Restoring cards

[Bestdj777]

Just curious what everyones' thoughts were regarding restoring cards? I'm a low grade collector (PSA 1), and it always amazes me to see the difference in price between a PSA 1 and a PSA authentic-altered card. For example, you can pick up a 52 topps Mantle in PSA 1 for around 3k but a decent recolored or deceptively trimmed Mantle, with great eye appeal, will set you back about 4k (prices are estimates based on my following of the market when I searched awhile ago for my copy). Given the difference in price, it seems almost as if it would be worth it from a an economic perspective to restore and regrade a PSA 1, assuming it is suitable for restoration and doing so would cost less than 1k. Thoughts?

[ALR-bishop]

The Mantle may be a unique card in regard to the phenomena you describe. Not sure it would hold true of other cards, assuming your inquiry goes to cards in general as opposed to the Mantle specifically.

I collect sets and like them in binders so I avoid graded cards my self for the most part, but have one graded Mantle and one ungraded (both variations)

[Bestdj777]

Hi Al. Thanks for weighing in. I was primarily thinking of the 52 Mantle. With the exception of Mantle cards, I don't pay much attention to the market. I would say your theory is probably correct. I wouldn't imagine the phenomenon extends much beyond the 52 Mantle, with the exception of T206 Wagner. I saw that someone recently had one restored, which suggests to me that at least someone thought restoring it would increase the value.

That said, would you ever restore a card? I've seen your Mantles, and they clearly don't need it. But, if your PSA 8 had a spot of paper loss on it, would you have it fixed? I generally like to leave things as they are, but with this one card I feel like there is a financial incentive to go against my instincts.

[the 'stache]

Maybe it's the stock broker in me, but I find restoring cards to be highly deceptive.

Ask yourself this. Would a particular card be restored if it weren't being sold? Likely not. The sole motivation (at least most of the time) for doctoring a card is a monetary one, and it is dishonest. It is a misrepresentation of what is being sold, and unethical.

[Bestdj777]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Maybe it's the stock broker in me, but I find restoring cards to be highly deceptive.

Ask yourself this. Would a particular card be restored if it weren't being sold? Likely not. The sole motivation (at least most of the time) for doctoring a card is a monetary one, and it is dishonest. It is a misrepresentation of what is being sold, and unethical.

I likely would not restore the card unless I was selling it. I prefer the well-loved look of my cards as is. I think your statements wrongly assume that, if I got it restored, I would not disclose that information when selling it. There is no way I would sell a card without fulling disclosing that information. I would be restoring a 1952 Mantle. To reach the full monetary price of the piece, I would have to have it regraded after restoration. Most bidders are too hesitant to lay out money for an ungraded copy sold through the internet. So, any card I sold that was altered would clearly be labelled altered. Under those factual circumstances, does your opinion on restoration change? I am still not sure where I fall on the restore/don't restore line of thought. Fortunately, there are no plans to part with the card any time in the near future.

[David W]

I would think there are at best a handful of cards post WW2 that would ever be considered for restoration.

They are just too plentiful for the most part. Even the 52 Mantle is available to anyone who wants to pay the price. There are at least 22 on Ebay right now.

Even pre war, there are only a few cards that would be "restorable" and I doubt they would be able to slip them by PSA or SGC or Beckett due to the high profile of the card.

[Wymers Auction]

Originally Posted by Bestdj777

I likely would not restore the card unless I was selling it. I prefer the well-loved look of my cards as is. I think your statements wrongly assume that, if I got it restored, I would not disclose that information when selling it. There is no way I would sell a card without fulling disclosing that information. I would be restoring a 1952 Mantle. To reach the full monetary price of the piece, I would have to have it regraded after restoration. Most bidders are too hesitant to lay out money for an ungraded copy sold through the internet. So, any card I sold that was altered would clearly be labelled altered. Under those factual circumstances, does your opinion on restoration change? I am still not sure where I fall on the restore/don't restore line of thought. Fortunately, there are no plans to part with the card any time in the near future.

