T206 Moeller (Raw) with a Pencil Mark

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Blunder19

if any markings on a card are erased the card can received a grade no higher then Authentic as it is viewed as being altered.

+1 There have been a lot of really silly(IMHO) ways of saying altered cards are not altered lately.

[swarmee]

I get the discussion more on the postcard side, since it was a regular occurrence for postcard dealers to write the price on the back of the card. Dealers would buy a collection, erase one seller's prices, and replace with theirs.
This mark, to me, is interesting because it shows that the person who owned it was likely trying to complete the set. "451" may signify the owner's order in adding it to his T206 collection.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

+1 There have been a lot of really silly(IMHO) ways of saying altered cards are not altered lately.

At some point, in my opinion, stuff is so de minimis as to be unimportant. I don't think Leon's playing word or definition games here, I think he's just of the view -- as am I, and Barry, and others I assume -- that it's trivial.

[JollyElm]

I can't wait to bid on that Moeller card 6 months from now in a PWCC auction, graded a PSA 8.

[swarmee]

Is it okay because there is no surface gloss on a T206? If this was on a 1989 Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr would erasing the pencil still be okay?

This goes to the detectable/undetectable issue as well as the additional damage to the card issue. Does it matter based on the value of the card? If it is alteration on a Baltimore Ruth to remove the pencil mark, shouldn't it be the same on a $50 card?

If the intent is to only remove the pencil mark, it doesn't meet the standard definition of conservation, so I would still call it alteration.

Full dislosure: I used a bad eraser to try and remove a price off the 1939 Cobb HOF postcard, but once it started smearing I left the price on it. PSA graded it a 4 with no qualifiers. It should have, at a minimum, got a 4(MK).

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

At some point, in my opinion, stuff is so de minimis as to be unimportant. I don't think Leon's playing word or definition games here, I think he's just of the view -- as am I, and Barry, and others I assume -- that it's trivial.

OK Peter I will play. Is it trivial to you because of the value or because 90%+ of T206 cards have had something done to them?

[2dueces]

If it wasn’t on the card when it was originally printed then it’s not a problem to remove it.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by 2dueces

If it wasn’t on the card when it was originally printed then it’s not a problem to remove it.

That would make the use of chemicals, etc OK...by your definition...to remove stains, etc.

What about Cracker jacks...they weren't printed with the stains on them...this occurred in the box?

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

That would make the use of chemicals, etc OK...by your definition...to remove stains, etc.

What about Cracker jacks...they weren't printed with the stains on them...this occurred in the box?

How about this scenario Pete: You're sorting your raw T-206's on the kitchen table when you decide to take a break for lunch. While eating your meatball hero you spill tomato sauce all over your green Cobb. Is it ethical to remove the sauce off the card?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

How about this scenario Pete: You're sorting your raw T-206's on the kitchen table when you decide to take a break for lunch. While eating your meatball hero you spill tomato sauce all over your green Cobb. Is it ethical to remove the sauce off the card?

Is that even possible to remove the ragoooo?????