Cutting cards from an uncut sheet????

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

When it is cut up later, it becomes an altered uncut sheet.

What if the original manufacturer cuts it up later?

What if it’s cut not by the original manufacturer but the original manufacturers equipment is used?

What if it were cut using original manufacturer equipment by the employee that did the cutting only 50yrs later?

If Topps cuts a grouping of last years sheets tomorrow does that need to be disclosed to the buyer?

[swarmee]

It's just silly the rationale people are attempting to use to legitimize hacking up uncut sheets to replicate cards that were meant to be cut at the factory decades ago. The value in a card that has survived in top shape despite being released in packs 100 years ago and survived in high grade is what the grading industry was built on. However, incompetence by the grading companies in not detecting alterations does not make altering cards okay.

If the card was released in cut down format (Topps/Bowman/T206 etc trading card), it's not okay to cut it from a sheet and pass it off as original (even in a grading slab with a number grade). If it was only released as sheets and intended to be cut by the customer (Hostess/Post/Jello/strips), then those were intended to be cut by the customer and can be cut now.

SGC offered a sheet cutting service with grading, just a few years ago, but they either didn't get many takers because they were putting "sheet-cut" on the flips or because people would rather do it in the privacy of their own houses to scam.

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

It's just silly the rationale people are attempting to use to legitimize hacking up uncut sheets to replicate cards that were meant to be cut at the factory decades ago. The value in a card that has survived in top shape despite being released in packs 100 years ago and survived in high grade is what the grading industry was built on. However, incompetence by the grading companies in not detecting alterations does not make altering cards okay.

If the card was released in cut down format (Topps/Bowman/T206 etc trading card), it's not okay to cut it from a sheet and pass it off as original (even in a grading slab with a number grade). If it was only released as sheets and intended to be cut by the customer (Hostess/Post/Jello/strips), then those were intended to be cut by the customer and can be cut now.

SGC offered a sheet cutting service with grading, just a few years ago, but they either didn't get many takers because they were putting "sheet-cut" on the flips or because people would rather do it in the privacy of their own houses to scam.

I'm not trying to create any rationalization. Personally, I don't think sheets should be cut up. But as I thought through the objections objectively, I could see arguments both ways. So I tried to list out what my specific objections were. Was I opposed to the timing, the equipment, etc.?

I like how you've put it, "The value in a card that has survived in top shape despite being released in packs 100 years ago..." Do by cutting a sheet, somebody is cheating those of us who are buying cards from packs as they were originally issued.

I didn't know that SGC used to offer a sheet cutting service. I like the concept though because it's noting such cards as "Sheet Cut" in the same way that PSA qualifies later photos created from the original negatives as Type 2. That allows the buyer to make an informed choice. Do I want the original pack issued or the same card that was cut from a sheet later.

But with the money to made, it wouldn't surprise me if a card manufacturer started buying up sheets to cut them and ew-issue them in a new mystery box. I mean, they cut up bats, autos and game used jerseys. Cutting up sheets that were originally intended to be cut up doesn't seem far-fetched.

[bnorth]

I will go the other way. I have cut up a LOT of sheets over the years. I used a professional matting cutter that cut every card to the exact size. I never had anything graded and when I sold the cards I told everyone I cut them from a sheet. I mainly cut up junk era error sheets but would have no problem cutting up pretty much any sheet with very fer exceptions.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I will go the other way. I have cut up a LOT of sheets over the years. I used a professional matting cutter that cut every card to the exact size. I never had anything graded and when I sold the cards I told everyone I cut them from a sheet. I mainly cut up junk era error sheets but would have no problem cutting up pretty much any sheet with very fer exceptions.

I don't know how I feel about any of the cutting or cleaning. Do cut sheets bother me? No, unless someone absolutely butchers it. Does minimal card cleaning bother me? No. Wax removal, glue removal, removal from albums, soaking.... none of those bother me. Using chemicals? Somehow that bothers me.

One of my Griffey Desert Shields has a wax stain. Someone told me he had PSA 6 with wax stain; he cracked his, rubbed it with pantihose, and resubmitted. It returned as a PSA 8. Would I like a PSA 8? Yes. Would I consider it cheating if I cleaned it with pantihose? No.

I think my personal feelings are kind of based on art and art restoration and cleaning. Those paintings don't lose value with cleaning. No one who visits the Sistine Chapel will complain that the ceiling colors are altered because it's been cleaned. No one complains about SF's Telegraph Hill, Coit Tower murals, that they've been cleaned and restored due to salt water damage.

Obviously, the outside big money that has moved into our collecting hobby has brought these ideas of acceptance with them. If a buyer doesn't care, is it still immoral?

