@Walt_Altmen said:
In coin world, altered is altered. You most certainly do not clean, dip or scrub. This one intrigues me because almost any collector of anything recognizes or has at least heard of the 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. But I am curious to hear your thoughts on this card offered from one of the apparent top e-auction houses. Is this an acceptable “asset” to let roll out?
Not offering an opinion one way or the other, but doesn't PCGS have a "conservation" service for coins?
I think calling it what it is would be more appropriate. Card has been altered and calling it conservation or any other name you want to give to the process is a sham. Soaked, pressed, altered.. is not a card I would want in my collection, and to represent the card as anything less by PWCC is not a good look.
Disappointing thing is this is not the first nor second time they have been involved with something like this - 2016 and the blatant shill bidding episodes where they tried to justify it by stating they were “coaching” the offending parties. One thing I was taught growing up is that your reputation and having integrity is everything, and once it is lost there is very little chance of ever regaining it back. I know that I will definitely think twice about bidding on any of their high end auctions in the future.
I will bet you that anyone pulling a rookie card from a wax pack, or buying one raw, with wax spots on the front will wipe them off. This doesn't alter the card. Card wasn't manufactured with wax on it.
Not sure if a warped card gets rejected by PSA at any point, but I will say the same as above.
I don't know how I feel about a distilled water soak (never heard of that) but that seems to be where the slippery slope starts.
But it was pulled from a pack with wax on it. When wiping that wax off with a woman’s (or mans) stocking you easily could be taking gloss/print with it. Altered.
If gloss is removed card is altered. But if carefully done it might NOT. Then is it ok? If the two materials (wax, cloth) are softer than the gloss on the card, it should be easy to wipe off the wax without taking off any of the gloss.
We will have to agree to disagree. I reject ANY attempt at changing the composition of a card pulled from its original source.
I'm with @softparade on this one. I never wipe the wax off. To me, it's still part of the factory process. It got on the card in the pack. It stays on the card.
Wax is not part of the factory process of creating the card.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I will bet you that anyone pulling a rookie card from a wax pack, or buying one raw, with wax spots on the front will wipe them off. This doesn't alter the card. Card wasn't manufactured with wax on it.
Not sure if a warped card gets rejected by PSA at any point, but I will say the same as above.
I don't know how I feel about a distilled water soak (never heard of that) but that seems to be where the slippery slope starts.
But it was pulled from a pack with wax on it. When wiping that wax off with a woman’s (or mans) stocking you easily could be taking gloss/print with it. Altered.
If gloss is removed card is altered. But if carefully done it might NOT. Then is it ok? If the two materials (wax, cloth) are softer than the gloss on the card, it should be easy to wipe off the wax without taking off any of the gloss.
We will have to agree to disagree. I reject ANY attempt at changing the composition of a card pulled from its original source.
I get it. We can agree to disagree.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Walt_Altmen said:
In coin world, altered is altered. You most certainly do not clean, dip or scrub. This one intrigues me because almost any collector of anything recognizes or has at least heard of the 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. But I am curious to hear your thoughts on this card offered from one of the apparent top e-auction houses. Is this an acceptable “asset” to let roll out?
Not offering an opinion one way or the other, but doesn't PCGS have a "conservation" service for coins?
Yes PCGS (and also NGC) both offer a "Restoration" / "Conservation" Service. If their experts feel the coin is eligible to go through the process, they will attempt to modify the appearance of the coin to restore "the natural beauty of your coins... using only industry accepted techniques"
For the PCGS Coin restoration it was interesting that if your coin was already in a PCGS Slab, they said after restoration they would re-grade the coin. No guarantees it would grade higher, but they said it would NOT go down in grade.
Forward thinking to someday if there are "Industry accepted techniques" for conservation of a card in a PSA Slab...
hmmm... I might go hunting for a few vintage cards that look great on centering but have minor problems that I think would fall under the "safe to try and fix" category... I mean, who cares if it will be the same grade after a trip through "card conservation" as long as I get a "Superior Quality" Sticker from a well known consignment company.
Something I'm watching with interest and curiosity - My understanding is that conservation and restoration have long been accepted for fine art, and fine art is a well known investment asset class. As the trading card investment asset class continues to grow, like it has immensely over the last few years, and the investor dollars from the fine art world follow, then it will come as no surprise to me that like with fine art, conservation and restoration will become accepted, right or wrong.
@Indy78 said:
Something I'm watching with interest and curiosity - My understanding is that conservation and restoration have long been accepted for fine art, and fine art is a well known investment asset class. As the trading card investment asset class continues to grow, like it has immensely over the last few years, and the investor dollars from the fine art world follow, then it will come as no surprise to me that like with fine art, conservation and restoration will become accepted, right or wrong.
Don't they "fix" comic books too?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Art restoration is a bad analog. Usually you are restoring one original pc or perhaps there are a handful? Who is restoring just a copy of the Mona Lisa?
Fine Art and sportscards are a bad analogy. Prints of the piece of art and sportscards are a better analogy. They restore fine art because, in many cases, it's the only example in existence. There aren't 600 Mona Lisas out there.
You're missing my point, which is not to justify what is happening, but to offer one guess as to why things are trending as they are.
On the analogy, the investors I speak of don't care about such nuances and splitting of hairs. They probably don't read message boards either.
Also, for the record, I do not read, collect, or follow comic books. I don't collect fine art either. I collect mostly relatively inexpensive baseball cards (<$20 each) for the enjoyment of it.
Old houses,cars are restored as well. But one would think that if you restore those things with new parts they no longer are original to what was originally created. So they should be labeled with the moniker "restored" not original.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Old houses,cars are restored as well. But one would think that if you restore those things with new parts they no longer are original to what was originally created. So they should be labeled with the moniker "restored" not original.
Correct. But this also places emphasis on OEM parts and the price differences vs aftermarket, especially in the classic arenas. Took me a while to track down a correct ‘65 Shelby knob. And paid accordingly. Thank god I didnt need the glove box door and my sig is bold and beautiful!
