Legit altering

[drc]

It's legally okay to restore or alter a card as long as you disclose what was done at sale. I think if you serially alter cards without disclosure, including to get them into PSA, SGC or Beckett holders you could get into legal trouble down the road. The Mastrp case has shown that, at least with major offenses, the Feds can be willing to prosecute for that.

Otherwise, restoration is a matter of taste. Clearly, there are many people in the hobby entirely against restoration of baseball cards. I'm one who usually believes in leaving a card as it is-- but understand why someone would want to fix up a card that has an unsightly ink blotch on front, major staining or has been badly torn. As has been pointed out numerous times on this board, a fountain pen ink blotch or album glue residue wasn't an original part of the card.

[arc2q]

This is a fascinating and multi-sided issue. Clearly I am a Johnny-Come-Lately to the discussion as I am sure the issue of restoration has been discussed many times before. It does seem, though, that the hobby often conflates restoration with alteration; which are entirely separate concepts in my mind. Alteration, I think we would all agree, violates the principle of collecting what are essentially valuable historic artifacts. In any field, intentionally altering an artifact to improve its value is a violation of trust.

But restoration is commonplace in art, historic preservation, etc. Would you go to the National Archives and want to see the original Declaration of Independence in its decayed state with 200+ years or dust on it? Or would you want to see it restored and preserved to ensure it lasts for 200 years more? Some element of restoration is involved in preserving historic artifacts...treating and protecting the materials to guarantee they last. I would imagine most of us would be fine with the dust and grime being cleaned off a painting or other historic artifact prior to display. In fact, a restored Renoir properly cleaned and preserved would likely command a premium over one found in a dank basement and allowed to decay via normal manner.

So why then would cleaning a historic baseball card be considered a violation of the hobby or an act decreasing the value of the card? We want these cards to last hundreds of years more (or at least our lifetimes) so preserving them and doing what is necessary to keep them clean ought to be, at a minimum, acceptable practice. Slabbing may be enough for some. But if a very valuable and rare item can be cleaned and preserved to prevent further deterioration of the ink or cardboard, it should be done. At least, I imagine, this is one argument that could be made.

At a minimum, I think collectors should distinguish between altering and restoring. Restoring makes total sense to me if done properly. In fact, I don't even necessarily think it always needs to be disclosed other than to say the card has been professionally preserved. It should be a good thing.

[egbeachley]

Rick, did you notice you added a new crease through the first "T" in Pittsburg?

What is the solvent to remove ink?

[buymycards]

Eric, I didn't notice the new crease on the front. Looks like I turned my $7.57 card into a $6.57 card.

Rick

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

I have absolutely no issues with your decision to professionally restore a card. Unfortunately cards break down over time and need to be restored to stay in existence. I think it happens all the time anyway.