And a lack of any collecting governing body, to say what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, has also created this problem. A lawyer who takes Snowman to court for cleaning cards, and brings prosecutions' witnesses that restoration isn't acceptable, would also meet a line of defendants witnesses who are cleaners and buyers who don't care about cleaning and restoration. I'm thinking it would end in a hung jury.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by todeen

I don't know how I feel about any of the cutting or cleaning. Do cut sheets bother me? No, unless someone absolutely butchers it. Does minimal card cleaning bother me? No. Wax removal, glue removal, removal from albums, soaking.... none of those bother me. Using chemicals? Somehow that bothers me.

One of my Griffey Desert Shields has a wax stain. Someone told me he had PSA 6 with wax stain; he cracked his, rubbed it with pantihose, and resubmitted. It returned as a PSA 8. Would I like a PSA 8? Yes. Would I consider it cheating if I cleaned it with pantihose? No.

I think my personal feelings are kind of based on art and art restoration and cleaning. Those paintings don't lose value with cleaning. No one who visits the Sistine Chapel will complain that the ceiling colors are altered because it's been cleaned. No one complains about SF's Telegraph Hill, Coit Tower murals, that they've been cleaned and restored due to salt water damage.

Obviously, the outside big money that has moved into our collecting hobby has brought these ideas of acceptance with them. If a buyer doesn't care, is it still immoral?

And a lack of any collecting governing body, to say what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, has also created this problem. A lawyer who takes Snowman to court for cleaning cards, and brings prosecutions' witnesses that restoration isn't acceptable, would also meet a line of defendants witnesses who are cleaners and buyers who don't care about cleaning and restoration. I'm thinking it would end in a hung jury.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Then there's no reason to conceal it. It's not the act of alteration that is fraudulent, but the concealing with intent to defraud a potential buyer into paying more than it would be worth if disclosed.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Then there's no reason to conceal it. It's not the act of alteration that is fraudulent, but the concealing with intent to defraud a potential buyer into paying more than it would be worth if disclosed.

yeah, I can see that. thanks.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by todeen

One of my Griffey Desert Shields has a wax stain. Someone told me he had PSA 6 with wax stain; he cracked his, rubbed it with pantihose, and resubmitted. It returned as a PSA 8. Would I like a PSA 8? Yes. Would I consider it cheating if I cleaned it with pantihose? No.

Blasphemy! Put this man behind bars!!!

Originally Posted by todeen

And a lack of any collecting governing body, to say what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, has also created this problem. A lawyer who takes Snowman to court for cleaning cards, and brings prosecutions' witnesses that restoration isn't acceptable, would also meet a line of defendants witnesses who are cleaners and buyers who don't care about cleaning and restoration. I'm thinking it would end in a hung jury.

MADNESS! Madness, I tell you! Have you not seen? A guy with the word "Lawyer" in his screen name has spoken! And he says otherwise!

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

Personally, I don't think sheets should be cut up.

+1…. I’m a big fan of leaving everything alone.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

+1…. I’m a big fan of leaving everything alone.

Agree with Chris. I have quite a few uncut sheets. I won't cut my sheets into individual cards. I have some original sheets of 1975 Twinkies "black bar" cards. The cards inserted into Twinkies are notorious for having large oil stains on them. Some of my cards - never having been inserted into Twinkies - do not have oil stains on them. I was going to trim the odd sized sheets into individual cards, but then decided against it.

[NATCARD]

That SHEET Cut scenario was done for me. I was in the porcess of cutting up hundreds of proof and progressive proof sheets from the original Topps auction in 1989 for a client. The "SHEET CUT" was used for the cards they slabbed for the proofs. as Covid hit, the process came to a screeching halt and has never started up again. They will no longer slab these cards. Jeff W

[tjisonline]

Originally Posted by NATCARD

That SHEET Cut scenario was done for me. I was in the porcess of cutting up hundreds of proof and progressive proof sheets from the original Topps auction in 1989 for a client. The "SHEET CUT" was used for the cards they slabbed for the proofs. as Covid hit, the process came to a screeching halt and has never started up again. They will no longer slab these cards. Jeff W

Hi Jeff, SGC is still slabbing secondary market sheet cut cards but it’s rare. Sometimes I wonder if you need to know someone or better yet, be someone ‘famous’ in their eyes w/in the hobby.

PSA is also grading secondary market cut proofs (e.g. 1973 candy lids proofs listed on eBay). They just grade them authentic. I had many conversations with SGC since my 1977 Topps Baltimore Reggie Jackson 3-color proof purchase. Got nowhere. Will try the PSA route next.

