Hello to all visitors! This is a moderated forum for the discussion of Pre-WWII baseball cards and related topics. Click on the icons above to visit the individual areas of Network 54 VBC. If this is your first time visiting us, please take the time to read our Forum Rules which can be found at the link above. You can directly contact the moderator here if you have any questions or comments. Enjoy!
First, an into, I'm Hagar Henderson and I collect all ball cards of any era as long as it's not hockey or soccer. I was surfing the net and found this place. It looks like a nice site with different areas for different collectibles. I also have a collection of sports autographs.
Anyway, I was chatting with my local card dealer and we were talking about the "evilness" of card doctoring. It got me wondering what people consider to be card doctoring. I consider anything that involves deceptively removing part of the actual card (like trimming) or adding something to the card (recoloring) to be illicit. I don't consider stain removal or pressing out bent corners to be an illicit act of card doctoring. The dealer said that he will sometimes remove wax or gum stains when possible. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The stain wasn't part of the card when it was manufactured so what's the harm in removing it?
What do you guys consider acceptable card repair vs. illicit doctoring?
You have a good question here & its certainly an opinion based question. As for me, these three things are definite no-nos:
1. Trimming
2. Recoloring
3. Building corners
I can accept a card if it has a stain(gum-wax-tobacco) on it. Being from Ohio, I'm partial to the Polar Bear backs since the plant was here in my home state. So a tobacco stain on a T206 Polar Bear is like a beauty mark for me.
Alot of good people on this board. Hope you hang around for awhile.
Here's the test I would use: if the subject card would receive a lower grade due to the subject blemish, removal of the blemish (ergo receiving a higher grade) constitutes altering.
Relevant questions include how does the market price change when the alteration has been disclosed, and has the alteration been disclosed.
Personally, I don't have problem with glue or album paper being removed from a card as that material wasn't original to the card and isn't a part of the card. Ink is also a foreign substance, but removal can be problematic on a physical level.
Also realize that grade is a second issue. A collector may not have an ethical problem with ink being removed from an otherwise Mint card, but will hold the removal against the card grade-wise. He may consider the fixing up of any kind as preventing the card from grading Mint, no matter how Minty it looks. That's his rule, and likely a rule held by many. That he sees no ethical issue with ink removal does not automatically mean he views the grade itself as untarnished.
My rule is if you're altering a card strictly because of money, you shouldn't do it. There may be good reason to trim a card, but money isn't it.
This message has been edited by dereb1 on May 8, 2008 2:31 AM This message has been edited by dereb1 on May 8, 2008 2:23 AM This message has been edited by dereb1 on May 8, 2008 2:20 AM This message has been edited by dereb1 on May 8, 2008 2:13 AM This message has been edited by dereb1 on May 8, 2008 2:11 AM This message has been edited by dereb1 on May 8, 2008 1:56 AM
There are differing opinions but I don't think there are many who consider pressing down bent corners to be an acceptable practice. That crosses the line into card alteration.
"My rule is if you're altering a card strictly because of money, you shouldn't do it. There may be good reason to trim a card, but money isn't it."
Brilliant in its simplicity. And totally right. If you're doing something to a card simply to try to make the PSA 3 turn into a PSA 5 -- and then resell it -- that's slimy in my book.
"Here's the test I would use: if the subject card would receive a lower grade due to the subject blemish, removal of the blemish (ergo receiving a higher grade) constitutes altering".
That's sort of harse in relation to removing a wax stain with a leg stocking from the front of a card. I don't consider something that easily removeable (which would add value to the card), as altering. Just my opinion though.
Also, soaking has not been brought up. I would never soak a card to sell since light creases can sometimes disappear after the soak, only to reappear down the road. Because of that fact, I consider soaking to be an alteration. I found a box of nice cards that were moldy, dirty, warped, etc., but no creases and decent corners. I have soaked one very dirty and warped card to improve its appearence and which will only stay in my collection. Thoughts?
I love this topic and reading how each collector feels about certain aspects of altering. I am in the same boat with trimming, rebuidling corners and pressing out creases. Not sure how bending a corner back is altering the card since a crease would still be visable.
