MUST READ TRIMMING THREAD: COMC- HawkDynasty,cccardfactory,LORDSTANLEY2012|PWCC|ih8ca

[pip]

Originally Posted by superdan49

BH-

1) You claimed that the majority of vintage collectors believe cleaned cards to be acceptable or even preferred. You cited Net54 posters as examples of this. Name three Net54 posters who find the PWCC/Gary Moser bleaching used on dozens of cards uncovered in the Mantle thread to be acceptable.

2) Based on the false consensus you cited, you proceeded to tell BO members to accept cleaned cards because they not only look better, but everybody else will laugh at them in the future if they don't get on board. You used the example of casino chip collectors to drive home this last point. Everyone else is okay with it, therefore you should be too, or else you are a luddite. Clear argumentum ad populum.

3) Amazingly, this thread has been around longer than you've been collecting cards. You claim you began buying cards last month after a 20 year hiatus. If you truly care about altered cards in this hobby, you should read up more before chiming in as if you are an expert. You're clearly a quick study as you've learned more in three weeks about bumping cards, the nuances of PSA grading, the limits of what alterations TPGs can detect, etc., than many folks here have in years. However, you clearly didn't read through this thread, because literally nobody was discussing cleaned cards here until you brought it up.

In short, start your own thread about cleaning cards if you'd like. That'll be my last word on this.

Bo Hunter's rate of assimilation is nothing less than miraculous. Some might say impossible. It points to the likelihood that he's lying. And, I might add, he doesn't pay for his purchases on eBay. Low life loser.

[Bo Hunter]

Originally Posted by superdan49

BH-

1) You claimed that the majority of vintage collectors believe cleaned cards to be acceptable or even preferred. You cited Net54 posters as examples of this. Name three Net54 posters who find the PWCC/Gary Moser bleaching used on dozens of cards uncovered in the Mantle thread to be acceptable.

You're putting words in my mouth that don't taste very good. Depending on the level of "cleaning" we're talking about, it shouldn't be a shocking claim for someone to state that the majority of collectors believe cleaning a card to be acceptable. I would even go so far as to claim that at least 95% of collectors would be OK with at least some level of cleaning.

Originally Posted by superdan49

2) Based on the false consensus you cited, you proceeded to tell BO members to accept cleaned cards because they not only look better, but everybody else will laugh at them in the future if they don't get on board. You used the example of casino chip collectors to drive home this last point. Everyone else is okay with it, therefore you should be too, or else you are a luddite. Clear argumentum ad populum.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth here. You guys can hold whatever opinions you want, do whatever you want with your cards, look down on others with dissenting opinions, whatever you want to do. I'm merely pointing out the inevitability of where this train is headed now that we know cards can be cleaned without detection. You can't hold TPGs to unrealistic standards and they aren't going away anytime soon. You can either get off the train or you can stay on it. But the train is heading to a land where cleaned cards are the norm. You don't have to like it though.

Originally Posted by superdan49

3) Amazingly, this thread has been around longer than you've been collecting cards. You claim you began buying cards last month after a 20 year hiatus. If you truly care about altered cards in this hobby, you should read up more before chiming in as if you are an expert. You're clearly a quick study as you've learned more in three weeks about bumping cards, the nuances of PSA grading, the limits of what alterations TPGs can detect, etc., than many folks here have in years. However, you clearly didn't read through this thread, because literally nobody was discussing cleaned cards here until you brought it up.

In short, start your own thread about cleaning cards if you'd like. That'll be my last word on this.

Fair criticisms. I've read through a little more than half of this thread so far, and dozens of other threads (some here, some elsewhere). I definitely have more to read, but I also have a pretty good grasp of the accusations fired and the spectrum of views on the topic. I'm in agreement with most people here on most of the topics. But I don't think puppeting the obvious provides much value to the conversation. No one wants to read through thousands of pages where everyone just high fives each other with the same views like one big circle jerk over the accused parties. I believe there are important distinctions that are being glossed over by some and felt those were worth calling out.

Apparently that warrants the pitchforks from some of you. Have at it. My skin is pretty thick. I'll be fine.

I brought up the cleaned cards topic because at least a few of the more recently posted scans of cards that received bumps look as though they've simply been cleaned. Some of the cards look noticeably better to me in their PSA 10 holders than they did in their 9s and 8s. I'm talking about the cards that were not trimmed, but just received bumps. Also, most of those cards look like they were pretty harshly graded in the first place.

[pip]

That PSA 10 is beyond pathetic. It's as if the left edge was cut randomly with an angle like that. No rulers are needed on this one. Just a pair of eyes.

