opinions- is taking a crease out really altering? [Archive]

Archive

10-28-2006, 04:20 PM

Posted By: leonFirst of all I have my own idea of altering. I would like to know how many people think that taking a crease out of a card should lower the value of the card? I had a long talk with a few card folks today that don't have a big issue with it. I promised not to name names and I won't, as it doesn't really matter. I have heard that a crease can come back after it's been taken out but have never spoken with anyone with any first hand information that this has happened. So for sake of a, hopefully friendly debate, should taking a crease out of a card lower it's value? You've added nothing to it and not trimmed it.... edited to change the 2nd sentence, and the 2nd to last sentence,in order to make a little more sense....of course doing anything to a card is technically altering it. I stated it incorrectly....

Archive

10-28-2006, 04:24 PM

Posted By: Peter SpaethYes, clearly, in my opinion.

Archive

10-28-2006, 04:25 PM

Posted By: Eric BI say yes. The integrity (strength) of the card where the crease was has been lessened and is therefore susceptible to re-creasing. However, for wrinkles, I'm not so sure. Wouldn't that be like repulling the top cover on a made bed after the dog walks across it?

Archive

10-28-2006, 04:28 PM

Posted By: AnonymousTo me yes, creases are a serious issue on a card. Anything done to a card that "alters" what that card will bring in cashflow is altering a card.

Archive

10-28-2006, 04:28 PM

Posted By: joeIf the crease really does come back, I would say yes. If it doesn't how would you know? Joe Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

Archive

10-28-2006, 04:30 PM

Posted By: leonThanks so far and let's please keep this discussion to creases and wrinkles....we already have discussed errant marks, paste, and paper remains....the consensus on that is the majority don't think it's altering in the bad sense of the word........(I don't)

Archive

10-28-2006, 04:34 PM

Posted By: T206Collector...we've had this one out before. There are a few -- usually the high grade slabber folk -- that view any touching of the card to improve its condition is an impermissible alteration. To me, if you can get an improvement in its condition just by storing it pressed between two pages of a heavy book, then it is not an alteration. Only when you add chemicals or other pieces to the card is it an impermissible alteration. Pressing creases and wrinkles is fine -- especially if there is no way of proving that a crease or wrinkle was ever present. If the crease comes back, and the seller knows it will or probably will come back, then it is a more blurry line.

Archive

10-28-2006, 04:36 PM

Posted By: Griffin'sAbsolutely, for the reason that Eric B stated in his first line. And I've seen them come back, it certainly does happen.

Archive

10-28-2006, 04:37 PM

Posted By: Gilbert Maines how much alteration do you feel is acceptable for your cards? How much alteration is acceptable (without financial impact) in antique furniture, paintings, coins, etc.? Not much. Edited to remove stuff which is no longer applicable.

Archive

10-28-2006, 04:40 PM

Posted By: Cobby33Oui.

Archive

10-28-2006, 04:48 PM

Posted By: David VarghaI have never heard of wrinkles being removed by putting the family encyclopedia set on them. Wrinkles can and do reappear. I have issue with this. DavidVargha@hotmail.com

Archive

10-28-2006, 04:53 PM

Posted By: ErlandStevensAssume there are two cards of equal appearance (or grade if that's what you buy). One is disclosed as having a crease removed, and the other is not. Which would you pay more to own? This doesn't completely answer Leon's question (is the first one altered), but I think most would still perceive the first card as less desirable.

Archive

10-28-2006, 04:59 PM

Posted By: Brian Weisner I agree with David, I have never seen a crease or wrinkle disappear after being pressed in a screw down or a few hundred books. You can flatten a warped card, but you can't get rid of a crease. I believe taking a crease out of a card is altering, and I think that most collectors would agree. I remember a few dealers in the late 80's early 90's who "spooned out" creases to improve there appearence. The crease was still there, it just didn't look as bad, and was tough to see in a screwdown holder. I considered this practice an alteration to the card then and I still do today. Be well Brian

Archive

10-28-2006, 04:59 PM

Posted By: Mark EvansYes, but it is an alteration that I would find acceptable for my cards. Mark

Archive

10-28-2006, 05:06 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaYes it is an alteration....is it acceptable? I don't think so. And for the same reason that you should know if you're buying a used car if it's been in a wreck before.

Archive

10-28-2006, 05:08 PM

Posted By: T206Collector...because while you would want to "know if you're buying a used car if it's been in a wreck before," the seller has no obligation to tell you if it has.

Archive

10-28-2006, 05:12 PM

Posted By: Tony AndreaMy Opinion - Anytime you "FIX" something from it's current appearance. Definately qualifies as "ALTERING"....... How can it not?????

