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

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jggames

I don't want to derail this thread about alterations, but I should have clarified, I did not mean a whole pile of Wagners, he said the others were "obviously cut" from a sheet when he went in to pick up the Wagner

A T206 sheet repeats a subject vertically. On some sheets this seems to go the entire length of the column, but sometimes the column changes subject part way through and then repeats that new subject over and over. All I am saying is that this Wagner is very, very unlikely to be from a sheet or near sheet. There may have been a couple strips that were destroyed. I've always heard it's a sheet and this just seems to not mesh with the actual evidence. A lot has been said about this find, its origin, and its location that doesn't add up.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

All fine and well, "that's alteration", except that you would not be able to prove it on a card 10 minutes later. Until you can, this discussion is entirely academic in the real world where people continue to add cards to their collections - oblivious now by what we have just said as to what may or may not have happened to them in the past to affect our perception of how desirable they should be considered.

It is hardly always impossible to prove. Many alterations leave signs. I'm not sure I can ever philosophically ascribe to a point of view that doing something and not being able to be caught or not being caught makes it okay and fine. That is a highly problematic path.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought part of the thinking was no pack issued Piedmont backs have been found. Could it have been a panel, i don't know, but the point is that it was not originally a factory issued single.

I have no idea what the origin is. We've had members claim to have evidence of the origin but then stop posting once they are asked for it. There's the rumor photographs of the pre-trimmed state that nobody has ever shown. We have different versions, sometimes conflicting, told at different times from some of the people involved.

It seems very unlikely that there was an uncut sheet found, or a nearly uncut sheet. The single subject presentation of it and the Plank make this very, very unlikely - what we have does not match a sheet. Maybe it was strips. Maybe there were some oversized scraps. Maybe the cards are the product of the conspiracy theory of a 1950's perfect reprint ring that has been endorsed here. Maybe Santa made them in his shop.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have no idea what the origin is. We've had members claim to have evidence of the origin but then stop posting once they are asked for it. There's the rumor photographs of the pre-trimmed state that nobody has ever shown. We have different versions, sometimes conflicting, told at different times from some of the people involved.

It seems very unlikely that there was an uncut sheet found, or a nearly uncut sheet. The single subject presentation of it and the Plank make this very, very unlikely - what we have does not match a sheet. Maybe it was strips. Maybe there were some oversized scraps. Maybe the cards are the product of the conspiracy theory of a 1950's perfect reprint ring that has been endorsed here. Maybe Santa made them in his shop.

Perhaps it was a strip not a full sheet. Again, I think the Piedmont back is part of the analysis why it likely was not from a pack. Not my expertise though. I've heard that 50s rumor too, what more do you know about it, always found that interesting. Part of the issue is that the provenance does not go back beyond Alan Ray, as far as I know.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

It is hardly always impossible to prove. Many alterations leave signs. I'm not sure I can ever philosophically ascribe to a point of view that doing something and not being able to be caught or not being caught makes it okay and fine. That is a highly problematic path.

Ok, but at the end of the day you and everyone else judging only on the act would have to admit that it’s a theoretical problem. If by definition you “don’t know” that you may be collecting an altered card - and that doesn’t stop you - well then it must not be too big of a problem. Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

No, but at the end of the day you and everyone else judging only on the act would have to admit that it’s a theoretical problem. If by definition you “don’t know” that you may be collecting an altered card - and that doesn’t stop you - well then it must not be too big of a problem then is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting question for sure. Now, suppose someone sold you a fake Rolex so good you couldn't tell the difference. Same analysis?

[perezfan]

For those who’ve been following this for a while… Brent Huigens’ “tenets” now prevail. He never should’ve been an FBI target… he was a hobby trailblazer!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps it was a strip not a full sheet. Again, I think the Piedmont back is part of the analysis why it likely was not from a pack. Not my expertise though. I've heard that 50s rumor too, what more do you know about it, always found that interesting. Part of the issue is that the provenance does not go back beyond Alan Ray, as far as I know.

I believe the myth of the perfect-50's-fake-ring predates when I was even born. It was certainly circulating when I was a kid in the hobby even. It's a hobby oral tradition that crops up now and again, but I always hear a slightly different version. The consistent elements every time are that it was centered in the 50's and 60's, in New York or an unnamed place, had access to original equipment (often said to be plates, even though they didn't use printing plates at all for these) and involved multiple people (none of whom ever have a name). This ring produced fake Wagners and Planks and is sometimes said to have created the Doyle's that did not even exist at all originally. A number of the big cards to crop up in the 70's and 80's supposedly come from this ring. I doubt any of this is significantly different from what you and everyone else has heard over the years.

Obviously, it is untrue and just an old wives type of tale, like most 'perfect crime' stories where nobody telling it can state how they know this, who specifically did it, produce even a tiny shred of evidence, and wraps up too cleanly and vaguely.


