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

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You're not evil, you're just delusional. The problem is that you keep calling it "alteration" and "fraud". Neither are true. Pushing down a bent corner with your thumb or even a stick is not an alteration. Soaking a card in water does not alter the card. Placing a card in a humidor does not alter the card.

If you brought a dress shirt to a tailor and said you wanted to get an alteration done on it and asked for a quote, they'd look at you like you were crazy after explaining to them that the "alteration" you'd like to have done is just to have it steamed (or ironed, steam cleaned, etc.).

Next time, try and read first. I have not spoken a word against pushing on a corner with your finger or soaking whatsoever and actually said the opposite. I know this board largely struggles to read transcripts but it's right there. You just make things up to defend fraud, shilling, alteration, or whatever unethical act of the day has your fancy.

Originally Posted by Snowman

That some people choose to conflate an original item that has been cleaned with one that is counterfeit is not my concern. G1911 can continue on in his delusion as long as he chooses. The rest of us are going to continue to soak cards, push down bent-up corners, and wipe off fingerprints and smudges from the surfaces. Sorry, not sorry.

Here's another complete lie from our resident fraud guy. You cannot possibly be so stupid as to not understand the contextual use of 'original'. Again, where did I speak against pushing on a corner with your finger or wiping fingerprint? Nowhere. I said the opposite. You claim people argued against non-controversial things to then conflate them with egregious acts and non-disclosure to pretend it's all fine.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

Next time, try and read first. I have not spoken a word against pushing on a corner with your finger or soaking whatsoever and actually said the opposite. I know this board largely struggles to read transcripts but it's right there. You just make things up to defend fraud, shilling, alteration, or whatever unethical act of the day has your fancy.



Here's another complete lie from our resident fraud guy. You cannot possibly be so stupid as to not understand the contextual use of 'original'. Again, where did I speak against pushing on a corner with your finger or wiping fingerprint? Nowhere. I said the opposite. You claim people argued against non-controversial things to then conflate them with egregious acts and non-disclosure to pretend it's all fine.

BS. You have berated every post I've made in this thread and seemingly every other thread on this topic. I have only defended benign behaviors such as soaking cards in water, laying down a bent corner, cleaning smudges or gunk off the surfaces (as with the card in the OP), etc. Yet you continue to berate me and say I'm defending "altering" cards and repeatedly accuse me of fraud. It's getting old. You constantly chime in with the most ignorant takes on just about every topic this board has to offer. Maybe try reading a book or two? Have you ever thought about that? Maybe try to learn something for once in your life? Or not.

Also, it is you who needs a refresher on the definition of 'original', not me. Here is the contextually relevant entry from the Oxford Dictionary for 'original':

Original - the form or language in which something was first produced or created.

Words have meanings. If you don't like this one, then pick a different word.

[EddieP]

Interesting thread. This is the same existential crisis that the Antiques Furniture went through years ago. It reached a point that anything done to a piece of furniture immensely reduced its price. I wonder if sports cards will go this pathway.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by EddieP

Interesting thread. This is the same existential crisis that the Antiques Furniture went through years ago. It reached a point that anything done to a piece of furniture immensely reduced its price. I wonder if sports cards will go this pathway.

I assume you're talking about something different than this, but Instagram and YouTube have endless content from people who buy used antique furniture pieces for less than $100 (and often free) and then restore it and sell the items for thousands of dollars.

[Snowman]

I recently saw this card posted on social media. It is not my card. But I'm curious which version of the card everyone here would prefer. The one on the left, or the one on the right after it was cleaned?

In my opinion, this card was rescued. In the image on the left, it was clearly altered. On the right, it was restored back to its original state.

...

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I recently saw this card posted on social media. It is not my card. But I'm curious which version of the card everyone here would prefer. The one on the left, or the one on the right after it was cleaned?

In my opinion, this card was rescued. In the image on the left, it was clearly altered. On the right, it was restored back to its original state.

...

Since it's not perfectly centered (top to bottom), you probably wouldn't want it Travis. As long as you don't try to bring that top to bottom centering to 50/50, all is good.