Archive

10-28-2006, 05:41 PM

Posted By: fkwI have seen wrinkles made to look less obvious, but I have never seen a known creased card look crease free, but Im sure card restorers can do it somehow. As far as altering... If its done with a plastic spoon or screwdown....no <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> If its done with soaking, chemicals, streaching, cuting, glue, ironing, etc.... yes

Archive

10-28-2006, 05:42 PM

Posted By: JoannI don't know if the creases reappear over time or not, and to me that is the cornerstone of the answer. If no, then the card is fixed for all time, then I don't think it's an alteration. If yes, then the crease was removed with the intent of improving appearance temporarily - long enough to deceive a buyer and raise the price. Somehow, to me the whole issue of alteration has an element of deception to it for purpose of increasing value. If it would permanently improve appearance as if it were never there, no problem. If it is intended to deceive any future buyer, then problem. Don't know where crease removal falls b/c I don't know if it is permanent or not. Joann

Archive

10-28-2006, 05:49 PM

Posted By: Jeff DrumLet's say you are set up @ a show and I asked to see a card. In my examination of the card I crease it. Have I technically added anything to the card - no, same amount of paper, ink, etc. Have I "altered" it? I bet you think so. Card is now worth .3x of what it was before. What was altered was the value and hence the card. Now, take the same card and take the crease out. Have you "altered" it? I think you would have to say yes. Same amount of paper, ink, etc. but now card is worth 1x it's original value if the crease in undetectable. Again, what was altered was the value and hence the card. I guess I am saying that alteration matters where commerec is involved and it all seems like an intent to deceive and enrich to me. IF the pressers and bleachers and the like were doing this to their own cards for their own viewing pleasure it is one thing - but I think we know what is going on. It has gotten to the point where I am very leary of all high grade cards (esp. prewar) and actually would prefer to own well-centered collector grade (3-5) examples than high end because I am very skeptical of most all of them.

Archive

10-28-2006, 06:05 PM

Posted By: John SYes.

Archive

10-28-2006, 06:10 PM

Posted By: barry arnoldYes, taking a crease out is really altering. For me, a key issue involves disclosure. Disclosing what one has done to the card promotes honesty and integrity in the transaction methinks. Then selling or not selling, buying or not buying, trading or not trading are done in a world that is a wee bit more clear and clean.... More civil, as we have been indicating, of late, on other threads. all the best, Barry

Archive

10-28-2006, 06:15 PM

Posted By: Josh AdamsI had an interesting conversation with my dad on this subject. While he isn't a collector, he has passed down his love of baseball to me. He asked, how is restoring a painting different from altering or restoring a card? I think that's a good point. Isn't it just a choice of words between "altering" and "restoring?" Personally, it does not bother me that a card's wrinkles have been smoothed, or a pencil mark has been erased. If I buy a card, and later find out that such things were done, it would not really be that big of a deal, to me. To answer the question at the begining of this thread, I don't think removing a wrinkle is "altering." I think it's "restoring." Go Go White Sox 2005 World Series Champions!

Archive

10-28-2006, 06:22 PM

Posted By: Jason Lespecially for selling/trading (your reputation would suffer greatly if you deal away a card that later creases), and you would hate to buy such a card...it's like marrying a girl only to later learn she didn't disclose that she had every STD known to the medical community...actually that's probably alot different, but well, er... anyway... if you just do it to your own collection, and don't mind ironing the cards out every few years, then who cares if it's right or wrong? It's like the peanut butter and dog joke...if it's your dog.......? punching out before someone does it for me Happy weekend! Jason L

Archive

10-28-2006, 06:28 PM

Posted By: Jeff DrumJOsh I think that main difference may be in that you are talking about a painting that is knowingly restored and advertised as such. Opposed to a crease-free card purporting to be something it isn't. The sellers are not saying, "I once was creased but now am not." They are saying, "Look @ me, I'm a PSA8 or whatever." Big difference to me.

Archive

10-28-2006, 06:29 PM

Posted By: edacra I mentioned what's considered acceptable for movie posters in the REA thread. I'd like to see alterations and restorations become an acceptable practice - that is to say, I would like to see it above ground, and declared up front. Let the restoration guys come out from hiding so we can knowingly chose what we want to pay and how it may decrease/inscrease a cards value. We know it's going on. It's an art in and of itself. Don't hoodwink people though. As for creases - I'd say any "process" or specialty work is a no-no and alters the card. If you're just sticking it under some books, or pushing on it with your fingers, that's the equivalent of a dust off.

Archive

10-28-2006, 06:31 PM

Posted By: Jeff DrumMaybe a better question to ask is, "How many of you would want to buy a crease-free card that was previously creased and not have it disclosed to you?"

Archive

10-28-2006, 06:37 PM

Posted By: Josh AdamsJeff, Good point about the paintings. In response to your question, I personally would not be terribly upset if I bought a previously wrinkled card which wasn't disclosed. Go Go White Sox 2005 World Series Champions!

