Is it ethical to alter cards and sell them without disclosure?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

That's exciting. Didn't realize that until now. I guess if you click on the hyperlinked number of votes for any given option, it will show the list of who voted for each option. And it looks like Snowman voted for option #2. I suspect because his definition of alterations is different than yours.

Respect to those who have been honest. Honesty is always a virtue, whether I agree with them or not. I hold the Yes voters in higher regard than the people who pretend they have no idea what an altered card means.

Yes, Snowman's is that the word means the exact opposite of what the hobby has meant for 3 decades+, that a crease is alteration and not his work on a card. If I say I define a tree as a rhinoceros, that doesn't make the tree a rhinoceros. His definition is not the ignorance the others claim whenever convenient, but that it means the exact opposite.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

Respect to those who have been honest. Honesty is always a virtue, whether I agree with them or not. I hold the Yes voters in higher regard than the people who pretend they have no idea what an altered card means.

I'm not sure if my vote was motivated by honesty. It was as much a function as a protest vote, due to my contrarian nature.

That and whenever people demand absolute answers based on ambiguous criteria, my contrarian streak tends to run amok even more violently than usual.

[drcy]

It not only obviously is unethical, it is illegal.

[judsonhamlin]

Originally Posted by drcy

It not only obviously is unethical, it is illegal.

This. Not that we don’t have enough attorneys weighing in, but it might be good to remember that there is criminal liability for, I don’t know, theft by deception (“a person is guilty of theft if he purposely obtains property of another by deception. A person deceived if he purposely… prevents another from acquiring information which would affect his judgment of a transaction “). That’s NJSA 2C:20-4B, from MPC 223.3. If the amount in question is more than $75K, theres a presumption of jail time with that.
And, also in NJ (but sourced from MPC 224.2), a person commits a crime of the fourth degree if, with a purpose to defraud anyone, or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud to be perpetrated by anyone, he makes, ALTERS or utters any object so that it appears to have value because of antiquity, rarity, source or authorship which it does not possess. That’s NJSA 2C:21-2.
Not sure how you dodge that if you’re not disclosing alterations that cause a buyer to pay more for a card than they would. And as to value, I think we can agree that, say a legitimate PSA 8 T206 Cobb or 33 Goudey Ruth isn’t a helluva lot more expensive and rare than an A graded card

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

This. Not that we don’t have enough attorneys weighing in, but it might be good to remember that there is criminal liability for, I don’t know, theft by deception (“a person is guilty of theft if he purposely obtains property of another by deception. A person deceived if he purposely… prevents another from acquiring information which would affect his judgment of a transaction “). That’s NJSA 2C:20-4B, from MPC 223.3. If the amount in question is more than $75K, theres a presumption of jail time with that.
And, also in NJ (but sourced from MPC 224.2), a person commits a crime of the fourth degree if, with a purpose to defraud anyone, or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud to be perpetrated by anyone, he makes, ALTERS or utters any object so that it appears to have value because of antiquity, rarity, source or authorship which it does not possess. That’s NJSA 2C:21-2.
Not sure how you dodge that if you’re not disclosing alterations that cause a buyer to pay more for a card than they would. And as to value, I think we can agree that, say a legitimate PSA 8 T206 Cobb or 33 Goudey Ruth isn’t a helluva lot more expensive and rare than an A graded card

Lol. Good luck with that argument in a court of law.

[G1911]

I don't think there is a single other crime we could do this for that would considered in the same way here.

For example:

If I asked a different board if murder was ethical or unethical, there would be a few jokey troll responses of ethical and everyone else would say unethical. It might spark an interesting debate about where, precisely, the line between murder and self-defense lies, as is often vague still in many jurisdictions and on which reasonable people may disagree. That would not cause a significant number of posters to claim, well golly, they can't answer the question because they aren't sure if case Y that someone might reasonably consider not self-defense really is and should be termed self-defense. Nobody would pretend they don't know what the crime is.

Or let's say it was "is it ethical or unethical to claim false deductions on your taxes to lower your tax bill?". A sizable number of people would honestly answer one way or the other this time, a more split vote but a majority against it. It might spark some interesting side debate on if certain stretches are truly a 'false' deduction or might be seen in another light and what falls within the textual basis, exactly. People would not pretend that they cannot give an opinion because they might disagree on a particular edge case. Nobody would pretend that they cannot understand the issue or the ethic raised.

