Is it ethical to alter cards and sell them without disclosure?

[G1911]

Let's see the sizes of the islands.

[campyfan39]

Define altered please

[bnorth]

You missed a very important option.

Depends on who the buyer is.

[pawpawdiv9]

^^^
alteration vs. restoration
I choose the middle, as i didnt think restoration was illegal, as long its disclosed properly.
Altering as for chemicals , is absolute disservice.
The debate as for washing/soaking is another can of worms.
Thats been asked probably a dozens times before.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by pawpawdiv9

^^^
alteration vs. restoration
I choose the middle, as i didnt think restoration was illegal, as long its disclosed properly.
Altering as for chemicals , is absolute disservice.
The debate as for washing/soaking is another can of worms.
Thats been asked probably a dozens times before.

We are specifying that the alterations are not disclosed to the buyer, as some (1) in the other thread are alleging that non-disclosure is viewed as acceptable by a majority.

I don't think there is any debate over whether one may sell a "restored" or "altered" card honestly stating the facts of its nature.

[Lorewalker]

The attempt to reduce the justification of doing something to a card that improves its appearance and not disclose it because a grading company is ok with it, is bs...to me. We saw on BO, a few years ago, examples of millions of dollars worth of cards that went into holders that were recolored, trimmed, etc etc. Were the alterations so great that they were missed or were the people submitting the cards given special treatment?

I find the argument to defer to the grading company once a card passes grading to be entirely dismissive of the responsibility of the submitter/seller to not disclose what was done. And again, if one truly believes they are not doing anything wrong then why not just let people know? Especially if you are in the camp where you feel nobody cares.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

Define altered please

Yeah, without this it isn't going to be very informative, I fear. The real issue is what people deem to be alteration. Someone like Travis could easily answer THIS question no, but that would be premised on his belief that certain things are not alteration.

[G1911]

We are assuming that words mean a thing and not the opposite of that thing, and in this case the generally understood meaning of the word as it has been consistently used in the relevant hobby over the last three decades.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

We are assuming that words mean a thing and not the opposite of that thing, and in this case the generally understood meaning of the word as it has been consistently used in the relevant hobby over the last three decades.

Certain things have generally been deemed acceptable whether or not it's perfectly consistent. Soaking cards out of a scrapbook. Rubbing off a gum stain with a nylon. I don't think it's ever been black and white. As framed clearly 3 is my answer, but I am not sure the term is that clear.

[Lorewalker]

Going forward I might suggest polls be cleared by a lawyer...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Certain things have generally been deemed acceptable whether or not it's perfectly consistent. Soaking cards out of a scrapbook. Rubbing off a gum stain with a nylon. I don't think it's ever been black and white. As framed clearly 3 is my answer, but I am not sure the term is that clear.

Again, we can hem and haw over the edges or we can be reasonable. I get 100 characters in a poll as limited by the system software, and as can probably be told by the 2 typing issues had to cut them up and chop them down to get under the limit was is. Even if I wrote that 300 page treatise, there would be something absent we could then use to hem and haw and wring our hands some more.

All reasonable people are well aware that almost any other comparable issue of behavior or criminality can be answered in the common sense. I am positive that if we had had a dialogue for long enough you and I could find an examplar of something like "robbery" that we disagreed on if that case constituted. Nonetheless, we could surely both answer the very obvious general question right off the bat that we are against the practice of "robbery", as English speaking people who know what the word means.

[philliesfan]

I agree with all that said to specify what is considered altering.
Bob

[CardPadre]

Yeah, a lot of gray area of things that are pretty dissimilar when you just say altered.

How about one group that encompasses improving creases, wrinkles, dents, bumps.

One that encompasses "cleaning" (whatever that is)...would love to hear what that actually means if it's something beyond wiping a card down with something moist.

One that is trimming.

One that is adding color.

What other categories would there be?

Anyone who has ever soaked a card and later sold without disclosing should probably answer "yes" from the limited 3 choices above or be considered at least some degree of hypocrite.

[G1911]

I am positive there is reasonable disagreement on edge cases.

Surely, if we dove deep enough, we could find a case of "robbery" where two reasonable men disagreed on if that particular case did or did not constitute robbery. Nonetheless, as reasonable men, surely we could reasonably say whether we are for or against "robbery" as it is generally understood by English speaking people to mean and has consistently been used.

While polls have 100 character limitations, even if I wrote a 300 page treatise we could surely find an example not covered and then use that as the angle to hem and haw.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am positive there is reasonable disagreement on edge cases.

Surely, if we dove deep enough, we could find a case of "robbery" where two reasonable men disagreed on if that particular case did or did not constitute robbery. Nonetheless, as reasonable men, surely we could reasonably say whether we are for or against "robbery" as it is generally understood by English speaking people to mean and has consistently been used.

While polls have 100 character limitations, even if I wrote a 300 page treatise we could surely find an example not covered and then use that as the angle to hem and haw.

I don't think, given the range of things that are done to cards, it's as clear cut as "robbery" for example.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yeah, without this it isn't going to be very informative, I fear. The real issue is what people deem to be alteration. Someone like Travis could easily answer THIS question no, but that would be premised on his belief that certain things are not alteration.

I think one is altering a card if they do anything to the card that changes its appearance with the intent of making it look better. It is clear some alterations are acceptable to most in the hobby and are considered innocent. Either way, if something was done, it should be mentioned. Let the buyer decide if they are ok with that. Some will and some won't.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by G1911

Is it ethical to alter cards and then sell them without disclosure?

If you did anything to them, prior to selling, and don't disclose doing so, and then whatever you did was discovered by the purchaser you sold them to after the sale, or anyone else thereafter, frankly, I would say that is unethical. I prefer lower grade, raw cards so as to enjoy my cards and not worry about this sort of thing.