[drcy]

My ex brother-in-law was a vintage big movie memorabilia collector and he explained how it works with movie posters. If you restore (or conserve) a Vg vintage movie poster to NrmMt, it will be worth more than Vg but less than NrmMt. And it was the hobby requirement that any restoration be disclosed at sale. Not disclosing restoration or conservation would be considered fraud, because it affected the valued

In that area, taste and sentiment would vary between collectors, but restoration and conservation wasn't frowned upon, and often was seen as positive for the preservation of the delicate posters. However, the pricing and requirement for disclosure was as was stated in paragraph #1. In all areas of collecting, whether it is common and accepted (paintings, movie posters) or not (American Indian artifacts), conservation and restoration affects market value, and, thus, has to be disclosed.

Also, conservation (which could include restoration) was a serious, scientific treatment, including of the paper, to stabilize it and preserve it for posterity. It was not "spooning out wrinkles."

To repeat: SPOONING OUT WRINKLES AND REMOVING WAX STAINS IS NOT CONSERVATION. No one in the other hobbies, the art or artifacts world, defines conservation as PWCC does. And, even if they did, the 'conservation' would still have to be disclosed at sale. Not disclosing it would be considered fraud. It does not matter what word you call it, you're still altering ('doing work on' if you prefer) the item, and that has to be disclosed. If Brent insists on calling it 'conservation,' fine. But that does not change the fact that it has to be disclosed, and, because knowledge that the card has been 'conserved' would lower the market value, it is fraud.