Quote:
Originally Posted by campyfan39
It makes sense because, by the definition of the word, they are both different from the original maker's intent. Thus, altered.
|
Seriously? The manufacturer is the one who put the gum in the pack with the cards. How can you possibly say it wasn't their intent? They intended to put the gum in the pack. The gum they put in did damage.
Regardless. This is not a discussion about alteration. It's about what alteration is acceptable, and should be disclosed. Even if you want to play that semantics game that a gum stain caused by the manufacturer is an alteration (which it isn't), a gum stain should absolutely be disclosed. Any damage caused to the card would by your dogmatic view of alterations constitute an alteration. All damage should be disclosed. And hiding it from a buyer is fraudulent. Again. I'll say it slowly. There is nothing wrong with altering a baseball card. There is something wrong with altering a card and selling it as unaltered.