Come on, that was somewhat funny, right.

This is an interesting thread regarding opinions/perceptions of "altering" or "enhancements". Shows some real passion on the collectors that are far right and far left. Ok, let's not start trying to figure out which is "far right".

It'd be interesting to run a poll that allowed for more than a single selection. The poll could keep a tally of all participants and a list of items considered "card doctoring". Now, for the soaking part, the poll should include soaking with only water or soaking with more than water. What would those polling items be? Trimming , adding color, adding material for fixing holes/corners, crease removal, what else?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I recently saw this card posted on social media. It is not my card. But I'm curious which version of the card everyone here would prefer. The one on the left, or the one on the right after it was cleaned?

In my opinion, this card was rescued. In the image on the left, it was clearly altered. On the right, it was restored back to its original state.

...

And your position is that if selling it, there would be nothing to disclose?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And your position is that if selling it, there would be nothing to disclose?

I'd like to live in a world where anything done to cards would be openly disclosed and discussed. In fact, I'm one of the very few sellers I see on eBay that puts "CREASE" or "WRINKLE" in my listing titles. In my other hobbies, everyone discloses everything because there's no blowback. In the rare casino and poker chip collecting world, everyone cleans their chips openly. There are countless threads in those communities where people discuss cleaning techniques and everyone chimes in. Zero people stand by with pitchforks trying to crucify people.

In this hobby, the interpersonal landscape is extremely unhealthy. It's a whole different ball of wax. Perhaps unironically, I've even had people from this hobby (Blowhard forums) stalk/follow me over to the casino chip hobby and try to "out me" there for cleaning chips and creating YT videos showing people how to do it and how to make custom chips, as if I was some sort of con artist. It was actually quite hilarious. Because in that world, nobody cares. No one. They just laughed at the sports card guy screaming at clouds.

The amount of vitriol spewed by people like G1911 fosters an environment where people simply don't care to have open and honest conversations like these. When stating that I prefer to clean my cards is met with claims like, "You're a fraudster and a con artist!", that door to open and honest conversation gets closed. Unless and until that changes, I don't think people are going to feel comfortable making such disclosures. It's the same reason people don't express their political beliefs anymore on social media. They don't want to deal with the blowback at work or in their personal lives caused by a band of cancel culture psychopaths whose only goal in life is to take down anyone and everyone they disagree with.

So, in short. I'd like to see anything and everything openly disclosed and discussed in this hobby. Is that realistic though? No, of course not. Not as long as there are legitimate psychopaths running around trying to set people on fire for cleaning their baseball cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I recently saw this card posted on social media. It is not my card. But I'm curious which version of the card everyone here would prefer. The one on the left, or the one on the right after it was cleaned?

In my opinion, this card was rescued. In the image on the left, it was clearly altered. On the right, it was restored back to its original state.

...

Nobody but you, I don't think, would call the card on the left altered. It's incurred some wear/damage, that is not alteration. Altered implies something intentionally being done to it. Again, if you were selling the "restored" version on the right would you disclose the work or not?

[campyfan39]

This is getting silly. What if my 6 year old brat nephew intentionally spilled some soda on it? Now its altered?
Also, G1911 is the most negative poster on this board. Soooo many threads. He has got be pushing 50 posts on this thread alone and they are all combative or snarky. We will get 4 more soon attacking me now.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nobody but you, I don't think, would call the card on the left altered. It's incurred some wear/damage, that is not alteration. Altered implies something intentionally being done to it. Again, if you were selling the "restored" version on the right would you disclose the work or not?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nobody but you, I don't think, would call the card on the left altered. It's incurred some wear/damage, that is not alteration. Altered implies something intentionally being done to it. Again, if you were selling the "restored" version on the right would you disclose the work or not?

Again, I'll restate that words have meaning. If you don't like the definition of a word, then choose a different one. I challenge you to find even one dictionary that mentions anything at all about intent when providing a definition for 'altered'.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I assume you're talking about something different than this, but Instagram and YouTube have endless content from people who buy used antique furniture pieces for less than $100 (and often free) and then restore it and sell the items for thousands of dollars.