Archive

10-28-2006, 06:51 PM

Posted By: warshawlawOf course it is "altering". The question is inaccurately put. The real question is whether removing a crease from a card should be acceptable to collectors and deemed not to reduce the value of the card. I've always felt that we need to move toward the model of the art world and recognize that legitimate conservation and restoration has a place in the hobby. Removal of creases and extraneous materials, if done safely and permanently, should be accepted as a legitimate thing and not considered in grading. In the art world, it is not only accepted as part and parcel of preserving artwork, it is actually deemed to enhance the value of the item. At present, however, these activities are not accepted in card collecting, and consequently are performed clandestinely, and as REA seems to prove, with an eye towards "laundering" the card through a grading service after the work is done so it can be sold with the implicit guarantee that it is unaltered. I therefore conclude that under the present scheme of things, removing a crease and trying to sell the card without disclosure is a deceptive practice. It may be that 25 years from now we all laugh at the notion that we were so backwards on this issue, just as we all laughed 15 years ago when the idea of slabbing was first introduced.

Archive

10-28-2006, 06:59 PM

Posted By: Eric BI'm not sure it's similar to compare restoring a painting to altering a card. A painting is an original work, while a card is essentially a print. I don't have a point.

Archive

10-28-2006, 07:00 PM

Posted By: leonOf course it is "altering" and I did state it incorrectly...I then used it in another thread and had the disclaimer of "in the bad sense"....which wasn't much better <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14>.

Archive

10-28-2006, 07:01 PM

Posted By: BrianYes, and I'd hope that a seller would disclose this information.

Archive

10-28-2006, 07:03 PM

Posted By: Dan Kotelesask Burt Reynolds !

Archive

10-28-2006, 07:04 PM

Posted By: jackgoodmanIt seems restoration, repair, cleaning, etc are acceptable actions in every collectible field (art, comic books, etc) except baseball cards. Are we really such a bunch of purists?

Archive

10-28-2006, 07:08 PM

Posted By: cmokingAdam - in the art world, is it correct to assume that when a painting is sold, any restoration or touch-up is announced and buyers know what was done? When they auction off a painting, are there ever any hidden restorations not revealed to the buyers? I'm assuming the answer is no, everything is revealed and all restorations for paintings are announced when it is put up for sale.

Archive

10-28-2006, 07:18 PM

Posted By: AnonymousI think if Burt Reynolds were to be injected with Botox and put into a screwdown for a year, he still would grade no better than VG/EX. "Man Law".......

Archive

10-28-2006, 07:21 PM

Posted By: Tony Conteis Yes! I rarely post but figured what the heck. Tony

Archive

10-28-2006, 07:42 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethI believe one difference is that if left to the ravages of time, art truly would lose its aesthetic value and could not be appreciated. As so many people here have pointed out though, even off condition baseball cards (at least through 100 years) clearly retain their aesthetic value at least in all but the most ravaged condition.

Archive

10-28-2006, 07:55 PM

Posted By: Brianyes

Archive

10-28-2006, 08:17 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellUgh!!! Of course it is and it is awful for the hobby. We need to "out all the card arteration people to put an end to this!!!

Archive

10-28-2006, 08:27 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthNot to get off of the topic but restoring a painting is very different than restoring a card. I do not collect paintings but I suspect that restored paintings come with full disclosure, which does not happen with "restored" cards that have been professionally graded and assigned a numerical grade. In addition, most cards have far more than 1 copy whereas paintings are unique and have greater historical importance. Paintings also do not go through the same kind of "wash" that cards go through via a grading process. And for my on topic post, I do not feel that taking a wrinkle or a crease out, if it is done properly, is any different than carefully erasing a stray pencil mark or soaking a card to remove debris that is on one of the surfaces of the card. Technically, the card was altered when someone placed a crease or wrinkle in it. And as alluded to earlier, placing a card under books does not remove a wrinkle or a crease. When people say that is how they have removed wrinkles or creases, they are either not telling the truth about the process employed or they do not see the wrinkle or crease is still there. Yes this is an alteration by virtue of the definition of altering, which is to change. If it is done improperly and the card is mangled and sent for grading, the card will be rejected for being altered or it will be docked grades. I have bought plenty of cards that look like 8’s that are in 5 holders due to someone attempting to remove a crease. If done properly there is no way to really tell and the card will grade based on its appearance. The process of removing creases is very prevalent. Greg

Archive

10-28-2006, 08:33 PM

Posted By: Dan Kotelesas much as Iam with you on this , it'll never happen when there are too many "BIG MONEY" players out there.

Archive

10-28-2006, 08:38 PM

Posted By: davidcylebackIf restoration has no effect on the value of a card, there's no reason not to disclose the restoration at sale. If fancy restoration raises the value of a painting or poster, as may be the case sometimes, you can bet the seller will disclose restoration at sale. From the above two, it should not be difficult to figure out why sellers usually don't disclose known restoration (Because they beleive disclosure will or might lower sales price). The object of disclosure is for the potential buyer can make and informed opinion. Even in areas where restoration is more accepted, like movie posters and paintings, the before and after restorations values are not equal and disclosure of restoration should be disclosed there as well.

