Let's say you're renting a house. You spill a bottle of wine on the carpet. You pay a professional carpet cleaning service to clean it because you don't want to loose your $2K deposit. The carpet cleaning service removes the stain and makes the rest of the carpet look like new. No one could ever tell a bottle of wine had been spilt. When it comes time to vacate the house, do you tell your landlord? For what? Does he even care if it's something he can't see? I keep going back to the same old point. If there is no evidence, why does it matter?
If having a stain removed from a card lowered the value of a card, I could certainly understand disclosing it. That would be common sense. However I don't think that it does - especially if it's graded after the stain is removed. Last time I looked in the SMR, there wasn't a pricing category for graded cards that have had a stained removed.
To answer a question John (Wonka) asked me earlier in this thread, yes, I do believe creases that are removed from a card should be disclosed. There's a huge difference and let me explain. It's been proven that creases can sometimes come back. The new owner of the card should know that a crease has been removed so he is aware of the possibility of the crease returning. However, there is no evidence that the stain removal process leaves any long term effects. None! Again, huge difference. And if at some point it can be proven that removing a stain can show long term effects, I would certainly change my stance. But, for now, that's how I feel.
|