What Do You Consider Card Doctoring?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hagar Henderson

First, an into, I'm Hagar Henderson and I collect all ball cards of any era as long as it's not hockey or soccer. I was surfing the net and found this place. It looks like a nice site with different areas for different collectibles. I also have a collection of sports autographs.

Anyway, I was chatting with my local card dealer and we were talking about the "evilness" of card doctoring. It got me wondering what people consider to be card doctoring. I consider anything that involves deceptively removing part of the actual card (like trimming) or adding something to the card (recoloring) to be illicit. I don't consider stain removal or pressing out bent corners to be an illicit act of card doctoring. The dealer said that he will sometimes remove wax or gum stains when possible. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The stain wasn't part of the card when it was manufactured so what's the harm in removing it?

What do you guys consider acceptable card repair vs. illicit doctoring?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jantz

Welcome to the board

You have a good question here & its certainly an opinion based question. As for me, these three things are definite no-nos:

1. Trimming
2. Recoloring
3. Building corners

I can accept a card if it has a stain(gum-wax-tobacco) on it. Being from Ohio, I'm partial to the Polar Bear backs since the plant was here in my home state. So a tobacco stain on a T206 Polar Bear is like a beauty mark for me.

Alot of good people on this board. Hope you hang around for awhile.

Jantz

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

I also accept the gum/tobacco stains.

Here's the test I would use: if the subject card would receive a lower grade due to the subject blemish, removal of the blemish (ergo receiving a higher grade) constitutes altering.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Relevant questions include how does the market price change when the alteration has been disclosed, and has the alteration been disclosed.

Personally, I don't have problem with glue or album paper being removed from a card as that material wasn't original to the card and isn't a part of the card. Ink is also a foreign substance, but removal can be problematic on a physical level.

Also realize that grade is a second issue. A collector may not have an ethical problem with ink being removed from an otherwise Mint card, but will hold the removal against the card grade-wise. He may consider the fixing up of any kind as preventing the card from grading Mint, no matter how Minty it looks. That's his rule, and likely a rule held by many. That he sees no ethical issue with ink removal does not automatically mean he views the grade itself as untarnished.

My rule is if you're altering a card strictly because of money, you shouldn't do it. There may be good reason to trim a card, but money isn't it.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

There are differing opinions but I don't think there are many who consider pressing down bent corners to be an acceptable practice. That crosses the line into card alteration.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

"My rule is if you're altering a card strictly because of money, you shouldn't do it. There may be good reason to trim a card, but money isn't it."

Brilliant in its simplicity. And totally right. If you're doing something to a card simply to try to make the PSA 3 turn into a PSA 5 -- and then resell it -- that's slimy in my book.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad L.

"Here's the test I would use: if the subject card would receive a lower grade due to the subject blemish, removal of the blemish (ergo receiving a higher grade) constitutes altering".

That's sort of harse in relation to removing a wax stain with a leg stocking from the front of a card. I don't consider something that easily removeable (which would add value to the card), as altering. Just my opinion though.

Also, soaking has not been brought up. I would never soak a card to sell since light creases can sometimes disappear after the soak, only to reappear down the road. Because of that fact, I consider soaking to be an alteration. I found a box of nice cards that were moldy, dirty, warped, etc., but no creases and decent corners. I have soaked one very dirty and warped card to improve its appearence and which will only stay in my collection. Thoughts?

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

I love this topic and reading how each collector feels about certain aspects of altering. I am in the same boat with trimming, rebuidling corners and pressing out creases.  Not sure how bending a corner back is altering the card since a crease would still be visable.

Food for thought..

What is the difference between removing a stain or glue from a card and resubmitting the card in hopes of getting a bump in grade vs simply continuously resubmitting a card (without altering it) until you get a bump in grade?  The goal is the same, getting a higher grade.

martyOgelvie
nyyankeecards.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Marty - I think the objection above was just to raise the grade for the purposes of sale, even if it wasn't submitted to an official grader. In other words, it's the act of alteration with intent to sell that is frowned on; independent of whether it is submitted for grading or not. In the case of re-submitting a card for higher grade, you're not changing the card at all.

