Cutting cards from an uncut sheet????

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It has nothing to do with how "correct" that article is. The question is whether or not it's relevant to the discussion regarding the alteration of sports cards.

If you apply your same logic more broadly, then you'll end up having to demand that all collectors wear white gloves at all times while handling their cards because to do otherwise would result in card "alterations". Thus, making them "fraudsters" if they fail to disclose having touched their cards with their bare hands when selling.

Don't believe me? Here, check out this article from Goucher College on how to handle paper artifacts and how the oils from your skin damage paper fibers (much more so than water, I should add). [I can point to articles written by experts too!]

https://faculty.goucher.edu/eng330/b..._old_books.htm

Here's an excerpt:



But why stop there?

If water "alters" cards, then all sellers from humid climates must include a disclosure in all of their listings unless they want to be guilty of committing "fraud" by your absurd definition.

Surely, you are aware that storing paper in plastics can deteriorate (alter) the paper as well, right? Plastics outgas over time, causing damage to the paper fibers, breaking them down and causing them to deteriorate. A quick search with Google AI yields the following:


The reality is that the oils from our hands and the plastics we store our cards in (especially those older 9-pocket pages/binders and top-loaders) are far more harmful and damaging to our vintage cards than water is. Literally everything we do with our cards "alters" them in some way if applying your standards for the definition of what it means for something to be "altered".

If you want to have a discussion about card alterations, then you have to establish a useful definition of what it means for a card to be "altered" in the first place. And that definition has to be within the context of the hobby and how something affects its value, not in some quantum physics context regarding the entanglement of atoms or some other random bullshit definition that doesn't apply (you're good at those). Also, that definition has to be applied consistently and must hold up to scrutiny. Otherwise, it's useless and gets us nowhere. For example, you can't say it's not an alteration to remove wax from the back of a 1986 Fleer basketball card but it is if you remove wax from a 1972 Topps baseball card. And you can't say that it's OK to soak a 1948 Leaf card in water to remove it from a scrapbook but it's not OK to soak a 1948 Leaf card in water in an effort to flatten it out because it's warped after being stored in a humid climate for 50 years. And if spilling some tea on a card isn't considered an alteration, then neither is rinsing off that tea with some water.

At the end of the day, if you did something to a card that cannot be detected and which leaves the card in a state that is indistinguishable from a similar card that has not had that thing done to it, then you have not "altered" the card in any meaningful sense with respect to how something affects its value in the market. If a card can be cracked out and resubmitted 100 times and it passes grading all 100 times, then its market value has not been affected by whatever it is that you did to it. Regardless of whether that thing was handling it with oily fingers, wiping off fingerprints from oily fingers, storing it in plastic for decades, plucking off a stray piece of fuzz from the edge, removing wax from the surface, flattening out a bent/lifted corner with your thumb, breathing on it, licking your finger to wipe off a smudge, dropping a piece of rice on the card and then promptly removing it, soaking it in water and letting it dry flat, etc. Everything we do to a card "alters" it per your definition. So that definition doesn't work. You need to try again. You're losing your jury. But I'm sure you're used to that.

Reducing an argument to an absurd result might be useful for thought experiments but useless in real-world applications like this one. No, we can absolutely draw a line between nominal effects on cards by normal handling and intentional major alterations to the card's condition with intent to make it more valuable. Just like the fraud discussion, intent matters. When you handle your cards without gloves, are you intending to alter them to enhance value? Here's a hint: you're not, nor does that modification enhance its value, but decreases it. You are making yourself look foolish.

[campyfan39]

In many of your opinions, anything done to a card is "altered." So, a gum stain or wax stain from the factory is altering the original, unstained card. It's poor logic. I'm with snowman on this.

Also, who knows how many sheets have been cut and are already in the market? Did the factory intend for the sheets to be uncut? Of course not. I don't have enough money to own an uncut sheet nor the desire. But I see no issue with making them into cards, which was the original intent of the manufacturer. It's called "baseball cards," not baseball sheets.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

In many of your opinions, anything done to a card is "altered." So, a gum stain or wax stain from the factory is altering the original, unstained card. It's poor logic. I'm with snowman on this.

Also, who knows how many sheets have been cut and are already in the market? Did the factory intend for the sheets to be uncut? Of course not. I don't have enough money to own an uncut sheet nor the desire. But I see no issue with making them into cards, which was the original intent of the manufacturer. It's called "baseball cards," not baseball sheets.

It makes sense that you would side with snowman if you can't see the difference between damage caused by a piece of gum put in the package at the factory, and intentional alterations done by the consumer after the fact.

