Rebacking a card

So I was at dinner with a buddie today and we were talking about altered cards towards the end. The question:

"If you reback a card with the same back it had on it, is it rebacking."

Say a card is soaked for whatever reason, and it delams or the back seperates.

[FUBAR]

the only reason to do this is to artificially improve the card, so yes i would considered it as altered and re-backed.

[Robextend]

I would say the back of a card with anything other than the original back would have to be considered re-backed.

EDITED TO ADD - But I also feel the term can be used in reference to reapplying the original back, agreeing with the below post.

[alanu]

It had a back, the back fell off, any back put on is a re-back.

A re-back with the original back is probably worth more, but it's still re-backed, imho.

[FrankWakefield]

Yes.

If you put a back onto a card, you're rebacking... whether the original back or a replacement.

If you soak a card and the back comes off, then the card had problems before you soaked it. Soaking only revealed the card's shortcomings.

[Section103]

I have no doubt (ok, I certainly hope) in my mind that SGC / PSA / BVG would come back with an A grade - so that pretty much settles it.

[ethicsprof]

'tis rebacking unequivocally

best,

barry

[joeadcock]

yes

[glchen]

On a related note, how do you re-back? I recently won a card at an auction, where the card was advertised as skinned, with no back. However, when I received the card, the back came with it, only detached. I'm thinking of sending the card (E122 Ruth) for TPG with both the front and detached back, but wondering if I should just try to glue them together or something.

[egbeachley]

I'm going to say "No", it is not re-backed. But it is "altered". I believe there is a difference.

Think of a classic car that is taken apart and cleaned, it's still considered "Original".