Food for thought..
What is the difference between removing a stain or glue from a card and resubmitting the card in hopes of getting a bump in grade vs simply continuously resubmitting a card (without altering it) until you get a bump in grade? The goal is the same, getting a higher grade.
Marty - I think the objection above was just to raise the grade for the purposes of sale, even if it wasn't submitted to an official grader. In other words, it's the act of alteration with intent to sell that is frowned on; independent of whether it is submitted for grading or not. In the case of re-submitting a card for higher grade, you're not changing the card at all.
Just because the goal is the same, the moral validity of the action that is used to reach that goal doesn't have to be.
Barry - I was going to ask the same question - I think most (if not all) collectors feel that soaking a card off of a page is not alteration, even if it is done to get a higher price on the card at sale.
Virtually every Old Judge with back damage was removed from a scrapbook, so we must assume that the glue that was originally on it was removed. But I have never seen an instance where that removal of glue was disclosed. There's no need for it.
What bothers me are card doctors who make a living altering cards for profit. "Alter" means to "make different in some particular way." Folding corners, trimming, soaking to remove creases...any stuff like that which is done for profit is wrong by me.
How can you draw a line between soaking a card and removing glue/paper vs pressing a crease out or laying a corner down.
Isn't it safe to say that many many cards are soaked and then sold for a profit. Same as pressing a crease or laying a corner down. If it's ok to say that the glue was not on the card originally isn't it also safe to say neither was the crease or the bent corner.
I get the idea of removing or adding to a card like trimming and rebuilding corners as a no no, I just don't grasp the stigma assoicated with pressing a corner down or pressing a surface crease out. I suppose if your doing this solely for profit and not disclosing your 'alteration' in the sale, that would be a bit weasily. But if your disclosing the work done, what's the big deal.
"But if your disclosing the work done, what's the big deal."
If you're disclosing what's been done, then there's no deal at all - even if you trim the card or re-color it, as long as it's sold as such. The discussion is if it's not going to be disclosed.
Actually, we've got more of a definition on it now - it's not the card-doctoring (if I felt the term "per se" meant something, I would use it here) that's the problem; it's the selling of doctored cards without disclosure.
Really what we are discussing is: When selling a card, what must be disclosed?
edited for spelling
This message has been edited by MSW1 on May 8, 2008 1:27 PM This message has been edited by MSW1 on May 8, 2008 1:25 PM
To answer Marty's question, the way I see it, spooning out a crease is altering the card itself. Removing glue is taking a foreign substance off the surface of the card. Its composition will not change if glue is removed. Again, there is a fine line between what is or isn't acceptable, but that's my view.
My opinion is the cards should be treated as historical artifacts, and there has to be good non-monetary reason for it to be altered.
If it is known or thought disclosure of alteration, good or bad, will effect market value, it should be disclosed. As far as alteration goes, it's not for the seller to decide what bidders should and should not know. It's for the bidders to be informed and to decide how the alteration effects their bids. If you don't want to disclose what you did to a card because you believe it will effect the sell price, what you did to the card is exactly what you have to disclose.
If for the same price you'd pick a PSA10 over a PSA10 with ink removed from the front, you've answered your question about how 'removal of foreign substances' effects your financial valuation of baseball cards. You value the 'au natural' PSA10 more. It would then be dubious to argue that, while such an alteration effects your valuation as a buyer, it shouldn't effect the valuations by bidders in your auctions and so you don't have to disclose it.
This message has been edited by dereb1 on May 8, 2008 3:11 PM This message has been edited by dereb1 on May 8, 2008 2:59 PM This message has been edited by dereb1 on May 8, 2008 2:46 PM This message has been edited by dereb1 on May 8, 2008 2:44 PM This message has been edited by dereb1 on May 8, 2008 2:36 PM
Sorry I was out to lunch and was patiently waiting for Doug to go first.
As all know I am a card doctor but in this instance I don't think I qualify. What cards that have been doctored and slabbed are not for sale and have all been clearly labeled (disclosed) with the type of alteration done.
