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

[Bo Hunter]

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

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

If you're going to dig that hard, then you'd also know that I'm not a "PBM" and you'd know my academic background and profession as well. Care to weigh in on whether or not I'm lying about being new here or about my profession?

Am I going to wake up tomorrow with you outside my house in full camo gear, stealthily taking pictures of my family next? Noble detective work you're doing there buddy.

[3124508 on COMC]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

If you're going to dig that hard, then you'd also know that I'm not a "PBM" and you'd know my academic background and profession as well. Care to weigh in on whether or not I'm lying about being new here or about my profession?

Am I going to wake up tomorrow with you outside my house in full camo gear, stealthily taking pictures of my family next? Noble detective work you're doing there buddy.

The extent of my detective work was checking my email.

[Bo Hunter]

Originally Posted by auburn35

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.

Good questions and observations. The lines between each of the above "alterations" are fairly blurry from where I sit. I can give specific examples of cards that I'm ok with and could cast a vote on any given card with a thumbs up or a thumbs down, but I don't pretend to have any large scale solutions or ideas of merit surrounding the TPGs processes that could take us to a destination where everyone is happy. I've been operating under the assumption that most trimmed cards could be detected but that the TPGs are just too rushed to catch them. Many here seem convinced that they're complicit in the crimes though.

I'm not sure why I'd be in support of one currently "undetectable alteration method" and not another. I'd probably have to take it on a case by case basis and just see where it landed for me. Has anyone put forth any ideas about how to address these challenges? Are there any proposed solutions to the larger problem? Seems to me like whatever methods the TPGs choose to address the problem with will always result in a tradeoff of increased false positives (I just came across another thread where people are complaining that they're being TOO picky now on trimmed cards and rejecting a decent percentage of their pack fresh subs for not meeting minimum size requirements). This is a classic problem in statistics/AI for things like cancer diagnosis and image recognition classification. There is always a tradeoff between false positives and true negatives. Finding the right balance to maximize the percentage of happy customers is not easy.

[Bruins1993]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

Finding the right balance to maximize the percentage of happy customers is not easy.

Its not an honest or ethical TPG job of keeping people happy with grades. Also, the TPG customers might be happy but the scammed buyers from there might not be!

[auburn35]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

Good questions and observations. The lines between each of the above "alterations" are fairly blurry from where I sit. I can give specific examples of cards that I'm ok with and could cast a vote on any given card with a thumbs up or a thumbs down, but I don't pretend to have any large scale solutions or ideas of merit surrounding the TPGs processes that could take us to a destination where everyone is happy. I've been operating under the assumption that most trimmed cards could be detected but that the TPGs are just too rushed to catch them. Many here seem convinced that they're complicit in the crimes though.

I'm not sure why I'd be in support of one currently "undetectable alteration method" and not another. I'd probably have to take it on a case by case basis and just see where it landed for me. Has anyone put forth any ideas about how to address these challenges? Are there any proposed solutions to the larger problem? Seems to me like whatever methods the TPGs choose to address the problem with will always result in a tradeoff of increased false positives (I just came across another thread where people are complaining that they're being TOO picky now on trimmed cards and rejecting a decent percentage of their pack fresh subs for not meeting minimum size requirements). This is a classic problem in statistics/AI for things like cancer diagnosis and image recognition classification. There is always a tradeoff between false positives and true negatives. Finding the right balance to maximize the percentage of happy customers is not easy.

There have been several threads/posts/emails.... with proposed solutions and as one would expect, the opinions vary on the needed, specific improvements. More transparency is one of the most common requests and also something the TPG's seem to be strongly against.
PSA has banned customers, for asking questions about their various scandals. BGS, similarly have ignored customers inquiries and suggestions about the topic(s).

The blurry lines you reference is why more transparency (disclosure) would benefit the hobby. While you're ok with cleaning (undetected) but not trimming, there's other groups opposing both (likely the majority), approving of both or maybe even someone in favor of trimming but against cleaning. Neither spectrum is getting the information they require, without some changes to the process.

To borrow one of your talking points. Sit back and continue to absorb all the information you can, while the train is moving forward. If headed in the right direction, I'm sure you will see that TPG's involvement with the presented issues is more than just bad work, resulting from being busy.

[DunceMode]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

You keep claiming prices aren’t decreasing. Obviously as more and more high graded cards appear, the demand for high graded cards decreases. Why wouldn’t that be relevant?

These are facts. The data is out there for anyone to uncover.

[DunceMode]

Originally Posted by pip

The first is part of the normal production process according to the hypothetical you describe. The second is after market, after factory alteration and manipulation in order for some greedy, cheating bastard to get rich at the expense of a ripped off collector. As I mentioned before, if you have any tolerance for the latter, then you're part of the problem. In fact, pursuant to some of the allegations here, you might even be THE problem.

But don't you see that in both cases, you end up with the exact same card trimmed in the exact same manner on the exact same equipment? How could you possibly come up with such divergent conclusions on the two scenarios? This is insanity defined.