Off memory, we had a poster claiming the sheet was found in New York and not the Florida market where I believe Ray claimed to find it in our last thread focused on the card. He declined to produce his alleged evidence (it doesn't exist) and stopped posting when asked for it. I would doubt the card was pack issued or that the card is fake, the back is a clue it's less likely to be pack issued but the circumstances of the find seem the stronger proof that this wasn't a card that was just found in somebody's things like all/most of the rest of the Wagner's and Plank's known. I don't know what the true origin is, but its almost certainly not an "uncut sheet" as is always said on this subject, because the output does not match that input.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Ok, but at the end of the day you and everyone else judging only on the act would have to admit that it’s a theoretical problem. If by definition you “don’t know” that you may be collecting an altered card - and that doesn’t stop you - well then it must not be too big of a problem. Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The biggest problem is your underlying assumption that card alteration is impossible to detect. That is big news to many of us!

Let's just assume this assumption is true, even though it quite obviously is not. If I can make a fake $100 bill so good that you can't detect it and the authenticator you bring it to can't detect and the US Mint doesn't catch me, is it okay for me do this? Is it okay for me to pass off this item when I sell it or use it in a commercial transaction as a real $100 bill? Is it not "too big of a problem" because you can't see it's fake?

I don't think it takes a moral high horse to see the massive problems here with this train of ethics, or lack thereof.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Interesting question for sure. Now, suppose someone sold you a fake Rolex so good you couldn't tell the difference. Same analysis?

Next logical step - thank you. So yes, this is basically my fear with vintage cards. What if someone invests enough in AI combined with old school practices to where suddenly someday soon the market is rife with fakes so good (everything being perfectly centered might be the one dead tell...) that even longtime experts, collectors, N54 members, what have you - can't tell the difference?

I think the embarrassment / possibility here that we all don't want to admit is that someday fakes that good will be so common, that none of us know the difference. And that thought genuinely terrifies me.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

The biggest problem is your underlying assumption that card alteration is impossible to detect. That is big news to many of us!

It should not be impossible to detect. I hope long term that in all cases, even Kurt's - that is not the conclusion. I would dearly love to be proven wrong, and that Kurt's spray in fact is traceable in some way, shape, or form - by some sleuth grader of the future. My point in this thread is simply that it's not, or at least not yet. It's clear from his advertising, YT videos, and social media posts that the cards he cleans / restores / alters - whatever you want to call it - are getting through the TPG's like PSA and SGC if not more with astonishing speed and consistency.

Make no mistake - my line is the physical proof. If a method is devised 240 years from now to tell exactly what was done to each of our cards at each perspective point in their histories - then yes, fine. Bang, you got me. You got Kurt.

But if you cannot provide physical proof that a card is in fact altered - the world we currently live in will conclude that it hasn't been. Frowning upon more than that at this point is an exercise in futility and kind of pointless, IMO.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

This whole thing seems to be much more a slippery slope about people being po'd at the INTENT of messing with cards than it is what was actually done in the final analysis to the physical card.

Yes, I think we agree that this debate is about intent, rather than a metaphysical debate about whether a card with a Dorito stain or booger can announce that it's been wiped clean. I'd disagree that focusing on intent sends us down a slippery slope. That particular battle line is drawn pretty clearly. If you mess with a card with the specific intent to conceal that fact from a third-party grader and/or potential buyer, then you're choosing to deceive others to advance your self-interest.

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Just based on the "act" of someone doing something which may or may not be illicit - then what is the point of all of this empty discussion and wasted emotion? Alteration has to be provable on a card later, or it isn't alteration, by any practical or realistic judgment. Period.

This is where we simply disagree. You're taking a purely consequentialist approach, i.e., if I can't prove you did it, and you're not saying whether you did, then it didn't happen and no one was harmed. I say that card doctors who profit from deception are still acting unethically, even if the target is oblivious.

Originally Posted by jchcollins

The cards as ephemera / artifacts are not logged upon some blockchain of history where you can go back and see what was or was not done to them over the course of their existence. They are not conscious beings who can say "Hey, a dealer pressed my left corner back down for a little bit too long at a show in 1982, maybe you should tell PSA I'm altered!"

I'll grant you the point that cards aren't sentient historians, but you seem to be spinning off into a separate discussion about whether the original deception is negated when the card changes hands among unwitting parties.

I'm not advocating for the unsuspecting guy who bought an improbably sharp PSA 9 from Probstein to flog himself and surrender the card to local authorities. I am advocating for full disclosure of known facts whenever possible, with varying degrees of moral culpability along the "blockchain."

Hypothetically speaking:

If Evan trims a card and sends it to PSA without disclosing what he did, then he's a cheat. It's clear-cut. "PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity."

If PSA knows Evan trimmed the card but gives it a 9 anyway, then PSA is complicit in the fraud. If PSA doesn't know the card is trimmed and gives it a 9, then PSA's actions may fall somewhere on the negligence spectrum, but there's no ill intent.

If Probstein knows Evan trimmed the card and sells it as a PSA 9 without disclosing the known alteration, then he's complicit in Evan's fraud. Probstein might be tempted to argue that PSA's failure to detect the trimming absolves him of blame, but he'd be wrong. Another party's negligence doesn't mitigate Probstein's own knowledge and intent to deceive for profit. On the other hand, if Probstein suspects Evan trimmed the card but takes a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach, it becomes a moral gray area for Probstein.