It's interesting how all forms of collectibles have their own definitions of restoration/alteration. I don't think any art collector blinks an eye at a Rembrandt being cleaned up, pollution removed, canvass being repaired, preserving the artwork.
Looking at cards the way someone looks at art - preserving a Mantle by removing dirt, stains, etc. and returning it to looking like it did when created wouldn't be a problem and grading it to further preserve it celebrated. A Mantle coming off the printing press in PA can be looked at as Rembrandt putting the final brush stroke on his painting - any preservation should strive to return it to its original condition without alteration from that.
Now trimming, adding paper, repairing holes/tears/dings, soaking to alter, would NOT be acceptable and should be noted as altered.
Collecting Topps, Philadelphia and Kellogg's from 1964-1989
Trimming is just completely out of the question. The thought of trimming a card makes me cringe. I will buy cards that are factory miscut, or creased or have ink on them, but not trimmed or restored, or altered to make the appearance better.
@akuracy503 said:
Trimming started way back before I was born. It was so rampant with some vintage guys I still see remnants of trimmed post war vintage cards at card shows. The common denominator here is that we have grown too reliant on TPG's to be the gatekeeper. We lost the art of making our own decisions based off the raw card. How were deals made and cards sold before TPG's?
Acceptable is subjective and we need to go back to the basics of making our own judgement. There is no other way to squash this debate. There should never be finger pointing and blame. It is what it is.
Going back to my original question.. What will you do? (Refer to my solution)
I do not think modern collectors have accepted trimming as accepted practice as per your earlier post. If it were accepted practice why are there attempts at hiding this activity? It may be accepted for unscrupulous dealers but I don't think it ever had been by collectors.
I disagree that it "is what it is". I think collectors should be talking about this and finding the trimmers and getting them out of the hobby.
If anyone wants to hear what modern collectors think of trimming & altering cards for better grades there are new threads on this subject every week over on the BO forum. Its been so bad that not only are they making archived lists of the known trimmed/altered cards in each sport but also an archived list of the growing amount of threads. Its mostly been serial numbered cards to this point because they're easier to track.
CC will soon publish our Marketplace Tenets, which describes the rules of engagement for transacting on the PWCC Marketplace and the commitments and responsibilities of all parties involved. Among other things, the Tenets will describe what cards we will allow to be sold on our marketplace and will draw a distinction between cards that were altered and cards that were conserved. Cards that are proven altered through physical evidence are not allowed to be sold, while cards that are proven conserved are indeed allowed to be sold.
In an effort to define an enforceable PWCC policy, we want to open up the dialogue with the community to allow for feedback before our official Tenets are published. Acceptable forms of conservation exist in all collectibles markets, ranging from coins to comics to fine art, and we feel it’s time the trading card market better defines a stance on what is acceptable conservation. The following is a draft of our current understanding of majority opinion, and this is subject to edit.
Conservation. PWCC believes conservation, as defined, to be healthy, sustainable, and supportive of the marketplace and the investors and collectors who participate. Assets that have been conserved can be sold on the PWCC Marketplace.
Conservation is defined as an act which returns an asset closer to its as-manufactured condition but does not otherwise enhance or artificially distance the asset beyond the as-manufactured status. An act which removes a foreign substance from an asset and does so in a way which doesn’t otherwise alter the condition of the as-manufactured product is usually considered acceptable and generally renders the asset worthy of professional grading. Dirt, glue, writing, wax and other foreign substances can be removed from an asset and the result is considered acceptable conservation, so long as the professional Third-Party Authenticators agree the asset is void of unnatural aspects induced as a result of the conservation. Lying flat a warped or bent region of a card (i.e. in a screw down holder), so long as it doesn’t disrupt the card’s natural properties, is generally considered acceptable conservation, whereas pressing a card and thereby changing its as-manufactured properties (i.e. thickness of the card stock) is generally not acceptable and may render the card altered. Laying flat a nonplanar corner, crease, or edge, so long as the card stock is not pressed to a state of artificial thickness, is typically acceptable so long as no other unnatural change to the as-manufactured card stock is discernable.
Alteration. PWCC believes alteration, as defined, is damaging to the marketplace. Altered assets cannot be sold on the PWCC Marketplace unless this detail is disclosed during the sale.
Alteration includes any act which meaningfully renders a change to the as-manufactured qualities of the asset, outside of the normal wear and deterioration inherent to circulation. Any purposeful material addition or material removal to or from the as-manufactured asset, outside of normal wear or environmental degradation, is generally considered an alteration. Trimming, recoloring, autograph retracing, rebuilding of corners or other surfaces, swapping of patches, or any other action which distances a card from its as-manufactured attributes is considered an act of alteration. Altered cards which are stated as such in a transparent nature are permitted for sale on the Marketplace.
Alteration is only ever officially determined by the presence of physical evidence. Speculation is not considered evidence. Evidence of alteration can be determined in two different ways; either in technical review by a reputable Third-Party Authenticator, or when digital content asserts beyond a reasonable doubt that an alteration took place (i.e. before and after photos of trimming, recoloring, etc).
Your comments and feedback would be appreciated. The best way to share feedback is to send me a direct email at betsy@pwccmarketplace.com. I will come back onto this thread to gather feedback periodically, but won't be responding to comments actively. Thank you!
And Nope. Alot of stuff I strongly disagree with mixed with a lot of vague wording such as removing “foreign substances”. Foreign substances is as wide a brush that could be used. Soaking to remove writing and dirt I adamantly disagree with regardless if its pre-war or not.
@Walt_Altmen said:
And Nope. Alot of stuff I strongly disagree with mixed with a lot of vague wording such as removing “foreign substances”. Foreign substances is as wide a brush that could be used. Soaking to remove writing and dirt I adamantly disagree with regardless if its pre-war or not.
First, I don't care if it's pre-war or not. There should be no exceptions in my opinion. I realize some cards were more frequently glued into albums, but unless they ALL were, I am not going there. Venezuelans aren't pre-war, should we include them? No.