[critthnkr365]

Originally Posted by DunceMode

But don't you see that in both cases, you end up with the exact same card trimmed in the exact same manner on the exact same equipment? How could you possibly come up with such divergent conclusions on the two scenarios? This is insanity defined.

The factory cut card was cut honestly in this hypothetical. The aftermarket cut card was cut to deceive in this hypothetical. That distinction matters to me.

[DunceMode]

Originally Posted by critthnkr365

The factory cut card was cut honestly in this hypothetical. The aftermarket cut card was cut to deceive in this hypothetical. That distinction matters to me.

I guess I'm more pragmatic than y'all because the end result is the only thing that matters to me. "Motivations" are irrelevant, imo.

[corndog]

Originally Posted by DunceMode

But don't you see that in both cases, you end up with the exact same card trimmed in the exact same manner on the exact same equipment? How could you possibly come up with such divergent conclusions on the two scenarios? This is insanity defined.

The hypothetical would never occur in the first place. A cutter operator is not going to go back and retrim cards. What gets put into packs is what you get. After opened, anything done to the card to improve it's condition is an alterations.

It's not rocket science.

[DunceMode]

Originally Posted by corndog

The hypothetical would never occur in the first place. A cutter operator is not going to go back and retrim cards. What gets put into packs is what you get. After opened, anything done to the card to improve it's condition is an alterations.

It's not rocket science.

It's a thought experiment meant to demonstrate that these things live on a continuum. It's not always so black and white.

[HarryLime]

Originally Posted by Bo Hunter

Good questions and observations. The lines between each of the above "alterations" are fairly blurry from where I sit. I can give specific examples of cards that I'm ok with and could cast a vote on any given card with a thumbs up or a thumbs down, but I don't pretend to have any large scale solutions or ideas of merit surrounding the TPGs processes that could take us to a destination where everyone is happy. I've been operating under the assumption that most trimmed cards could be detected but that the TPGs are just too rushed to catch them. Many here seem convinced that they're complicit in the crimes though.

I'm not sure why I'd be in support of one currently "undetectable alteration method" and not another. I'd probably have to take it on a case by case basis and just see where it landed for me. Has anyone put forth any ideas about how to address these challenges? Are there any proposed solutions to the larger problem? Seems to me like whatever methods the TPGs choose to address the problem with will always result in a tradeoff of increased false positives (I just came across another thread where people are complaining that they're being TOO picky now on trimmed cards and rejecting a decent percentage of their pack fresh subs for not meeting minimum size requirements). This is a classic problem in statistics/AI for things like cancer diagnosis and image recognition classification. There is always a tradeoff between false positives and true negatives. Finding the right balance to maximize the percentage of happy customers is not easy.

I think you're taking too scientific of an approach to the cleaning of cards practice. I agree with you that, obviously, some methods are undetectable and almost certainly completely acceptable (you mentioned wiping a fingerprint off a chrome card). However, just because one method is undetectable and acceptable doesn't mean all undetectable methods will be acceptable.

I'm not coming at you confrontationally so if I'm misrepresenting your opinion please correct me. I think you're misjudging what the collective hobby will feel about undetectable alterations in the future. While there have certainly been new changes to the age-old alteration argument lately, the underlying premise hasn't changed -- whether detectable or not, any alterations to a card's appearance are frowned upon and it's easier to talk about what is acceptable, since that list is so short. Even among vintage collectors, a water soak is not 100% condoned. Anything more disruptive than that is overwhelming majority frowned upon.

So the question becomes: is this going to change in the future if certain methods, that are more disruptive than a water soak, become undetectable? I don't believe it will. Just like now, where we have Dick Towle running his business, no one talks about it and if someone were to bring it up they would almost certainly be chastised for it, those methods will be viewed negatively in the future even if they're undetectable. That may seem illogical. After all, how can you be against something that you don't know exists?

The answer is, unfortunately: denial. We'll regress to where we were before BODA went to work and collectors will convince themselves that the problems have been solved and whatever nefarious deeds there are that might exist in the hobby, happen at such an infrequent rate that they're surely safe. "It won't happen to me."

I know no one wants to read that. I know people will say that it's impossible because too much has been exposed. Or we can just run through the usual "HarryLime has an agenda and strange views on things." Whatever. But I'm telling you, like it or not, collectors want grading to exist, whether it's a sham or not. There's nothing anyone can do to tear that down. I'm not saying I condone that viewpoint, I'm just following the thread to its natural conclusion. Folks have been in denial for the last decade before all this went down. They'll jump right back into that boat again.

Anyway, commence your attacks.

Arthur

[corndog]

PSA Cert #25243703

1979 Topps Ozzie Smith #116

Value gain of $707.50

Current PSA Registry Sets:
This cert is currently in Set Registry inventory and is featured in one or more sets, including LStone4951's 1979 Topps Hall of Fame Set.