Archive

10-28-2006, 08:45 PM

Posted By: JKAt first, I agreed with Adam's post. Specifically, we should accept restoration and take it out of the closet and make it above board. Then I read Greg's post and he made an excellent point regarding the one of a kind nature of most art work. I wonder if we uniformally began to accept restored cards (which implies that disclosure would become the norm) if what we would see is everyone starting to do it, ultimately making many cards "high grade" and thereby decreasing the value of our own material in the long run.

Archive

10-28-2006, 08:52 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesThis is sounding more and more like wimmen, every post.

Archive

10-28-2006, 08:59 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesI do not share your concern there JK. For example, if full disclosure is the norm, collectors can differentiate based on their preferences just like they do now with reprints and other cards (such as those rare blank backed hand cut cards .... which may have been an advertising piece, notebook cover, etc at one time).

Archive

10-28-2006, 09:03 PM

Posted By: Ricky YI'd considered it altering if something that was there naturally due to normal handling has disappered including removing creases. As long as its disclosed as such...I wouldn't mind having it in my collection.

Archive

10-28-2006, 09:12 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellGreg, You know who does all this stuff--you have spoken up before about it and named names--how about doing the hobby a great service and talking about what you know about who is doing card restoration? Jim

Archive

10-28-2006, 10:08 PM

Posted By: jay behrensTony Andrea said it best so far. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-28-2006, 10:16 PM

Posted By: Jeff DrumOne difference between removing a crease and erasing a pencil mark; a pencil mark represents something added and then taken away. A crease for lack of a better way to explain is a reconfiguration of the original state - not an addition.

Archive

10-28-2006, 10:31 PM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)Is it a fart if a bear farts in the woods and nobody hears it? If you follow the logic then NO it wouldn't be a problem because you wouldn't know the crease was there to begin with. On the other hand, I wouldn't like to purchase a card where a crease was removed only to have it come back again. I wouldn't do it because I'd be afraid of damaging the card. There are people that can do it. I've seen it done but I don't subscribe to doing it myself.

Archive

10-28-2006, 10:44 PM

Posted By: Dan KotelesIf you murder somebody and get it away with it, isnt it still murder ? excluding all OJ cards !

Archive

10-28-2006, 11:47 PM

Posted By: Harry Wallace (HW)But, to compare taking a crease out of a card to murder.... I know that you were just trying to make a point, but this is a piece of cardboard that we are talking about. My humble point of view is that if you can take something off of a card that it was not supposed to be there at the time that it was manufactured and are not harming the card in any way, then why not? If I pulled out my 1952 Topps set and my kid slopped some pizza sauce on it, you had better bet that I am going to wipe it off. Is this "fixing" or "altering" it from its current appearance? Absolutley. If my kid took out a pencil and wrote on on of my 1952 Topps cards then I am going to erase it. Yes, this is still altering its current appearance. If my kid accidentally creased my card and if I knew how to get the crease out, I would do that also. As long as you are not adding something that is not supposed to be there (color, buld up a corner) or taking something away that is supposed to be there (trimming, bleaching color) then it really does not matter to me. Just my two cents.

Archive

10-29-2006, 12:16 AM

Posted By: jay behrensAs long as you are not adding something that is not supposed to be there (color, buld up a corner) or taking something away that is supposed to be there (trimming, bleaching color) then it really does not matter to me. By this rationale, then rebuilding a corner or recoloring a card should be OK since you aren't adding anything that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, i.e. sharp corners (if that's how it was issued) or proper coloring? How about CJs with caramel stains? Those weren't intended to part of the card, so why not bleach them or what ever it takes to remove the stain. How about a card that has yellowed due to exposure to too much sunlight? Why not bleach it? It's supposed to be white, not yellow. It's a slippery slope when you start justifying why some alterations are OK and others are not, becuase those same atguments to justify supposed innocuous things can also be used to justify much more radical altrations. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-29-2006, 01:46 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackOne practical thing of being on the look out for altered cards, and checking past sales, is that more cards will be being returned for refund from unhappy buyers. Another thing is that when a seller is discovered to have had a card professionally restored for the purpose of defrauding collectors, his reputation will be ruined. Remember, while autograph forgeries can appear out of thin air, most unrestored 1933 Goudey Lajoies and 1914 Cracker Jacks have been sold once or more in major auctions that thousands of collectors own catalogs from. If someone's fraudulantly restoring major cards purchased from the big auction houses, it will only be time before he's exposed. I bet there is a collector on this board, the lost soul that he is, that can recite all the sellers of 1914 CJ Mathewsons from the last three years. And I bet there are collectors who keep record in notebook or on computer each time a Goudey Lajoie sells and the who/how much/when.

Archive

10-29-2006, 01:58 AM

Posted By: DylanCan anyone explain how you can take a crease out of a card anyways? I hear people say that some peope "wash" cards, couldnt this potentially worsen the card, and warp it? It seems like a lot to risk, but i guess there are experts at it just like with painting restoration.

