How do you feel when you see this in an auction

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

I'm not sure I understand why removing a foreign substance (e.g., ink, lead, glue) should necessarily be regarded as altering a card. Suppose my kid puts a glob of silly putty on the back of a card and I remove it. I think we will all agree I haven't altered the card. Or suppose a piece of scotch tape is on the back. A skilled conservator often can dry-peel the tape off with no trace remaining. I don't think we would call that altering the card. Some might say that in the case of ink, lead or glue removal, another substance/object/chemical must first be applied in order to effectuate the removal and it is the application of that other substance/object/chemical that constitutes the alteration. But if that other substance/object/chemical is then removed without a trace along with the original foreign substance, why should that treatment be regarded as altering a card any more than when the silly putty or scotch tape is removed? In fact, in the case of the silly putty or scotch tape, another object was applied to effectuate the removal (my finger in the case of the silly putty and a tool in the case of the scotch tape). I don't think that there should be a distinction between an object (a finger or a tool) or a chemical effectuating the removal of the foreign substance provided that in both instances the object or chemical is removed without a trace.

I guess my point is that if the treatment does not involve the permanent addition to or replacement of a portion of the card (e.g., paper restoration, retouching text) or the physical alteration to a nonoriginal state (e.g., trimming), I wouldn't regard the card as being altered.

Perhaps SGC remembered the card as having that ink stain, but then felt that because it was removed without a trace remaining, they had to regrade it as if the ink stain never existed. If that is the case, in my view they did nothing wrong.