Second, the above SEEMS to condone solvent soaking (the only way I can think of to remove ink), as long as it's not noticeable. I wonder where "bleaching" comes in? I say it's an alteration, what about PWCC? Chlorine bleach is an acid. I don't know of any other kind of bleach, but I assume they are out there.
Third, Flattening is fine if the card stays the same thickness? I don't understand how it makes a difference how you do it. Of course if a wrinkle disappears while de-warping a card "who knew"?
Moving on to alterations;
Seems pretty obvious, changing the card itself by building up corners, fixing pinholes, recoloring, bleaching(?).
My question is, does the submitter disclose the conservation/alteration before the TPG gets it, or does he/she say "Oh wow, I wasn't aware it was altered, slab it that way I guess" much worse on the soaking/flattening issue (imo), as it says the conservation has to be "so long as it doesn’t disrupt the card’s natural properties". If correctly done, conservation is then undetectable? I suppose the defect might be only partially removed, improving eye appeal and then disclosing that the item has been conserved.
I think one thing is certain, there are a lot of conserved/altered cards in TPG holders, and there will be many more in the future.
The big change as I see it is, you will now be able to bid on cards that have been "worked on" and are unable to fool the graders. Certainly be the only way I'll ever afford a 52 Mantle. Who am I kidding, not even then.
As with just about everything, I think it's about money. By excluding conserved/altered cards from the marketplace we are leaving a lot of money out of the equation.
Have fun collecting!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Well that cinched it. I will never spend a penny with PWCC again.
On a separate note, regarding soaking. I collect 1960s Venezuelan Topps and virtually all of those were pasted into albums at some point. I have on occasion read about them being soaked to remove paste and album paper residue from their backs. This is something I would never do, and I would never knowingly buy a Venie that had been soaked.
I hear you, Dan. I can honestly say I’m “torn” when it comes to old school paninis and venies.
I sort of classify them like pre-war due to album storage but the glue always seems to be non-solvent which leads to the rampant paper loss. And I’d rather have album back than paper loss thus all together eliminating the need to soak.
My thinking is along the same lines as LOTSOS...if after a card is cut and done with the assembly line, if something then gets on it after this process, I am okay with removing...so fingerprints on chrome cards and gum or wax residue from the card touching the gum or the wax that holds the pack flaps closed -- okay to remove those as the card was not cut with those on it...the refractor and chrome scratches...not sure which way I lean on that topic...does when the scratch occurred play a role in whether it is okay to buff the scratch out? Seems that may be going too far...I think removing wax stains, gum stains and finger prints are fine, since the card was not created with those on it
PWCC is the best at doing what they do. They need to recognize that this new stuff with the stickers and their so called “tenets” will only hurt their reputation. I have to admit that I am an addict and they are my supplier, but they are losing much goodwill with me on this.
Seems as though this is a very polarizing topic. It will be very interesting to see if publicly disclosed “conserved” cards sell for the same as original condition cards.
Then if they don’t will any mention of “conservation” be omitted from future listings? I mean it is an honor system. If I get a card privately “conserved” and then consign with out disclosing who is the wiser?
The only reasoning I can fathom that pwcc would publish something so egregious, damning and risk their reputation and market dominance is to protect itself from some possible past transgressions as a possible defense.
“Well, it’s company policy that doing anything and everything but trimming to conserve a card is fine.”
@DBesse27 said:
Well that cinched it. I will never spend a penny with PWCC again.
On a separate note, regarding soaking. I collect 1960s Venezuelan Topps and virtually all of those were pasted into albums at some point. I have on occasion read about them being soaked to remove paste and album paper residue from their backs. This is something I would never do, and I would never knowingly buy a Venie that had been soaked.
I would say that MANY were pasted into albums, but no way "virtually all".
Nice ones are hard to find.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@LOTSOS said:
Seems as though this is a very polarizing topic. It will be very interesting to see if publicly disclosed “conserved” cards sell for the same as original condition cards.
Then if they don’t will any mention of “conservation” be omitted from future listings? I mean it is an honor system. If I get a card privately “conserved” and then consign with out disclosing who is the wiser?
I do not think it was disclosed on that ‘52 Mantle or even edited to add once it was proven and admitted.
IMO, it should have been pulled and a fresh auction initiated fully disclosing the restoration, err conservation.
@DBesse27 said:
Well that cinched it. I will never spend a penny with PWCC again.
On a separate note, regarding soaking. I collect 1960s Venezuelan Topps and virtually all of those were pasted into albums at some point. I have on occasion read about them being soaked to remove paste and album paper residue from their backs. This is something I would never do, and I would never knowingly buy a Venie that had been soaked.
I would say that MANY were pasted into albums, but no way "virtually all".
I think PWCC is purposely misusing the term conservation in an attempt to gain more consignments.
Conserving an item is when one attempts to prevent further damage from occurring to an item. ex. neutralizing acids within the card from environmental pollution or having been stored in acidic holders. conserving would be to make the cardboard stable.
altering an item is an attempt to improve the asthetics of a card. there are many ways to do this including soaking/pressing/trimming, corner repair, crease repair etc.
PWCC is trying to twist the meaning of conservation to include alterations in the definition. very shady. their business will take a hit from this.
@DBesse27 said:
Well that cinched it. I will never spend a penny with PWCC again.
On a separate note, regarding soaking. I collect 1960s Venezuelan Topps and virtually all of those were pasted into albums at some point. I have on occasion read about them being soaked to remove paste and album paper residue from their backs. This is something I would never do, and I would never knowingly buy a Venie that had been soaked.
I would say that MANY were pasted into albums, but no way "virtually all".
Nice ones are hard to find.
You’re right, Joe. You caught me exaggerating.
After all I am the exaggeration police! ;-)
Hope you are doing well. I don't see you posting much these days.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@DBesse27 said:
Well that cinched it. I will never spend a penny with PWCC again.
