https://www.instagram.com/p/DFqx-qqSS7L/?img_index=5&igsh=MXZqaHl3M243dXU4aQ==
Saw this while scrolling and wanted to get people’s thoughts. Personally I think the cards look cool but not sure how I feel about purposeful damage generally speaking. Do other grading companies also grade things that are purposely altered for artistic purposes?
Atleast TAG label says alterted - UV damaged. And don’t give it a grade. Wish all grading companies did that, instead of giving a 5 grade
PSA and CGC’s parent companies don’t, but a low tier coin company does slab coins that have been altered (“hobo” nickels)
I don’t see an issue with grading them, especially because they aren’t even graded and are labeled as UV damaged. It’s probably the most responsible way to approach slabbing these cards. Much better than the PSA method of just slapping a 5 on it as @eeveeteam mentioned. I think UV damage should be some sort of qualifier like inked or marked, not necessarily because it’s similar to those, but because we would avoid all the ridiculous claims of UV damaged cards being rare errors that way.
I do see an issue with grading “artistically damaged” cards if it goes beyond relatively non-destructive methods like UV fading. I would consider some of the uncut sheets that have been chopped up to be “artistically damaged” and would argue that those should either not be graded or have a clear qualifier attached to them like TAG has done here.
I’m not a fan but at least they’ve labeled it correctly.
The entire autograph market would technically qualify for your description of grading altered cards for artistic purposes. But in terms of alterations that would be considered damage - to @eeveeteam 's point, other grading companies would oftentimes grade altered cards as damage instead of properly identifying and differentiating them.
Hope this helps,
cpbog1
All the big grading companies grade sun faded cards they just dock the surface grade. I don’t have an issue with it. A bigger problem I’ve seen is sun faded cards still getting high grades when the grader doesn’t notice.
Yep, I own a PSA graded sun faded card but those are most likely actually left in front of a window not blasted with UV in certain places while protecting the holo for artistic purposes lol I also don’t have any issue with it (and like how these cards look quite a bit) but this feels more like the custom “shining Charizards” (filled in with black sharpie) that started popping up in the last year
The square cut cards are a great example of the opposite, where CGC will just add ”error” to the label, making people think it’s some rare print when it’s probably just some guy who cut up a sheet in his basement.
I think that the uncut sheet holds far more historical value than the NFC cards, but the lack of transparency by CGC means that people are willing to spend more money on what they probably think is a factory miscut.
I think we are all in agreement that all NFC cards should be labeled Hand Cut like PSA does (and like cgc does for vintage sports)
100%. Simply slapping ”error” on the label is lazy and misleading.
who sunfaded the trophies 
I hope it was proud winners who had them displayed!
Im not really against it. The way it stands is that even if a card grades a 10 you can still sunfade it through your graded slab, so giving a grade or labeling it is fine if submitting imo.
Probably someone who displayed the card in the trophy glass it came with. Probably displayed on top of a dresser for years and didn’t know it was fading until it was too late
I remember reaching out to PSA a few years back when sun-faded cards were being auctioned on PWCC for thousands of dollars and also listed on eBay as legitimate errors.
I spoke to several folks in their grading and customer service departments, asking them to grade UV-altered cards at Auth Altered. They effectively said that because they cannot determine the intention (i.e., someone’s cards could get sun-faded on accident), it would not receive an AA grade.
Hopefully this pushes PSA to reconsider their policy on sun-faded cards. In my eyes, a UV-faded card is an altered card, regardless of whether the intention of the submitter was malicious.
I think it’s okay for a company to grade these cards if they are clear on their label, like TAG has appropriately done.
Set cards I’d agree. Sun faded trophies are their own category, imo. Now, if someone intentionally sun faded a trophy then that’s a different story 
I think PSA may not care enough to put AA on their labels. Their volume of cards they grade on a daily is massively higher than the other companies which could lead a factor in why they don’t. The main issue with these for me is when you have sellers intentionally being deceptive. For example the shining mew that was labeled for sale as a “rare blue variant” to deceive buyers into thinking they are getting a uber rare misprint. I don’t have an issue with the owner of the cards in OPs post as he stated it’s for aesthetic purposes, and they are labeled as such. They do look cool as “ghost shadowless” cards