Of course, it is only within a context where a sizable body has a financial interest in exactly this kind of act, that we pretend it is difficult to understand the subject or render any opinion. You are all experienced card collectors and you know perfectly well what is under discussion. For no other crime discussed in a body that is knowledgeable about the subject pertinent to the crime, would you pretend to be unable to be for or against the concept because X might disagree in Y exact scenario. It is this kind of sophistry that is really the main point - when a side must resort to arguing no conclusion can be made because there is always an endless array of possible scenarios still to go or against disclosing a fact, it is a clue that they are doing something wrong. Is it really so hard to just disclose with honesty? No, it's not hard. It doesn't pay as well, and so some will be commendably honest and admit it and a greater number will wring their hands and pretend they can't figure it out, while a majority don't have a problem stating the obvious.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Those questions are clearer. Yours is more like the open ended question, would you do anything unethical? Of course most people would say no, but given the ambiguity, you're going to get a lot of false positives (or maybe it's false negatives here) because one man's unethical conduct is another man's ethical conduct.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't think there is a single other crime we could do this for that would considered in the same way here.

For example:

If I asked a different board if murder was ethical or unethical, there would be a few jokey troll responses of ethical and everyone else would say unethical. It might spark an interesting debate about where, precisely, the line between murder and self-defense lies, as is often vague still in many jurisdictions and on which reasonable people may disagree. That would not cause a significant number of posters to claim, well golly, they can't answer the question because they aren't sure if case Y that someone might reasonably consider not self-defense really is and should be termed self-defense. Nobody would pretend they don't know what the crime is.

Or let's say it was "is it ethical or unethical to claim false deductions on your taxes to lower your tax bill?". A sizable number of people would honestly answer one way or the other this time, a more split vote but a majority against it. It might spark some interesting side debate on if certain stretches are truly a 'false' deduction or might be seen in another light and what falls within the textual basis, exactly. People would not pretend that they cannot give an opinion because they might disagree on a particular edge case. Nobody would pretend that they cannot understand the issue or the ethic raised.

Of course, it is only within a context where a sizable body has a financial interest in exactly this kind of act, that we pretend it is difficult to understand the subject or render any opinion. You are all experienced card collectors and you know perfectly well what is under discussion. For no other crime discussed in a body that is knowledgeable about the subject pertinent to the crime, would you pretend to be unable to be for or against the concept because X might disagree in Y exact scenario. It is this kind of sophistry that is really the main point - when a side must resort to arguing no conclusion can be made because there is always an endless array of possible scenarios still to go or against disclosing a fact, it is a clue that they are doing something wrong. Is it really so hard to just disclose with honesty? No, it's not hard. It doesn't pay as well, and so some will be commendably honest and admit it and a greater number will wring their hands and pretend they can't figure it out, while a majority don't have a problem stating the obvious.

Hot take: Soaking a card doesn't seem quite as black and white as murder.

You invoked taxes, so let's bore everyone to death by poking at it with my own little taxable tortillon.

As a CPA, I will tell you that there are a lot of shades of gray out there when it comes to deductions. While there are some areas that are clearly black and white, most of the action is in the gray, and discerning the precise shade of gray, and whether it makes sense to go there. You may be shocked to learn that as a tax preparer, my professional standards only require that there must be at least a 40% chance of prevailing in tax court for me to sign a tax return as the preparer.

40%!!!!

I would posit that similar ambiguities abound when it comes to cardboard.

While I'm happy to agree every day of the week and twice on Sunday that trimming is out, I'm not as convinced when it comes wiping off a fingerprint. I've never done it, but it doesn't seem all that terrible to me, and certainly shouldn't be considered as tantamount to murder.

But I guess I'm probably a little too prone to seeing too many shades of gray, and being willing to play in that gray when appropriate.

[judsonhamlin]

Originally Posted by drcy

It not only obviously is unethical, it is illegal.

Originally Posted by Snowman

Lol. Good luck with that argument in a court of law.