Originally Posted by corndog

[pip]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

You're putting words in my mouth that don't taste very good. Depending on the level of "cleaning" we're talking about, it shouldn't be a shocking claim for someone to state that the majority of collectors believe cleaning a card to be acceptable. I would even go so far as to claim that at least 95% of collectors would be OK with at least some level of cleaning.

Maybe the imaginary collectors in your head.

[Bo Hunter]

Originally Posted by pip

Bo Hunter's rate of assimilation is nothing less than miraculous. Some might say impossible. It points to the likelihood that he's lying.

Is it really though? Your conspiracy theory seems unwarranted. Reading comprehension is our friend. If you think there's anything noteworthy about my ability to process information, stick around.

[Bo Hunter]

Originally Posted by pip

Maybe the imaginary collectors in your head.

Why don't you start a poll then? Ask what percentage of people are ok with wiping off a fingerprint from a chrome card.

[Bo Hunter]

Originally Posted by pip

Low life loser.

Don't hate me just became my user name is better than yours.

[ThoseBackPages]

any news from COMC on the selling of trimmed raw cards on their website?

[critthnkr365]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

Your math problem wasn't well stated. But grading the same card wrong twice is just the square of grading it wrong once. So it would be a 0.91125%^2 = 0.0083% or 1 in 12,043 chance of getting slabbed wrong twice in a row. Not 1 in 100,000.

On the second point, you're mistaken. The outcome probabilities for each of the 4 events I gave are additive, and they all sum to 1. In order to calculate the probability of a card being misgraded, the easiest approach is to calculate the probability for each permutation that results in a card being misgraded and sum them up. You could also calculate the probability of a card being correctly graded twice and subtract that from 1 to arrive at the same answer.

Regardless, I take your point that it's extremely difficult for a card to be misgraded twice then get a bump the 3rd time around. But that doesn't give us a smoking gun with respect to TPG corruption. It more likely informs us that something was probably done to the card to improve its appearance. It could also be the case that grading criteria has changed over time, particularly within sets as more cards get graded. One of the most confusing grading standards I encounter, and one which seems to be very inconsistent, is with respect to "hairs" on edges. Sometimes they are graded as a PSA 10, sometimes they are docked for it. I have a Bo Jackson 1986 Topps with the same issue, graded as a PSA 10, but if I were to crack & resubmit it 10 times, it probably comes back with a different grade half the time. I think different graders seem to disagree somewhat on how much certain flaws matter and sometimes if they are even "flaws" to begin with. This card fits that same narrative as far as I can tell. People who submit large volumes of cards for grading often learn these subtle nuances well. They probably get a pretty good feel for which cards they can get a bump out of. I have a few myself that I plan to crack and resubmit that have a very good chance at receiving a bump. If I'm selective enough and have a good enough eye for it, I ought to be able to identify cards that would be good candidates to get bumps out of.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

After reading PSA's website once again and thinking through Bo Hunter's explanations, I believe his probability calculations to be correct and mine to be wrong. Therefore, I am editing this post so others aren't misled. To see how to calculate the probability of a card being graded incorrectly twice, see posts 1655 and 1661 of this thread. Post 1711 below also has what this post originally had in it before I deleted it. Sorry for any confusion I caused.

[pip]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

Why don't you start a poll then? Ask what percentage of people are ok with wiping off a fingerprint from a chrome card.

Reductio ad absurdum.

[Bo Hunter]

Originally Posted by critthnkr365

The discussion on this topic has just gone surreal while I've been away all day at work. I'm going to respond this one last time, and then I'm done.

As noted before, my read of the PSA grading process is that a card is not graded and holdered until 3 graders unanimously agree on the grade. They keep adding graders/verifiers until 3 agree. The only opinions that matter in the end are those last 3 who unanimously agree. No other opinions of graders before them are counted. Therefore, all 3 graders responsible for the card's grade can only be all correct or all wrong. One can't possibly be correct and two wrong - they would not all agree on the same grade in that situation and another grader and verifier would be called.

Therefore, assuming an error rate of 15 percent, the possibility that all are wrong would be 0.15*0.15*0.15 = 0.003375 = 0.3375 percent, which is to say that the possibility that all three would be correct is 100-0.3375 = 99.7%. The possibility that two sets of 3 unanimous graders get it wrong on two different occasions would be 0.00001139. 1 over that number is 87,792, which I miscalculated to be closer to 100,000.

Which brings us to your outcomes 2 and 3:

For outcomes 2 & 3, we need two more graders to get it wrong; one to break the tie and the other to verify it. The probability of this resulting in a card making its way into a slab that it doesn't belong in is then (0.85*0.15* + 0.15*0.85)*0.15*0.15 = 0.0057375.

You appear to have included the probabilities of the graders who were correct in this scenario. But again, the correct ones were overruled by those who were wrong, so the grader with the correct vote does not factor into the final grade. It's only the three who were ultimately wrong. Whether the others not counted were correct or wrong would be irrelevant.

