Who makes these rules?????
 

So in the sports collectors hobby we have a few rules.

Thou Shall not trim thay cards.

Thou shall not recolor thay cards.

Thou shall not restore that cards.

Thou shall not covet thay neighbors cards! ( ok not a rule otherwise we will all be going to card he’ll)

Thou shall not rebuild thay corners.

Ok you guys get the point! When and where did these rules come from?


We have a bunch of types of collecting in the world and some of these seem ok.

Restoring and cleaning art= ok

Pressing comic books then grading them= ok

Cutting uncut sheets of old money and getting it graded = ok


In real art a very good old copy can bring a astonishing amount of money. In card it won’t unless your a conman.
I don’t understand why some of these thing seem fine in other hobby’s and not in others.I never understood the idea of not cleaning old coins. If it doesn’t cause damage and makes it look better then what’s the problem?
Again if you found a dirty old stain Picasso at a flea market. Then cleaned it up no problem.

While not necessarily germane to your point, i would note that in the comics world, restoration destroys the books value.....to an illogical level, in fact. take a book worth $100K and add two dots of color designed to cover up tiny blemishes.....book now worth less than $20K.

Cars might be a good comparison. Restoring a classic car can improve it's value......

Anyways, carry on! :)

One word: Disclosure.

Right I fully get that but with disclosure the prices of a altered restored card is very different then a restore Picasso.

Just my guess but there is only 1 real Picasso of each subject. There are 1000s of Mantles 52 Topps(example only) card. So for me the restoration on a 1/1 painting makes sense and the restoration of a card that has 1000s of copies does not. So to me if a card is restored it should be worth less than an original copy.

If Picasso restored cards between paintings, I bet they would be worth more.;):D

Are you sure that he didn't do Don Mossi's ears?

Lol. Mossi's ears are a true classic!

+1
 

If the piece is altered and graded or authenticated as such then so be it. If it is altered and graded as non-altered then most won't be forthcoming with that info. Always buyer beware.

The cards or the paintings?:)

Dustin, I can certainly understand your frustration with this. To answer your question, we make the rules. We, being the collectors. Every form of collecting, curating, etc., has its own rules, written or unwritten. These "rules" are dictated by the collectors in most cases. Certainly that is largely the case with our hobby (obsession). Restoring a Picasso is accepted, it just is. But with sports trading cards, its not considered restoration, rather it is an alteration. Most collectors, myself included, are purists and wouldn't bat an eye or spend their money on altered cards. Of course, there are always exceptions. I hope my answer to your question doesn't come off as smug or sarcastic. In my early years as a vintage card collector I struggled with the same question. Okay, off my soap box now. Hope this helps.
:)

This^

If prints were available, which is common today, then those altered/trimmed/colored copies would be judged/viewed the same way as baseball cards.

One offs, for history reasons and preserving that history is an entirely different thing.

Most art restoration is done to improve the appearance of a unique item. Most card restoration is done to deceive. Even if disclosed, as Ben said, most people prefer to choose an original which almost always are abundant.

Each collectible group has their own standards. Doesn't mean any are better than others, it's just what has grown to be the accepted standards. Try refinishing antique furniture and see what it does to the value.

Most card are done to restore the look and appearance as well. The only reason it became a thing is because someone some where decided it’s not a good practice. More then likely it was before grading was even a idea.

53browns Thanks for the answer.

Picasso/ other prominent artist made a lot of prints from etching during there career. I don’t think a restoration of these prints would doing anything negative to the value.

We definitely have cards that are rare more or less then theses prints. And at some point somewhere some have been altered.

It’s not that I’m for altering by any means because I came up in the hobby and feel that it’s wrong. But I started to think the other night of why I think it’s wrong. I think it’s wrong because I’ve been told to think it’s wrong.its been so ingrained in me that if I bought art I might not want it to be altered. This is what got me thinking.

You'll find other 'collected' artifacts either have, are in the process of, or will follow these said rules you are struggling with.

As pointed out above:
Furniture already has dealt with this. Unrestored is infinitely better.
Coins similarly.
Cars are in this moment undergoing the change. An unmolested original in superior condition is bringing multiples of even lightly restored examples.

Removing or changing the patina of history from a historical object has become to be understood as devaluing the originality of the item.
It makes sense. Why make something old look new, it's beauty is in the tone, 'wrinkles' and age it has accrued. If that same historical item has somehow largely overcome the extraordinary likelihood of age related distressing, then we pay for that amazing survival. Artificially creating that magic of survival is just a plain self defeating thing to do that goes against the very heart of collecting thinking...
That is, finding and acquiring that which is not easily found and acquired.

At this stage if life I tend to favor the magic of survival.;)

Different hobbies have different standards to be sure. And for many hobbies those standards have changed over time.

In coins, it's not so much cleaning, it's cleaning done poorly. Most silver coins you see that are bright and shiny have been cleaned, usually by dipping briefly in a very gentle jewelry cleaner then rinsing with clear water. It's not talked about much because its so common.
Removing a bunch of brown tarnish is pretty much ok, it is sort of an alteration, but the tarnish will eventually do a bit of damage.
There's a sometimes huge premium for coins with tarnish that leaves a very pretty surface, sometimes like a rainbow. Removing that drastically reduces the value.

"cleaning" with Ajax, Brillo pads, pencil erasers.... all totally no good.

Stamps have a similar view to cards, alterations of any kind are bad. Some stuff is accepted though, like if it's used and has been hinged into 5 albums with the hinge remnants left on each time it's ok to soak off the old hinges. Removing a hinge remnant form an unused stamp is a bit trickier.

Cars - It used to be almost required to "restore" even really nice originals. Now there's a big bonus for "original", probably because so few truly original ones are left. It was also pretty hotly debated when the money for some got to be enough that a car could be "restored" from nearly nothing. I've seen an occasional before picture of a what's mostly a truckload of rust that became a car.

Usually allowable restoration is more in the line of conservation, removing at stabilizing things that would in time destroy the item. It's common to have very old posters backed with linen. As far as I know the process is reversible, and keeps the poster from getting torn.

And as mentioned above, disclosure is usually very important.

A better comparison - rare books
 

In the rare book world it has been accepted for hundreds of years that restoration- if disclosed- can add a lot of value. Like cards books are not unique (at least from 1450's on). The restoration is seen as a way to persevere the books so they can be used by future generations. Some important major collectors would actually have all of there collection rebounds in distinctive covers and such copies are extremely valued today

These are rules which card collectors wish to impose upon themselves. At the end of the day, all you really have is the same little piece of cardboard. One may have a few cents more worth of modern materials. Does that justify an 80K difference in value? To each his own.

I always ask..Would you pay more for a fully restored 1965 Corvette Stingray or one that's essentially a rusted out paperweight sitting up on cinder blocks?

I think that was done by van Gogh...

Well, Since the body is fiberglass, and the frame can be bought, and since I can't afford the fully restored one.

I'll take the rustbucket.