Conservation vs restoration defined by other genres of collectibles

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by drcy

I think he sees it, and always saw it.

It would seem, as it seemed to earlier poster, that he is here posting on PWCC's behalf.

As the old guy on Seinfeld said, "I may die tomorrow, but I wasn't born yesterday."

I'll take him at his word that he's not affiliated, but he isn't, at least so far, making much sense on his no incentive point, to me anyhow.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'll take him at his word that he's not affiliated, but he isn't, at least so far, making much sense on his no incentive point, to me anyhow.

It's not just you anyhow. There's no more further need to debate or discuss that that line of reasoning makes no sense. I think everyone here knows it makes no sense. Of course, it makes no sense. Or as I say when someone states a fact that is so obvious to everyone a fact that there's no need for the person to have even stated it: "And the sky is blue and Austin is the capital of Texas."

Now, the argument that the baseball card hobby should "mature" concerning conservation/alteration/labeling, that is a fair argument to which I can agree. Restoration (disclosed and labeled as restoration, and receiving a grade of AUTH) actually has become more accepted in the hobby in recent years. Collecting-wise, I'm not interested in restored or altered cards, but there are others in the hobby who are okay with it (when it's disclosed and the price is right), and the major auction houses has auctioned (disclosed as) restored cards. In cases, restoring and conserving a card is prudent. Obviously, the hobby 'maturing' would have to start, and only can start, with grading companies being able to identify alterations and conservation, which may be a high starting hurdle, because, despite what Goudey says, people WILL still try to sneak alterations past graders.

Here's a hobby 'maturing' rule for consideration: All trading cards that have been restored or conserved have to be clearly and permanently marked on the card itself. It may be a visible-light mark, or, if people don't like that idea, a black light identifiable mark. Any restored or conserved card that does not have such mark is automatically considered breaking the hobby rules and ethical standards written in black and white.

30 plus years ago, there was a guy who restored old cards, usually Goudeys, by building up the corners with foreign paper and glue. And apparently, he did an excellent job.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by drcy

It's not just you anyhow. There's no more further need to debate or discuss that that line of reasoning makes no sense. I think everyone here knows it makes no sense. Of course, it makes no sense.

It seems to me if anything, legitimizing "restored" would increase the incentive to doctor, because the worst case becomes something that has a decent residual value instead of a rejected and tainted card.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It seems to me if anything, legitimizing "restored" would increase the incentive to doctor, because the worst case becomes something that has a decent residual value instead of a rejected and tainted card.

I think there are cases where restoration have been reasonable (a torn card where the tear will be getting worse with time, a card where half is missing or has major damage to the central graphics), but have always been of the sentiment that restored cards should the rare exceptions. I believe it should be the norm, as it is, that alterations are considered detrimental to the card, lowers the value and the hobby should be against it.

Your point, and what I just said, may go against the idea of graders being able to label conservation/restoration, but just label all alterations as altered AUTH. If they get into the conservation/restoration etc labels, then it may make the practices seem more legitimate and acceptable, when restoration should be the rare exception for specific reasons. You may have just convinced me that graders should simply label altered cards as altered AUTH. If an AUTH card was restored for good reason, the owner of the card can make his case-- but the card doesn't get a special label.

Graders are actually by name condition graders, and they should say "We condition grade (assign numbers) only cards that are unaltered, and the cards have been altered. You people can debate the merits of restoration and conservation or what types of alterations are okay-- fine and dandy--, but we are strictly in the technical business of authenticating identity, condition grading unaltered cards and identifying cards that have been altered."