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:
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:
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?