And why you added 0.0057375 and 0.003375, which I tried to point out to you in my previous post, is lost on me (I was not questioning the summation of your four stage 1 outcomes, which added to 1). By adding 0.0057375 and 0.003375 together, you not only included more than three graders, you included graders who were overruled and whose vote did not count, which again, makes zero sense to me. Only the last 3 graders who agree are responsible for the grade on the flip, if I'm correctly reading the PSA's grading process at the link I previously provided. Again, they are unanimous - all 3 are either right or all 3 are wrong.

I do not know the accuracy of the graders. 15 percent seems reasonable to me as it appears to be well accepted as an approximation across all sectors where 100 percent visual inspection is utilized. You can search it for yourself. I'm not wasting any more of my time on this subject. If anyone thinks the graders are better than that, then fine, we can use that number. But know that if you assume they are better than 15 percent, then it would be even more improbable for a card to be graded wrongly, and twice so.

This is why when I used to submit cards, I would only try regrading a card once if I didn't agree with the grade. After two tries, if the graders didn't agree with me, then chances are I was wrong and they were right. No sense wasting any more money on a third try.

My aim in posting in this thread is not to take sides, but rather to further the conversation, share what I've learned, and learn from others. I keep hearing things like "this is rare" or "this is improbable." What does that mean in the present context? To some, 1 in 100 is rare. To others, it's not rare until it's 1 in a million. I thought it would be good to actually try to put some numbers on rarity, so at least we're all understanding what we all mean by "rare" in the present context.

I apologize if I offended you by correcting your calculations. That wasn't my aim. But your understanding of how to apply probability theory to this problem is flawed. You don't know what you're talking about. You are overlooking permutations and conflating dependence & independence. If you'd like to understand where you're going wrong, send me a PM. I'd be happy to explain it to you. But no one wants to read a math fight in this thread, so I'm happy to drop the debate.

[Bo Hunter]

Originally Posted by pip

Reductio ad absurdum.

That's the entire point. "Cleaning cards" is a pretty wide spectrum.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by HarryLime

...I don't care if one of my cards has been old school undetectable altered. I'm sure that's an unpopular opinion but I just don't care. I'm comfortably living the rest of my life and not knowing if one of my cards was water soaked. But everyone is different.

Arthur

But are you comfortable paying a premium for highly graded cards? Clearly the ongoing fraud is being perpetrated for money.

[critthnkr365]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

I apologize if I offended you by correcting your calculations. That wasn't my aim. But your understanding of how to apply probability theory to this problem is flawed. You don't know what you're talking about. You are overlooking permutations and conflating dependence & independence. If you'd like to understand where you're going wrong, send me a PM. I'd be happy to explain it to you. But no one wants to read a math fight in this thread, so I'm happy to drop the debate.

Fair enough. No apology necessary. I am not offended.

Perhaps what would be better here for all of us would be for a Grader 3 and verifier to come forward and break the tie, so to speak. I'm fine with being called wrong. This is not about me. I think it's more important for collectors to see the probabilities of outcomes to fully grasp/comprehend the arguments both sides of the trimming/grading issue are making.

Edited to say that there is no need for a Grader 3 to weigh in. After reading PSA's website once again and thinking through Bo Hunter's explanations, I believe his probability calculations to be correct and mine to be wrong. Therefore, I am editing this post so others aren't misled. To see how to calculate the probability of a card being graded incorrectly twice, see posts 1655 and 1661 of this thread. Sorry for any confusion I caused.

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by pip

Maybe the imaginary collectors in your head.

I somehow doubt he ran a poll on this, LOL...

[pip]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

That's the entire point. "Cleaning cards" is a pretty wide spectrum.

Even after looking that up, you still have no idea what it means.

Back out of any more Ebay purchases recently?

[Brye86]

So basically after months and months of this garbage. PWCC is still alive and well.. So called investigations have been on going. The Trimmers haven't been brought to justice. PSA and BGS haven't announced anything and pretend like nothing is happening. Honestly, what's the point anymore? You point out trimmed and altered cards but yet nothing really happens. It's taken down and resold at some point later..

[Soxfanguy]

Originally Posted by Brye86

So basically after months and months of this garbage. PWCC is still alive and well.. So called investigations have been on going. The Trimmers haven't been brought to justice. PSA and BGS haven't announced anything and pretend like nothing is happening. Honestly, what's the point anymore? You point out trimmed and altered cards but yet nothing really happens. It's taken down and resold at some point later..

Things move slow in the industry

Plus the FBI is visiting some of our friends

[Bo Hunter]

Originally Posted by pip

Even after looking that up, you still have no idea what it means.