On a separate note, regarding soaking. I collect 1960s Venezuelan Topps and virtually all of those were pasted into albums at some point. I have on occasion read about them being soaked to remove paste and album paper residue from their backs. This is something I would never do, and I would never knowingly buy a Venie that had been soaked.
I would say that MANY were pasted into albums, but no way "virtually all".
Nice ones are hard to find.
You’re right, Joe. You caught me exaggerating.
After all I am the exaggeration police! ;-)
Hope you are doing well. I don't see you posting much these days.
I’m doing great, Joe! Sent you a pm a while back. Hope you’re well too.
@craig44 said:
I think PWCC is purposely misusing the term conservation in an attempt to gain more consignments.
Conserving an item is when one attempts to prevent further damage from occurring to an item. ex. neutralizing acids within the card from environmental pollution or having been stored in acidic holders. conserving would be to make the cardboard stable.
altering an item is an attempt to improve the asthetics of a card. there are many ways to do this including soaking/pressing/trimming, corner repair, crease repair etc.
PWCC is trying to twist the meaning of conservation to include alterations in the definition. very shady. their business will take a hit from this.
As far as defining what is conservation vs alteration, I am sure (as we have already seen) the opinions will vary.
I think it all boils down to sales. I also think there are plenty of dealers/sellers completely on board with the new policy.
People have been "doctoring" cards for a long time. The "good" ones are already in our collections, even if we are buying only "expertly" examined and graded items.
I am sure there are a lot of cards sitting in boxes that won't pass examination and the owners, and others, who can make money on them want to get them onto the auction block.
As long as the item is being disclosed as conserved/altered, it should be up to the buyer if he/she wants it for their collection. My fear is these items will almost always be the result of at least one failed attempt at grading.
My question to the collectors out there is;
Would you purchase an altered/conserved copy of your "white whale" if it was priced right?
The reason I am asking is that just last night, I saw an episode of "Pawn Stars" and a guy came in with a WWII military knife that had been cleaned up with steel wool. Rick didn't want it, BUT if it had been worth more money, I'll bet he would have offered SOMETHING for it. I know it's not the SAME as a baseball card, but really it IS. The difference is that it was obvious that it was cleaned up.
How about a 52 Topps Mantle that looked like an 8 that had been soaked in water to remove water based glue?
A 67 Stand-up or 71 Greatest Moments of your favorite player with (undetectable with the naked eye) recolored corners?
A PERFECT modern day low pop rookie that had been wiped to remove wax? Oops, already in our sets.
You would at least have the option of having an attractive example of a "key" card in your set at a fraction of the cost.
My Killebrew set is almost complete and I don't have any "needs" like the above. WELL maybe a 1964 complete Bazooka box.......can't find one anywhere! If I found one that was graded "Authentic Altered" I would be tempted to use it as a "filler" if I could get it cheap enough.
Will PSA ever let you add a card like this to your registry set? After all, these are authentic items.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@DBesse27 said:
Well that cinched it. I will never spend a penny with PWCC again.
On a separate note, regarding soaking. I collect 1960s Venezuelan Topps and virtually all of those were pasted into albums at some point. I have on occasion read about them being soaked to remove paste and album paper residue from their backs. This is something I would never do, and I would never knowingly buy a Venie that had been soaked.
I would say that MANY were pasted into albums, but no way "virtually all".
Nice ones are hard to find.
You’re right, Joe. You caught me exaggerating.
After all I am the exaggeration police! ;-)
Hope you are doing well. I don't see you posting much these days.
I’m doing great, Joe! Sent you a pm a while back. Hope you’re well too.
Assuming you didn't get my reply :-(
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@LOTSOS said:
Seems as though this is a very polarizing topic. It will be very interesting to see if publicly disclosed “conserved” cards sell for the same as original condition cards.
Then if they don’t will any mention of “conservation” be omitted from future listings? I mean it is an honor system. If I get a card privately “conserved” and then consign with out disclosing who is the wiser?
Unfortunately, I think the line will be drawn based on what can and cannot be detected. The rest is just hand wringing. We can shout all day that X is abhorrent but if it's impossible to be detected then it's pretty much a moot point.
I think as a group we should concentrate more on the stuff that can be detected.
I believe PWCC should stick to their current pillar: “We at PWCC are not professional graders so we trust in the reputation and opinion of 3rd party professional graders. Professional grading is subjective and different 3rd party graders will often disagree over the grading on a single card.”
If something comes to their attention, then PWCC should ask the seller to defer to the original TPG. If the seller refuses to do so, then PWCC should disclose all events/what they know and point to the pillar again, or refuse to auction the card if the seller refuses full disclosure. If TPG reviews the card, then PWCC has done its job and should auction the reviewed card because it done its job within its present pillar. Then caveat emptor.
@LGC said:
I believe PWCC should stick to their current pillar: “We at PWCC are not professional graders so we trust in the reputation and opinion of 3rd party professional graders. Professional grading is subjective and different 3rd party graders will often disagree over the grading on a single card.”
If something comes to their attention, then PWCC should ask the seller to defer to the original TPG. If the seller refuses to do so, then PWCC should disclose all events/what they know and point to the pillar again, or refuse to auction the card if the seller refuses full disclosure. If TPG reviews the card, then PWCC has done its job and should auction the reviewed card because it done its job within its present pillar. Then caveat emptor.
Good point " If something comes to their attention, then PWCC should ask the seller to defer to the original TPG." if there is evidence that a card is listed deceptively/incorrectly, what happens then?
Another can of worms.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Knowing what we know now, the big question is what will PSA do if submitted for review?
Assume PSA has no clue about the "conservation" - but it is brought to their attention when submitting for official review. If they decide to re-slab it as "Authentic" or "Altered" without a numerical grade, won't they refund the difference between the current grade and final grade after review? Plus you get the card back which is a beauty (conservation or not...)
PSA has another option which is to keep the card and refund the market value -- which might be less than what this card will sell for at PWCC and their quality sticker... This would be the worst case scenario...