If I buy the card from Probstein without knowledge that Evan trimmed it, I'm a blameless victim in the scheme, even when I go to re-sell it as a PSA 9. Now, if Evan tells me he trimmed it and I turn a blind eye because it's his word against PSA's, we're venturing into that gray area where self-interest leads to lame rationalizations. It might not be fraud, but it certainly raises an ethical eyebrow.

Finally, let's say Evan tells me he trimmed it, shows me a video of him doing it, and even points to unique markers that leave no doubt that he chopped that particular card before sending it off to PSA. If I sell you the PSA 9 slab without disclosing what Evan showed me, then I'm a PSA-10, PWCC-S Top 5% Certified scumbag, and I deserve to be tarred, feathered, and strung up by my thumbs.

That might not be a popular viewpoint, but I'm a little more Kant and a little less Rand.

[campyfan39]

I'm simply ask for a definition of "altering"

Nobody on this thread has spoken in favor of adding anything to a card such as adding ink or rebuilding a corner using another card or trimming etc. Yet you seem to be very upset about the whole thing. I agreed with and quoted part of your first post but I was focused on your conclusion about what drives all of this.

Looking back at it now you said in the first line "Kurts has done far more than this. I've seen their crease/dent/corner fixes on the Discords."

Sounds like you believe that is altering when there is nothing being added? To me what he is doing is just an upgraded/modern form of using pantyhose for wax stains or flattening a corner with your fingers.

Originally Posted by G1911

I've read a whole lot about alteration here. Kurt's openly alters cards and the people who do this want to legitimize it to cover their asses, so that it isn't fraud when they don't disclose their alterations.

The things are you asking have nothing to do what what I have actually said? I am not defining 'alter' in any strange, unusual, or unique way. When did I object to pushing a corner flat with your finger? When did I object to water or imply as such? Does not my first post suggest the exact opposite? Kurt's openly engages in practices almost everyone here, until convenient for it to change, has long held to be altering. Go check out their own advertising.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Next logical step - thank you. So yes, this is basically my fear with vintage cards. What if someone invests enough in AI combined with old school practices to where suddenly someday soon the market is rife with fakes so good (everything being perfectly centered might be the one dead tell...) that even longtime experts, collectors, N54 members, what have you - can't tell the difference?

I think the embarrassment / possibility here that we all don't want to admit is that someday fakes that good will be so common, that none of us know the difference. And that thought genuinely terrifies me.

This is the exact reason buying high end cards or investing any real money in cards is something I would never ever do. AI isn't needed for any reason. It was made by a very simple process that can very simply be done again on similar equipment. I can't give names but I can 100% guarantee it has happened in the past on a small scale with star player cards from the 60s.

[campyfan39]

A total non sequitur.
You would be creating a fake Rolex or fake $100 bill from scratch. Those are counterfeits. Nobody is advocating that so you are fighting a straw man. Kurts is not producing fake cards

Originally Posted by G1911

Let's just assume this assumption is true, even though it quite obviously is not. If I can make a fake $100 bill so good that you can't detect it and the authenticator you bring it to can't detect and the US Mint doesn't catch me, is it okay for me do this? Is it okay for me to pass off this item when I sell it or use it in a commercial transaction as a real $100 bill? Is it not "too big of a problem" because you can't see it's fake?

I don't think it takes a moral high horse to see the massive problems here with this train of ethics, or lack thereof.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

It should not be impossible to detect. I hope long term that in all cases, even Kurt's - that is not the conclusion. I would dearly love to be proven wrong, and that Kurt's spray in fact is traceable in some way, shape, or form - by some sleuth grader of the future. My point in this thread is simply that it's not, or at least not yet. It's clear from his advertising, YT videos, and social media posts that the cards he cleans / restores / alters - whatever you want to call it - are getting through the TPG's like PSA and SGC if not more with astonishing speed and consistency.

Make no mistake - my line is the physical proof. If a method is devised 240 years from now to tell exactly what was done to each of our cards at each perspective point in their histories - then yes, fine. Bang, you got me. You got Kurt.

But if you cannot provide physical proof that a card is in fact altered - the world we currently live in will conclude that it hasn't been. Frowning upon more than that at this point is an exercise in futility and kind of pointless, IMO.

I don’t see how I can reasonably ever endorse this standard, where if something passes a grading company it is then totally fine. I get this is what keeps the money train running, and clearly this board is growing in the support for such an anything-is-fine-if-corporate-grades-it-approach, but I don’t think a slab gets rid of the problem or the dishonesty.. It was not long ago we all used to say the same thing I am - altering a card and not disclosing that when selling it is wrong and can be fraud. The holder it is in does not change that. Again, many times we can show the card was indeed altered.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

A total non sequitur.
You would be creating a fake Rolex or fake $100 bill from scratch. Those are counterfeits. Nobody is advocating that so you are fighting a straw man. Kurts is not producing fake cards

Yes that’s the entire point - a consequentialist standard allows anything. If something is okay because a grader signed off or you can’t detect it, then a whole lot of things become okay. That’s not a reasonable standard - if you’re really good at the deception it’s totally fine.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I believe the myth of the perfect-50's-fake-ring predates when I was even born. It was certainly circulating when I was a kid in the hobby even. It's a hobby oral tradition that crops up now and again, but I always hear a slightly different version. The consistent elements every time are that it was centered in the 50's and 60's, in New York or an unnamed place, had access to original equipment (often said to be plates, even though they didn't use printing plates at all for these) and involved multiple people (none of whom ever have a name). This ring produced fake Wagners and Planks and is sometimes said to have created the Doyle's that did not even exist at all originally. A number of the big cards to crop up in the 70's and 80's supposedly come from this ring. I doubt any of this is significantly different from what you and everyone else has heard over the years.

