Card Doctor haters please respond

[egbeachley]

The vast majority, 65% at this time, say doctoring is OK as long as it is disclosed. So, if I purchase a doctored card, do I need to disclose it as well if I resell it? I think, yes!

That would be yes if I resold it within 2 years.

Maybe if I resold it within 3-4 years. It's hard to remember where I purchased a card by then.

Probably not if it has been 5 years. Doctored? It doesn't look doctored.

Definitely not if resold in 7 years. There were no card doctors 7 years ago!

Mom........we need to sell these cards since Dad died. Let's just send them to an auction house. They will get us the best prices. I love that Dad collected perfect-looking cards.

[CW]

Al C. is a good writer and stuff.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

The vast majority, 65% at this time, say doctoring is OK as long as it is disclosed. So, if I purchase a doctored card, do I need to disclose it as well if I resell it? I think, yes!

That would be yes if I resold it within 2 years.

Maybe if I resold it within 3-4 years. It's hard to remember where I purchased a card by then.

Probably not if it has been 5 years. Doctored? It doesn't look doctored.

Definitely not if resold in 7 years. There were no card doctors 7 years ago!

Mom........we need to sell these cards since Dad died. Let's just send them to an auction house. They will get us the best prices. I love that Dad collected perfect-looking cards.

Yep. And even if you disclosed it, the next person to sell it would not. So one way or another it's going to get into the hobby without disclosure. I have heard no solutions proposed to this.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

The vast majority, 65% at this time, say doctoring is OK as long as it is disclosed. So, if I purchase a doctored card, do I need to disclose it as well if I resell it? I think, yes!

That would be yes if I resold it within 2 years.

Maybe if I resold it within 3-4 years. It's hard to remember where I purchased a card by then.

Probably not if it has been 5 years. Doctored? It doesn't look doctored.

Definitely not if resold in 7 years. There were no card doctors 7 years ago!

Mom........we need to sell these cards since Dad died. Let's just send them to an auction house. They will get us the best prices. I love that Dad collected perfect-looking cards.

Saying you think it's "okay" and that you are for it are different things. I greatly dislike the alteration of cards, and have no interest in them. Restored cards don't appeal to me. But that doesn't mean I think it's morally wrong for someone to have a badly damaged card conserved. I can even understand why someone would have a card that was torn in two restored whole. It won't be a card that will appeal to me, but I can understand why someone would do it.

In other words I think someone could both be against all alterations but say it's "okay." One can both be against it, while saying it's legal. One might say "It's legally okay, but not okay." Okay is a somewhat vague term and I'll bet people taking the poll interpret the word differently. Online polls are notorious for being ambiguous and deceptive due to wording and interpretations of their meanings.

If it was up to me, cards would not be restored or altered. I am against it and would vote "not okay." But it's not up to me, and I don't pretend to have the absolute moral authority to say no one can restore baseball cards, that anyone with different aesthetic sentiments than me is wrong and there are no situations where alterations are justifiable. I don't share the sentiment, but can understand when someone posts that they'd rather have a good looking restored card than an ugly unrestored one. As I said, I personally dislike altered cards-- they simply don't appeal to me, I consider them tainted and see nothing wrong with an antique item showing some normal wear and tear--, but am not about to say someone is wrong for liking and buying a card that was professionally restored.

Also, I think having a badly damaged rare card (say one with house paint spots across the front and a tear that may increase in size) professionally restored is different than trimming an ExMt card to Mint. I can understand the former, but am totally against the latter in all circumstances for all the reasons you site (leave well enough cards alone, potential for deception, etc).

I guess you could say I am firmly against alterations, but allow for those rare one in 20,000 understandable exceptions (the card with the house paint smear across the player's face or a card that has an ongoing growing fungus problem that should be professionally deacidified before the fungus destroys the card.). Even though I am against alterations, I think it's "okay" for that card with an ongoing fungus that will eventually destroy the card to be professionally conserved. In fact, I bet almost everyone would agree that is a case where conservation is acceptable.

Whether or not you did the alterations, not disclosing known alterations to a card at sale is illegal. If an altered card has been sold, someone has probably broken the law. Not disclosing alterations is 100 percent not "okay," in any sense of the word.

One last practical point. That rare exception to the rule card that had a major tear professionally fixed or a bad scrape to the player's face professionally repainted will be able to be identified as restored in the future. Major professional restoration like that is easily detectable. So those kinds of alterations won't be lost in the shuffle of time.

[travrosty]

there has been a honus wagner t-206 restored to near perfect shape, then un-restored, if you will. So someone at some time thought that restoring a wagner was something that they wanted to do.

