[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by todeen

I don't know how I feel about any of the cutting or cleaning. Do cut sheets bother me? No, unless someone absolutely butchers it. Does minimal card cleaning bother me? No. Wax removal, glue removal, removal from albums, soaking.... none of those bother me. Using chemicals? Somehow that bothers me.

One of my Griffey Desert Shields has a wax stain. Someone told me he had PSA 6 with wax stain; he cracked his, rubbed it with pantihose, and resubmitted. It returned as a PSA 8. Would I like a PSA 8? Yes. Would I consider it cheating if I cleaned it with pantihose? No.

I think my personal feelings are kind of based on art and art restoration and cleaning. Those paintings don't lose value with cleaning. No one who visits the Sistine Chapel will complain that the ceiling colors are altered because it's been cleaned. No one complains about SF's Telegraph Hill, Coit Tower murals, that they've been cleaned and restored due to salt water damage.

Obviously, the outside big money that has moved into our collecting hobby has brought these ideas of acceptance with them. If a buyer doesn't care, is it still immoral?

And a lack of any collecting governing body, to say what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, has also created this problem. A lawyer who takes Snowman to court for cleaning cards, and brings prosecutions' witnesses that restoration isn't acceptable, would also meet a line of defendants witnesses who are cleaners and buyers who don't care about cleaning and restoration. I'm thinking it would end in a hung jury.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Then there's no reason to conceal it. It's not the act of alteration that is fraudulent, but the concealing with intent to defraud a potential buyer into paying more than it would be worth if disclosed.