Well, the statutes are fairly straightforward and that was my intent - to show that this kind of conduct is proscribed and has penal consequences. And, I like my chances of establishing probable cause to a judge signing off on a complaint or even a grand jury. I agree that the burden needed to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt is a different animal, but that’s more about allocation of investigative and prosecutorial resources than whether or not we would call something a crime or not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by judsonhamlin

This. Not that we don’t have enough attorneys weighing in, but it might be good to remember that there is criminal liability for, I don’t know, theft by deception (“a person is guilty of theft if he purposely obtains property of another by deception. A person deceived if he purposely… prevents another from acquiring information which would affect his judgment of a transaction “). That’s NJSA 2C:20-4B, from MPC 223.3. If the amount in question is more than $75K, theres a presumption of jail time with that.
And, also in NJ (but sourced from MPC 224.2), a person commits a crime of the fourth degree if, with a purpose to defraud anyone, or with knowledge that he is facilitating a fraud to be perpetrated by anyone, he makes, ALTERS or utters any object so that it appears to have value because of antiquity, rarity, source or authorship which it does not possess. That’s NJSA 2C:21-2.
Not sure how you dodge that if you’re not disclosing alterations that cause a buyer to pay more for a card than they would. And as to value, I think we can agree that, say a legitimate PSA 8 T206 Cobb or 33 Goudey Ruth isn’t a helluva lot more expensive and rare than an A graded card

Objection, lack of foundation. I doubt there is any such thing as a legitimate PSA 8 T206 Cobb or Goudey Ruth.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

I'm not sure if my vote was motivated by honesty. It was as much a function as a protest vote, due to my contrarian nature.

That and whenever people demand absolute answers based on ambiguous criteria, my contrarian streak tends to run amok even more violently than usual.

I'm probably very aligned with Greg on the ethics of all this, but I agree a poll based on a loaded term does not work.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

I'm not sure if my vote was motivated by honesty. It was as much a function as a protest vote, due to my contrarian nature.

That and whenever people demand absolute answers based on ambiguous criteria, my contrarian streak tends to run amok even more violently than usual.

Oh I wasn't counting you among the honest, as you said one thing and voted another, when you apparently did not realize the contradiction could be seen.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

Oh I wasn't counting you among the honest, as you said one thing and voted another, when you apparently did not realize the contradiction could be seen.

Thanks for clarifying. I would argue that I haven't been inconsistent on this matter. But rather, the poll is poorly constructed. But I suppose we can agree to disagree on that score.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by raulus

Thanks for clarifying. I would argue that I haven't been inconsistent on this matter. But rather, the poll is poorly constructed. But I suppose we can agree to disagree on that score.

The poll was worded precisely as I would have predicted, given its author.

[Johnny630]

Isn’t the only thing that matters to the people who move the market, ie make our cards worth thousands if not more dollars, have the card in a numbered PSA holder? That's all that matters to the people who move the market. It’s not right but it’s the way it is.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by Facilitypro

If you define "altering" as trimming/pressing/recoloring, then I think that is not acceptable.

Originally Posted by glchen

As other have said, there are many definitions of alterations in the hobby. Here are a few that I can think of:

Soaking a card glued onto something else like a scrapbook: Acceptable
Soaking and pressing a card to remove wrinkles: Not Acceptable

Originally Posted by packs

Yeah, I agree with soaking. I don't see the alteration aspect of soaking a card.

If you've soaked a card....then you've pressed a card. Once you've soaked it, it almost never wants to be perfectly flat anymore. You have to press it into and continue to hold the shape you desire with pressure while it dries.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

If you've soaked a card....then you've pressed a card. Once you've soaked it, it almost never wants to be perfectly flat anymore. You have to press it into and continue to hold the shape you desire with pressure while it dries.

This is not when people mean when they talk about someone "pressing" a card. There are people here who think that there's an army of card doctors that run around soaking cards and then squishing the hell out of them with a mechanical press in an effort to expand their size so that they can then trim them down.

Personally, I think this is pretty funny. Believe it or not, this is actually a myth. It's not a thing.

Another thing people refer to as pressing is smashing out creases with a spoon. This actually is a thing and it damages cards. This IS an alteration, and it's something I won't do. It is perhaps worth mentioning that this is also something Kurt does not do either. This will get your cards flagged as altered stock by PSA and SGC. Don't do it.

Putting a book on top of a card while it dries to ensure it dries flat is not what is meant by "pressing" a card.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This is not when people mean when they talk about someone "pressing" a card. There are people here who think that there's an army of card doctors that run around soaking cards and then squishing the hell out of them with a mechanical press in an effort to expand their size so that they can then trim them down.

Personally, I think this is pretty funny. Believe it or not, this is actually a myth. It's not a thing.

Another thing people refer to as pressing is smashing out creases with a spoon. This actually is a thing and it damages cards. This IS an alteration, and it's something I won't do. It is perhaps worth mentioning that this is also something Kurt does not do either. This will get your cards flagged as altered stock by PSA and SGC. Don't do it.