Obviously, it is untrue and just an old wives type of tale, like most 'perfect crime' stories where nobody telling it can state how they know this, who specifically did it, produce even a tiny shred of evidence, and wraps up too cleanly and vaguely.


Off memory, we had a poster claiming the sheet was found in New York and not the Florida market where I believe Ray claimed to find it in our last thread focused on the card. He declined to produce his alleged evidence (it doesn't exist) and stopped posting when asked for it. I would doubt the card was pack issued or that the card is fake, the back is a clue it's less likely to be pack issued but the circumstances of the find seem the stronger proof that this wasn't a card that was just found in somebody's things like all/most of the rest of the Wagner's and Plank's known. I don't know what the true origin is, but its almost certainly not an "uncut sheet" as is always said on this subject, because the output does not match that input.

If it's not pack issued, it was an AUTH even before Mastro cut it, would you agree with that or do you have a different take? All I recall about the rumor is it had something to do with Long Island which is also where Sevchuk had his shop.

[rjackson44]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Interesting question for sure. Now, suppose someone sold you a fake Rolex so good you couldn't tell the difference. Same analysis?

I own a stainlees steel Daytona there are copies that are very scary now very scary,box and paperwork look scary

[G1911]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

I'm simply ask for a definition of "altering"

Nobody on this thread has spoken in favor of adding anything to a card such as adding ink or rebuilding a corner using another card or trimming etc. Yet you seem to be very upset about the whole thing. I agreed with and quoted part of your first post but I was focused on your conclusion about what drives all of this.

Looking back at it now you said in the first line "Kurts has done far more than this. I've seen their crease/dent/corner fixes on the Discords."

Sounds like you believe that is altering when there is nothing being added? To me what he is doing is just an upgraded/modern form of using pantyhose for wax stains or flattening a corner with your fingers.

I’m just using the standard that has been standard in vintage for many, many years. If a seller won’t state it was done, then it’s a good sign it was altered. I see tons of cards openly admitted to being soaked or waxing a chrome card fresh out of the pack. I don’t see anyone telling me they’ve had all the creases removed, bathed it in god knows what, made those worn edges razor sharp all of a sudden, and turned a 3 into a 6. Why isn’t that disclosed? Because it’s an alteration that lowers the value. I don’t see any real issue with soaking a card out of a scrapbook or pushing on a corner with your finger, nor has anything been said implicating that, ever (there’s long histories here interacting with other threads.)

The board is more than welcome to adopt a new standard gleaned from the modern crowd. It used to be considered that Dick’s operation was bad alteration. Now this stuff is growing in popularity here. It will probably help profit margins.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Next logical step - thank you. So yes, this is basically my fear with vintage cards. What if someone invests enough in AI combined with old school practices to where suddenly someday soon the market is rife with fakes so good (everything being perfectly centered might be the one dead tell...) that even longtime experts, collectors, N54 members, what have you - can't tell the difference?

I think the embarrassment / possibility here that we all don't want to admit is that someday fakes that good will be so common, that none of us know the difference. And that thought genuinely terrifies me.

It would be a concern if you still are an active buyer, for sure. At least for slabbed cards, older certs would only be subject to the current risks.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by rjackson44

I own a stainlees steel Daytona there are copies that are very scary now very scary,box and paperwork look scary

I know it is off topic but I am on a watch forum. They have shown Rolex replicas so good you can exchange any piece on them with a real Rolex part.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If it's not pack issued, it was an AUTH even before Mastro cut it, would you agree with that or do you have a different take? All I recall about the rumor is it had something to do with Long Island which is also where Sevchuk had his shop.

I would have a slightly different take. A card is not automatically an Auth for not coming in a pack. If a card is fully printed and machine cut, I don’t see how it isn’t eligible for a grade. For example, many Topps Vault cards have been given grades because they were fully produced and machine cut. Being in a pack isn’t the determination. Being handcut is. Whether it was trimmed once or twice seems irrelevant. The big problem is if they cut it off a sheet. Trimming after that is just more trimming, it’s already trimmed.

Ray’s story is his sheet was from a Florida flea market, as I recall. He took it to Sevchuck’s shop, but there’s no one besides Ray who can attest to anything before he did that, just his story.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I know it is off topic but I am on a watch forum. They have shown Rolex replicas so good you can exchange any piece on them with a real Rolex part.

