Fraud requires a misrepresentation of the truth. In other words, a lie. The misrepresentation must be done knowingly or with intent to deceive. Finally, fraud also requires that the other party suffer damages. The best policy is full disclosure when selling an item that has been altered or is damaged.
Arguably, some card restoration requires no altering of the card. For example, when you use microfiber (or nylon panty hose) to rub out wax stains or a damp cloth to wipe off dirt. You are not affecting the integrity of the card.
On the other hand, spraying chemicals onto the card to clean it may qualify as an alteration because of the chemical reaction that physically alters the integrity of the card. Soaking a card requires extensive use of water and perhaps chemicals. The water actually penetrates the interior of the card, and because of that fact, that may qualify as an alteration.
Certainly, trimming is an alteration as is coloring.
I believe that grading companies are now checking for signs of soaking.
In my opinion, many vintage cards on the market have been altered in some way. There are many well documented cases of trimming high value pre-war cards. Some 33 Goudeys I believe. For that reason, I’m reluctant to spend a lot for certain cards.
If a seller of a card does misrepresent a card as not having been altered (but it has), the buyer would have to prove either that the seller knew it was altered or that the seller intended to deceive the buyer. Those elements can be hard to prove. Additionally, the buyer would have to prove damages. In other words, the value of the card purchased is not worth typical retail value (for that card) due to the alteration.
Criminal penalties could result when there is some type of large scale fraudulent scheme or the value of the card in question is extremely high.
|