Card Doctor haters please respond

[ksabet]

So it seems as though as long as it is disclosed people don't have a problem with restoration.


I may be in the minority but I think I would rather have a clean, bright restored Wagner with a AUTH next to it than a dirty wrinkled stained 1.5.

[PM770]

Originally Posted by ksabet

So it seems as though as long as it is disclosed people don't have a problem with restoration.

I think this hits it. The problem is if you are cracking out a PSA 4 having it doctored/restored and resubmitting it for an 8, you are by definition not disclosing the fact the card has been restored. Otherwise, why it be necessary to have it slabbed in the first place?

[ksabet]

Updated with a poll

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by ksabet

So it seems as though as long as it is disclosed people don't have a problem with restoration.

I don't know if I would go that far, but at least if you disclose the restoration, people can make a decision based on all the information. If you don't disclose the restoration, you're basically lying by omission. Whatever an individual's feelings on restoration may be, people generally have a problem with being lied to.

[drcy]

deleted.

[drcy]

My ethics rule for restoration is it should never be done strictly for financial reasons. If someone removes stains or repairs a tear to card to make it look nicer to them or has a deteriorating poster professionally resotored and deacidified in the name of conservation, those are non-financial reasons. The restoration may raise the financial value in the process, but the motivations were in major part not financial. However, if you trim or recolor a card strictly for re-sale/financial reasons, I catalog that as unethical. Purely financial considerations (aka altering a century old artifact only in the name of making $) is not a valid reason to alter or restore a card.

That's my opinion. And as I tell to non-collectors, one thing I've learned about the hobby is that money really is the root of all evil. Why do people in the hobby forge, counterfeit, deceptively trim and intentionally misrepresent?-- for money. That's why I think purely monetary reasons for doing something should be looked at with a skeptical eye.

And, of course, if you alter or restore a card, it has to be disclosed.

[Al C.risafulli]

Just my opinion on this one, which is worth what you paid for it, but my feeling dovetails with something David said in an earlier post.

When you're dealing with fine art (painting, sculpture, etc), you're generally dealing with a one-of-a-kind piece. Often when you're talking about professional restoration of fine art, you're talking about a trained conservator applying an unbelievable amount of skill and knowledge to remove damage to a piece in an effort to preserve it and stabilize it.

In the case of baseball cards, there are often thousands of examples of the same card, and we pay a premium for those examples that have lasted with less damage or wear than the others. The condition is the only thing that differentiates two cards of the same player from the same issue. When "restoration" work is done, it's often done by shady guys in a back room, using trial and error in an effort to deceive a buyer and make more money - hopefully by getting it past a grading company. The entire process reeks of deceit.

Further, the "restoration" process with cards devalues all the EXISTING higher-grade examples that have managed to live their lives with less wear.

As a collector and now as an auctioneer, I have such a tremendous appreciation for cards (and memorabilia) that are rare or somehow unique. When a fantastic, show-stopping item crosses my desk I find myself staring at it with wonder and also with an incredible amount of respect for the diligence of the collector who found it. When I see a card that's been altered in an effort to get a higher technical grade, it's just not the same thing.

For these reasons, I don't want the hobby to start accepting restored cards.

-Al

ETA: I voted "Never, just let them be," but with a caveat: on certain rare items, particularly display items, when they are becoming brittle or are subject to further degradation, I am in favor of PROFESSIONAL restoration in an effort to stabilize and protect the piece. I'd rather have a restored piece than one that rots away or falls apart over time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

This:

"When "restoration" work is done, it's often done by shady guys in a back room, using trial and error in an effort to deceive a buyer and make more money - hopefully by getting it past a grading company. The entire process reeks of deceit."

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by ksabet

So it seems as though as long as it is disclosed people don't have a problem with restoration.


I may be in the minority but I think I would rather have a clean, bright restored Wagner with a AUTH next to it than a dirty wrinkled stained 1.5.

And IMHO, that is where the hobby will go with regard to rare/significant cards, only the "altered" designation will be replaced with "restored." The difference, before you ask, is craftsmanship. You can take a classic car in poor condition and make it look a heck of a lot better with bailing wire and bondo, then add paint to conceal the low caliber changes, i.e., quick and dirty alterations. That would be "altered." In stark contrast, take the same car and weld in new, old stock (NOS, for the unitiated) floor pans, trunk pans, quarter panels, etc., blending the welds into the original metal, replace worn suspension bushings and other parts, rebuild the motor, and apply a quality paint job. This is "restored." The latter requires craftsmanship, while the former involves an intent to deceive.

I have a 1929 Kashin R316 Mel Ott rookie in SGC poor condition (but extraordinarily well centered for this card) which I believe will eventually be a very good candidate for restoration, with full disclosure (good ones seem to be drying up rather quickly).

Just my two cents,

Larry

[Peter_Spaeth]

IMO as long as people who do this for a living can get a significant portion of altered/"restored" cards into numbered holders, there is no incentive other than honesty (which by definition they lack) to make disclosure.

[egbeachley]

The vast majority, 65% at this time, say doctoring is OK as long as it is disclosed. So, if I purchase a doctored card, do I need to disclose it as well if I resell it? I think, yes!

That would be yes if I resold it within 2 years.