The serial number would still prevent one from being sold as the real thing to a diligent buyer, is that right?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The serial number would still prevent one from being sold as the real thing to a diligent buyer, is that right?

I am far from an expert on replica Rolex watches but from the very little I have heard/read about. The top end fakes use random serial numbers on each watch just like real ones. Supposedly the cheap ones use the same serial number on every watch.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I am far from an expert on replica Rolex watches but from the very little I have heard/read about. The top end fakes use random serial numbers on each watch just like real ones. Supposedly the cheap ones use the same serial number on every watch.

But you can check the numbers with Rolex, no?

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=88253

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But you can check the numbers with Rolex, no?

Not sure, I like watches but don't get into the technical stuff. I know some people that complain about the change to random serial numbers by Rolex. Before you could easily date a watch from the serial number and now not so much with the newer ones.

[Eric72]

A few people mentioned the Wagner and stories that it was cut from a sheet. I’ve seen a five card strip. This photo is from the Hager book. Have there been documented instances of larger panels/strips of T206 cards?

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by peter_spaeth

interesting question for sure. Now, suppose someone sold you a fake rolex so good that rolex can’t tell the difference. Same analysis?

fify

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Eric72

A few people mentioned the Wagner and stories that it was cut from a sheet. I’ve seen a five card strip. This photo is from the Hager book. Have there been documented instances of larger panels/strips of T206 cards?

Off the top, there exists for ATC product cards:

T25 - A large part of a sheet, later destroyed and cut into strips

T51 - 12 card proofing sheet, not production size

T62 - 12 card proofing sheet, not productions size, and part of another

T107 - 13 card proofing sheet, not production size.

T206 - the mysterious Wagner strip that is on a different stock

T220 Silver - 96% of a sheet, cut into 8 card panels

E229 - significant part of a sheet, also cut into panels and with multiple owners.


Not for the ATC, but from one of their printers, exists a partial proof sheet with most of the T225 subjects in Fullgraff's book.

EDT: Also separate and notable is the T212 Obak sheet and strips, and the destroyed before being photographed T204 Ramly sheet. But these are from different companies and probably are not relevant as to what was done with T206.

Can't think of anything else from the top of my head that is provably known and extant.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

I'd disagree that focusing on intent sends us down a slippery slope. That particular battle line is drawn pretty clearly. If you mess with a card with the specific intent to conceal that fact from a third-party grader and/or potential buyer, then you're choosing to deceive others to advance your self-interest.

This is where we simply disagree. You're taking a purely consequentialist approach, i.e., if I can't prove you did it, and you're not saying whether you did, then it didn't happen and no one was harmed. I say that card doctors who profit from deception are still acting unethically, even if the target is oblivious.

I'll grant you the point that cards aren't sentient historians, but you seem to be spinning off into a separate discussion about whether the original deception is negated when the card changes hands among unwitting parties.

I'm not advocating for the unsuspecting guy who bought an improbably sharp PSA 9 from Probstein to flog himself and surrender the card to local authorities. I am advocating for full disclosure of known facts whenever possible, with varying degrees of moral culpability along the "blockchain."

Hypothetically speaking:

If Evan trims a card and sends it to PSA without disclosing what he did, then he's a cheat. It's clear-cut. "PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity."

If PSA knows Evan trimmed the card but gives it a 9 anyway, then PSA is complicit in the fraud. If PSA doesn't know the card is trimmed and gives it a 9, then PSA's actions may fall somewhere on the negligence spectrum, but there's no ill intent.

If Probstein knows Evan trimmed the card and sells it as a PSA 9 without disclosing the known alteration, then he's complicit in Evan's fraud. Probstein might be tempted to argue that PSA's failure to detect the trimming absolves him of blame, but he'd be wrong. Another party's negligence doesn't mitigate Probstein's own knowledge and intent to deceive for profit. On the other hand, if Probstein suspects Evan trimmed the card but takes a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach, it becomes a moral gray area for Probstein.

If I buy the card from Probstein without knowledge that Evan trimmed it, I'm a blameless victim in the scheme, even when I go to re-sell it as a PSA 9. Now, if Evan tells me he trimmed it and I turn a blind eye because it's his word against PSA's, we're venturing into that gray area where self-interest leads to lame rationalizations. It might not be fraud, but it certainly raises an ethical eyebrow.

Finally, let's say Evan tells me he trimmed it, shows me a video of him doing it, and even points to unique markers that leave no doubt that he chopped that particular card before sending it off to PSA. If I sell you the PSA 9 slab without disclosing what Evan showed me, then I'm a PSA-10, PWCC-S Top 5% Certified scumbag, and I deserve to be tarred, feathered, and strung up by my thumbs.

That might not be a popular viewpoint, but I'm a little more Kant and a little less Rand.

