Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
It seems to me if anything, legitimizing "restored" would increase the incentive to doctor, because the worst case becomes something that has a decent residual value instead of a rejected and tainted card.
|
I think there are cases where restoration have been reasonable (a torn card where the tear will be getting worse with time, a card where half is missing or has major damage to the central graphics), but have always been of the sentiment that restored cards should the rare exceptions. I believe it should be the norm, as it is, that alterations are considered detrimental to the card, lowers the value and the hobby should be against it.
Your point, and what I just said, may go against the idea of graders being able to label conservation/restoration, but just label all alterations as altered AUTH. If they get into the conservation/restoration etc labels, then it may make the practices seem more legitimate and acceptable, when restoration should be the rare exception for specific reasons. You may have just convinced me that graders should simply label altered cards as altered AUTH. If an AUTH card was restored for good reason, the owner of the card can make his case-- but the card doesn't get a special label.
Graders are actually by name condition graders, and they should say "We condition grade (assign numbers) only cards that are unaltered, and the cards have been altered. You people can debate the merits of restoration and conservation or what types of alterations are okay-- fine and dandy--, but we are strictly in the technical business of authenticating identity, condition grading unaltered cards and identifying cards that have been altered."