Posted By:
PASJDAaron, I asked Mr. Allen a similar question along the lines of why not simply disclose everything, and pointing out that in my opinion anyhow his distinction left gray areas, and here is his response (again, he gave me permission to share his views with the broader group):
"Obviously the area you are concerned with is cards, which is clearly an area where invasive restoration detracts from the value of the subject (as opposed to photos or display pieces where it can add to the value). This really is not a semantic issue for me. My position is if non-invasive work that doesn't alter the surface of a card and can't be detected is performed there is no need to disclose this. There is no "blur" as adding or altering the surface is easly to detect with a black light.
I used this example earlier today. If you were admiring your T206 Cobb in ExMt condition while eating an ice cream sundae and inadvertantly dropped some whipped cream on the card you would naturally grab a napkin and wipe it off. Whew, you can't detect any cream on it. Would you feel compelled to disclose the fact that a small amount of whipped cream fell on your prized card? I think not."