Archive

10-29-2006, 05:41 AM

Posted By: MikeUYes

Archive

10-29-2006, 05:46 AM

Posted By: Steve M.Yes

Archive

10-29-2006, 06:25 AM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusUnless and until it can be proven that a card with a crease removed has the same structural integrity than the card before it received the crease, thus not making it more prone to future creasing, removing the crease is an alteration of the card that in my view must be disclosed to a perspective buyer and that should either lower the grade the card would receive or result in a qualifier being put on the unchanged grade. The rationale behind this response is that with impaired structural intergrity, the card is not its original state. Having said that, even if it could be proven that the structural integrity was not impaired, it is still possible that the removal still altered the card, but for other reasons. For example, if the removal changes the texture of the card or flattens it, then because the card has not been returned to its original state I would still regard the card as having been altered.

Archive

10-29-2006, 06:32 AM

Posted By: leonCorey, as long as we all realize how prevelent the taking out of creases is then I think we are not being naive. From my last 2 days of speaking with folks my guess is that about 85% of the dealers are taking creases/wrinkles out. One of them asked me if I cared if one was taken out and I couldn't tell. I told them "no".....So far Griffins is the only one I have ever heard say a crease has come back. That's not very many....

Archive

10-29-2006, 07:00 AM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusNot sure what your main point is. The fact that the practice might be so prevalent and perhaps undetectable doesn't mean it should not be disclosed. Disclosing something to a perspective buyer doesn't mean the buyer will or even be expected to care about what was done. It simply recognizes that some buyers might reasonably regard such disclosure as material in deciding whether to make the purchase and at what price. However, having said this, I am not so naive as to believe even a small fraction of the dealers/collectors who remove the creases/wrinkles will make the disclosure. And why won't they? Probably because they are afraid a number of buyers will regard the removal as being an alteration of the card thus lowering its value!

Archive

10-29-2006, 07:20 AM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliLike it or not, "condition" is a factor that helps determine a card's value. The implication is that a card in "near mint" condition HAS SURVIVED FOR X NUMBER OF YEARS IN THAT CONDITION, and because of that, has a greater value that another example of the same card that has wrinkles and creases. That's the way the hobby has always been. If you're taking wrinkles and creases out of cards, YOU ARE DECEIVING YOUR BUYER into thinking that you have a card that has survived in better condition than it has. And you are doing it intentionally. And anyone trying to use the rationale that taking out a wrinkle is no different than erasing pencil marks, because you are removing something that's not supposed to be there is stretching REALLY far. Using that logic, it would be okay to remove stains, replace paper loss, re-shape corners, add gloss, add color, fill in holes. None of that stuff is "supposed" to be there. The problem with this hobby, unfortunately, is that there is value that appreciates. Who the hell is going to be the first guy to admit "half my collection's value lies in the false idea that the cards surrvived in pristine condition for 60 years?" Who's the first guy who's going to say "My (insert scarce and valuable card here) in a NM-MT holder is actually trimmed?" Who's going to be the first guy that says "I do major surgery in my basement lab, and churn out pristine Goudey Ruths by the boatload?" So instead people just point fingers and speculate. My opinion: 1) Doing anything to change the way a card looks after you bought it is "altering". 2) Some of it is okay and some of it is not. 3) Anyone who has a reputation for being a card doctor is not a very good one. 4) There are WAY more altered cards out there than most people want to think there are. and yes, taking out a crease is "altering", and wrong, and I'll bet I have a ton of them in my collection. It bothers me that I can be deceived into spending more money (which is stealing), but it's not going to prevent me from enjoying my hobby. -Al

Archive

10-29-2006, 07:52 AM

Posted By: dennisthere are creases in cards that can only be seen under magnification and would not be noticed under eye inspection. i believe these are being removed (as leon stated 85%)by collectors/dealers and are getting past the slabbers. IT IS ALTERING but is never going to be detected,and the crese will never come back. then there is an obvious creased card. it is forever a creased card and alteration will be obvious to all. to improve it is alteration and i think we have all seen a few of these.

Archive

10-29-2006, 08:11 AM

Posted By: Tony AndreaLeon- Just my opinion again, but. If what you say is true and 85% of dealers are taking creases & wrinkles out of their cards, dont you think by giving them the go ahead or thumbs up to think this practice of altering (crease & wrinkle removing) is okay, just adds to the problem and could possibly make the situation worse. If we as collectors support this, it tell's dealers that can possibly increase their income by altering a card in this manner, hhhmmmmm. What else might I be able to do. Ever hear of Pandora's Box??? Regards, Tony Andrea

Archive

10-29-2006, 08:47 AM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesIf what you say is true, Leon, and I suspect that it is, 15% of dealers do not alter cards and probably disclose the assessment that a card which they have available for sale may have been altered! This is time to name names. Come foward, honest dealers and reassure us of your identity. Heck, I will start it off: Luckeycards.com is a site which the proprietor discloses the condition of the card accurately and volunteers to point out alterations and suspicions of alterations. I have examples from purchases I have made there.

