opinions- is taking a crease out really altering?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

First 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]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

Yes, clearly, in my opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric B

I 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]

Posted By: Anonymous

To 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]

Posted By: joe

If the crease really does come back, I would say yes. If it doesn't how would you know?

Joe

Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Thanks 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]

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]

Posted By: Griffin's

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

[Archive]

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]

Posted By: Cobby33

Oui.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Vargha

I 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]

Posted By: ErlandStevens

Assume 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]

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]

Posted By: Mark Evans

Yes, but it is an alteration that I would find acceptable for my cards. Mark

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Yes 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]

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]

Posted By: Tony Andrea

My Opinion -
Anytime you "FIX" something from it's current appearance. Definately qualifies as "ALTERING"....... How can it not?????

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

I 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

If its done with soaking, chemicals, streaching, cuting, glue, ironing, etc.... yes

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I 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]

Posted By: Jeff Drum

Let'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]

Posted By: John S

Yes.

[Archive]

Posted By: barry arnold

Yes, 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]

Posted By: Josh Adams

I 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]

Posted By: Jason L

especially 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]

Posted By: Jeff Drum

JOsh 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]

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]

Posted By: Jeff Drum

Maybe 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]

Posted By: Josh Adams

Jeff,

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]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Of 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]

Posted By: Eric B

I'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]

Posted By: leon

Of 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 .

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Yes, and I'd hope that a seller would disclose this information.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

ask Burt Reynolds !

[Archive]

Posted By: jackgoodman

It 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]

Posted By: cmoking

Adam - 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]

Posted By: Anonymous

I 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]

Posted By: Tony Conte

is Yes!

I rarely post but figured what the heck.

Tony

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

I 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]

Posted By: Brian

yes

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Ugh!!!

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]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Not 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]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

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

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcyleback

If 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]

Posted By: JK

At 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]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

This is sounding more and more like wimmen, every post.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I 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]

Posted By: Ricky Y

I'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]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Greg,

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]

Posted By: jay behrens

Tony Andrea said it best so far.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Drum

One 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.