How was this altered?
 

Just looking for opinions on why this WWG Ruth was labeled as altered. Thanks

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...dWideGum80.jpg

Looks to me like the top edge is messed with a bit. On the back looks like the dull razor skipped a couple of times. Maybe color added where the check mark was on the front?

I'm guessing that there used to be a check mark on the card, that appears to have been erased. I think that erasing any writing qualifies as altered?

Also, it's hard to tell. Kevin might be right. That check mark spot looks like it could've been colored in after erasing.

My guess is trimming.

That didn't take long...
 

I've been looking at the edges so much I don't think I've even checked the picture part. These are two cropped pictures (reason the border is out of line): Thank y'all for the eyes.

Edited: Resized the picture, was too big
http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...t%2054/4-1.jpg

Just saw your reply. That's what I was thinking it had to be too but it measured 1/16" bigger both L/R and T/B compared to my '34 WWG Ruth. They probably would have put the MK qualifier on there if the check mark was still intact, but I guess there's no telling on that. Thanks

Erased check mark.

Roger that

Agree with Erased Check Mark. Have 4-6 T206 cards that would have graded PSA/SGC 3-4, but had numbers erased on the front (at the very top). I called as spoke with the graders, and they replied that any card is classified only as Authentic if anything is erased due to "potential removal of card material" during the erasing process.

Enhanced
 

The card was altered when someone wrote on it. It's been altered many, many times as evidenced by the corner and edge wear, plus there seems to be a dab of 30's DNA on that right border.
______________________________________

The '33 WWG was already in the PSA case when I bought it, wanted to clarify that before I mention this. Just holding the WWG caused the check mark to look like a scuff mark because it's much smaller in hand than in the scan; never thought anything about it being a check mark while holding it. But this brings up an interesting point: someone mentioned how it was common for people to add color to their faded cards years ago, and while I couldn't identify with that statement then, I'm now thinking about this card:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...oudey181-1.jpg

While I wouldn't even attempt to further alter this marked/erased card myself, would it be reasonable in this case? The back of the card has writing as well, the content of which indicates it was written approx 1935:

http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/m...Goudey181r.jpg

What about the front where that white area is? A T206 Wagner was significantly, intentionally altered (rebuilt?) and holdered as such by PSA, I think. Would it be appropriate for authentication companies to professionally repair things such as this, slab them altered, and specify what the alteration was. Before and after scans/photos included. It's acceptable for cracked/broken game used bats to be professionally repaired.

Now, I do not think anything negative about soaking cards, and I'm really not sure how that's done. But from what I've gathered, its done to remove glue residue, etc, from previously scrap-booked cards. How would this be different than that? It's the same mistake: someone glued those cards in a scrapbook many years ago; someone wrote RF on the '33 Goudey many years ago.

Again, I think nothing about soaking and enjoy when collectors post before and after results of soaking.

I prefer the erased check mark to a trim job, and I don't think color was added to the erased area. If it was, he or she did a poor job recoloring.

What are your thoughts?

+1