[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

My question is why would the owner of an already Mint card tell a newspaper reporter that he sent it in to be restored, when public knowledge that a card has been restored or otherwise tampered with will only serve to plummet the value? Even if he intended to have it restored to get a higher grade, why would he want that information published in a newspaper? Is this a case where the reporter got things mixed up? For example, perhaps she thought regrade or resubmit was the same as restore. Because, to me at least, it makes no sense that a owner would tell a newspaper reporter he was having a Mint '52 Topps Mantle restored to a higher grade, knowing well that public knowledge that a card has been restored kills its value. Most collectors wouldn't even want someone to make an idle joke about their Mint '52T Mantle being restored. Again this is only my idle opinion based on limited information, but common sense would point to the more likely of two scenarios being that the reporter simply got her terminology wrong (Duly note that I'm not suggesting, implying or promoting that these are the only two possible scenarios. This was simply an rhetorical exercise in comparison.).