[drcy]

I should add that I collect photographs that are rare to unique. The value of a rare photograph doesn't change if it's ExMt or Mint, if the edge is razor sharp or slightly rough, or if the corner is sharp or dinged. Thats all baseball card stuff. The only restoration that would be done to a photograph is if there's tape on the image, a bad tear or something like that.

So, from my standpoint, the whole PSA 10 = 100x more than a PSA9, louping for invisible to naked eye surface wrinkles and corner touches is pure satire. It's what anal retentive baseball card collectors do.

And I'm totally against trimming of photographs. I hate it when baseball card collectors with their baseball card grading sensibilites trim photos so it gets sharper edges and a better "grade." That's why I'm against grading companies giving grades to non-card photos-- because baseball card people will start trimming photos to get better grades, and there was not a thing wrong with the photo before it was trimmed.

My opinion is it is fine for card companies to authenticate photos, but am firmly against them giving them condition grades.

[drcy]

Provenance, provenance, provenance

First, I think people who spend $100,000 on a 1957 Topps Sandy Koufax because it's a PSA 10 are dunderheads (in part because grading has a well known margin of error, as evidenced by people resubmitting cards and getting different grades), but i wrote an entire article about provenance (including a bit about high grade cards) and if they don't care to inquire where a card came from before dropping $100,000 that's their choice and perhaps their eventual downfall. Of course not all cards have verifiable provenance, but $100,000 is a big investment to not even ask where the card came from.

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...ce-collection/

For those who don't want to read the entire article, I'll quote:

"When someone is offering a Gem Mint antique baseball card with perfect razor sharp edges, have you ever considered asking where it was acquired? If the seller himself trimmed the card, he won’t be able to provide documentation that it existed in that condition before he owned it. Clearly, there won’t be solid documentation for many cards– cards are discovered in books, bought as part of group lots, a sales receipt may make no mention of grade–but provenance of high grade cards should be something to keep in the back of your mind."

If collectors started demanding to see where high graded cards came from before they laid down any $, a lot of the alteration problems would be solved right there. Card doctors won't be able to show where they got the card-- though there will no doubt suddenly be a rash of Gem Mint 10s "found in my grandmother's cabinet."

Not that I'm anticipating that the hobby will take this advice (I've mentioned provenance many times over the years visa vie cards and alterations, but it always appears to fall on deaf ears). But an individual collector reading this post can take the initiative with his own purchases.

[ksabet]

Originally Posted by drcy

First, I think people who spend $100,000 on a 1957 Topps Sandy Koufax because it's a PSA 10 are dunderheads

If I can make 20-30% on 100k...you can call me a dunderhead all day.


These guys do it for the return not the idea of owning a great condition card.

[travrosty]

Some do it because they are .05 behind someone else in the set registry and they have almost all 10's in their collection, and another 10 might put them over the top of the #1 guy on the list.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by drcy

Provenance, provenance, provenance

First, I think people who spend $100,000 on a 1957 Topps Sandy Koufax because it's a PSA 10 are dunderheads (in part because grading has a well known margin of error, as evidenced by people resubmitting cards and getting different grades), but i wrote an entire article about provenance (including a bit about high grade cards) and if they don't care to inquire where a card came from before dropping $100,000 that's their choice and perhaps their eventual downfall. Of course not all cards have verifiable provenance, but $100,000 is a big investment to not even ask where the card came from.

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...ce-collection/

For those who don't want to read the entire article, I'll quote:

"When someone is offering a Gem Mint antique baseball card with perfect razor sharp edges, have you ever considered asking where it was acquired? If the seller himself trimmed the card, he won’t be able to provide documentation that it existed in that condition before he owned it. Clearly, there won’t be solid documentation for many cards– cards are discovered in books, bought as part of group lots, a sales receipt may make no mention of grade–but provenance of high grade cards should be something to keep in the back of your mind."

If collectors started demanding to see where high graded cards came from before they laid down any $, a lot of the alteration problems would be solved right there. Card doctors won't be able to show where they got the card-- though there will no doubt suddenly be a rash of Gem Mint 10s "found in my grandmother's cabinet."

Not that I'm anticipating that the hobby will take this advice (I've mentioned provenance many times over the years visa vie cards and alterations, but it always appears to fall on deaf ears). But an individual collector reading this post can take the initiative with his own purchases.

In my opinion, the majority of people to whom it is important to own 9s or 10s of vintage cards really don't care if they have been altered. As long as like-minded people feel the same, the cards have value as commodities whether or not they would be worthless outside the holders.

[1880nonsports]

for the aside - but curious whether this is a serious comment?

"Wait, PSA doesn't give you a stipend if you're #1 on your registry set?"