Quote:
Originally Posted by egbeachley
The vast majority, 65% at this time, say doctoring is OK as long as it is disclosed. So, if I purchase a doctored card, do I need to disclose it as well if I resell it? I think, yes!
That would be yes if I resold it within 2 years.
Maybe if I resold it within 3-4 years. It's hard to remember where I purchased a card by then.
Probably not if it has been 5 years. Doctored? It doesn't look doctored.
Definitely not if resold in 7 years. There were no card doctors 7 years ago!
Mom........we need to sell these cards since Dad died. Let's just send them to an auction house. They will get us the best prices. I love that Dad collected perfect-looking cards.
|
Saying you think it's "okay" and that you are for it are different things. I greatly dislike the alteration of cards, and have no interest in them. Restored cards don't appeal to me. But that doesn't mean I think it's morally wrong for someone to have a badly damaged card conserved. I can even understand why someone would have a card that was torn in two restored whole. It won't be a card that will appeal to me, but I can understand why someone would do it.
In other words I think someone could both be against all alterations but say it's "okay." One can both be against it, while saying it's legal. One might say "It's legally okay, but not okay." Okay is a somewhat vague term and I'll bet people taking the poll interpret the word differently. Online polls are notorious for being ambiguous and deceptive due to wording and interpretations of their meanings.
If it was up to me, cards would not be restored or altered. I am against it and would vote "not okay." But it's not up to me, and I don't pretend to have the absolute moral authority to say no one can restore baseball cards, that anyone with different aesthetic sentiments than me is wrong and there are no situations where alterations are justifiable. I don't share the sentiment, but can understand when someone posts that they'd rather have a good looking restored card than an ugly unrestored one. As I said, I personally dislike altered cards-- they simply don't appeal to me, I consider them tainted and see nothing wrong with an antique item showing some normal wear and tear--, but am not about to say someone is wrong for liking and buying a card that was professionally restored.
Also, I think having a badly damaged rare card (say one with house paint spots across the front and a tear that may increase in size) professionally restored is different than trimming an ExMt card to Mint. I can understand the former, but am totally against the latter in all circumstances for all the reasons you site (leave well enough cards alone, potential for deception, etc).
I guess you could say I am firmly against alterations, but allow for those rare one in 20,000 understandable exceptions (the card with the house paint smear across the player's face or a card that has an ongoing growing fungus problem that should be professionally deacidified before the fungus destroys the card.). Even though I am against alterations, I think it's "okay" for that card with an ongoing fungus that will eventually destroy the card to be professionally conserved. In fact, I bet almost everyone would agree that is a case where conservation is acceptable.
Whether or not you did the alterations, not disclosing known alterations to a card at sale is illegal. If an altered card has been sold, someone has probably broken the law. Not disclosing alterations is 100 percent not "okay," in any sense of the word.
One last practical point. That rare exception to the rule card that had a major tear professionally fixed or a bad scrape to the player's face professionally repainted will be able to be identified as restored in the future. Major professional restoration like that is easily detectable. So those kinds of alterations won't be lost in the shuffle of time.