And if PSA sticks to their guns and keeps the assigned grade -- then you have a verified card that has officially been reviewed by one of the most respected TPG for cards...
If I had money to burn, I would roll the dice and buy this card and submit it for official review under PSA's Guarantee of Grade and Authenticity policy...
@DotStore said:
Knowing what we know now, the big question is what will PSA do if submitted for review?
Assume PSA has no clue about the "conservation" - but it is brought to their attention when submitting for official review. If they decide to re-slab it as "Authentic" or "Altered" without a numerical grade, won't they refund the difference between the current grade and final grade after review? Plus you get the card back which is a beauty (conservation or not...)
PSA has another option which is to keep the card and refund the market value -- which might be less than what this card will sell for at PWCC and their quality sticker... This would be the worst case scenario...
And if PSA sticks to their guns and keeps the assigned grade -- then you have a verified card that has officially been reviewed by one of the most respected TPG for cards...
If I had money to burn, I would roll the dice and buy this card and submit it for official review under PSA's Guarantee of Grade and Authenticity policy...
Realistically, how many submitters are going to tell TPG that a card has been "fixed"?
How often is PSA going to buy counterfeits?
Lots and lots of worms here.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I would expect that a guarantee by a TPG is actually “covered” by some sort of insurance policy after a deductible of some sort. That would be the safest way to protect the TPG company.
As to what a TPG might do when presented with evidence after the fact of efforts to alter/conserve/whatever you want to call it a card is open to speculation. What would be done with the PSA 8 Wagner if it were submitted for a reholdering?
One of the primary ideas of TPG grading was to distinguish between untouched cards versus cards that someone tried to dress up. If it is untouched, or no evidence of touching can be found, then they assign a grade number. If not, then it’s authentic but altered.
The selling entity is trying to find a way to increase the selling price of a card that someone has adjusted the appearance of by introducing a different word. Nothing more.
I think it will be a sad day for the hobby if this actually catches on. All I can say for sure is that this is one collector who isn’t going to fall for it.
Bottom line PWCC is a business. This is a marketing ploy to earn them more revenue. I am still upset with their high shipping costs squeezing extra dollars out of me. But like everyone else, I will continue to purchase the cards I need when they list them.
Paging Joe Orlando,paging Joe Orlando. Please pick up Joe. It would be nice if him or someone else at PSA could chime in on this matter with their opinion and also if PSA knowingly put a numerical grade on the Mantle in question or if it just "slipped through the cracks"?
@Coarsegold said:
Paging Joe Orlando,paging Joe Orlando. Please pick up Joe. It would be nice if him or someone else at PSA could chime in on this matter with their opinion and also if PSA knowingly put a numerical grade on the Mantle in question or if it just "slipped through the cracks"?
This is what I also want to know. Were they aware of it before grading it? If not aware, has this been brought to their attention and what is their stance on it now? Maybe they do not want it auctioned off because they might be on the hook based on their Guarantee of Grade and Authenticity policy...
I think it is very rational to say PSA was not aware. It should come as zero surprise to many of us that there are card doctors out there who are good enough to slip some work past the goalie, so to speak. When that happens, it should come as equally no surprise that the doctors will seek to sell their work via the most popular platforms. This is no revelation.
There has been a mechanism and protocol long in place for rectifying these mistakes; one can simply send their card in question to PSA, who will buy it back if indeed it is found to have gotten through the system.
Expecting graders or an eBay seller to spend hours and hours per card, scouring the internet for ironclad, 100% accurate photos of a card in a past state is just not realistic, from a pragmatic business standpoint. It is also worth noting that not every piece of armchair internet sleuthing winds up being accurate, while some certainly are.
As to PWCC's opinion on alterations, that's just one opinion in a roiling sea of opinions, and life is far too short to let opinions cause aggravation in a hobby— which is an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure and relaxation.
It seems PWCC has officially doubled down. Brent replied to posts on instagram last night that ¨its possible this card experienced some level of conservation based on before and after images weve seen, but in our opinion, acts of conservation are not uncommon in the market and dont warrant mention in an auction description.¨
I guess transparency to the buyer is now out the window. He has acknowledged the card is altered, or in his spin, conserved, yet figures it is common and any potential buyer doesnt need to know.
Comments
Not offering an opinion one way or the other, but doesn't PCGS have a "conservation" service for coins?
I think calling it what it is would be more appropriate. Card has been altered and calling it conservation or any other name you want to give to the process is a sham. Soaked, pressed, altered.. is not a card I would want in my collection, and to represent the card as anything less by PWCC is not a good look.
Disappointing thing is this is not the first nor second time they have been involved with something like this - 2016 and the blatant shill bidding episodes where they tried to justify it by stating they were “coaching” the offending parties. One thing I was taught growing up is that your reputation and having integrity is everything, and once it is lost there is very little chance of ever regaining it back. I know that I will definitely think twice about bidding on any of their high end auctions in the future.
KC
Wax is not part of the factory process of creating the card.
I get it. We can agree to disagree.
I knew it. Page 2. 😉
Yes PCGS (and also NGC) both offer a "Restoration" / "Conservation" Service. If their experts feel the coin is eligible to go through the process, they will attempt to modify the appearance of the coin to restore "the natural beauty of your coins... using only industry accepted techniques"
For the PCGS Coin restoration it was interesting that if your coin was already in a PCGS Slab, they said after restoration they would re-grade the coin. No guarantees it would grade higher, but they said it would NOT go down in grade.
Forward thinking to someday if there are "Industry accepted techniques" for conservation of a card in a PSA Slab...
hmmm... I might go hunting for a few vintage cards that look great on centering but have minor problems that I think would fall under the "safe to try and fix" category... I mean, who cares if it will be the same grade after a trip through "card conservation" as long as I get a "Superior Quality" Sticker from a well known consignment company.