[campyfan39]

It makes sense because, by the definition of the word, they are both different from the original maker's intent. Thus, altered.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

It makes sense that you would side with snowman if you can't see the difference between damage caused by a piece of gum put in the package at the factory, and intentional alterations done by the consumer after the fact.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

It makes sense because, by the definition of the word, they are both different from the original maker's intent. Thus, altered.

Seriously? The manufacturer is the one who put the gum in the pack with the cards. How can you possibly say it wasn't their intent? They intended to put the gum in the pack. The gum they put in did damage.

Regardless. This is not a discussion about alteration. It's about what alteration is acceptable, and should be disclosed. Even if you want to play that semantics game that a gum stain caused by the manufacturer is an alteration (which it isn't), a gum stain should absolutely be disclosed. Any damage caused to the card would by your dogmatic view of alterations constitute an alteration. All damage should be disclosed. And hiding it from a buyer is fraudulent. Again. I'll say it slowly. There is nothing wrong with altering a baseball card. There is something wrong with altering a card and selling it as unaltered.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

The manufacturer is the one who put the gum in the pack with the cards.... They intended to put the gum in the pack. The gum they put in did damage.

Keep in mind that manufacturers packaged cards with gum to spur their gum sales. The cards were therefore the add-in. So it would be more sensible to inquire whether the cards damaged the texture or flavour of the gum.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I see your brain is incapable of distinguishing between cleaning a card to sell it to an unsuspecting buyer, and cleaning it to keep in your collection because you want it to look nicer. Without your ability to understand that difference, we can't possibly have an actual discussion about fraud in the hobby. An alteration can be fraud in one instance, but not in another. The alteration is not the fraud. The selling an altered card without disclosing the alteration is the fraud. And don't give me the "cleaning isn't altering" bullcrap. It's altering by definition. Your actual contention when you say that is that you believe cleaing is an acceptable form of alteration. Not that it isn't alteration. But even you have to recognize it's only acceptable to some people (even if as you claim it's a majority of people). So the sale without disclosing the alteration is fraud. Plain and simple.

You still don't get it (I'm shocked). At the end of the day, it is an accepted practice to soak vintage cards in water. It always has been. So it doesn't matter one bit why someone soaked a card. Whether they did it to enjoy the card more or to resell it for a profit is irrelevant. Knowing that the card was soaked in water does not affect its market value in any way. So there is no obligation to inform.

And please stop using your tired false equivalencies of replacing car parts on a vehicle that has been totaled. We're not talking about rebuilding corners or filling in holes or rebacking cards or any other situation where someone is replacing parts of a card. We're talking about soaking cards in water. The car analogy equivalent here is quite clearly someone washing their car. And nobody discloses having washed their cars when selling because it is not material to the value of the car itself. The fact that a dirty dingy old car that hasn't been cleaned in decades might sell for less than it would if someone were to clean it up a bit and present it in its best light does not make it fraud for someone to do so when selling without disclosure. Regardless of whether or not there exists a small army of psychopathic car collectors who greatly prefer cars that have never been cleaned but who cannot distinguish between one that has and one that has not. The market has no obligation to cater to these nutjobs. They are simply old men screaming at clouds.

If what you did to a card has no effect on its market value if disclosed, then it is not a material fact and you have no obligation to disclose it when selling.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You still don't get it (I'm shocked). At the end of the day, it is an accepted practice to soak vintage cards in water. It always has been. So it doesn't matter one bit why someone soaked a card. Whether they did it to enjoy the card more or to resell it for a profit is irrelevant. Knowing that the card was soaked in water does not affect its market value in any way. So there is no obligation to inform.

And please stop using your tired false equivalencies of replacing car parts on a vehicle that has been totaled. We're not talking about rebuilding corners or filling in holes or rebacking cards or any other situation where someone is replacing parts of a card. We're talking about soaking cards in water. The car analogy equivalent here is quite clearly someone washing their car. And nobody discloses having washed their cars when selling because it is not material to the value of the car itself. The fact that a dirty dingy old car that hasn't been cleaned in decades might sell for less than it would if someone were to clean it up a bit and present it in its best light does not make it fraud for someone to do so when selling without disclosure. Regardless of whether or not there exists a small army of psychopathic car collectors who greatly prefer cars that have never been cleaned but who cannot distinguish between one that has and one that has not. The market has no obligation to cater to these nutjobs. They are simply old men screaming at clouds.

If what you did to a card has no effect on its market value if disclosed, then it is not a material fact and you have no obligation to disclose it when selling.

