Baseball card restoration

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think it's a gray area if as a professional restorer you're not actively participating in any fraud, but you have a pretty good idea of why certain clients are using your services. Perhaps not gray legally, but ethically? I actually had a very productive conversation once with a woman who did this work (she had impeccable credentials in the museum world as I recall) and even though it was pointed out to her that certain cards she had "improved" had been graded by PSA (I forget the details now), she was insistent her responsibility ended when the customer paid the bill.

Haha, and the Germans had no idea about the camps. Very convenient.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Haha, and the Germans had no idea about the camps. Very convenient.

The bottom line was that we agreed to disagree. If memory serves this was at the beginning of the "scandal" and I sent her some links to information about what (at the time anyhow) seemed to be a serious federal investigation; whether that deterred her I dunno we did not speak again.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

It's a concept that's a struggle in all corners of the hobby. We pride ourselves on calling out altered cards, occasionally even if they're in a slab, but we can't control what's going to happen after we sell them, but we know that at least some items are probably going to be passed on without the same level of disclosure that we offered. So what's our responsibility or maybe ethical culpability? I'm sure dealers and even hobbyists find themselves in the same situation.

[gregndodgers]

Fraud requires a misrepresentation of the truth. In other words, a lie. The misrepresentation must be done knowingly or with intent to deceive. Finally, fraud also requires that the other party suffer damages. The best policy is full disclosure when selling an item that has been altered or is damaged.

Arguably, some card restoration requires no altering of the card. For example, when you use microfiber (or nylon panty hose) to rub out wax stains or a damp cloth to wipe off dirt. You are not affecting the integrity of the card.

On the other hand, spraying chemicals onto the card to clean it may qualify as an alteration because of the chemical reaction that physically alters the integrity of the card. Soaking a card requires extensive use of water and perhaps chemicals. The water actually penetrates the interior of the card, and because of that fact, that may qualify as an alteration.

Certainly, trimming is an alteration as is coloring.

I believe that grading companies are now checking for signs of soaking.

In my opinion, many vintage cards on the market have been altered in some way. There are many well documented cases of trimming high value pre-war cards. Some 33 Goudeys I believe. For that reason, I’m reluctant to spend a lot for certain cards.

If a seller of a card does misrepresent a card as not having been altered (but it has), the buyer would have to prove either that the seller knew it was altered or that the seller intended to deceive the buyer. Those elements can be hard to prove. Additionally, the buyer would have to prove damages. In other words, the value of the card purchased is not worth typical retail value (for that card) due to the alteration.

Criminal penalties could result when there is some type of large scale fraudulent scheme or the value of the card in question is extremely high.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I would add to that summary that failure to disclose a material fact with intent to deceive can also be fraud, it doesn't necessarily require an affirmative misrepresentation.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would add to that summary that failure to disclose a material fact with intent to deceive can also be fraud, it doesn't necessarily require an affirmative misrepresentation.

That’s a good point. Concealment of a material fact can also be fraud, but I believe it’s fraud only when there is a duty to disclose. Typically, real estate transactions have a duty to disclose material facts. I’m not sure whether there is a duty to disclose when selling personal property like sports cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

That’s a good point. Concealment of a material fact can also be fraud, but I believe it’s fraud only when there is a duty to disclose. Typically, real estate transactions have a duty to disclose material facts. I’m not sure whether there is a duty to disclose when selling personal property like sports cards.

If I sell you a car, and know it's defective but don't tell you, of course I had a duty to disclose that. I don't see why it's any different with any other good, if the concealed fact (here alteration) is material to the transaction.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

Fraud requires a misrepresentation of the truth. In other words, a lie. The misrepresentation must be done knowingly or with intent to deceive.

From PSA's terms you have to agree to before you can submit a card:

"PSA will not grade items which bear evidence of trimming, recoloring, restoration, or any other form of alteration or tampering, or that are of questionable authenticity, and you agree not to knowingly submit any such items."

Anyone who uses PSA's grading services on a card they had restored must knowingly lie in order to get the card graded.

I think the restorer's responsibility in all this is somewhat gray. If the restorer knows that (A) the person who asked for the restored card is going to submit it to PSA and if they know that (B) the person has to agree not to send restored cards to PSA in order to get it graded, then I think they are complicit. If the restorer doesn't knows (A) or they know (A) but not (B), then I think they are not complicit.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

From PSA's terms you have to agree to before you can submit a card:

"PSA will not grade items which bear evidence of trimming, recoloring, restoration, or any other form of alteration or tampering, or that are of questionable authenticity, and you agree not to knowingly submit any such items."

Anyone who uses PSA's grading services on a card they had restored must knowingly lie in order to get the card graded.

I think the restorer's responsibility in all this is somewhat gray. If the restorer knows that (A) the person who asked for the restored card is going to submit it to PSA and if they know that (B) the person has to agree not to send restored cards to PSA in order to get it graded, then I think they are complicit. If the restorer doesn't knows (A) or they know (A) but not (B), then I think they are not complicit.

That’s a fair analysis, but remember, the law and logic do not go hand in hand.

The laws in the particular state in which the sale occurs should govern the seller’s duties. Simply stating that a buyer was harmed in a transaction and the seller should have disclosed (to prevent that harm) is good logic, but it may not hold in court.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If I know a card is altered and that it would matter to the buyer, how can I be acting in good faith by not saying anything? I am acting with the intent to deceive which by definition is bad faith. And the issue is not what the seller SAYS was his state of mind, it's what the fact finder concludes WAS his actual state of mind. People lie all the time.

Sure, if the seller can convince the fact finder that he truly didn't know the card was altered, it would not be fraud. It could still be innocent misrepresentation or mutual mistake entitling the buyer to rescission though.

[drcy]

With movie posters and such, restored posters are much more widely accepted, but the existence of alteration has to be disclosed and affects the value. Not disclosing it is considered fraud.

Much of the acceptance of restoration is due to old posters often being delicate (old movie poster paper is often thin and fragile), and that they are large and meant to be hung on a wall.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Disclosure negates fraud. But with baseball cards, the crowd claiming X Y and Z are acceptable, and/or that people don't care, NEVER have a good answer to the question, so why don't you disclose? Ask them and watch the BS start.