After you sell it how do you guarantee that the disclosure will be made next time it sells?

[Bestdj777]

Originally Posted by Wymers Auction

After you sell it how do you guarantee that the disclosure will be made next time it sells?

You can never guarantee that the disclosure will be made. However, the only cards that, in my eyes, are worth restoring are those that should already be purchased with extreme caution. People should not be purchasing good condition, but ungraded, 52 Mantles without having a high level of knowledge about the card and carefully inspecting it in person prior to purchase.

[cammb]

Do you consider removing of a tape stain a "restoration".

[the 'stache]

Nope, my opinion on the restoration wouldn't change, even if said restoration is disclosed. Altering the card in any way is a big no no for me. I cannot speak for anybody else, but if somebody takes a card that has become damaged through normal handling, trying to reverse that damage is unnatural to me.

[Bestdj777]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Nope, my opinion on the restoration wouldn't change, even if said restoration is disclosed. Altering the card in any way is a big no no for me. I cannot speak for anybody else, but if somebody takes a card that has become damaged through normal handling, trying to reverse that damage is unnatural to me.

Fair enough.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I'm with Bill in that restoration of a card is a no-no. Especially a post war card that is fairly plentiful. There are enough high grade 52 Mantles out there that altering a lesser condition example is just not necessary.

Just my opinion.

AndyH

.

[drc]

You can legally do it, so long as you disclose at sale that it was restored. You can do whatever you want to any baseball card, as long as you disclose that it's been altered. The legal problem with the Gretzky Wagner wasn't any alterations, but the lack of disclosure.

[the 'stache]

Well, legal and ethical are two different things altogether.

You restore a card, and tell the buyer that you did, and they're cool with it. Two years later, that same buyer becomes a seller, and maybe they tell the next owner, maybe they don't. After the card is involved in a few transactions, there's no mention that the card has somehow artificially been repaired, and now you have buyers thinking they are purchasing a card in much better condition than it really is.

The majority of cards won't come with any provenance, so I still find card restoration to be objectionable.

[a761506]

The real question here is where is the line drawn in the extent of restoration?

I am absolutely opposed to restoration that involves rebuilding corners, trimming, recoloring.

However, I have zero problem with the idea of soaking a card to remove or reduce a faint crease, or perhaps something adhered to the card. As long as the card itself is not being materially altered.

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by a761506

The real question here is where is the line drawn in the extent of restoration?

I am absolutely opposed to restoration that involves rebuilding corners, trimming, recoloring.

However, I have zero problem with the idea of soaking a card to remove or reduce a faint crease, or perhaps something adhered to the card. As long as the card itself is not being materially altered.

I agree. I have no problem with soaking a card to remove scrapbook scrap, glue or other schmutz. Today I am soaking eight T206. A Titus for scrapbook and seven others for schmutz. When I left the house, this morning a couple of the "dirtier" cards were turning the water a faint nicotine color. I am OK with that.....

[Leon]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Well, legal and ethical are two different things altogether.

You restore a card, and tell the buyer that you did, and they're cool with it. Two years later, that same buyer becomes a seller, and maybe they tell the next owner, maybe they don't. After the card is involved in a few transactions, there's no mention that the card has somehow artificially been repaired, and now you have buyers thinking they are purchasing a card in much better condition than it really is.

The majority of cards won't come with any provenance, so I still find card restoration to be objectionable.

I don't think it's unethical to do anything you want to a card as long as it is handled, down the line, with those things being transparent. I am not into restoration but would have no qualms buying a restored card if it was being sold that way. (I don't own any today, I am aware of ) This is a question/answer that each person will see a bit differently.

[the 'stache]

In a perfect world, Leon, I would agree. But there's just too many dishonest people out there, and if the door is opened a crack, somebody will try to take advantage. But then again, I'm a person that hates to speak in absolutes, so there could be an exception (like if I had the chance to buy a '52 Topps Mantle. I'd still consider buying it at the right price, even if it were trimmed).