"My opinion" on what is considered doctoring depends on the circumstance. For inspecting purposes, if has been determined a card has been soaked, I would call it out. For collecting I feel water soaking, to clean of remove paper, is acceptable. Pressing corners in an attempt to deceive and anything past that is doctoring.
Is having the belief that top-quality rebacking should be considered an art form a bad thing?
Kevin
------------------------------
www.AlteredCards.com - in-depth education on advanced card doctoring techniques & detection with detailed examples
First of all let me state once again that NO cards in mine and Scott's auctions will have anything at all done to them once they get to us (can't say beforehand, we aren't there) except for grading.
That being said I don't think taking anything off of a card that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place is altering. I would say it's getting it back to it's original state and anything that was on there was IN FACT the altering. I also don't think soaking to get remnants off is altering. I have changed my view (fairly long ago) about light wrinkles and now feel that any pressing out of wrinkles or creases is altering. I personally don't think flipping down a corner is altering either...but most might disagree with that. It's America.....just my 2 cents....
I think that removing gum/wax/tobacco stains is altering a card. I just got slammed by PSA on a bunch of cards that had such stains on it. They were all given qualifiers. If the stain would have been removed, the cards would have come back sans qualifier. That, in my opinion, is altering. If not, what is it?
I also do think that it is relevant whether you sell the card or not. If you never do sell it, do with it as you please. If you do plan on selling it, I think you should always disclose that it was altered. I think it almost rises to the level of misrepresentation.
If you bought a car from someone who had done a good job restoring it after it being in a collision and did not disclose it was in a collision, would you be happy with the transaction?
Alteration is alteration. I didn't mean to suggest it had a different meaning if the altered card was sold. What I meant to suggest, and I apologize for being vague, is that nobody should care if altered cards stay in one's collection.
If I buy an old American Caramel E90-1 card, and when it arrives in the mail the entire envelope is folded at a 90 degree angle, so I open the envelope and the card too has a 90 degree bend in it....
You guys are saying I'd be altering or doctoring the card if I flattened it out. I must keep that card folded forever more.
Frank - as I said above, I don't think alteration of any kind is a problem; the issue is with regards to disclosure at the time of sale; what needs to be disclosed? Your example is a good one for that discussion; would you disclose that crease removal at the time of sale?
This message has been edited by MSW1 on May 9, 2008 8:49 AM
I didn't see where Frank said he would take a crease out. He said he would unfold it. There would be a crease in it. I wouldn't tell someone I unfolded it and they would be able to see the crease. Not too long ago I sold a high end card to a board member and told him that I erased a very tiny and light pencil mark from the blank back. The card was in an SGC80 holder. The mark nor any indentation could be seen at all but I still told him I erased a mark. I agree disclosure is important but maybe not the end of the world. Personally, if I buy a card and can't see anything with a loop I don't really care....I have more important things to worry about. To each their own....regards
"I didn't see where Frank said he would take a crease out. He said he would unfold it."
Sorry - that's what I meant; I wasn't aware of the difference between removing a crease and flattening a folded card.
As far as disclosure not being important to you if you can't see it, if the corners on the card were rebuilt, would you still feel the same way? What if someone wanted to keep a card in their personal collection, but didn't like the way it looked and wanted to pay to have the corners rebuilt - would you object? To me, it's theirs to do what they want to; the only objection is when they come to sell it, having the user believe everything is original when it is not; that's why I believe disclosure is really all that matters here.
I tend to agree with you that unfolding a corner where the crease is still visible does not need to be disclosed, but I believe some above would disagree since a card with a corner folded 90 degrees up would sell for less then a card that is totally flat.
This message has been edited by MSW1 on May 9, 2008 9:15 AM This message has been edited by MSW1 on May 9, 2008 9:08 AM
I once erased a light pencil mark on a mid grade T206 or M101-4/5 common. I don't consider it doctoring and I'd probably do it again if given the chance. I once scraped off a black glue smudge on the back of a card because I didn't like it. I then sent it in for grading and took the SGC10. Trimming, rebacking and rebuilding corners are not acceptable to me. I'd never even soak a card. I'd probably just not buy it in the first place.
