I’m with you, Chase. I thought the card should have received the N-5 designation after the crease had been pressed and it was resubmitted. From PSA’s website, “N-5: This includes, but is not limited to characteristics on the card that appear to show some form of alteration such as paper restoration, crease/wrinkle pressing or enhanced gloss.”
As for it not receiving the PQ designation when I consigned it, that was in June of 2017 and I think that was before they started using PQ. I was happy with the price the card realized (maybe multiple bidders saw the opportunity to “clean it up” by pressing the crease).
I like Brent and do quite a bit of business with PWCC as a buyer and consignor. That said, his opinion on this topic differs from mine. He conveyed to me his general view on the topic in an email and he's given me permission to post it. Here were his comments:
I have had a long time to come to peace with the topic of restoration vs. alteration, so the line for me is clear and easy to toe. It’s all about physical evidence. So a corner or crease may be pressed, wax stains can be removed, a pencil mark can be erased, glue or a stain can be removed, etc, but if the action taken to restore a card ultimately makes the card look awkward or noticeably unnatural, then it could easily be considered altered (not restored)… otherwise it’s worthy of a professional grade. Pressing down corners (for example) has always been part of the hobby for as long as people have paid money for them… just the plastic cases people stored them in often had this affect and that was intentional. Some people seem to be able to erase a pencil mark and you’d never know it was ever there; other people end up damaging the card and abrading the surface and then it’s either a condition flaw or an alteration. A simple before and after photo doesn’t really matter unless there’s evidence on the card when viewed in a vacuum that suggest alteration. It seems that the major grading companies agree that physical evidence of alteration is required to render a card 'altered'... though I feel they could do more to make their position more clear.
While I agree that in a perfect world all trading cards would be completely virgin (it’s a romantic ideality) the harsh truth is that these items are made of paper, and if we want high grade examples which look the part, mild forms of restoration should be tolerated. Otherwise all we’d ever have are 5s and 6s to invest upon. Worse, without some of these minor flaws being fixed, we’d have pack fresh cards with superficial corner flips that looks like 8s and 9s stuck in EXMT 6 holders and that would create tremendous volatility in the pricing that I feel would keep this market a silly hobby and prevent it from maturing into an alternative asset class. Minor restoration in the market is actually needed in my view; we’d be in trouble without it. Trading cards are simply too rare and this is especially true for high grade trading cards. Restoration is nothing new to collectibles markets worldwide, including comics, coins, and fine art. All have matured around this topic of restoration and it's time trading cards do the same.
Regardless of how the market ultimately gels around restoration vs. alteration, I feel transparency of condition and eye appeal is of paramount importance. We want investors knowing what they are buying as much as possible.
|