Just because the goal is the same, the moral validity of the action that is used to reach that goal doesn't have to be.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

But is removing glue from a card a form of alteration? In my opinion, it's not.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Barry - I was going to ask the same question - I think most (if not all) collectors feel that soaking a card off of a page is not alteration, even if it is done to get a higher price on the card at sale.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Virtually every Old Judge with back damage was removed from a scrapbook, so we must assume that the glue that was originally on it was removed. But I have never seen an instance where that removal of glue was disclosed. There's no need for it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Removing glue does not bother me.

What bothers me are card doctors who make a living altering cards for profit. "Alter" means to "make different in some particular way." Folding corners, trimming, soaking to remove creases...any stuff like that which is done for profit is wrong by me.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jeff- I would venture to say card doctoring for profit is rampant, wouldn't you?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Perhaps, Barry. Perhaps.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

How can you draw a line between soaking a card and removing glue/paper vs pressing a crease out or laying a corner down.

Isn't it safe to say that many many cards are soaked and then sold for a profit.  Same as pressing a crease or laying a corner down. If it's ok to say that the glue was not on the card originally isn't it also safe to say neither was the crease or the bent corner.

I get the idea of removing or adding to a card like trimming and rebuilding corners as a no no, I just don't grasp the stigma assoicated with pressing a corner down or pressing a surface crease out.  I suppose if your doing this solely for profit and not disclosing your 'alteration' in the sale, that would be a bit weasily.  But if your disclosing the work done, what's the big deal.

martyOgelvie
nyyankeecards.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

"But if your disclosing the work done, what's the big deal."

If you're disclosing what's been done, then there's no deal at all - even if you trim the card or re-color it, as long as it's sold as such. The discussion is if it's not going to be disclosed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Maybe some of the card doctors who read this forum can chime in here: do you guys discloser the work you have done on cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

We send them to PSA and then tell our prospective buyers they are in 8 holders....is that full disclosure? (j/k)

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Actually, we've got more of a definition on it now - it's not the card-doctoring (if I felt the term "per se" meant something, I would use it here) that's the problem; it's the selling of doctored cards without disclosure.

Really what we are discussing is: When selling a card, what must be disclosed?


edited for spelling

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

To answer Marty's question, the way I see it, spooning out a crease is altering the card itself. Removing glue is taking a foreign substance off the surface of the card. Its composition will not change if glue is removed. Again, there is a fine line between what is or isn't acceptable, but that's my view.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

My opinion is the cards should be treated as historical artifacts, and there has to be good non-monetary reason for it to be altered.

If it is known or thought disclosure of alteration, good or bad, will effect market value, it should be disclosed. As far as alteration goes, it's not for the seller to decide what bidders should and should not know. It's for the bidders to be informed and to decide how the alteration effects their bids. If you don't want to disclose what you did to a card because you believe it will effect the sell price, what you did to the card is exactly what you have to disclose.

If for the same price you'd pick a PSA10 over a PSA10 with ink removed from the front, you've answered your question about how 'removal of foreign substances' effects your financial valuation of baseball cards. You value the 'au natural' PSA10 more. It would then be dubious to argue that, while such an alteration effects your valuation as a buyer, it shouldn't effect the valuations by bidders in your auctions and so you don't have to disclose it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Jeff (the threadkiller) says:

"Maybe some of the card doctors who read this forum can chime in here: do you guys discloser the work you have done on cards?"


Response:





(Crickets)

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Jim, ye of little faith! I'm sure the doctors are just on a coffee break.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Saucier

I'm sure the doctors are just on a coffee break.


Sorry I was out to lunch and was patiently waiting for Doug to go first.