Archive

10-29-2006, 09:18 AM

Posted By: cmoking"So far Griffins is the only one I have ever heard say a crease has come back. That's not very many...." I've seen two cards in holders where it looks like a crease came back. But it is one of those things I'm not 100% sure of. It is possible the crease was there pre-grade and the grading company overgraded the card. It is possible when I bought the card in the holder that the card had the crease and I missed it. It is possible the crease came back afterwards. I guess I'd say I'm 90% sure I saw two cards where the crease came back.

Archive

10-29-2006, 12:20 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI differentiate between major and minor restoration for the purposes of deception. Major would include trimming, recoloring to get it to look Mint, having a professional work it over. Someone spooning out a 3mm micro-wrinkle on a low grade card is minor in my eyes.

Archive

10-29-2006, 12:48 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesHow important is the motivation? Is it better that a card is trimmed for the convenience of it fitting into something, rather than to decieve others? Is it better that the recoloring is done for spite, such as spray painting Marichal's face rather than to decieve a potential buyer? To me, the motive is meaningless, only the status has merit.

Archive

10-29-2006, 01:34 PM

Posted By: Bottom of the NinthNot so sure that creases come back once the cards are placed in graded holders. They are either gone completely or they are not. Unless you watch the card on day 1 of owning it and compare it to day 256 and see a change in the card, then what you are probably seeing is a card that someone attempted to remove the crease and they did a poor job. Saying that you notice a crease is coming back would mean you would really have to have been there for the removal of the crease and to witness it coming back as the card sits prior to being sent in for grading. I am not a paper specialist but once a card is creased the fibers are compromised. Not sure how much more damage, if any, is being done to the card when a crease is "removed".

Archive

10-29-2006, 01:34 PM

Posted By: leonEver hear of an ostrich sticking his head in the sand? It's happening regardless of what we say...why not bring it out of the dark, back room and open it up? For the record I have never tried to get a crease or wrinkle out of a card...I just don't think it's the end of the world. CMOKING- you are presuming and have no definitive evidence that a crease came back....

Archive

10-29-2006, 02:08 PM

Posted By: martindl I'm one of what now appears to be a declining number of people who thinks that anything done to a card is altering and I believe the value should be lower because of it. The argument of it shouldn't matter if you can't see it holds no water with me. As has been said here already, if the people erasing marks and spooning out creases truly believe that both are o.k. practices then go ahead and fully disclose such in your auctions. Will you? Of course you won't, because you know that the cards will sell for less. By not disclosing your practices you are deceiving people. It's wanton deception and lets not try to call it anything other than what it really is.

Archive

10-29-2006, 04:04 PM

Posted By: JohnI think it says a lot for someone’s character who either (A) supports the practice or (B) turns a blind eye and doesn’t really care or bother them. It’s stealing; the reason no single person is ever going to come forward with full disclosure on a doctored card upon re-sale is simple. It would raise hundreds of questions about the person’s integrity as a seller, and it would ultimately result in a lost customer and or a lowered value for the card in question. Its for these reasons we will never see an auction description in our lifetime that reads…”this card was VG at best before we got our hands on it! With our in house team spending hours, using our top secret methods for card restoration, we now with pride present this beautiful near mint example of…!” Is it happening while we speak sure is, no doubt in my mind. In fact even a few board members partake in this practice and have openly admitted so. Does it mean I should accept it, I don’t think so. Would any of you guys tell your kids stealing is ok as long as you don’t get caught, or no one knows about it? I guess your wife really isn’t banging the mailman until you catch her, and that makes it ok?? Illegal and crooked stuff goes on all the time around the world all of which many of us never will know about, doesn’t mean we should join them and or tolerate it either. IMO. Outing the “Card Doctors” still wouldn’t stop them sad to say, the only thing it would do is give me a list of people to avoid doing business with, and if forced to do business with regardless of the card, always value the card lower because of the seller at hand. The unfortunate thing is, its here to stay, like any big business there are always a handful of people who will take the shortcut to make a buck at some other suckers expense. But to take the stance just because I got taken and did notice, I should be happy and accept the fact that I was ripped off. I’m calling bull**** on that one!

Archive

10-29-2006, 04:28 PM

Posted By: Harry Wallace (HW)I also agree that doing anything to a card is altering its present state. But, what is OK and what is not? I am OK with: Remove surface grime (wax stain, pizza sauce, etc.) Erase a super light pencil mark Remove a tiny surface wrinkle that does not affect the "structural integrity" of the card To me, all of these are OK. If a light crease (wrinkle) can be taken out and it is impossible to tell, then I do not have a huge problem with it. If the "structural integrity" of the card, as Corey Shanus puts it, is changed then I guess that it could create problems. Here is what I do not think is OK: Taking out a crease where the card's "structural integrity" is compromised. Adding anything: color, paper, gloss, etc. Cleaning a card with anything that may damage the card (bleach, etc.) Removing a part of the card (trimming, power erasing borders, etc.) I guess that all of these things are forms of altering, but the definitely have different severity levels.

Archive

10-29-2006, 04:49 PM

Posted By: Tony AndreaLeon- I agree with you. By no means is this subject the end of the world. My cards will never be prioritized over family, good friends, and the health of my loved ones. As for the sticking of ones head in a hole as an ostrich might do, regarding this matter. My belief is this. The people sticking their heads in the hole arent the ones who are opposed to crease & wrinkle removal. Its the ones that are saying it's okay that are burying their heads.

Archive

10-29-2006, 08:17 PM

Posted By: jay behrensIf removing creases from cards is as prevelant as Leon says, then why don't all these dealers just fess up and admit it? Could it be because most people still feel that it's unethical? If most people think it's OK, then why not come forward? Leon, you seem to be a big supporter of the people, give some insight as to why they won't come forward if you and so many others seem to think what they do is OK. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-29-2006, 09:00 PM

Posted By: leonI am not a big supporter I just don't see that it's as big of a deal as some make it out to be. Maybe it is, I have been wrong before. I just know it goes on and would prefer it to come out in the open. Maybe there could be different color holders for altered cards and they could get graded, like comics. Personally I don't have that big of a problem with it. With that said I have never done it or asked anyone to do it for me. Until recently I held the same view as the last several folks. I guess there are degrees to everything. I haven't given much thought to the difference between wrinkles and creases but maybe there could be a line there....I guess I could have never said anything and we could all still be playing happily....never talking about it....

Archive

10-29-2006, 09:03 PM

Posted By: Cobby33Leon- You said, "I haven't given much thought to the difference between wrinkles and creases but maybe THERE COULD BE A LINE THERE..." That's hilarious! Did you mean to say that? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-29-2006, 09:06 PM

Posted By: leonI really meant it in the context of removing them.........since I have never thought about it I would need to give it some more thought...."structural integrity" has me thinking.....that's all

Archive

10-29-2006, 09:08 PM

Posted By: jay behrensIt is a big deal because it is being done to deceive people. It it wasn't done for that reason, then they should be more than willing to admit to the work they do. Hell, it would even get them more business from people that want to get their cards improved. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-29-2006, 09:11 PM

Posted By: Cobby33Leon- Was referring to the [probably inadvertent] pun (or maybe play-on-words) in your post <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-29-2006, 09:14 PM

Posted By: leonwoops...I am a bit defensive since getting slammed for talking about stuff that I don't do or knew too much about (until a few days ago)....at least to the extent it is being done.......but yes....I guess, had I thought to do it, it would have been pretty good.... <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-29-2006, 09:15 PM

Posted By: Cobby33Kinda figured that...Take in all in stride, it's nothing personal. Those of us who have dealt with you know you're 100% above-board. On another note, if it's slabbed and graded, "what's the diff?" as Frank Burns would say? If people weren't so obsessed with cracking cards and re-submitting them, this issue would be less of a problem. Now, if I knew a graded card has been "altered," I suppose I might care (since I generally disapprove of any "altering,")--which is why I don't ask!

Archive

10-29-2006, 09:27 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesIf you look at a card and can not tell it has been altered, and the grading companies can not tell either, then there is no evidence of the alteration. Without evidence, the alteration does not exist. In the rare situation that an auction house or others can trace a card's history reliably, then evidence may exist regarding an alteration. But that evidence is indirect. Examination of the card still does not provide indication of tampering with the card's condition. So in most situations, if you can not detect an alteration, it does not exist. And even if you donot want your cards trimmed or their creases removed, when there is a potential for profit in doing so, it will be done, until all cards are as restored as is cost effective to do. I wish Joe would say this isn't so.

Archive

10-29-2006, 09:31 PM

Posted By: jay behrensAs Leon pointed out, and I agree, the slabbers should be holdering everything they get and when they detect that the card is altered, then it get put in a colder with a different colored flip. They do it for comics, so why not baseball cards. Just as in comics, people are willing to pay for nice looking cards regardless whether or not the card has been altered. At least this way, we know what cards have been altered and can bid accordingly. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-29-2006, 09:32 PM

Posted By: Cobby33Is a mark on the card (MK) considered an "alteration?" Knowing how PSA (and others) currently deal with this, this could become another inconsistent grading practice of theirs.

Archive

10-29-2006, 09:56 PM

Posted By: jay behrensTechnically, it is altering the card, but is an alteration that has a negative effect on the calue of the card. The only problem people would have with someone putting ink or pencil marks on a card is that most would be saddened that anyone would deface a card in a such a way today. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-30-2006, 01:26 AM

Posted By: BcDis this altered in any way???? <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/Nice-Earthtone-Colored-Couch-92-Inches_W0QQitemZ220040582922QQihZ012QQcategoryZ496 0QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item22 0040582922" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/Nice-Earthtone-Colored-Couch-92-Inches_W0QQitemZ220040582922QQihZ012QQcategoryZ496 0QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item22 0040582922</a> just wonderin? BcD <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

10-30-2006, 08:09 AM

Posted By: warshawlaw"Is a mark on the card (MK) considered an "alteration?" This is the "hanging chad" of grading. If PSA divines that the mark was made by some creative kid, it gets slabbed. If "KarnakPSA" decides it was made by someone trying to deceive, it get rejected. Stupid, indefensible distinction.

Archive

10-30-2006, 08:39 AM

Posted By: Jeff DrumPlain and simply as stated before more eloquently than I; the fact that the people who are doing it do not advertise the fact in their listings or even advertise for "wrinkle-removing" business should tell you what even the "doctors" think about what they are doing. Even if they see no issue, it tells me that they feel (and rightfully so) that the majority of their potential customer base would have any issue with it and it would affect their business. I agree with the previous comments that PSA/SGC/GAI should all have slabs and different color labels for altered cards. Now will that prevent the crackers/reslabbers from plying their trade - No!

Archive

10-30-2006, 09:04 AM

Posted By: NoelClearly yes. I think Jay has it spot on. It is unethical at best and stealing at worst. Why are these people who alter cards hiding in the backroom and not coming forward? They know, along with a large percentage of others it is deceptive and wrong. In the end, these people will make their money and the card collecting community will be left with an inferior product. Additionally, grading companies who overlook this should be held liable for the difference in the alteration. Probably would create a little more conscious awareness of the practice if it hits them right in the pocket book. The bottom line is it is not being done under the watchful eyes of card collecting community but rather under the guise that the card is something other than what it is being advertised.

Archive

10-30-2006, 10:28 AM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesWait, I think I get it! The crease formerly was on the card, but now it is gone, because someone removed it, right? So no one can see it - well, because it is gone. So what? The grading companies must have different color holders to distinguish between creases that are gone and those that were never there? Wait, I still don't get it!

Archive

10-30-2006, 10:40 AM

Posted By: cmokingWarshawlaw wrote: "This is the "hanging chad" of grading. If PSA divines that the mark was made by some creative kid, it gets slabbed. If "KarnakPSA" decides it was made by someone trying to deceive, it get rejected. Stupid, indefensible distinction. " From my experience, PSA will grade any cards that has been written on as MK (assuming they see it and it wasn't erased). I was not aware they made any differentiation at all like what warshawlaw is talking about here. Edumacate me please.

Archive

10-30-2006, 10:49 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackIn this hobby, people generally have two major 'condition' critereon for pricing a card: authenticity and condition grade. If a genuine card is altered-- recolored, trimmed, wrinkle pressed out-- the card will still be authentic. Assigning a condition of grade is dependant on whether or not the card has been altered. A recolored card can't be considered Mint no matter how nice it looks. In fact many will consider the card Poor or ungradable. Whether you think it's dumb or smart or silly or good, a 'Near Mint' card that is known to have had a crease pressed out will be valued lower than a Near Mint card that has had no alteration. If these two cards are laid side by side, I know of no collector who would pay the same about for each card knowing one has had a wrinkle removed-- and everyone removing a wrinkle knows this. Fraud is when you intentionally hide information that you know would lower the value of the card. If you have a Mint card and don't disclose what you did to the card because you know the buyer would pay less if you did disclose, that's fraud. For defining fraud, don't be concerned about whether this or that counts as or 'alteration' or if this type of alteration is good or bad, focus on whether or not the alteration effects the market value of the card and wehther or not the seller is hiding it specifically because he knows disclosure will lower the value. If one person thinks recoloring a 1953 Topps Mickey Mantle is evil and another thinks the recoloring enhances the card and is morally good, they both have to disclose the recoloring at sale as they both know recoloring lowers the market value for the card. For defining fraud, the question of whether restoration is morally good or morally bad is irelevant.

Archive

10-30-2006, 10:49 AM

Posted By: Cobby33Sometimes, they grade a card "but for" the mark and qualify it with a "MK." Example, if a card would have gotten a "6" without the mark, it would get a "6 (MK)." Sometimes, PSA grades a card with a mark as the grade it would have gotten, but for the mark, knock it down a grade AND qualify it with a "MK." I.e., if a card would have otherwise gotten a "6," it gets a "5 (MK)." Sometimes, they just knock it down a grade (or not), without an "MK." Somtimes, they give a "MK" to a card without a mark (as they just did to me). By the same token, PSA (and others) generally give "AUT" or "A" to cards that have otherwise been altered. Sometimes they give beaters that are not altered, an "A" or "AUT." Absolutely no consistency internally, nor across the various grading companies.