Does putting invisible ink on a card devalue it?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

I have a card that has a noticeable amount of invisible ink on the front and back when viewed with a black light. These invisible ink marks aren't just a few tiny dots, but are lines that extend along the width and length of the front and back of the card. The seller who later admitted that he put the invisible ink on the card did not disclose that fact in the auction description but rather stated the following in the original auction description (bold added by me for emphasis):

This terrific card features great gloss, no writing, creases or wrinkles, solid corners and the centering is as shown. The back of the card is super clean...... I guarantee this card to be unaltered in any way, and offer a 7 day money back guarantee if you do not like the card.

Was this misrepresentation?

[terjung]

Sounds misrepresented to me.

[gnaz01]

PSA/DNA has been doing it with autographs for years.....:D

[Leon]

Sounds misrepresented to me.

agreed

[brass_rat]

Sounds misrepresented to me.

+1!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Another vote for misrepresented

Edited to add: It wouldn't bother me, but I can understand why it would bother others. So, yes, I feel it was misrepresented, but I voted, "No it doesn't devalue the card."

[Ease]

Another vote for misrepresented

Edited to add: It wouldn't bother me, but I can understand why it would bother others. So, yes, I feel it was misrepresented, but I voted, "No it doesn't devalue the card."

+1, I also think it should have been disclosed, but doesn't devalue the card.

[Brendan]

Whether you can see it or not, it's still there. Why in the world would the seller put the ink on the card?

Have to go with the misrepresented like everyone else.

[Anthony S.]

The KGB will never grade it higher than Authentic.

[iwantitiwinit]

Just curious do you usually subject your cards to the rigorous "black light" torture test?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Just curious do you usually subject your cards to the rigorous "black light" torture test?

Very rarely, but in this case I did when the seller later acknowledged he did this.

[campyfan39]

Interesting thread.

What card was it?
What did the seller put it on it and why did he tell you he did it?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

It was a post-war Topps common card. The seller, I'll call "Mr. X" claimed to have put invisible ink on the edges of all four sides to see if the buyer, "Mr. Y" would trim it and re-sell it in graded form. As it turns out, the card was graded by a Third Party Grading company and put up for sale by Mr. Y, and Mr. X asked his friend, "Mr. Z" to buy the card from Mr. Y. When the card got back to Mr. X, he "determined" that the card was indeed trimmed since no invisible ink could be detected on the bottom edge. As a result, Mr. X went on a covert smear campaign inferring that Mr Y and the TPG company president needed to go to jail and the TPG needed be put out of business.

[egbeachley]

So the "ink that can not be seen" is on the edge that "can not be viewed" when in a slab?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

So the "ink that can not be seen" is on the edge that "can not be viewed" when in a slab?

The invisible ink can be seen on three sides inside the slab, but not on the bottom edge simply because for a number of reasons, no ink was put on the bottom edge.

[T206Collector]

I voted "No alteration," but was assuming that the ink was truly invisible and could not be seen by anyone, with or without the help of any devices such as a black light.

In other words, if you can see it with a black light, by definition it isn't invisible.

[brianp-beme]

Does putting invisible ink on a card devalue it?

Only if you possess the special decoder ring.


Brian

[ls7plus]

+1, I also think it should have been disclosed, but doesn't devalue the card.

+1.

Regards,

Larry