Martin - They already do, why do you keep saying this? PSA has multiple different options, including "restored" which they can use.
EDIT: Added pictures of before and after, courtesy of t206resource.com
They also have published standards for grading, see this link.
https://www.psacard.com/Resources/gr...tandards#cards
They probably haven't really dealt with the definitions as well as they could, however:
N2 - Evidence of restoration - When a card's paper stock appears to have been built up - for example, when ripped corners are built up to look like new corners.
N5 - Altered Stock - This includes, but is not limited to characteristics on the card that appear to show some form of alteration such as paper restoration, crease/wrinkle pressing or enhanced gloss.
N7 - Evidence of Cleaning - When a whitener is used to whiten borders or a solution is used to remove wax, candy, gum or tobacco stains.
AA - Authentic Altered - This means that while PSA is certifying that the item is genuine, due to the existence of alterations, the item cannot receive a numerical grade. The term altered may mean that the card shows evidence of one or more of the following: trimming, recoloring, restoration, and/or cleaning. Items receiving the "Authentic Altered" designation, in our opinion, are genuine with the presence of some type of alteration. This is done on a case-by-case basis only, and must be notated on the submission form at the time of submission.
As I've continued to state, just be consistent and use them.
For whatever reason, that Wagner got I believe the N2 - Restored. Why it's not AA - Authentic Altered I have no idea, considering it had recoloring, restoration and cleaning done to it. Are we to accept that because the card wasn't submitted on the form to be AA that's why I ended up in a N2? Or is it because "restored" just sounds better than "altered", especially when you're talking about a multi-hundred thousand $ card?
The 52 Mantle that's been discussed has clear evidence of at least being cleaned. There's speculation of other work to it as well, including trimming and recoloring, but I don't know that I have seen sufficient evidence to say exactly what that is - but the circumstantial evidence of something else besides cleaning being done to it is pretty compelling. Regardless, it got a 4.5 grade instead of say N7. Brent has brought up that he's never seen N7 used, I don't think I have either so seems he has a valid point on that. However, in hindsight, something was done to that card, it was cracked and resubbed, whether or not you can actually SEE evidence of something done to it in hand the pictures prove something was done. PSA should reslab this thing at a minimum, and Brent needs to stop pretending the pictures don't exist.
And finally, regarding making "examples"...I certainly don't FEEL like you made an example of me or any of my posts. As a matter of fact, I think you've added credence to much of what myself and others have pointed out, so thank you for that.
You and I do agree on a few things (like what the TPGs can and should do), on quite a number of others we don't. I think I've been pretty open and direct in expressing the basis upon which my disagreement is based. If you feel like that's not "constructive", so be it - I feel pretty good you're in the minority in that view.
Maybe I'm just not "mature" enough...fortunately I have the card hobby to fall back into.