If you are going to have an intelligent debate don't always make crap up and embellish. You will garner a lot more respect that way. As my dad would say you would argue with a sign post and give it a 30 minute headstart.
"I didn't see where Frank said he would take a crease out. He said he would unfold it."
Sorry - that's what I meant; I wasn't aware of the difference between removing a crease and flattening a folded card.
As far as disclosure not being important to you if you can't see it, if the corners on the card were rebuilt, would you still feel the same way? What if someone wanted to keep a card in their personal collection, but didn't like the way it looked and wanted to pay to have the corners rebuilt - would you object? To me, it's theirs to do what they want to; the only objection is when they come to sell it, having the user believe everything is original when it is not; that's why I believe disclosure is really all that matters here.
I tend to agree with you that unfolding a corner where the crease is still visible does not need to be disclosed, but I believe some above would disagree since a card with a corner folded 90 degrees up would sell for less then a card that is totally flat."
So lets start from the first inaccurate statement you made again. It doesn't take long to get there as it's generally the first thing you say...and ends with the last thing you say....
Where does Frank say he flattened a card. He said he would unfold it. I don't think unfolding amounts to flattening....but you can spin it anyway you want to. IF corners were rebuilt I would most likely be able to see it with a loop in direct light. I have practiced seeing this kind of alteration before. OF course fraudulent alteration is reprehensible. I don't care what someone does to a card that they plan to keep forever. It's none of my business. Of course if you sell a card you had materially altered it should be disclosed. Any jackass knows that. As far as me pushing a corner back down that wasn't too severe....no, sorry, I don't feel the need to disclose it. It came from the factory with the corner correct and if I nudge it with my finger to make it correct again I doubt it will cause a ruckus....I am sure I have bought hundreds of cards that have had a corner pushed down (minimally) or something taken off of them that wasn't supposed to be there.....again, I have better things to worry about.....maybe you don't?
"Where does Frank say he flattened a card. He said he would unfold it. I don't think unfolding amounts to flattening....but you can spin it anyway you want to. "
I really am not spinning anything - I'm trying to use the right words. Again, I apologize for the wrong word choice - - I should have used "unfolding." I'm not trying to be smart - it was a real mistake I made and I'm sorry the wrong word insinuated something negative; it honestly was not my intention - sorry for the angst.
Edited to add, I think we are in agreement 100% on the discussion - my inaccurate word choice messed stuff up; I again apologize.
This message has been edited by MSW1 on May 9, 2008 10:43 AM
Nice to see significant support for the view that removing gum/wax/glue/tobacco stains is alteration--I couldn't agree more--alteration is alteration. Also nice to see Leon has changed his view on pressing out wrinkles and creases is wrong. With Doug Allen endorsing this as well there seems to also be growing support for this position. I have been amazed in the past that the majority of collectors seemed to feel differently--hopefully these are indications that the pendulem is swinging the other direction.
Jim- I think there are different degrees of alteration. You can't put erasing a pencil mark in the same class as rebuilding a corner or rebacking a card.
Some minor changes could be deemed acceptable by some; others are unanimously considered unacceptable.
It's like comparing jaywalking to bank robbery- both are against the law, but are much different.
"Nice to see significant support for the view that removing gum/wax/glue/tobacco stains is alteration"
I have to strongly disagree that removing a wax stain from the front of a card is alteration. These wax stains are generally very easy to remove with a women's stocking. And anytime I can use the words "remove" and "women's stocking" in the same sentence, makes for a good day, lol. All kidding aside, I don't see this practice in any way being a frowned upon alteration (ok, now splitting hairs on what exactly an "alteration" is in the first place). Especially since the wax was not originally intended to be part of the card. I know it's a fine line, but IMO, the wax technique above is equivelent to wiping dust off of a card with a dry paper towel.
I have to strongly disagree that removing a wax stain from the front of a card is alteration. These wax stains are generally very easy to remove with a women's stocking.
Agreed. Personally I don't consider it a stain as much as it is SOFO (stuck on foreign object).
A tip from the doc: you can also use fine silk to include ties and panties. Matter of fact I prefer silk to panty hose. Tends to grab and remove SOFO as opposed to spread and buff.