Something I'm watching with interest and curiosity - My understanding is that conservation and restoration have long been accepted for fine art, and fine art is a well known investment asset class. As the trading card investment asset class continues to grow, like it has immensely over the last few years, and the investor dollars from the fine art world follow, then it will come as no surprise to me that like with fine art, conservation and restoration will become accepted, right or wrong.
I was just waiting for art restoration to be brought up in this thread.
Don't they "fix" comic books too?
Art restoration is a bad analog. Usually you are restoring one original pc or perhaps there are a handful? Who is restoring just a copy of the Mona Lisa?
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Fine Art and sportscards are a bad analogy. Prints of the piece of art and sportscards are a better analogy. They restore fine art because, in many cases, it's the only example in existence. There aren't 600 Mona Lisas out there.
Arthur
You're missing my point, which is not to justify what is happening, but to offer one guess as to why things are trending as they are.
On the analogy, the investors I speak of don't care about such nuances and splitting of hairs. They probably don't read message boards either.
Also, for the record, I do not read, collect, or follow comic books. I don't collect fine art either. I collect mostly relatively inexpensive baseball cards (<$20 each) for the enjoyment of it.
Old houses,cars are restored as well. But one would think that if you restore those things with new parts they no longer are original to what was originally created. So they should be labeled with the moniker "restored" not original.
Correct. But this also places emphasis on OEM parts and the price differences vs aftermarket, especially in the classic arenas. Took me a while to track down a correct ‘65 Shelby knob. And paid accordingly. Thank god I didnt need the glove box door and my sig is bold and beautiful!
Same goes with (vins) number matching cars.
It's interesting how all forms of collectibles have their own definitions of restoration/alteration. I don't think any art collector blinks an eye at a Rembrandt being cleaned up, pollution removed, canvass being repaired, preserving the artwork.
Looking at cards the way someone looks at art - preserving a Mantle by removing dirt, stains, etc. and returning it to looking like it did when created wouldn't be a problem and grading it to further preserve it celebrated. A Mantle coming off the printing press in PA can be looked at as Rembrandt putting the final brush stroke on his painting - any preservation should strive to return it to its original condition without alteration from that.
Now trimming, adding paper, repairing holes/tears/dings, soaking to alter, would NOT be acceptable and should be noted as altered.
Trimming is just completely out of the question. The thought of trimming a card makes me cringe. I will buy cards that are factory miscut, or creased or have ink on them, but not trimmed or restored, or altered to make the appearance better.
If anyone wants to hear what modern collectors think of trimming & altering cards for better grades there are new threads on this subject every week over on the BO forum. Its been so bad that not only are they making archived lists of the known trimmed/altered cards in each sport but also an archived list of the growing amount of threads. Its mostly been serial numbered cards to this point because they're easier to track.
Eric
Erikthredd’s MJ Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/publishedset/395035
Erikthredd’s Nike Air Jordan Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/basketball/key-card-sets/nike-poster-cards-michael-jordan-1985-1992/alltimeset/408486
AND HERE WE GO: copy and paste
PWCC Marketplace
Member
PWCC Marketplace's Avatar
Location: Oregon
Posts: 49
pwcc_auctions
Default Alteration vs. Conservation
CC will soon publish our Marketplace Tenets, which describes the rules of engagement for transacting on the PWCC Marketplace and the commitments and responsibilities of all parties involved. Among other things, the Tenets will describe what cards we will allow to be sold on our marketplace and will draw a distinction between cards that were altered and cards that were conserved. Cards that are proven altered through physical evidence are not allowed to be sold, while cards that are proven conserved are indeed allowed to be sold.
In an effort to define an enforceable PWCC policy, we want to open up the dialogue with the community to allow for feedback before our official Tenets are published. Acceptable forms of conservation exist in all collectibles markets, ranging from coins to comics to fine art, and we feel it’s time the trading card market better defines a stance on what is acceptable conservation. The following is a draft of our current understanding of majority opinion, and this is subject to edit.
Conservation. PWCC believes conservation, as defined, to be healthy, sustainable, and supportive of the marketplace and the investors and collectors who participate. Assets that have been conserved can be sold on the PWCC Marketplace.
Conservation is defined as an act which returns an asset closer to its as-manufactured condition but does not otherwise enhance or artificially distance the asset beyond the as-manufactured status. An act which removes a foreign substance from an asset and does so in a way which doesn’t otherwise alter the condition of the as-manufactured product is usually considered acceptable and generally renders the asset worthy of professional grading. Dirt, glue, writing, wax and other foreign substances can be removed from an asset and the result is considered acceptable conservation, so long as the professional Third-Party Authenticators agree the asset is void of unnatural aspects induced as a result of the conservation. Lying flat a warped or bent region of a card (i.e. in a screw down holder), so long as it doesn’t disrupt the card’s natural properties, is generally considered acceptable conservation, whereas pressing a card and thereby changing its as-manufactured properties (i.e. thickness of the card stock) is generally not acceptable and may render the card altered. Laying flat a nonplanar corner, crease, or edge, so long as the card stock is not pressed to a state of artificial thickness, is typically acceptable so long as no other unnatural change to the as-manufactured card stock is discernable.
Alteration. PWCC believes alteration, as defined, is damaging to the marketplace. Altered assets cannot be sold on the PWCC Marketplace unless this detail is disclosed during the sale.
Alteration includes any act which meaningfully renders a change to the as-manufactured qualities of the asset, outside of the normal wear and deterioration inherent to circulation. Any purposeful material addition or material removal to or from the as-manufactured asset, outside of normal wear or environmental degradation, is generally considered an alteration. Trimming, recoloring, autograph retracing, rebuilding of corners or other surfaces, swapping of patches, or any other action which distances a card from its as-manufactured attributes is considered an act of alteration. Altered cards which are stated as such in a transparent nature are permitted for sale on the Marketplace.
Alteration is only ever officially determined by the presence of physical evidence. Speculation is not considered evidence. Evidence of alteration can be determined in two different ways; either in technical review by a reputable Third-Party Authenticator, or when digital content asserts beyond a reasonable doubt that an alteration took place (i.e. before and after photos of trimming, recoloring, etc).