As all know I am a card doctor but in this instance I don't think I qualify. What cards that have been doctored and slabbed are not for sale and have all been clearly labeled (disclosed) with the type of alteration done.

"My opinion" on what is considered doctoring depends on the circumstance. For inspecting purposes, if has been determined a card has been soaked, I would call it out. For collecting I feel water soaking, to clean of remove paper, is acceptable. Pressing corners in an attempt to deceive and anything past that is doctoring.

Is having the belief that top-quality rebacking should be considered an art form a bad thing?


Kevin




------------------------------

www.AlteredCards.com - in-depth education on advanced card doctoring techniques & detection with detailed examples

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

First of all let me state once again that NO cards in mine and Scott's auctions will have anything at all done to them once they get to us (can't say beforehand, we aren't there) except for grading.

That being said I don't think taking anything off of a card that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place is altering. I would say it's getting it back to it's original state and anything that was on there was IN FACT the altering. I also don't think soaking to get remnants off is altering. I have changed my view (fairly long ago) about light wrinkles and now feel that any pressing out of wrinkles or creases is altering. I personally don't think flipping down a corner is altering either...but most might disagree with that. It's America.....just my 2 cents....

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

I think that removing gum/wax/tobacco stains is altering a card. I just got slammed by PSA on a bunch of cards that had such stains on it. They were all given qualifiers. If the stain would have been removed, the cards would have come back sans qualifier. That, in my opinion, is altering. If not, what is it?

I also do think that it is relevant whether you sell the card or not. If you never do sell it, do with it as you please. If you do plan on selling it, I think you should always disclose that it was altered. I think it almost rises to the level of misrepresentation.

If you bought a car from someone who had done a good job restoring it after it being in a collision and did not disclose it was in a collision, would you be happy with the transaction?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I am not sure "value" is in the definition of "alter".

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Hey Leon-

Alteration is alteration. I didn't mean to suggest it had a different meaning if the altered card was sold. What I meant to suggest, and I apologize for being vague, is that nobody should care if altered cards stay in one's collection.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

I read some of this and am just dumbfounded....


If I buy an old American Caramel E90-1 card, and when it arrives in the mail the entire envelope is folded at a 90 degree angle, so I open the envelope and the card too has a 90 degree bend in it....


You guys are saying I'd be altering or doctoring the card if I flattened it out. I must keep that card folded forever more.

Unbelievable.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Frank - as I said above, I don't think alteration of any kind is a problem; the issue is with regards to disclosure at the time of sale; what needs to be disclosed? Your example is a good one for that discussion; would you disclose that crease removal at the time of sale?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I didn't see where Frank said he would take a crease out. He said he would unfold it. There would be a crease in it. I wouldn't tell someone I unfolded it and they would be able to see the crease. Not too long ago I sold a high end card to a board member and told him that I erased a very tiny and light pencil mark from the blank back. The card was in an SGC80 holder. The mark nor any indentation could be seen at all but I still told him I erased a mark. I agree disclosure is important but maybe not the end of the world. Personally, if I buy a card and can't see anything with a loop I don't really care....I have more important things to worry about. To each their own....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

"I didn't see where Frank said he would take a crease out. He said he would unfold it."

Sorry - that's what I meant; I wasn't aware of the difference between removing a crease and flattening a folded card.

As far as disclosure not being important to you if you can't see it, if the corners on the card were rebuilt, would you still feel the same way? What if someone wanted to keep a card in their personal collection, but didn't like the way it looked and wanted to pay to have the corners rebuilt - would you object? To me, it's theirs to do what they want to; the only objection is when they come to sell it, having the user believe everything is original when it is not; that's why I believe disclosure is really all that matters here.