Back out of any more Ebay purchases recently?

Nice try.

[Saraste]

Originally Posted by critthnkr365

Fair enough. No apology necessary. I am not offended.

Perhaps what would be better here for all of us would be for a Grader 3 and verifier to come forward and break the tie, so to speak. I'm fine with being called wrong. This is not about me. I think it's more important for collectors to see the probabilities of outcomes to fully grasp/comprehend the arguments both sides of the trimming/grading issue are making.

Paging Calculusdork!

[pip]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

Nice try.

More clueless with every post.

[corndog]

PSA Cert #25243700

1966 Topps Phillies Rookies #254

Value gain of $840.37

This card was purchased by Ebay ID card-buyer from Ebay seller PWCC as a PSA 8 for $169.62 on November 11, 2015.
PWCC link: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1183280

Same card was sold by PWCC as a PSA 9 for $1,009.99 on July 19, 2016.
PWCC Marketplace link: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1308289

Yellow circles are print, fiber, or chipping identifiers.
Red boxes identify trimmed top and bottom edges.

[JustMoe]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

any news from COMC on the selling of trimmed raw cards on their website?

This thread was getting pretty intense - thanks for the quick humor break, it was needed.

[3124508 on COMC]

Originally Posted by pip

More clueless with every post.

He calls himself Mr. Donkey, so not sure what you’re expecting.

[auburn35]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

You're putting words in my mouth that don't taste very good. Depending on the level of "cleaning" we're talking about, it shouldn't be a shocking claim for someone to state that the majority of collectors believe cleaning a card to be acceptable. I would even go so far as to claim that at least 95% of collectors would be OK with at least some level of cleaning.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth here. You guys can hold whatever opinions you want, do whatever you want with your cards, look down on others with dissenting opinions, whatever you want to do. I'm merely pointing out the inevitability of where this train is headed now that we know cards can be cleaned without detection. You can't hold TPGs to unrealistic standards and they aren't going away anytime soon. You can either get off the train or you can stay on it. But the train is heading to a land where cleaned cards are the norm. You don't have to like it though.

Fair criticisms. I've read through a little more than half of this thread so far, and dozens of other threads (some here, some elsewhere). I definitely have more to read, but I also have a pretty good grasp of the accusations fired and the spectrum of views on the topic. I'm in agreement with most people here on most of the topics. But I don't think puppeting the obvious provides much value to the conversation. No one wants to read through thousands of pages where everyone just high fives each other with the same views like one big circle jerk over the accused parties. I believe there are important distinctions that are being glossed over by some and felt those were worth calling out.

Apparently that warrants the pitchforks from some of you. Have at it. My skin is pretty thick. I'll be fine.

I brought up the cleaned cards topic because at least a few of the more recently posted scans of cards that received bumps look as though they've simply been cleaned. Some of the cards look noticeably better to me in their PSA 10 holders than they did in their 9s and 8s. I'm talking about the cards that were not trimmed, but just received bumps. Also, most of those cards look like they were pretty harshly graded in the first place.

I'm always open to new thoughts and opinions but your phrasing and declarations just stood out as being really similar to the garbage that PWCC, PSA... are trying to force on the hobby.
Conservation (PWCC terminology), without disclosure, I don't believe is a good direction for that train (PSA - Joe Orlando reference) to be moving.

You mention "cleaning", that's undetectable is going to be or already is an acceptable practice. We have seen numerous examples of "cleaning" that should have been detected (bleaching, erasing, recoloring....) pass through the various TPG systems, so even "detectable" cleaning is being overlooked. We have also seen several examples of "cleaning" that was detected (cards graded as altered), only to have been "uncleaned" and had the "altered" distinction removed. When you can't trust TPG's ability to accurately offer opinions, changes in the grading process need to be implemented to gain back that trust. Just rewording the acceptable cleaning methods, isn't going to help the grading "experts", correctly do their job.

You have also been mixing in modern examples (finger print removal from chrome) to highlight how various cleaning methods are accepted, while others are frowned upon. Like everything, there's going to be disagreement on those acceptable methods, which likely even vary, among different types of card stocks.
For modern; wiping finger prints or dirt is drastically different than wiping a sloppy auto from a card and then adding a forgery. In similar fashion, soaking a vintage card in water to removal glue/tape/dirt is different than bleaching out a stain or recoloring print defects.

You're very firm in the opinion that undetected "cleaning" is the going to be the accepted norm but seem against trimming, which appears to be equally difficult for grading companies to detect (at least for some repeat submitters of trimmed cards).

Curious why you seem to be in support of one currently "undetectable" alteration method (cleaning) but oppose the other currently "undetectable" alteration (trimming)? I view both (deceptive cleaning) and trimming as problematic for the trading card hobby.