The slippery slope is not about intent, no. I think we can all agree "Card Doctors Bad". Even I would concede that. The slippery slope right now is leveling accusations at someone of being a card doctor while throwing the need for physical proof out the window oh, just because "Card Doctors Bad." You guys can hold Kurt and his ilk in all the contempt you want, but at the end of the day - if with the techniques that now exist we cannot tell that he either added to or took away from the original physical card - then it's a hard case to prove that he's "definitely" a card doctor just because you don't like how a crease seemed to be quickly minimized, or that a corner can look that much better without using tools and glue. The proof has to be in the pudding here. Just because you think someone is a card doctor doing alteration, if there is no proof later that the card in question was altered, then can you say that for sure? That seems illogical at best.

Yes, if you don't say that you did it, and I can't prove that you did it, and some grading company either can't prove it, or more likely just doesn't care - that doesn't make things right, but my point is how often is this a situation of consequence in reality? Are you going to stop collecting cards just because you don't know either way on all the new cards you buy? I'm not. How often do you know the person or history of the specific piece of cardboard you are buying? Whether that is from Rick Probstein or Greg Morris or your LCS dealer 10 minutes away? How often do THEY know? They don't. People can fret over this, or they can get on with life and collect cards and enjoy the hobby. The truth is that the vast majority of time - you aren't going to know.

All of your Evan scenarios aside from I think 2B (PSA knows it's trimmed, and labels it as such - Authentic Altered) are in theory true - but in reality highly improbable. Neither of the two largest graders that deal with vintage cards (PSA and SGC) are in the business of detective operations to see who "intentionally" submits altered cards to them. It's a policy that's buried in the fine print somewhere, but realistically impossible to enforce unless they take time and resources away from their grading operations to go on an improbable witch hunt for card doctors. Ain't gonna happen. The rest are the same. Yeah, if we hear of impropriety in the process somewhere, we should probably throw up a red flag. But how often in reality are folks going to do that? You have to temper this whole "Card Doctors Bad" with reality. This is why the physical proof to me is so important. It's the whole essence of the extent to which people care or do not care about alteration as a real issue in this hobby, with some chance to actually DO something about it and not just be pissed and post on message boards about card doctors whose names we don't know being so awful.

Graders certainly aren't perfect but they at least attempt to set a standard for authentic and unaltered cards based on physical proof that isn't reliant on the telephone game and unrealistic proactive honesty for collectors such as some on this board to out bad characters and altered cards that otherwise we would never know about. They are if nothing more - a starting point for now despite their flaws, given the percentage of collectors that continue to heavily use them and collect / invest in cards that reside in their slabs.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don’t see how I can reasonably ever endorse this standard, where if something passes a grading company it is then totally fine. I get this is what keeps the money train running, and clearly this board is growing in the support for such an anything-is-fine-if-corporate-grades-it-approach, but I don’t think a slab gets rid of the problem or the dishonesty.. It was not long ago we all used to say the same thing I am - altering a card and not disclosing that when selling it is wrong and can be fraud. The holder it is in does not change that. Again, many times we can show the card was indeed altered.

I was using the grading companies as an example, not the gold standard. Clearly all of them have had issues at this point, either with just making mistakes or in some cases actually being complicit in getting altered cards into legit slabs.

My point with the graders was that unlike many on this thread who seem to think it's enough to shake their fist at some card doctor in abstentia, grading at least is an attempt to evaluate the physical condition of the card that cannot talk about what did or did not happen to it a year ago, or 70 years ago. It is an attempt - such that it has evolved to at this point - to examine the physical evidence.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

At least for slabbed cards, older certs would only be subject to the current risks.

Very true, Peter. So many people these days poo poo the older slabs. If I'm looking at the card and not the slab - I don't mind them at all so long as they aren't all scratched up. Get some sleeves, people!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I was using the grading companies as an example, not the gold standard. Clearly all of them have had issues at this point, either with just making mistakes or in some cases actually being complicit in getting altered cards into legit slabs.

My point with the graders was that unlike many on this thread who seem to think it's enough to shake their fist at some card doctor in abstentia, grading at least is an attempt to evaluate the physical condition of the card that cannot talk about what did or did not happen to it a year ago, or 70 years ago. It is an attempt - such that it has evolved to at this point - to examine the physical evidence.

Even well into the future, if there is no obvious physical evidence of alteration, if high powered magnification and scans with x-ray devices cannot prove it - whether that is a grading company or just a collector detective on his own using such methods - then the card is not going to be called or considered altered. The speculation beyond that just leads back to the conclusion that we all already reached a long time ago: Alteration is bad. Sorry we can't prove more than that.

They have missed thousands upon thousands of altered cards that collectors have been able to show and prove just the last 2-3 years alone. They have been busted gifting grades to former graders. It is at best incompetent, sometimes corrupt.

We don't seem to be at the point where we have no idea when things have been altered - the graders are just bad at it and don't really care to improve (which is the most generous possible statement to give them). Your scenario is a future possibility, not really current reality. PSA is not the arbiter of actual truth.

I suppose we could declare being against literally anything as 'shaking ones fist in absentia' unless one has the active power to stop it (what am I realistically supposed to do? Private citizens are not really in a meaningful position to do anything about a host of bad things in the world and regulating crime, shock, does not eliminate it either). Because I cannot stop bad thing X does not mean I should not be against bad thing X. I know it is increasing in hobby popularity to support, tacitly or openly, alteration and fraud (which is the whole and entire point of the alteration - show me these sellers redoing corners, removing creases, micro trimming to sharp perfection and disclosing that honestly when selling them) but a number of folks are not going to go along with these soft justifications.