I tend to agree with you that unfolding a corner where the crease is still visible does not need to be disclosed, but I believe some above would disagree since a card with a corner folded 90 degrees up would sell for less then a card that is totally flat.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

Just about anything but erasing pencil marks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

I once erased a light pencil mark on a mid grade T206 or M101-4/5 common. I don't consider it doctoring and I'd probably do it again if given the chance. I once scraped off a black glue smudge on the back of a card because I didn't like it. I then sent it in for grading and took the SGC10. Trimming, rebacking and rebuilding corners are not acceptable to me. I'd never even soak a card. I'd probably just not buy it in the first place.

Scott.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

If you are going to have an intelligent debate don't always make crap up and embellish. You will garner a lot more respect that way. As my dad would say you would argue with a sign post and give it a 30 minute headstart.



"I didn't see where Frank said he would take a crease out. He said he would unfold it."

Sorry - that's what I meant; I wasn't aware of the difference between removing a crease and flattening a folded card.

As far as disclosure not being important to you if you can't see it, if the corners on the card were rebuilt, would you still feel the same way? What if someone wanted to keep a card in their personal collection, but didn't like the way it looked and wanted to pay to have the corners rebuilt - would you object? To me, it's theirs to do what they want to; the only objection is when they come to sell it, having the user believe everything is original when it is not; that's why I believe disclosure is really all that matters here.

I tend to agree with you that unfolding a corner where the crease is still visible does not need to be disclosed, but I believe some above would disagree since a card with a corner folded 90 degrees up would sell for less then a card that is totally flat."




So lets start from the first inaccurate statement you made again. It doesn't take long to get there as it's generally the first thing you say...and ends with the last thing you say....

Where does Frank say he flattened a card. He said he would unfold it. I don't think unfolding amounts to flattening....but you can spin it anyway you want to. IF corners were rebuilt I would most likely be able to see it with a loop in direct light. I have practiced seeing this kind of alteration before. OF course fraudulent alteration is reprehensible. I don't care what someone does to a card that they plan to keep forever. It's none of my business. Of course if you sell a card you had materially altered it should be disclosed. Any jackass knows that. As far as me pushing a corner back down that wasn't too severe....no, sorry, I don't feel the need to disclose it. It came from the factory with the corner correct and if I nudge it with my finger to make it correct again I doubt it will cause a ruckus....I am sure I have bought hundreds of cards that have had a corner pushed down (minimally) or something taken off of them that wasn't supposed to be there.....again, I have better things to worry about.....maybe you don't?

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

"Where does Frank say he flattened a card. He said he would unfold it. I don't think unfolding amounts to flattening....but you can spin it anyway you want to. "

I really am not spinning anything - I'm trying to use the right words. Again, I apologize for the wrong word choice - - I should have used "unfolding." I'm not trying to be smart - it was a real mistake I made and I'm sorry the wrong word insinuated something negative; it honestly was not my intention - sorry for the angst.

Edited to add, I think we are in agreement 100% on the discussion - my inaccurate word choice messed stuff up; I again apologize.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Leon- time to replace your old "loop" with a new "loupe"

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

You caught me....I was typing and not thinking.....of course it's loupe and not loop.....my bad....

Matt- good enough.....

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Nice to see significant support for the view that removing gum/wax/glue/tobacco stains is alteration--I couldn't agree more--alteration is alteration. Also nice to see Leon has changed his view on pressing out wrinkles and creases is wrong. With Doug Allen endorsing this as well there seems to also be growing support for this position. I have been amazed in the past that the majority of collectors seemed to feel differently--hopefully these are indications that the pendulem is swinging the other direction.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jim- I think there are different degrees of alteration. You can't put erasing a pencil mark in the same class as rebuilding a corner or rebacking a card.

Some minor changes could be deemed acceptable by some; others are unanimously considered unacceptable.

It's like comparing jaywalking to bank robbery- both are against the law, but are much different.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad L.

