To Clean or not to Clean

[packs]

If restoration like this should be accepted, then why don't descriptions include the restoration? What would someone have to hide if something is accepted? Unless of course it isn't accepted.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by packs

If restoration like this should be accepted, then why don't descriptions include the restoration? What would someone have to hide if something is accepted? Unless of course it isn't accepted.

I think they are hiding that info because they want to get a better bid price on the card. I am sure on most auctions there is extra things that can said about a card's condition that can lower what an item's maximum bid is

[packs]

Then it sounds like this type of restoration may not be accepted by the collecting community. People disclose other things like unseen creases in an effort to give an appropriate depiction of the card.

[drcy]

One thing to keep in mind about painting restoration is that the restoration has to be disclosed.

That it is is the "hobby standard" that certain types alterations are not disclosed neither automatically makes it ethical or legal. It could be reasonably argued that shilling is a hobby standard.

As was well said, if a there is nothing wrong or value-changing with a certain type of cleaning, then why is it not disclosed? The answer is because it will change the perceived value in some bidders and buyers minds? Of course an exact same looking card that has not been 'cleaned' will sell for more than one that has-- which is why the cleaning is not disclosed. Whether or not the cleaning or conservation itself is good, prudent and ethical (and in many cases it may be-- I find nothing unethical about removing foreign substances such as glue and scrap paper from a card), that its disclosure will effect sales prices is a reason (including legal) why it has to be disclosed. The ethics and law is alterations and conservation must be disclosed and the buyers and bidders get to decide if and how it effects the value.

[GasHouseGang]

Sometimes even art shouldn't be restored; at least not like this. The first photo is how it looked before, the second is of the painting needing restoration, and the last is after "restoration".

[packs]

There is literally hardly any original paint or brush strokes from Leonardo on the Last Supper. You might think you're looking at a da Vinci but you are not. It is just a compilation of other people's work at this point. But if they told you that, you might not go.

[drcy]

I would label that one as cartoonization not restoration. Luckily for restorers, it looks as if she used crayon.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by drcy

One thing to keep in mind about painting restoration is that the restoration has to be disclosed.

That it is is the "hobby standard" that certain types alterations are not disclosed neither automatically makes it ethical or legal. It could be reasonably argued that shilling is a hobby standard.

As was well said, if a there is nothing wrong or value-changing with a certain type of cleaning, then why is it not disclosed? The answer is because it will change the perceived value in some bidders and buyers minds? Of course an exact same looking card that has not been 'cleaned' will sell for more than one that has-- which is why the cleaning is not disclosed. Whether or not the cleaning or conservation itself is good, prudent and ethical (and in many cases it may be-- I find nothing unethical about removing foreign substances such as glue and scrap paper from a card), that its disclosure will effect sales prices is a reason (including legal) why it has to be disclosed. The ethics and law is alterations and conservation must be disclosed and the buyers and bidders get to decide if and how it effects the value.

Noone said disclosing something like soaking is not value changing. There are many things on many listings that if disclosed would lower the value of the card. People sell their house and dont disclose lots of things that we all know could change the value, (after all if its not a big deal, why not disclose it)

back to the hobby standard argument....wrinkles/crease/paper loss are disclosed, soaking is not.. partly because tough to prove knowledge on the seller that it was soaked versus having a card in hand and seeing paper loss etc.


The 'why not disclose if not a big deal' argument means you need to list EVERYTHING, because as we know..just little little things can talk you out of wanting a card. That spec that we thought is on the holder, well its actually on the card, how come they didnt tell us that? The card has a smoke smell, ..why didnt they tell us that. card is soaked....etc etc.. Many things can impact a final sale, but its standard not to disclose everything in a sale of a card...just like houses..

[Bigdaddy]

Frequently I will take my shirt tail and rub the wax off of a post-war card. Most of the time it comes off clean if the wax was on the front of the card. Sometimes it does not.

Soo, is this considered 'doctoring' the card? To me, if you are taking away something that is not supposed to be on the card in the first place, I find it hard to call it a doctored card. With that logic though, I guess pressing out a wrinkle (never tried that) would also not count.

Thoughts?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Frequently I will take my shirt tail and rub the wax off of a post-war card. Most of the time it comes off clean if the wax was on the front of the card. Sometimes it does not.

Soo, is this considered 'doctoring' the card? To me, if you are taking away something that is not supposed to be on the card in the first place, I find it hard to call it a doctored card. With that logic though, I guess pressing out a wrinkle (never tried that) would also not count.

Thoughts?

right so if there were pen marks on the card and you could take it off , the pen marks shouldnt be on the card as well which according to your statement would be ok. Most will disagree

I think wrinkles will come back so they should be disclosed. Fine me one current auction listing on any card graded higher than authentic where its disclosed that the card was soaked with water. I not sure there are actually any listings authentic or not. Apparently its not a big deal since its never disclosed.