[Peter_Spaeth]

How much did the cleaning of the M116 Wagner bump its value? 15K? More? In a way, if you take a step back, it's insane.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by G1911

Off the top, there exists for ATC product cards:

T25 - A large part of a sheet, later destroyed and cut into strips

T51 - 12 card proofing sheet, not production size

T62 - 12 card proofing sheet, not productions size, and part of another

T107 - 13 card proofing sheet, not production size.

T206 - the mysterious Wagner strip that is on a different stock

T220 Silver - 96% of a sheet, cut into 8 card panels

E229 - significant part of a sheet, also cut into panels and with multiple owners.


Not for the ATC, but from one of their printers, exists a partial proof sheet with most of the T225 subjects in Fullgraff's book.

EDT: Also separate and notable is the T212 Obak sheet and strips, and the destroyed before being photographed T204 Ramly sheet. But these are from different companies and probably are not relevant as to what was done with T206.

Can't think of anything else from the top of my head that is provably known and extant.

Thanks for the info. Do you happen to know if the T206 Wagner strip you mentioned is the same one I posted a picture of?

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

They have missed thousands upon thousands of altered cards that collectors have been able to show and prove just the last 2-3 years alone. They have been busted gifting grades to former graders. It is at best incompetent, sometimes corrupt.

We don't seem to be at the point where we have no idea when things have been altered - the graders are just bad at it and don't really care to improve (which is the most generous possible statement to give them). Your scenario is a future possibility, not really current reality. PSA is not the arbiter of actual truth.

I suppose we could declare being against literally anything as 'shaking ones fist in absentia' unless one has the active power to stop it (what am I realistically supposed to do? Private citizens are not really in a meaningful position to do anything about a host of bad things in the world and regulating crime, shock, does not eliminate it either). Because I cannot stop bad thing X does not mean I should not be against bad thing X. I know it is increasing in hobby popularity to support, tacitly or openly, alteration and fraud (which is the whole and entire point of the alteration - show me these sellers redoing corners, removing creases, micro trimming to sharp perfection and disclosing that honestly when selling them) but a number of folks are not going to go along with these soft justifications.

Greg, no real argument with you on the graders. In many respects, they are all horrible right now if their aim is to truly prevent such things. (It isn't). As I've said before, it's ironic that an industry supposedly born because of the widespread problem of alteration now helps perpetuate that very problem when they endorse and thus escalate the value of such cards by putting them into legit slabs.

As for the rest of it and what to be for, what to be against - to me there has to be evidence of a crime that can be proved a week later when you sell said card to someone totally unsuspecting that has no idea of its history. You can be mad all day long at people who fix corners and remove creases, and soak away dirt and grime and wrinkles - but if at the end of the day there is ZERO proof that the card has been physically altered - then how has the card truly been changed from it's original state? It hasn't.

I would agree with you in many cases even with numbered graded cards - that of course you can tell. I'm not talking about these cards. Here is where collector knowledge and a personal eye for something being "not right" has to come into play. But say for s&g that you truly CAN'T tell for decades that anything Kurt's Card Care products do actually change and alter cards? This whole thing - as it is right now for people who buy cards that people have worked on with his products and have no clue - is a gigantic moot point. Not only will they never know, there is nothing TO know if the true physical state of the card cannot be proven to be altered. Will this always be the case with the types of leaps and bounds technology is currently taking? Probably not.

PS - I will say this again for those who maybe haven't read the entire missive of this thread. I quit using Kurt's products myself for my PC, not that I ever truly did anything much with them to begin with. They work to an extent yes, but it's just too much work. My more valuable cards with dinged corners and wrinkles can remain in their SGC 2 and 3 slabs. They are still beautiful without me doctoring them. ;-)

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Thanks for the info. Do you happen to know if the T206 Wagner strip you mentioned is the same one I posted a picture of?

Yes, there is only one mysterious T206 Wagner strip known.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, there is only one mysterious T206 Wagner strip known.

I've had the Hager book for decades. Perhaps due to that fact, I've never considered the Wagner strip "mysterious." Your use of that adjective caused me think you might have been writing about a different strip.

Your answers, when stitched together, do help me in some small way. I asked "Have there been documented instances of larger panels/strips of T206 cards?" Apparently, you don't know of any.

Thanks.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Eric72

I've had the Hager book for decades. Perhaps due to that fact, I've never considered the Wagner strip "mysterious." Your use of that adjective caused me think you might have been writing about a different strip.

Your answers, when stitched together, do help me in some small way. I asked "Have there been documented instances of larger panels/strips of T206 cards?" Apparently, you don't know of any.

Thanks.

I apologize, so very deeply, for giving the complete list of all ATC uncut material. That was clearly egregious of me.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by G1911

I apologize, so very deeply, for giving the complete list of all ATC uncut material. That was clearly egregious of me.

I appreciate the gesture. Apologies are quite effective. Of course, it helps when they're sincere.