[ALR-bishop]

I have never altered a card myself. I do not have the ability to do it. I have no idea if I have altered cards in my collection. For the most part my collection is ungraded, and I have all the Topps and Fleer sets done. I personally think there is no distinction among any of the above card alteration/cleaning methods. If you are opposed to any, I think you should be opposed to all. But I personally think you can do anything you want to your cards. If you do, I think you should say so when you sell them, but I realize many may not, and buyers of expensive cards who buy for value/investment rather than hobby should do so just like any other investor in any other market item, at their own risk.

Houses are restored, cars, furniture, even antique, is restored, paintings/art/sculptures are restored, for age or damage, even ones of great value.

My cards are my cards. I bought them at my risk. When you buy yours you do the same, whether you like it or not. And I would not rely on the opinion of some minion at a grading company that I know for a fact knows less about post war cards than I do to give me peace of mind about the condition of some card

[the 'stache]

Good post, Al!

I have struggled with my opinion on card restoration since I returned to the hobby for the very reasons you cited.

Take a work of art, like the Mona Lisa, for example. I think for me the distinction is that there will only be the one painting in existence, and if a restoration is done, it is by somebody that has made it their profession. The Mona Lisa retains it's value regardless of how brilliant the painting looks. If it's restored, it is done for reasons of aesthetics (the likelihood of the painting getting damaged is low). With baseball cards, where more than one of each exist, restoration is done to drive up the card's value on the open market.

Like you, I don't have the ability to do it, and I wouldn't have a clue how to restore a card if I did. But when I think of a card being restored, I think of somebody looking to jack up the price of their card on Ebay. If the alteration is disclosed, I can at least live with it. But too often, it is done by an unscrupulous seller, and not disclosed.

[Bestdj777]

On the bright side Bill, there are only a handful of cards that are, in my opinion, potentially worth the cost of storing--T206 Wagner, 52 Mantle, etc. People should not be purchasing high grade examples of those cards without them being graded, or the person having some knowledge and inspecting them in person. So, my concerns about someone trying to scam someone down the line are slightly relieved by that.

Restoration is a difficult question, and I am glad everyone weighed in. In the end, I will probably never restore any of my cards--soak; have paper added, re-coloration, etc

[ls7plus]

IMHO, restoration is a trend that is gradually making its way into the hobby, and insofar as it is done with transparency, as Leon suggests, I believe you will find that it will become more and more prevalent, most often with extremely rare and significantly damaged cards. It's kind of like info technology--there just won't be any stopping it. I don't know if I'd ever participate myself, though. One of my favorite cards is my 1947 Tip Top Bread Kiner rookie, which is a fairly tough one to come across. Someone wrote "51 homeruns in 1947" on its face in fountain pen, which I actually kind of like. It adds a period touch to a card someone before me probably treasured as much as I do!

Boy--536 posts as I write this--as many as the Mick hit homers! Maybe I should stop now!

Best, guys,

Larry

[pepis]

I gues is acceptable if you pay a pro to do it,
http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_110.html

[71buc]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

IMHO, restoration is a trend that is gradually making its way into the hobby, and insofar as it is done with transparency, as Leon suggests, I believe you will find that it will become more and more prevalent, most often with extremely rare and significantly damaged cards. It's kind of like info technology--there just won't be any stopping it. I don't know if I'd ever participate myself, though. One of my favorite cards is my 1947 Tip Top Bread Kiner rookie, which is a fairly tough one to come across. Someone wrote "51 homeruns in 1947" on its face in fountain pen, which I actually kind of like. It adds a period touch to a card someone before me probably treasured as much as I do!

Boy--536 posts as I write this--as many as the Mick hit homers! Maybe I should stop now!

Best, guys,

Larry

I am not a fan of doctoring but readily admit to being curious about the possibilities. Last year I came across a collection of 52 Topps that the owner wrote his name on to prevent his brother from claiming them. I purchased these two very cheaply and paid $20 each to see if ink could be removed. The results were surprising. I will never attempt to slab or resell due to ethical reasons but based on these results I am certain others would be tempted to so.