Your comments and feedback would be appreciated. The best way to share feedback is to send me a direct email at betsy@pwccmarketplace.com. I will come back onto this thread to gather feedback periodically, but won't be responding to comments actively. Thank you!
And Nope. Alot of stuff I strongly disagree with mixed with a lot of vague wording such as removing “foreign substances”. Foreign substances is as wide a brush that could be used. Soaking to remove writing and dirt I adamantly disagree with regardless if its pre-war or not.
They’ve lost it.
First, I don't care if it's pre-war or not. There should be no exceptions in my opinion. I realize some cards were more frequently glued into albums, but unless they ALL were, I am not going there. Venezuelans aren't pre-war, should we include them? No.
Second, the above SEEMS to condone solvent soaking (the only way I can think of to remove ink), as long as it's not noticeable. I wonder where "bleaching" comes in? I say it's an alteration, what about PWCC? Chlorine bleach is an acid. I don't know of any other kind of bleach, but I assume they are out there.
Third, Flattening is fine if the card stays the same thickness? I don't understand how it makes a difference how you do it. Of course if a wrinkle disappears while de-warping a card "who knew"?
Moving on to alterations;
Seems pretty obvious, changing the card itself by building up corners, fixing pinholes, recoloring, bleaching(?).
My question is, does the submitter disclose the conservation/alteration before the TPG gets it, or does he/she say "Oh wow, I wasn't aware it was altered, slab it that way I guess" much worse on the soaking/flattening issue (imo), as it says the conservation has to be "so long as it doesn’t disrupt the card’s natural properties". If correctly done, conservation is then undetectable? I suppose the defect might be only partially removed, improving eye appeal and then disclosing that the item has been conserved.
I think one thing is certain, there are a lot of conserved/altered cards in TPG holders, and there will be many more in the future.
The big change as I see it is, you will now be able to bid on cards that have been "worked on" and are unable to fool the graders. Certainly be the only way I'll ever afford a 52 Mantle. Who am I kidding, not even then.
As with just about everything, I think it's about money. By excluding conserved/altered cards from the marketplace we are leaving a lot of money out of the equation.
Have fun collecting!
Well that cinched it. I will never spend a penny with PWCC again.
On a separate note, regarding soaking. I collect 1960s Venezuelan Topps and virtually all of those were pasted into albums at some point. I have on occasion read about them being soaked to remove paste and album paper residue from their backs. This is something I would never do, and I would never knowingly buy a Venie that had been soaked.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
These definitions should be the purview of TPG. That PWCC is both defining and also auctioning = greed! IMO.
I hear you, Dan. I can honestly say I’m “torn” when it comes to old school paninis and venies.
I sort of classify them like pre-war due to album storage but the glue always seems to be non-solvent which leads to the rampant paper loss. And I’d rather have album back than paper loss thus all together eliminating the need to soak.
My thinking is along the same lines as LOTSOS...if after a card is cut and done with the assembly line, if something then gets on it after this process, I am okay with removing...so fingerprints on chrome cards and gum or wax residue from the card touching the gum or the wax that holds the pack flaps closed -- okay to remove those as the card was not cut with those on it...the refractor and chrome scratches...not sure which way I lean on that topic...does when the scratch occurred play a role in whether it is okay to buff the scratch out? Seems that may be going too far...I think removing wax stains, gum stains and finger prints are fine, since the card was not created with those on it
Just when you think you've heard it all. Here comes PWCC, making up the rules. The card collectors constitution.
PWCC is the best at doing what they do. They need to recognize that this new stuff with the stickers and their so called “tenets” will only hurt their reputation. I have to admit that I am an addict and they are my supplier, but they are losing much goodwill with me on this.
Seems as though this is a very polarizing topic. It will be very interesting to see if publicly disclosed “conserved” cards sell for the same as original condition cards.
Then if they don’t will any mention of “conservation” be omitted from future listings? I mean it is an honor system. If I get a card privately “conserved” and then consign with out disclosing who is the wiser?
Kevin
The only reasoning I can fathom that pwcc would publish something so egregious, damning and risk their reputation and market dominance is to protect itself from some possible past transgressions as a possible defense.
“Well, it’s company policy that doing anything and everything but trimming to conserve a card is fine.”
Why else risk the empire?
I would say that MANY were pasted into albums, but no way "virtually all".
Nice ones are hard to find.
I do not think it was disclosed on that ‘52 Mantle or even edited to add once it was proven and admitted.
IMO, it should have been pulled and a fresh auction initiated fully disclosing the restoration, err conservation.
You’re right, Joe. You caught me exaggerating.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
I think PWCC is purposely misusing the term conservation in an attempt to gain more consignments.
Conserving an item is when one attempts to prevent further damage from occurring to an item. ex. neutralizing acids within the card from environmental pollution or having been stored in acidic holders. conserving would be to make the cardboard stable.
altering an item is an attempt to improve the asthetics of a card. there are many ways to do this including soaking/pressing/trimming, corner repair, crease repair etc.
PWCC is trying to twist the meaning of conservation to include alterations in the definition. very shady. their business will take a hit from this.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Does anyone know if PSA was aware of the conservation?
After all I am the exaggeration police! ;-)
Hope you are doing well. I don't see you posting much these days.
I’m doing great, Joe! Sent you a pm a while back. Hope you’re well too.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
As far as defining what is conservation vs alteration, I am sure (as we have already seen) the opinions will vary.
I think it all boils down to sales. I also think there are plenty of dealers/sellers completely on board with the new policy.
People have been "doctoring" cards for a long time. The "good" ones are already in our collections, even if we are buying only "expertly" examined and graded items.
I am sure there are a lot of cards sitting in boxes that won't pass examination and the owners, and others, who can make money on them want to get them onto the auction block.
As long as the item is being disclosed as conserved/altered, it should be up to the buyer if he/she wants it for their collection. My fear is these items will almost always be the result of at least one failed attempt at grading.