I asked a straightforward question. You responded with lots of information; however, nothing in that first post was an actual answer.

Rather than continue our conversation, I'd rather just say, "Happy Collecting" and call it there.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Eric72

I appreciate the gesture. Apologies are quite effective. Of course, it helps when they're sincere.

I asked a straightforward question. You responded with lots of information; however, nothing in that first post was an actual answer.

Rather than continue our conversation, I'd rather just say, "Happy Collecting" and call it there.

Yes the complete list doesn’t answer and give even more. You are certainly owed a sincere apology. Jesus Christ

[campyfan39]

Congrats on hijacking and derailing an otherwise interesting and informative thread with lots of people giving opinions and perspectives. While you are it please leave Jesus out of it.
Maybe this will make you happy….. at least the graders caught this one. I wonder if the submitter disclosed the alteration? At least he didn’t soak it right.

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes the complete list doesn’t answer and give even more. You are certainly owed a sincere apology. Jesus Christ

[G1911]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

Congrats on hijacking and derailing an otherwise interesting and informative thread with lots of people giving opinions and perspectives. While you are it please leave Jesus out of it.
Maybe this will make you happy….. at least the graders caught this one. I wonder if the submitter disclosed the alteration? At least he didn’t soak it right.

I literally answered a question on T206 uncut material by giving the list of ATC uncut material including T206. People have frequently on this board given additional information to a question. Really? This is what you guys want to bitch about?

Now, the T206 Wagner here was first brought up in 54 by somebody else. You first discussed it in post 62. The OP expanded the discussion on it in post 72. I first mentioned it in post post 86. If answering a question on it is hijacking, then you hijacked over 20 posts before me. Congrats on... hijacking by following the ebb and flow of a thread?

I don't know what you from me on this Mantle. You guys are welcome to be triggered by people against defrauding people and altering cards and selling without disclosure. This card is obviously not altered to deceive and in any way an example of anything here.

If you are truly offended by the common phrase of "Jesus" in exasperation, well, oh well.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Did you have this problem the entire time you have been collecting? I ask because centering wasn't the big deal it is now before the huge centering pump and dump from a few years ago. I am amazed at how long the centering craze has lasted this time.

This is of course utter nonsense. Centering has always been in high demand ever since the first cards were printed. As a kid growing up, trading cards with my friends, centering was pretty much the only thing any of us ever looked at (with the exception of obvious major flaws like creases and completely ruined corners). But the only thing that mattered as long as the card was otherwise EXMT or better was the centering. A centered NM card was worth just as much as a centered "Gem Mint" card is today. Nobody would have paid a penny more for it back then. And a centered NM card was worth significantly more than even a 55/45 "Gem Mint" card would have been. This was true of every single collector I knew, and I knew a lot.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say there was a "huge centering pump and dump a few years ago", and neither do you. The "centering craze" is not some fad like WNBA cards or Wresling cards that kids are trying to pump. Centered vintage cards always have been and always will be the ocean front property of this hobby whether you like it or not.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

The biggest problem is your underlying assumption that card alteration is impossible to detect. That is big news to many of us!

Let's just assume this assumption is true, even though it quite obviously is not. If I can make a fake $100 bill so good that you can't detect it and the authenticator you bring it to can't detect and the US Mint doesn't catch me, is it okay for me do this? Is it okay for me to pass off this item when I sell it or use it in a commercial transaction as a real $100 bill? Is it not "too big of a problem" because you can't see it's fake?

I don't think it takes a moral high horse to see the massive problems here with this train of ethics, or lack thereof.

Why do you guys keep making these false comparisons to counterfeit items like fake Rolexes and $100 bills? How is this even remotely relevant to the topic of this thread which is whether or not cleaning a card (as in the Wagner from the OP) ought to result in someone going to hell?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by snowman

why do you guys keep making these false comparisons to counterfeit items like fake rolexes and $100 bills? How is this even remotely relevant to the topic of this thread which is whether or not cleaning a card (as in the wagner from the op) ought to result in someone going to hell?

#117.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

If you mess with a card with the specific intent to conceal that fact from a third-party grader and/or potential buyer, then you're choosing to deceive others to advance your self-interest.

There's nothing to conceal though lol. This is 100% allowed. How do you not get this? Do you also call people a fraudster for not revealing the fact that they washed their car prior to selling it to you? They didn't tell you because it is widely understood and accepted that cleaning cars is OK. If some paranoid schizophrenic decides that they don't want cars to be washed and that anyone doing so without concealing that fact was somehow a fraudster, the world doesn't have to cater to his delusional demands. They just roll their eyes, laugh at him and move along to someone living in the real world.

Don't be the paranoid schizophrenic of the hobby screaming at clouds.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If it's not pack issued, it was an AUTH even before Mastro cut it, would you agree with that or do you have a different take? All I recall about the rumor is it had something to do with Long Island which is also where Sevchuk had his shop.

I think it is highly unlikely that the Gretzky Wagner is an original T206 printed card from 1909-1911. There's just way too much shadiness surrounding the story. It doesn't add up.