeit items like fake rolexes and $100 bills? How is this even remotely relevant to the topic of this thread which is whether or not cleaning a card (as in the wagner from the op) ought to result in someone going to hell?

#117.