This card was purchased by Ebay ID card-buyer from Ebay seller mkmoe23 as a PSA 8 for $102.50 on October 11, 2015.
VCP link: https://vintagecardprices.com/card/b...=&limit=999999

Same card was sold by PWCC as a PSA 9 for $810.00 on April 17, 2016.
PWCC Marketplace link: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1266346

Yellow circles are print, fiber, or chipping identifiers.
Red box identifies trimmed right edge. No back image provided with first sale data

[LVDan]

Originally Posted by HarryLime

The answer is, unfortunately: denial. We'll regress to where we were before BODA went to work and collectors will convince themselves that the problems have been solved and whatever nefarious deeds there are that might exist in the hobby, happen at such an infrequent rate that they're surely safe. "It won't happen to me."

I know no one wants to read that. I know people will say that it's impossible because too much has been exposed. Or we can just run through the usual "HarryLime has an agenda and strange views on things." Whatever. But I'm telling you, like it or not, collectors want grading to exist, whether it's a sham or not. There's nothing anyone can do to tear that down. I'm not saying I condone that viewpoint, I'm just following the thread to its natural conclusion. Folks have been in denial for the last decade before all this went down. They'll jump right back into that boat again.


Anyway, commence your attacks.

Arthur

Unfortunately I think this is gonna be the case. When this many people have this much $ at stake the status quo will usually win. Like trying to get rid of lobbyists in Washington, many politicians have plans to rid the gov't of corruption- effective as soon as their term is finished.

[pip]

Trim on right edge is obvious. How could a grader not intentionally miss that? The PSA 8 looked like a nice card but it's totally ruined now.

If the FBI seized Rich Katz's computers it would uncover a huge network of fraud and criminality. I don't think this would be a difficult indictment.

Originally Posted by corndog

[ken161]

What an ugly PSA9. The focus, or lack thereof, gives me a headache. I just checked my raw 1966 set - I've got a well centered EXMT Jenkins rookie with light corner wear and much better eye appeal. Similar examples abound on eBay for $20 to $30, or about 1/40 the cost of this out-of-focus hackjob.

Along with indisputable evidence that PSA cannot detect alterations, these threads have also shown the folly of chasing a number. I was stupid enough to buy more than a few of these dogs over the years - cards with horrific eye appeal for the grade but I wanted that number.

Never get cheated.

Originally Posted by 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.

[ThoseBackPages]

are these cards (Fergie, Ozzie) being sold by PWCC or COMC (the subject of this thread)?

[houdini]

Originally Posted by DunceMode

I guess I'm more pragmatic than y'all because the end result is the only thing that matters to me. "Motivations" are irrelevant, imo.

You have a very telling ip match.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by houdini

You have a very telling ip match.

im pretty sure he's not the only one, in this thread alone!

[houdini]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

im pretty sure he's not the only one, in this thread alone!

Well, 2 less accounts in the thread, but 1 less voice.

[Bo Hunter]

Originally Posted by houdini

Well, 2 less accounts in the thread, but 1 less voice.

Wasn't me.

[texmrsport]

2 more gone that I can remove from my blocked list.

[corndog]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

are these cards (Fergie, Ozzie) being sold by PWCC or COMC (the subject of this thread)?

The OP has the whole group tied together whether it is COMC or Ebay sales.
The trimmed vintage was almost if not totally sold thru PWCC to maintain anonymity. The modern was mostly sold thru COMC or various Ebay IDs.

I have posted approximately 250 or so vintage so far in this thread with 110 of them being PSA 10s.

[Bo Hunter]

I'm curious about the legal aspect of this scandal. I'm fairly ignorant about what would and wouldn't constitute criminal activity.

I think it's fairly obvious that it's immoral to trim a card for monetary gain, and that it's unquestionably criminal to create a counterfeit card and attempt to sell it as an original, but is it actually a crime to trim an authentic card? I apologize if this has been discussed ad nauseum somewhere already, but I haven't encountered this discussion yet if so. Are there any lawyers in here that can help shed light on the issue? pip, are you a lawyer by chance?

If I were to guess, I would think it's highly unlikely for the act of trimming a card to be a crime, but again, I'm completely ignorant here. Reselling said trimmed card though? That's probably where the legality becomes more interesting. Anyone know how this might expect to shake out in a court of law? 1) the act of trimming a card, and 2) the selling of a trimmed card, specifically without disclosure?

It seems quite plausible to me that even if the FBI were to uncover absolute proof of Gary Moser trimming cards for a profit, that he may not even be able to be prosecuted for it. It likely hangs on how the courts define fraud in the first place.

Also, if it's not even a crime to begin with, where do you think that leaves us? My gut tells me that heads will not be rolling when this is all said and done. I hope I'm wrong, but the path to that end seems rather murky to me.

[corndog]

Originally Posted by ken161

What an ugly PSA9. The focus, or lack thereof, gives me a headache. I just checked my raw 1966 set - I've got a well centered EXMT Jenkins rookie with light corner wear and much better eye appeal. Similar examples abound on eBay for $20 to $30, or about 1/40 the cost of this out-of-focus hackjob.

Along with indisputable evidence that PSA cannot detect alterations, these threads have also shown the folly of chasing a number. I was stupid enough to buy more than a few of these dogs over the years - cards with horrific eye appeal for the grade but I wanted that number.

Never get cheated.

I agree with the registration issues not being (seemingly) a deductible flaw.
Topps had some pretty lousy pressmen over the years and their quality control was non-existent.