Every slabbed card has a story, don't it?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nobody but you, I don't think, would call the card on the left altered. It's incurred some wear/damage, that is not alteration. Altered implies something intentionally being done to it. Again, if you were selling the "restored" version on the right would you disclose the work or not?

Again, I'll restate that words have meaning. If you don't like the definition of a word, then choose a different one. I challenge you to find even one dictionary that mentions anything at all about intent when providing a definition for 'altered'.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Again, I'll restate that words have meaning. If you don't like the definition of a word, then choose a different one. I challenge you to find even one dictionary that mentions anything at all about intent when providing a definition for 'altered'.

And I challenge you to answer the question I've now asked twice.

As to what you did say, straw man, it has a different more specific meaning with respect to collectibles and you have been in this hobby long enough to know it. Everyone here understands the concept of altering cards, whether or not we disagree on what is acceptable and what is not.

The Williams on the left is not altered, the one on the right is. Is the alteration acceptable? One could I suppose debate that. But you've jumped the shark if your claim is that the one on the left is altered. Or you're just doing the contrarian thing again.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As to what you did say, straw man, it has a different more specific meaning with respect to collectibles and you have been in this hobby long enough to know it. Everyone here understands the concept of altering cards, whether or not we disagree on what is acceptable and what is not.

My contention would be that the way the term is often used in this hobby, particularly by PSA, is completely arbitrary. They consider a card that was stored in a screwdown to be "altered" despite that being the hobby standard for protecting cards for decades. Meanwhile, if you stick a thumbtack through a card to hang it on your wall, that's somehow acceptable and not an "alteration"? The list goes on.

At the end of the day though, what is it that people actually care about when it comes to their cards? They want to know if there are any flaws on it and what those flaws are. The whole concept of "Authentic Altered" is an arbitrarily applied construct. Perhaps best exemplified by your statement below where you wrote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The Williams on the left is not altered, the one on the right is. Is the alteration acceptable? One could I suppose debate that. But you've jumped the shark if your claim is that the one on the left is altered. Or you're just doing the contrarian thing again.

I can't wrap my head around your viewpoint here. Honestly, I can't comprehend how anyone could come to the conclusion that the Williams on the left is not altered but the one on the right is. Yet, it's your honest opinion. I see this as a rather arbitrary application of what it means for a card to be altered. Different strokes and all.

[Peter_Spaeth]

[QUOTE



I can't wrap my head around your viewpoint here. Honestly, I can't comprehend how anyone could come to the conclusion that the Williams on the left is not altered but the one on the right is. Yet, it's your honest opinion. I see this as a rather arbitrary application of what it means for a card to be altered. Different strokes and all.[/QUOTE]

Maybe we should do a poll. I would bet a tiny percentage of people would think the Williams with a big stain is "altered."

[Natedog]

Interesting debate. Correct me if I'm wrong on this - perhaps I'm just misremembering: When I first got back into the hobby about 8 or so years ago, whenever a card was in an authentic altered slab or something to that effect, it was looked at as a Scarlett Letter and could have been had for considerably less than a raw unaltered or low grade example. Now I feel as though as long as it has good eye appeal, an altered version of a sought after vintage card is worth considerably more than a lower grade example. Again, I could be way off on this, but I feel like that's the way it's trending.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Natedog

Interesting debate. Correct me if I'm wrong on this - perhaps I'm just misremembering: When I first got back into the hobby about 8 or so years ago, whenever a card was in an authentic altered slab or something to that effect, it was looked at as a Scarlett Letter and could have been had for considerably less than a raw unaltered or low grade example. Now I feel as though as long as it has good eye appeal, an altered version of a sought after vintage card is worth considerably more than a lower grade example. Again, I could be way off on this, but I feel like that's the way it's trending.

That's an interesting conversation as well, but a little different than the issues we've been discussing here, in my opinion. I don't know that any cards have gotten AA grades because of soaking or corners being bent back.

I think AA cards are for the most part trimmed, re-colored or otherwise structurally altered.

I remember good looking AA cards used to sell above ugly PSA 1's and 2's, but I don't know if that has changed at all.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Natedog

Interesting debate. Correct me if I'm wrong on this - perhaps I'm just misremembering: When I first got back into the hobby about 8 or so years ago, whenever a card was in an authentic altered slab or something to that effect, it was looked at as a Scarlett Letter and could have been had for considerably less than a raw unaltered or low grade example. Now I feel as though as long as it has good eye appeal, an altered version of a sought after vintage card is worth considerably more than a lower grade example. Again, I could be way off on this, but I feel like that's the way it's trending.

AA cards have their own pricing spectrum. They can sell for less than a 1 or as much as a nice 3 or a low end 4. It just depends on what's wrong with the card and how it presents. They can also be cracked out and resubmitted for a second opinion. Graders get it wrong quite often. If you learn how to grade cards and detect alterations yourself, you can often find great deals on unaltered cards that mistakenly made their way into AA slabs.

[campyfan39]

The card on the left has been altered by your own definition. Something was done to it that changed its appearance and value.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

[QUOTE



I can't wrap my head around your viewpoint here. Honestly, I can't comprehend how anyone could come to the conclusion that the Williams on the left is not altered but the one on the right is. Yet, it's your honest opinion. I see this as a rather arbitrary application of what it means for a card to be altered. Different strokes and all.

Maybe we should do a poll. I would bet a tiny percentage of people would think the Williams with a big stain is "altered."[/QUOTE]

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

The card on the left has been altered by your own definition. Something was done to it that changed its appearance and value.

So every card that doesn't look like it did out of the pack is altered?

[campyfan39]

By the strict definition it is not in its original state.
I have only ever pressed corners with my finger and used to use spit to rub stuff off of cards haha. I haven't even used panty hose for wax stains. I hvae also not gotten a single card graded in my life.
Yet this debate has gotten silly.

My personal view is "altering" in the sense we speak about it in the card world is trimming, adding color, adding paper from a donor card.

Originally Posted by jayshum

So every card that doesn't look like it did out of the pack is altered?

[vintagerookies51]

Originally Posted by jayshum

So every card that doesn't look like it did out of the pack is altered?

There are two different definitions of altered here. For TPG, altered means trimming, adding color, rebuilding corners, etc.

Every card that hasn’t had those things done to it is unaltered, so both of the Ted Williams cards above. By the literal definition, the one with the stain is obviously more altered from its original state, and I see zero problem with getting rid of something like that to make it more like its original state.

As a buyer, I could not care less how much something was cleaned as long as it was not altered in the way described initially. Actually that’s not even accurate, since I love buying cards graded Authentic-Altered because they are still original and look nicer than most 4s but can be had for a fraction of the price

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jayshum

So every card that doesn't look like it did out of the pack is altered?

If soaking half of a card in a cup of coffee doesn't meet your criteria, then what are we even talking about anymore?

[Fred]

Originally Posted by campyfan39

Maybe we should do a poll. I would bet a tiny percentage of people would think the Williams with a big stain is "altered."

It'd be interesting to run a poll that allowed for more than a single selection. The poll could keep a tally of all participants and a list of items considered "card doctoring". The percentage of each would be tracked.

What's doctoring or would be accepted? Soaking? Perhaps the poll should include soaking with only water or soaking with more than water.

What would the polling items be? Trimming , adding color, adding material for fixing holes/corners, crease removal, what else?

I just don't know how to set up such a poll.