LOL, No it is only accepted by those that do it. If anyone has never soaked a card it greatly enhances the card in many ways. The number 1 thing is you can now sell it for way more. I have also noticed the majority of those that have no problem soaking cards DO NOT want to buy cards that have been soaked. If you list a card as being soaked it will sell for less than if you didn't disclose the soaking.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

At the end of the day, it is an accepted practice to soak vintage cards in water. It always has been.

You don't get it (shocked). This is a completely and utterly false statement. Just because you say it, or you want it to be true, doesn't make it so. You will say anything so that you can justify your fraud in your mind.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Reducing an argument to an absurd result might be useful for thought experiments but useless in real-world applications like this one. No, we can absolutely draw a line between nominal effects on cards by normal handling and intentional major alterations to the card's condition with intent to make it more valuable. Just like the fraud discussion, intent matters. When you handle your cards without gloves, are you intending to alter them to enhance value? Here's a hint: you're not, nor does that modification enhance its value, but decreases it. You are making yourself look foolish.

And the same is true when you soak a vintage card in water. There is no intent to defraud. The intention is to clean the card. And just because you assert that as fraud doesn't make it fraud. That's the problem with your bullshit arguments from earlier. You said it's fraud to clean a card and not disclose it (and here's the good part) BECAUSE the only reason one would do so is with intent to defraud. LOL. Circular reasoning at its finest. And, of course, complete horseshit.

I've got news for you. Most people who clean their cards do so simply because they want them to look nicer or they want to remove something that is stuck to the card, typically some sort of major eye sore like tape or scrapbook paper. Most of the cards I've cleaned or soaked aren't even listed for sale, and the most valuable ones likely never will be. In fact, the majority of the cards I've soaked in water wouldn't even be worth the cost of grading. I soaked them simply because I wanted them in my sets and my OCD hates warped cards. When I soak a card in water, I do it for myself because that's how I prefer them. It has nothing to do with tricking some third party despite your absurd accusations.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Snowman

And the same is true when you soak a vintage card in water. There is no intent to defraud. The intention is to clean the card. And just because you assert that as fraud doesn't make it fraud. That's the problem with your bullshit arguments from earlier. You said it's fraud to clean a card and not disclose it (and here's the good part) BECAUSE the only reason one would do so is with intent to defraud. LOL. Circular reasoning at its finest. And, of course, complete horseshit.

I've got news for you. Most people who clean their cards do so simply because they want them to look nicer or they want to remove something that is stuck to the card, typically some sort of major eye sore like tape or scrapbook paper. Most of the cards I've cleaned or soaked aren't even listed for sale, and the most valuable ones likely never will be. In fact, the majority of the cards I've soaked in water wouldn't even be worth the cost of grading. I soaked them simply because I wanted them in my sets and my OCD hates warped cards. When I soak a card in water, I do it for myself because that's how I prefer them. It has nothing to do with tricking some third party despite your absurd accusations.

Have you ever soaked or taken other steps to remove a crease?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by 4815162342

Have you ever soaked or taken other steps to remove a crease?

I do not press out creases. That damages the surface and is detectable and I'm not interested in altering my cards. In fact, I try to avoid cards with creases altogether. I just don't like them.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

And the same is true when you soak a vintage card in water. There is no intent to defraud. The intention is to clean the card. And just because you assert that as fraud doesn't make it fraud. That's the problem with your bullshit arguments from earlier. You said it's fraud to clean a card and not disclose it (and here's the good part) BECAUSE the only reason one would do so is with intent to defraud. LOL. Circular reasoning at its finest. And, of course, complete horseshit.

I've got news for you. Most people who clean their cards do so simply because they want them to look nicer or they want to remove something that is stuck to the card, typically some sort of major eye sore like tape or scrapbook paper. Most of the cards I've cleaned or soaked aren't even listed for sale, and the most valuable ones likely never will be. In fact, the majority of the cards I've soaked in water wouldn't even be worth the cost of grading. I soaked them simply because I wanted them in my sets and my OCD hates warped cards. When I soak a card in water, I do it for myself because that's how I prefer them. It has nothing to do with tricking some third party despite your absurd accusations.

I see your brain is incapable of distinguishing between cleaning a card to sell it to an unsuspecting buyer, and cleaning it to keep in your collection because you want it to look nicer. Without your ability to understand that difference, we can't possibly have an actual discussion about fraud in the hobby. An alteration can be fraud in one instance, but not in another. The alteration is not the fraud. The selling an altered card without disclosing the alteration is the fraud. And don't give me the "cleaning isn't altering" bullcrap. It's altering by definition. Your actual contention when you say that is that you believe cleaing is an acceptable form of alteration. Not that it isn't alteration. But even you have to recognize it's only acceptable to some people (even if as you claim it's a majority of people). So the sale without disclosing the alteration is fraud. Plain and simple.