[drcy]

As the resident museum person here, who is professionally certified in museum sciences, I can say that the original OP post is very problematic-- though I won't take the time to say why.

I will, however, say that conservation and restoration are kinds of alteration. That's not a comment on if they good or bad, ethical or unethical, just that they are alteration. Cataloging them as not comes across to me as trickery.

Also, if there is nothing errant or wrong with conserving or restoring a card, and it shouldn't effect the market value, then you should not have an issue with disclosing that it's been conserved. If one says there's nothing material about, say, conservation and it shouldn't/won't effect market value, but bends over backwards not to disclose it, that speaks for itself that the person doesn't believe what he is saying. I do not know, and am not claiming to know the purpose. However, If this all a method to hide from bidders and buyers the presence of conservation or restoration or other alterations, it's wrong, and, while I'm not a lawyer and will dutifully defer to the lawyers here, might be illegal.