I think it’s important both of these already graded Reggie proofs are in a grader’s DB that can be looked-up at any point. Still fathom why SGC didn’t enter these 2 proofs into their DB when graded prior to the 2019 REA auction. This is why I would even think about getting the cards re-holdered plus it’s also good to know the cards can be re-cased in-case anything happens to the slab (e.g. a crack which happens to me a lot in my SGC graded cards) .

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

What if the original manufacturer cuts it up later?



What if it’s cut not by the original manufacturer but the original manufacturers equipment is used?



What if it were cut using original manufacturer equipment by the employee that did the cutting only 50yrs later?



If Topps cuts a grouping of last years sheets tomorrow does that need to be disclosed to the buyer?

My answer already addresses those questions. What was the item's condition when it was released from the manufacturer originally. That's what the item forever is.

And if Topps cuts a previous sheet later, and releases it, the law requires they put the current year of release on the copyright, so as to not deceive.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

And if Topps cuts a previous sheet later, and releases it, the law requires they put the current year of release on the copyright, so as to not deceive.

What law is this?

Not saying you are wrong…..but it sure does sound like a gigantic pile of bullshit.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

What law is this?



Not saying you are wrong…..but it sure does sound like a gigantic pile of bullshit.

I'm not saying copyright law requires a particular date (in fact there is no requirement to have a copyright notice at all anymore). Copyright laws are about protecting intellectual property, not fraud prevention. It would be considered fraudulent to re-release a previous year's product without indicating so in the collectibles market.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I'm not saying copyright law requires a particular date (in fact there is no requirement to have a copyright notice at all anymore). Copyright laws are about protecting intellectual property, not fraud prevention. It would be considered fraudulent to re-release a previous year's product without indicating so in the collectibles market.

is this why Topps stamps their buy back cards in Archives releases?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by todeen

is this why topps stamps their buy back cards in archives releases?

lol

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by todeen

is this why Topps stamps their buy back cards in Archives releases?

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

I'm sure they have multiple reasons for doing that now. That might be part of it. But a buyback isn't the same as a newly cut card pretending to be from a release years ago. They inform you of the potential to pull buybacks, so there is no fraud there. Whereas adding new cards to the population of an older set changes the stated odds/printruns consumers relied on at initial release, which could be fraudulent.

Originally Posted by nwobhm

lol

Not sue what's funny about that. It was a legitimate question.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I'm not saying copyright law requires a particular date (in fact there is no requirement to have a copyright notice at all anymore). Copyright laws are about protecting intellectual property, not fraud prevention. It would be considered fraudulent to re-release a previous year's product without indicating so in the collectibles market.

Uh huh….The pile is giving off a good bit of steam.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

What law is this?

Not saying you are wrong…..but it sure does sound like a gigantic pile of bullshit.

What else would you expect from a guy who includes 'Lawyer' as part of his screen name on a baseball card forum?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

What else would you expect from a guy who includes 'Lawyer' as part of his screen name on a baseball card forum?

Similar to what I would expect from a mathematician who calls himself snowman. Am I safe in assuming you tip the scales around 5 bills?

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Similar to what I would expect from a mathematician who calls himself snowman.

Personally I'm a fan of both mathematicians and snowmen.



But undisclosed card altering? Not at all.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Personally I'm a fan of both mathematicians and snowmen.



But undisclosed card altering? Not at all.

I don't alter cards.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

My answer already addresses those questions. What was the item's condition when it was released from the manufacturer originally. That's what the item forever is.

And if Topps cuts a previous sheet later, and releases it, the law requires they put the current year of release on the copyright, so as to not deceive.

That last bit is fascinating.
I'm thinking that would require registering a new copyright for the recently cut card from an old sheet.

I don't think they do that for the buybacks stamped with various logos. They might not even indicate a copyright or trademark for those logos (Could totally be wrong there, I haven't looked at the couple I have in a long time. )

[steve B]

I can think of instances where the manufacturer "reprinted" cards.
Or, made cards that were outside of general production, but were not readily identifiable as different.

When Topps had the "send us money and wrappers and a list of what cards you don't have and we'll send them to you" promotion.
They had so much demand for stars and rookies they printed special sheets to provide those cards. as far as I know the cards from those sheets are not identifiable unless you have an uncut strip or block.

Upper deck claimed a production figure for a hockey set, and later made more of them. Only found out because the first batch was packed on its own and the second batch was packed with other cards. (they also later faked yugioh cards which they were the licensed printer/distributor for. And apparently mostly got away with it. ) The "new" cards may be identifiable, I don't have enough from that set to know for sure.