Maybe if I resold it within 3-4 years. It's hard to remember where I purchased a card by then.

Probably not if it has been 5 years. Doctored? It doesn't look doctored.

Definitely not if resold in 7 years. There were no card doctors 7 years ago!

Mom........we need to sell these cards since Dad died. Let's just send them to an auction house. They will get us the best prices. I love that Dad collected perfect-looking cards.

[CW]

Al C. is a good writer and stuff.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

The vast majority, 65% at this time, say doctoring is OK as long as it is disclosed. So, if I purchase a doctored card, do I need to disclose it as well if I resell it? I think, yes!

That would be yes if I resold it within 2 years.

Maybe if I resold it within 3-4 years. It's hard to remember where I purchased a card by then.

Probably not if it has been 5 years. Doctored? It doesn't look doctored.

Definitely not if resold in 7 years. There were no card doctors 7 years ago!

Mom........we need to sell these cards since Dad died. Let's just send them to an auction house. They will get us the best prices. I love that Dad collected perfect-looking cards.

Yep. And even if you disclosed it, the next person to sell it would not. So one way or another it's going to get into the hobby without disclosure. I have heard no solutions proposed to this.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

The vast majority, 65% at this time, say doctoring is OK as long as it is disclosed. So, if I purchase a doctored card, do I need to disclose it as well if I resell it? I think, yes!

That would be yes if I resold it within 2 years.

Maybe if I resold it within 3-4 years. It's hard to remember where I purchased a card by then.

Probably not if it has been 5 years. Doctored? It doesn't look doctored.

Definitely not if resold in 7 years. There were no card doctors 7 years ago!

Mom........we need to sell these cards since Dad died. Let's just send them to an auction house. They will get us the best prices. I love that Dad collected perfect-looking cards.

Saying you think it's "okay" and that you are for it are different things. I greatly dislike the alteration of cards, and have no interest in them. Restored cards don't appeal to me. But that doesn't mean I think it's morally wrong for someone to have a badly damaged card conserved. I can even understand why someone would have a card that was torn in two restored whole. It won't be a card that will appeal to me, but I can understand why someone would do it.

In other words I think someone could both be against all alterations but say it's "okay." One can both be against it, while saying it's legal. One might say "It's legally okay, but not okay." Okay is a somewhat vague term and I'll bet people taking the poll interpret the word differently. Online polls are notorious for being ambiguous and deceptive due to wording and interpretations of their meanings.

If it was up to me, cards would not be restored or altered. I am against it and would vote "not okay." But it's not up to me, and I don't pretend to have the absolute moral authority to say no one can restore baseball cards, that anyone with different aesthetic sentiments than me is wrong and there are no situations where alterations are justifiable. I don't share the sentiment, but can understand when someone posts that they'd rather have a good looking restored card than an ugly unrestored one. As I said, I personally dislike altered cards-- they simply don't appeal to me, I consider them tainted and see nothing wrong with an antique item showing some normal wear and tear--, but am not about to say someone is wrong for liking and buying a card that was professionally restored.

Also, I think having a badly damaged rare card (say one with house paint spots across the front and a tear that may increase in size) professionally restored is different than trimming an ExMt card to Mint. I can understand the former, but am totally against the latter in all circumstances for all the reasons you site (leave well enough cards alone, potential for deception, etc).

I guess you could say I am firmly against alterations, but allow for those rare one in 20,000 understandable exceptions (the card with the house paint smear across the player's face or a card that has an ongoing growing fungus problem that should be professionally deacidified before the fungus destroys the card.). Even though I am against alterations, I think it's "okay" for that card with an ongoing fungus that will eventually destroy the card to be professionally conserved. In fact, I bet almost everyone would agree that is a case where conservation is acceptable.

Whether or not you did the alterations, not disclosing known alterations to a card at sale is illegal. If an altered card has been sold, someone has probably broken the law. Not disclosing alterations is 100 percent not "okay," in any sense of the word.

One last practical point. That rare exception to the rule card that had a major tear professionally fixed or a bad scrape to the player's face professionally repainted will be able to be identified as restored in the future. Major professional restoration like that is easily detectable. So those kinds of alterations won't be lost in the shuffle of time.

[travrosty]

there has been a honus wagner t-206 restored to near perfect shape, then un-restored, if you will. So someone at some time thought that restoring a wagner was something that they wanted to do.

[drcy]

I should add that I collect photographs that are rare to unique. The value of a rare photograph doesn't change if it's ExMt or Mint, if the edge is razor sharp or slightly rough, or if the corner is sharp or dinged. Thats all baseball card stuff. The only restoration that would be done to a photograph is if there's tape on the image, a bad tear or something like that.

So, from my standpoint, the whole PSA 10 = 100x more than a PSA9, louping for invisible to naked eye surface wrinkles and corner touches is pure satire. It's what anal retentive baseball card collectors do.

And I'm totally against trimming of photographs. I hate it when baseball card collectors with their baseball card grading sensibilites trim photos so it gets sharper edges and a better "grade." That's why I'm against grading companies giving grades to non-card photos-- because baseball card people will start trimming photos to get better grades, and there was not a thing wrong with the photo before it was trimmed.

My opinion is it is fine for card companies to authenticate photos, but am firmly against them giving them condition grades.