Surely you know, it also depends on many factors: historical significance of the piece, rarity of the piece, age of the piece etc. If it’s a common piece that is 1950s vintage then yeah restoring or renovating the piece will increase it’s value. If it’s a pre-colonial piece never restored/renovated then yeah restoration/ renovation will greatly reduce it’s value exponentially. But you know this because you’re not that stupid and you only like to argue.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

BS. You have berated every post I've made in this thread and seemingly every other thread on this topic. I have only defended benign behaviors such as soaking cards in water, laying down a bent corner, cleaning smudges or gunk off the surfaces (as with the card in the OP), etc. Yet you continue to berate me and say I'm defending "altering" cards and repeatedly accuse me of fraud. It's getting old. You constantly chime in with the most ignorant takes on just about every topic this board has to offer. Maybe try reading a book or two? Have you ever thought about that? Maybe try to learn something for once in your life? Or not.

Also, it is you who needs a refresher on the definition of 'original', not me. Here is the contextually relevant entry from the Oxford Dictionary for 'original':



Words have meanings. If you don't like this one, then pick a different word.

Okay. So you cannot read what has actually been said, bitched I said the exact opposite of the actual transcript, and your only response to being caught lying for the hundredth time about something that is right here in front of your face is that you think I need to read a book? Why don't we start with you reading the relevant transcript before the next batch of fabrications you make up?

Yes I have strongly criticized your constant defenses of altering cards without disclosure among another other highly dubious, at best, behavior. This should not be difficult to see why. Altering items and selling them without disclosure is unethical and illegal. If it did not matter and no one cared, then there would be no problem discussing the work done on a card. There would not need to be a cover up every time it gets sold. If it was not illegal to alter cards and sell them as if they were not altered, then Mastro wouldn't have had it included in his deal.

Did you even read the definition of original you copied in? Look closely. Read it. "the form or language in which something was first produced or created." You genuinely can't see why hobbyists have long used 'original' to refer to form?

Now here's the bigger problem - where did I use the term "original" at all here? I didn't refer to undoctored cards as original at all in the transcript. I used "original" and "originally" twice in the digression on the fictional perfect fake ring in post 108 and don't seem to have used the words any other time in any context whatsoever. Where did I use it wrong? Again, this is a forum. There is a transcript. Reading a transcript is not difficult. You can do it. You do not need completely make things up about even the most pedantic things lol. Yet you choose to every single time. I guess that fits with an ethic that non-disclosure and fraud are just fine and dandy though, so it makes some sense.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

Okay. So you cannot read what has actually been said, bitched I said the exact opposite of the actual transcript, and your only response to being caught lying for the hundredth time about something that is right here in front of your face is that you think I need to read a book? Why don't we start with you reading the relevant transcript before the next batch of fabrications you make up?

Yes I have strongly criticized your constant defenses of altering cards without disclosure among another other highly dubious, at best, behavior. This should not be difficult to see why. Altering items and selling them without disclosure is unethical and illegal. If it did not matter and no one cared, then there would be no problem discussing the work done on a card. There would not need to be a cover up every time it gets sold. If it was not illegal to alter cards and sell them as if they were not altered, then Mastro wouldn't have had it included in his deal.

Did you even read the definition of original you copied in? Look closely. Read it. "the form or language in which something was first produced or created." You genuinely can't see why hobbyists have long used 'original' to refer to form?

Now here's the bigger problem - where did I use the term "original" at all here? I didn't refer to undoctored cards as original at all in the transcript. I used "original" and "originally" twice in the digression on the fictional perfect fake ring in post 108 and don't seem to have used the words any other time in any context whatsoever. Where did I use it wrong? Again, this is a forum. There is a transcript. Reading a transcript is not difficult. You can do it. You do not need completely make things up about even the most pedantic things lol. Yet you choose to every single time. I guess that fits with an ethic that non-disclosure and fraud are just fine and dandy though, so it makes some sense.

I'm done conversing with you. Have a good life.