My question to the collectors out there is;
Would you purchase an altered/conserved copy of your "white whale" if it was priced right?
The reason I am asking is that just last night, I saw an episode of "Pawn Stars" and a guy came in with a WWII military knife that had been cleaned up with steel wool. Rick didn't want it, BUT if it had been worth more money, I'll bet he would have offered SOMETHING for it. I know it's not the SAME as a baseball card, but really it IS. The difference is that it was obvious that it was cleaned up.
How about a 52 Topps Mantle that looked like an 8 that had been soaked in water to remove water based glue?
A 67 Stand-up or 71 Greatest Moments of your favorite player with (undetectable with the naked eye) recolored corners?
A PERFECT modern day low pop rookie that had been wiped to remove wax? Oops, already in our sets.
You would at least have the option of having an attractive example of a "key" card in your set at a fraction of the cost.
My Killebrew set is almost complete and I don't have any "needs" like the above. WELL maybe a 1964 complete Bazooka box.......can't find one anywhere! If I found one that was graded "Authentic Altered" I would be tempted to use it as a "filler" if I could get it cheap enough.
Will PSA ever let you add a card like this to your registry set? After all, these are authentic items.
Assuming you didn't get my reply :-(
This is a very interesting question indeed.
Unfortunately, I think the line will be drawn based on what can and cannot be detected. The rest is just hand wringing. We can shout all day that X is abhorrent but if it's impossible to be detected then it's pretty much a moot point.
I think as a group we should concentrate more on the stuff that can be detected.
Arthur
I believe PWCC should stick to their current pillar: “We at PWCC are not professional graders so we trust in the reputation and opinion of 3rd party professional graders. Professional grading is subjective and different 3rd party graders will often disagree over the grading on a single card.”
If something comes to their attention, then PWCC should ask the seller to defer to the original TPG. If the seller refuses to do so, then PWCC should disclose all events/what they know and point to the pillar again, or refuse to auction the card if the seller refuses full disclosure. If TPG reviews the card, then PWCC has done its job and should auction the reviewed card because it done its job within its present pillar. Then caveat emptor.
Good point " If something comes to their attention, then PWCC should ask the seller to defer to the original TPG." if there is evidence that a card is listed deceptively/incorrectly, what happens then?
Another can of worms.
Knowing what we know now, the big question is what will PSA do if submitted for review?
Assume PSA has no clue about the "conservation" - but it is brought to their attention when submitting for official review. If they decide to re-slab it as "Authentic" or "Altered" without a numerical grade, won't they refund the difference between the current grade and final grade after review? Plus you get the card back which is a beauty (conservation or not...)
PSA has another option which is to keep the card and refund the market value -- which might be less than what this card will sell for at PWCC and their quality sticker... This would be the worst case scenario...
And if PSA sticks to their guns and keeps the assigned grade -- then you have a verified card that has officially been reviewed by one of the most respected TPG for cards...
If I had money to burn, I would roll the dice and buy this card and submit it for official review under PSA's Guarantee of Grade and Authenticity policy...
Realistically, how many submitters are going to tell TPG that a card has been "fixed"?
How often is PSA going to buy counterfeits?
Lots and lots of worms here.
I would expect that a guarantee by a TPG is actually “covered” by some sort of insurance policy after a deductible of some sort. That would be the safest way to protect the TPG company.
As to what a TPG might do when presented with evidence after the fact of efforts to alter/conserve/whatever you want to call it a card is open to speculation. What would be done with the PSA 8 Wagner if it were submitted for a reholdering?
One of the primary ideas of TPG grading was to distinguish between untouched cards versus cards that someone tried to dress up. If it is untouched, or no evidence of touching can be found, then they assign a grade number. If not, then it’s authentic but altered.
The selling entity is trying to find a way to increase the selling price of a card that someone has adjusted the appearance of by introducing a different word. Nothing more.
I think it will be a sad day for the hobby if this actually catches on. All I can say for sure is that this is one collector who isn’t going to fall for it.
Dave
Bottom line PWCC is a business. This is a marketing ploy to earn them more revenue. I am still upset with their high shipping costs squeezing extra dollars out of me. But like everyone else, I will continue to purchase the cards I need when they list them.
Paging Joe Orlando,paging Joe Orlando. Please pick up Joe. It would be nice if him or someone else at PSA could chime in on this matter with their opinion and also if PSA knowingly put a numerical grade on the Mantle in question or if it just "slipped through the cracks"?
This is what I also want to know. Were they aware of it before grading it? If not aware, has this been brought to their attention and what is their stance on it now? Maybe they do not want it auctioned off because they might be on the hook based on their Guarantee of Grade and Authenticity policy...
I think it is very rational to say PSA was not aware. It should come as zero surprise to many of us that there are card doctors out there who are good enough to slip some work past the goalie, so to speak. When that happens, it should come as equally no surprise that the doctors will seek to sell their work via the most popular platforms. This is no revelation.
There has been a mechanism and protocol long in place for rectifying these mistakes; one can simply send their card in question to PSA, who will buy it back if indeed it is found to have gotten through the system.
Expecting graders or an eBay seller to spend hours and hours per card, scouring the internet for ironclad, 100% accurate photos of a card in a past state is just not realistic, from a pragmatic business standpoint. It is also worth noting that not every piece of armchair internet sleuthing winds up being accurate, while some certainly are.
As to PWCC's opinion on alterations, that's just one opinion in a roiling sea of opinions, and life is far too short to let opinions cause aggravation in a hobby— which is an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure and relaxation.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
Mantle sold for 58.8K
It seems PWCC has officially doubled down. Brent replied to posts on instagram last night that ¨its possible this card experienced some level of conservation based on before and after images weve seen, but in our opinion, acts of conservation are not uncommon in the market and dont warrant mention in an auction description.¨
I guess transparency to the buyer is now out the window. He has acknowledged the card is altered, or in his spin, conserved, yet figures it is common and any potential buyer doesnt need to know.
damning....
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.