Restoring cards

[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

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by pepis

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

Who does the restoration shouldn't matter at all. And to be honest, I have a major problem with this particular "project". Look at the card prior to "restoration", and the finished product. There wasn't even a border to the card. Now there is. None of that paper was original to the card.

This is blasphemous, in my opinion.

[Bestdj777]

The worst thing about that Wagner restoration is that they destroyed other T206 cards to add a boarder and back to this card. Although people are free to do what they want, I can't imagine how a T206 fan would allow them to cut up another T206 to improve his card.

[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.

[ALR-bishop]

They look great. I would not hesitate to buy either one....except I have them.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

They look great. I would not hesitate to buy either one....except I have them.

Color me surprised, Al I've only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to your collection, but let's put it this way. If you ever start your own baseball card museum, I'd pay good money for admission. However, I might leave a nose print or two on the glass, as vintage cards make me feel like a little kid again. That and I'm kinda short and a little farsighted, lol.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by 71buc

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.

How did you do that? Soaking?
I see the 'after' cards are much yellower than the 'before' cards and the Rosen has distinct rectangular areas of yellow. What was your method?

[71buc]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

How did you do that? Soaking?
I see the 'after' cards are much yellower than the 'before' cards and the Rosen has distinct rectangular areas of yellow. What was your method?

The yellow discoloration is a product of a cheap scanner. The Rosen does have the rectangular area of yellow you mention. I paid another person to remove the ink. He did it cheaply as he was working on a process to remove such ink markings. Although I like these two cards they were not very valuable or rare so I thought it was worth the risk. I am unsure of the method but I think it was a chemical bath of some type. The central area of the card was minimally effected I assume some sort of mask was used to protect it. There also appears to be a slight loss of gloss to the area where the ink was. I decided not to send in more cards as the price of the cards combined with the removal was equivalent to buying an unmarked version. My intent initially was to determine if ink removal was a possibility. I have some T206s that have ink stains which I was considering sending in but I lacked the courage despite the impressive results of the work completed on the 1952 Topps. The website address is http://www.gonewiththestain.com/. He was very professional and
easy to work with. I was pleased with his efforts. He was interviewed by SCD a number of years ago http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.co...res/nerattowle.