"Nice to see significant support for the view that removing gum/wax/glue/tobacco stains is alteration"

I have to strongly disagree that removing a wax stain from the front of a card is alteration. These wax stains are generally very easy to remove with a women's stocking. And anytime I can use the words "remove" and "women's stocking" in the same sentence, makes for a good day, lol. All kidding aside, I don't see this practice in any way being a frowned upon alteration (ok, now splitting hairs on what exactly an "alteration" is in the first place). Especially since the wax was not originally intended to be part of the card. I know it's a fine line, but IMO, the wax technique above is equivelent to wiping dust off of a card with a dry paper towel.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

Leon,
Thanks for setting Matt straight a little. Its about time someone did. He would argue with a tree stump to prove his point.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Al - while in this case it was just a mistake, I do accept the "argumentative" label. And I draw the line at a signpost.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

Matt,
Fair enough!!! Take 2 smileys out of petty cash!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Saucier

I have to strongly disagree that removing a wax stain from the front of a card is alteration. These wax stains are generally very easy to remove with a women's stocking.


Agreed. Personally I don't consider it a stain as much as it is SOFO (stuck on foreign object).

A tip from the doc: you can also use fine silk to include ties and panties. Matter of fact I prefer silk to panty hose. Tends to grab and remove SOFO as opposed to spread and buff.


Kevin



------------------------------

www.AlteredCards.com - in-depth education on advanced card doctoring techniques & detection with detailed examples

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

I started dealing cards back in the early 80s. I would set up at alot of the east coast shows. One day around 1992 I was set up at a show and a very prominent dealer who dealt in very high end cards came up to my table and spied some cards I had in my case. One perticular card he wanted was a 34 goudey Gehrig I would have graded the card vg-ex had a very small crease upper left corner, rounded corners and a little off color. Well centered. A nice card . I found it odd that he would want this card as he always dealt in high grade high end,many of us at the time were suspicious that something just wasnt right about his cards. I will give his initials as (T.B) This person sold cards to MANY big clients. We came to an agreement on price.$600 for this card. Said he would be back at the end of the show to pay for it. I decided to mark the card in a way only I would know . Here is what I did I took a pin and on the back in the small round circle logo we pricked the card dead center. Very small but you knew it was there. End of the show ,comes back and buys the card. Two months later Im at an east coast national show, (TB) is also set up there. I say hello and start looking at his cards. In one of the cases there in a brick lucite is a 34 goudey gehrig. Wow a blazer!! sharp corners,snow white borders,NO CREASES,great color(looks like it just came from a pack!)I ask his helper if I can see the card,takes it out,and hands it to me. I say to myself this cant be my old card can it? I turn it over and there it is dead center in the logo that tiny pin prick I had made 2 months earlier. This card had re-built corners, bleached borders, re-colored front. (you have to remember this was before the days of black lights and good detection methods)Believe me you couldnt tell anything was up with this card. When he saw I had the card in my hand his response was " Oh that isnt the card you sold me" and quickly took it out of my hands. I walked away in total disbelief. That card sold at the show for 4600 dollars. Almost at that moment it changed my whole out look on the card industry. This story could go on much longer after threats to myself and family,after I did expose him for what he really was to many of the bigger dealers on the east coast. My point is Doctoring is subjective to wax,gum,tobacco,and other stains.The line is crossed when it becomes profit and greed driven. And as we all know the little hobby is no longer a hobby its big business.Grading companies may slow it down a little but as we know there is a new scam born every day. I still think back on the poor sole who purchased that card and wonder how many more items are just sitting in collections and the buyer has no idea its been altered.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

great post.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

I was sitting in the lobby of SGC a while back and a guy walks in with a Mickey Mantle rookie card. He was getting married and wanted to have the card graded which he would then sell to finance his honeymoon, down payment on a house etc. He proudly showed it to me and said its either a 7.5 or an 8--what do you think? Something about the card looked funny and I said maybe a 7 if it grades. He laughed but 30 minutes later he came out stunned that the card had been altered--actually more than stunned--almost in tears.

Thank God for the grading companies--now if they just continue to improve.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

Thanks Matt sad but true story!!