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

[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

" 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.

Hi Peter. That was me.

If I can expand a bit - No, if I'm looking at a card with obviously thin borders in a PSA 8 slab, I don't throw caution to the wind there, and say well. It's not altered because it's in the slab. There is a Mantle base card I know of in a PSA 10 slab that has suspiciously thin borders; but I digress.

I guess I was trying to draw a distinction between altered cards (I'm fine with using Kurt's methods as the example, since so many obviously tend to lean toward that being across the line) that at least currently cannot be detected, or cannot be detected definitively and/or easily.

I'm sure it's different for each person. Does it "not matter" only if you cannot tell yourself that the card "definitely' was altered before you add it to your collection? Or is hearsay about what did or did not happen to the card with it's previous owner or handler come into play? How much provenance is required?

Asking again as my only point here is that given current methods today, the "act" can usually be separated from the evidence it does or does not leave behind. And the major point of judgment on whether or not a card is "altered" continues to be tied to the physical evidence and what a grader does or does not say, or what a discerning collector can or cannot see regardless of a pronouncement on a flip. Until the technology improves, much of the discussion remains academic - even if we all agree Card Doctors Bad / the act itself even in abstentia remains deplorable.

[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

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Seven

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

A house with the value of most Joe DiMaggio cards would need a LOT of work before you could live in it.

[campyfan39]

I guess the incoming argument will be that people know the house has been renovated/remodeled.
I can see that side too.
Sticky (haha) subject

[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

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by 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?]

The 2.5 could be improved, but it likely wouldn't result in a grade bump. Just an eye appeal improvement.

The 5 may have been cleaned at some point. I would say it's more likely than not. Whether it has been trimmed or not is difficult to say from a scan though.

[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 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.

Yes, I would absolutely soak a card just to clean it up even though I know it would receive the same technical grade if resubmitted. I've done it countless times.

[tjisonline]

Hello,

For this post, please remember that when I refer to cleaning or soaking it is with 100% distilled water only.

1) I agree. The pinhole is there yet subtle enough where it doesn’t take away from the card. It does go through the back, unfortunately. It’s like looking through a peak / peep hole. Ever watched the 1982 movie, Porky’s? ��.

2a & b) I don’t think anyone with common sense will resubmit this card to a grader w/ a hole in it. It makes zero sense.

Even if you clean the card, it’s still gonna have the hole. It’s not like soaking the card is gonna make the cardboard grow to fill the hole. Additionally, it could be greater as authentic instead of a1 / poor.

Soaking does not always clean a card. it was primarily used 5+ decades ago to remove cards that were taped or glued in scrapbooks. Additionally, some cards cannot be soaked and could be destroyed.

Originally Posted by Fred

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

1) 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.

2a) 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.

2b) 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).

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

[etsmith]

I don't see a problem with using distilled water, but using anything else is probably not a good idea in the long term.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by tjisonline

… Even if you clean the card, it’s still gonna have the hole. It’s not like soaking the card is gonna make the cardboard grow to fill the hole. …

Vintage Card Restoration: Dealing with pinholes on vintage sports cards
https://youtu.be/mxTWkdLyfws?si=v8o3-ONtWRk278Jb


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro