Card Doctor haters please respond
 

Let me start with the notion that I have always been uncomfortable with people doctoring cards so I am NOT in favor of this practice. I met a card doctor from Canada at a show and he explained a bit about what he does...at first I thought cool but the more I pondered the more it seemed shady to me.

But I am curious...In almost every other collectible market restoration is a seemingly normal and accepted practice. I believe only Cards and coins is this frowned upon.

Can someone explain why its ok for paintings, sculptures and antiques to be restored but with cards its beyond taboo?

Thanks for the responses.

PS sorry if this has been explained or discussed before.

Ullman just explained it on the other thread.

Appreciate it. When I saw it was already up to 14 pages I got lazy.

If the thread is not necessary it can be deleted

You can change your preferences to fit 80 posts on a page.

Holy convenience Batman....thanks!

It's under Edit Options, then Thread Display Options.

Thank you good sir.

The reason that restoration on coins and cards is frowned upon is that the value of each is very much dependent on its grade. Compare a vintage baseball card in Good to Very Good condition to the same one in NR MT to MT condition. The difference might be a hundred fold. As such, collectors demand that whatever grade a coin or card receives is the real thing.

That wouldn't apply to a painting. If a restorer touched up a Picasso, I doubt it would affect the price very much. If major work was done, then it probably would have more of an effect. But baseball cards and coins are very condition sensitive.

I agree with this but the part where I am confused is why?

If you have two identical cards and both are slabbed PSA 8 why would it matter if one was "touched up" and the other one wasnt?

We love "eye appeal" but then if someone removes a gum stain from 1963 Topps Berra "eye appeal" is thrown out the window and the card is demonized.


If TPGs are defining our love or hate for cards that are doctored then should we flip our stance to buy the holder not the card?

Barry,

First thought,

I wouldn't mind being restored, regardless of the impact on my value.:eek:

Second thought,

Is a card doctor synonymous with a humorous physician?:confused:

Third thought,

before Peter gets snarky, why would I even post this?:D

Restoration requires that a good portion of the original be intact. Sorry Mr. MD.:D

Different collectors will have different opinions about this. I think most would want an original card rather than a touched up one, but collecting is subjective. Maybe it's time to take a poll.

Agreed!

This is an interesting conversation every time it's brought up. The opinions on what is ok and what is over the line are all over the place. There are a lot of variables even with my own preferences.
I'm ok if something is removed from the card like wax, dirt, glue, tape residue by means that don't damage the card. my big concern is usually the long term condition of the card. If the solvent won't corrode the card now or over time I'm generally ok with that.
At the same time I don't care for a card that adds something like recoloring, building back corners, trimming, filling in a pinhole, etc. I guess those are the things I'd more consider altering/restoring/being deceptive. Same thing with removing a crease.
Also if someone alters it and it's going to stay in their collection that's ok too. The tough part is we don't get to take it with us when we meet our maker so then it wouldn't likely be disclosed to the next buyer and then that would be a problem.
I guess it's a good thing for me that with what I collect I have to worry less about that. I actually like the tobacco stains on my T card backs. Adds character. 😀

How about movie posters?

Top condition items that have not been restored command quite a premium over lesser condition items. Yet restoration happens all the time and can actually enhance the value of a poor condition item.

Tom C

Regarding high grade vintage cards, the "why" is simple economics: Supply affects the market.

If I have a PSA 8 card that is unaltered and top pop, then a guy trim and bleaches a card that gets a PSA 9, the restoration directly affected my resale value. Owners of high grade vintage cards have a vested interest in preventing artificially enhanced cards from equaling or eclipsing unrestored examples.

Restoration is frowned on for stamps too. It happens on occasion if something is rare enough and in truly horrible condition. But the certs take a while to get, and they nearly always catch and mention repairs. One of the companies had a display at the 2006 international show in DC that was entirely repaired and faked items. I couldn't spot the work done on probably 85% of the stuff shown.

I think that fields where restoration is allowed it has a lot to do with preservation and display. I have some old newspapers that are pretty much disintegrating. If they had any real value either historically or as displays I'd have them deacidified and stabilized. If that work is done right it helps the item survive and is reversible.

Art, cars, furniture, movie posters, all have a good deal of practical/display value. And restoration makes them useful for that for a good long time.

Cards as much as we display them aren't usually in the same sort of category as larger art. So the focus is on originality.

Each hobby treats restoration differently.

Sentiments are sentiments.

But with a painting there is only one in existence and by design it's meant for display on the wall. A movie poster may not be unique, but it is also intended for display. I think display value is the number one reason whey it's more accepted.

Also, a painting is made up of a lot of materials that may deteriorate or change color with time. The varnish on old oil paintings turns brown and restoration often involves removing the brown varnish to reveal the original colors.

Also, irrelevant to desirability or acceptability, in all areas you have to disclose at sale when an item has been restored. My brother in law collected movie posters and, while he saw nothing unethical about restoration, he did say it effected value and you had to disclose any restoration. He said a Vg poster restored to Mint was worth more than a Vg poster, but worth less than a naturally Mint poster-- so you would get in trouble in the hobby if you didn't disclose restoration.

There's nothing illegal about trimming or recoloring a baseball card. It's knowingly not disclosing what was done at sale that is illegal. And, similar to movie posters, many altered baseball cards do have value.

Understood. I was more responding to Barry regarding his statement that cards and coins value is based on condition, therefore restoration is frowned upon. That is not the case with movie posters.

You are correct that posters have display value, and thus the value of a restored poster would go up because it is more aesthetically pleasing. And your brother in law is absolutely correct regarding value and auction houses disclosing not just that a piece has been restored, but what restoration was done and what the condition of the piece was originally before restoration.

I guess I am a bit conflicted on the topic. On one hand, I get restoration means that a piece has been altered, but having collected movie paper for as long as I have, it doesn't bother me that much. And I only display a very small fraction of my collection of posters.

Tom C

Breaking News

I can tell you having and origional classic car, imo, is better thsn a restored one

I wonder how many of our "original" high grade vintage cards are already touched up, but we can't tell and never will.

As was said, there is only one painting and it is meant to be displayed. So I think we can all agree that a restored painting is going to be preferable to look at than a fading, hole ridden and unrecognizable work of art will be. The Last Supper is barely original. The rest has been repainted over centuries over and over again. Also everyone hated it when it was painted, so it was nearly bombed out during WWII. Do you want to look at what we have today or what it would look like on its own?

Cards are totally different. For the average vintage card, there will be thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of them, each one more or less exactly the same as the last. So why would anyone prefer a faux, touched up version of a card that comes in such a large edition when you can get a real, original one any time you want?

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.

Comic books restored increase there value. Vintage autos have to be cleaned up and restored all the time.

Joe

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?

Updated with a poll

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.

I'm surprised there are so many posts of pre-war collectors stating that do not care if a card has been altered as long as it's slabbed and graded.

Between this thread and the other one, many posts have the opinion that altered pre-war cards carry the same value as long as they are undetectable and slabbed.

What happens when PSA or TPG's come up with the technology to determine if existing slabbed cards have been altered in any manner? That technology is coming, and it may not be the TPG's that do this. I think you'll care then if your pre-war cards have been altered.

I don't believe for a minute any of it is "undetectable." See Steve B's posts. There is a lot of wishful thinking and rationalization going on. Or complicity.

Understood. Still don't have an answer to this: Do the TPG's currently have the technology to detect the any type of altering; chemical/water/fractional trimming/etc and to what level? What CAN'T the TPG's detect?

thanks

if you read what Joe Orlando said about PSA
 

he stated the graders often don't use any sort of equipment - relying on their visual inspection, visceral assessment, and "experience" to grade and "authenticate" a card. Some fairly detailed analysis in a couple of prior threads here that extrapolated between the number of submissions, the number of graders (quite a few of them having just graduated college and retaining the cartophilic experience of their chronological ages), and the number of hours in a week. Like the actual number of minutes actually played in a football game - it was less than the number of functioning fingers on a shop teachers hand.
Not an argument about grading companies as I'm sure to some degree there's a relationship between the number of submissions one receives and the number of (hopefully) qualified graders. At the end of the day each of the TPG's are a business and as such look to profits - likely the other major TPG's (SGC BVG) follow similar patterns - although the dreamer in me wishes that weren't the case. Cards don't go to "era" specialists and some issues are just obscure or have variables that require knowledge of the issue itself. I would guess that for the most part the same amount of time is spent on a second year Reggie Jackson as is spent on a higher tier card like the ones shown above - even if it was appreciably more - there are seemingly de facto limits to not only how far they CAN GO - but also how far they WANT to go.
Water. Mostly inert and used across the board by early collectors to excise treasured cardboard renderings from scrapbook prisons so they may enjoyed in their existing totality. I have never soaked a card to remove a stain nor have I ever asked anyone to do it. In fact I can't even think of a time I've ASKED anyone if my card has been soaked. I have asked about the condition of the back of a card which would naturally include excess paper as well as paper loss. I have soaked quite a few cards - prefer not to - as I'm a bit like the sorcerer's apprentice and pigpen rolled into one. From all I've read combined with my "on the road" experiences the use of water CURRENTLY reflects an accepted practice within the hobby. Rubbing off a careless tobacco remnant seems fine to me as well but I'm against anything else being done to a card. Soaking a card to remove stains slippery - to remove pen marks and such - not good. Using anything but water - not for me. I would call anyone who does any form of RESTORATION a card doctor.
My desire for the personal freedoms I believe people are entitled to unfortunately allows for a "card doctor" to offer their services and for people to seek them out. Hate that there are people who would abuse the process but this is how I view things on a core level.
It's likely that water does affect the fibers themselves found in card stock as well as affecting the subsequent reactions and resultant foxing or seepage of extraneous minute particles of dust and dander into and around such fibers. I'm old and I have handled quite a few 19th century cards that I could document which were soaked more than 50 years ago and others likely before that. Other than residual staining depending on the glue or absorbency exhibited by the paper itself - I can discern no differences to the structure or "essence" of those cards.
What needs to be considered are cards that have been entombed. I'm no scientist but the cases themselves are not inert and besides the cardstock itself there are inks of unknown origin. By themselves without the circulation of air I suggest over time there will be visual and/or discernable structural defects - and it seems plausible that water might exacerbate and accelerate such decline.
How long before that happens would be a pure guess but there has to be some degree of decline of any paper over time. We are only temporary keepers of these things we chose to preserve for whatever our motivation.
For me there lies the conflict - one I've resolved to align myself with the prevailing (and convenient) acceptance of soaking - without it I'd have few cards to chase - as I already have wantlists nearly 20 years old. There's a limit as to how far my responsibility to the future goes in terms of preserving a card - at least my cards won't be lost to the near future - in a small way I have rescued them by the simple act of soaking them in water. They would still exist - just wouldn't get the attention if even only for the aesthetics of a paper encrusted verso. I suppose at that point the TPG's and hobby would get together to determine the amount of paper needed to be retained for the best grade.
It seems most hobbyists are against any other kind of doctoring - at least in public - Mr. Towle obviously gets his "customers" from somewhere - it's all been discussed before - the people predisposed to perpetrate deception and fraud will go to him or someone else.
Final aside in my usual run-on-stream-of-consciousness diatribe would be a true story about someone I'm friends with who collects rare 19th century cards of all types - a bit OT - but linked a little just the same. Over the years he has systematically colored in the edges of many of his mayo cards and other cards with full-bleed dark borders. He has some in displays (including a baseball field montage) and prefers the way they look without the worn white edging. His anal nature will never let him relinquish them in his lifetime - other than perhaps Betty White and my wicked step-mother no one will live forever (I would have said Dick Clark but....). Just a head's up that it's ALWAYS buyer beware - the provenance of our cards most often lost to time - any number of ways and any number of reasons things may not be as they seem. Probably a main reason even with their failings - like a guy who can't fix his own car or computer - a significant number of people need someone else's help for whatever reason and the TPG's have the product the consumer wants - warts and all. Hopefully the voices of educated consumers will begin to demand more accountability and more diligent examination of their cards - although in the past - response to simpler issues like the holders themselves has been quite slow.......

Very informative and well-thought post. I, too, would have thought most people were opposed to anything beyond water, or perhaps erasing a very light pencil mark. But I am not sure if that is the case any more. We now have a whole industry based on trying to get stuff by third party graders, and if it's successful, I'm not sure many people really care.

deleted.

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.

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.

What Al said
 

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."

Wow. Are your previous 656 posts this long? Obsoletely stunning and eloquently spoken.

When the technology arrives to eliminate any ambiguity to the alteration of any card, there will be a demand for that service. Certainly on big dollar cards that are predisposed to alternations (pre-war). That hypothetical flip will create immediate demand for submissions of previously slabbed unaltered cards. It will not be a cheap flip (this is not an efficiency of grading game), but the upside for the card owner is enormous.

It's a back door way of identifying the alternated cards, because those cards will not be submitted (assuming most owners know their cards are altered as discussed in this thread; and they don't care either) Even if those altered cards were submitted, they wouldn't pass and would remain in the old slab. In essence, the old flips will assumed to be altered, since they have not been "certified" unaltered.

And when the market gains traction, buyers will de-value the old flips and emphasize the "certified unaltered" flip. The way it should be.

If you want a similar example; see PWCC's certificate. PWCC is not only identifying superbly graded cards, they are identifying ones that aren't (no certificate).

cringe

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

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.

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.

Al C. is a good writer and stuff.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Provenance, provenance, provenance

First, I think people who spend $100,000 on a 1957 Topps Sandy Koufax because it's a PSA 10 are dunderheads (in part because grading has a well known margin of error, as evidenced by people resubmitting cards and getting different grades), but i wrote an entire article about provenance (including a bit about high grade cards) and if they don't care to inquire where a card came from before dropping $100,000 that's their choice and perhaps their eventual downfall. Of course not all cards have verifiable provenance, but $100,000 is a big investment to not even ask where the card came from.

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...ce-collection/

For those who don't want to read the entire article, I'll quote:

"When someone is offering a Gem Mint antique baseball card with perfect razor sharp edges, have you ever considered asking where it was acquired? If the seller himself trimmed the card, he won’t be able to provide documentation that it existed in that condition before he owned it. Clearly, there won’t be solid documentation for many cards– cards are discovered in books, bought as part of group lots, a sales receipt may make no mention of grade–but provenance of high grade cards should be something to keep in the back of your mind."

If collectors started demanding to see where high graded cards came from before they laid down any $, a lot of the alteration problems would be solved right there. Card doctors won't be able to show where they got the card-- though there will no doubt suddenly be a rash of Gem Mint 10s "found in my grandmother's cabinet."

Not that I'm anticipating that the hobby will take this advice (I've mentioned provenance many times over the years visa vie cards and alterations, but it always appears to fall on deaf ears). But an individual collector reading this post can take the initiative with his own purchases.