Putting a book on top of a card while it dries to ensure it dries flat is not what is meant by "pressing" a card.

It's the pressing flat of corners or wrinkles that I think most here think of when "pressing" is mentioned. I don't think your definition is the only one. Most don't really consider smashing a card to increase the size and then trim some excess as being any kind of rampant problem...I've never seen anyone here particularly worried about that.

But a soaked card now has bends if you don't intervene and you are pressing those bends out to make it seem "normal" again.

Spoon smashing for a crease/wrinkle probably compresses the card stock and Kurt does not do that, I don't believe. But essentially (and a simplified way of thinking of it) he "soaks" the area that is creased or wrinkled and massages it flat for drying.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

But a soaked card now has bends if you don't intervene and you are pressing those bends out to make it seem "normal" again.

Soaking a card does not "cause bends". All paper stock is dried flat. That's how paper is made. If you soak a card and just let it sit there to dry out in the open air, one side will evaporate more quickly than the other and that will cause the paper stock to bend. Drying it slowly and holding it flat while it dries ensures that it remains flat. A soaked card is a perfectly flat card. No "pressing" is necessary. You can dry a card flat with something that only weighs a few ounces.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This is not when people mean when they talk about someone "pressing" a card. There are people here who think that there's an army of card doctors that run around soaking cards and then squishing the hell out of them with a mechanical press in an effort to expand their size so that they can then trim them down.

Personally, I think this is pretty funny. Believe it or not, this is actually a myth. It's not a thing.

Another thing people refer to as pressing is smashing out creases with a spoon. This actually is a thing and it damages cards. This IS an alteration, and it's something I won't do. It is perhaps worth mentioning that this is also something Kurt does not do either. This will get your cards flagged as altered stock by PSA and SGC. Don't do it.

Putting a book on top of a card while it dries to ensure it dries flat is not what is meant by "pressing" a card.

Correct pressing and soaking a card into a flat state alters the thin/thickness of the card stock it will get rejected 9/10 times. Might have a chance with scg. Also spooing is comical too, can spot that as it removes the gloss from the card and leaves a shiny dull where the person attempted it. Also, sometimes leaves divots in the Cards. It’s amazing what people think/do to Cards.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Another thing people refer to as pressing is smashing out creases with a spoon. This actually is a thing and it damages cards. This IS an alteration, and it's something I won't do. It is perhaps worth mentioning that this is also something Kurt does not do either. This will get your cards flagged as altered stock by PSA and SGC. Don't do it.

Point of clarification - I thought there was a video out there with Kurt working a crease. He'd spray his magic juice on it, and then sort of press it or rub it with some plastic sheet. Lather, rinse, repeat, until it got to the point where the crease was less pronounced.

Thought it was on that 87 Fleer Jordan...

But maybe this is different than smashing out creases with a spoon?

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by raulus

Point of clarification - I thought there was a video out there with Kurt working a crease. He'd spray his magic juice on it, and then sort of press it or rub it with some plastic sheet. Lather, rinse, repeat, until it got to the point where the crease was less pronounced.

Thought it was on that 87 Fleer Jordan...

But maybe this is different than smashing out creases with a spoon?

Kurt used a tortillon to massage the wrinkle. Someone in the pro-doctoring camp would say that's fine as long you say "massage" instead of "smash," and "tortillon" instead of "spoon."

[philliesfan]

As other have said, there are many definitions of alterations in the hobby. Here are a few that I can think of:

Soaking a card glued onto something else like a scrapbook: Acceptable
Soaking and pressing a card to remove wrinkles: Not Acceptable
Trimming a hand cut card such as a strip card: Acceptable
Trimming an oversized factory cut card: Not Acceptable
Erasing a pencil mark from a card using a standard eraser: Maybe?
Erasing a pen/ink mark from a card using chemicals: Not Acceptable
Adding color to a card: Not Acceptable
Rebuilding corners: Not Acceptable
Re-backing a skinned card: Not Acceptable

Glchen, You forgot a common one.......Wiping off an wax/gum stain.

[BabyRuth]

I wonder if it would be acceptable to "alter" the options as follows:

Option 1)
Yes, it is perfectly acceptable and ethical to sell an altered card without disclosing this to the buyer


Option 2)
No, it is unethical to not disclose the alterations