Is it ethical to alter cards and sell them without disclosure?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by pawpawdiv9

^^^
alteration vs. restoration
I choose the middle, as i didnt think restoration was illegal, as long its disclosed properly.
Altering as for chemicals , is absolute disservice.
The debate as for washing/soaking is another can of worms.
Thats been asked probably a dozens times before.

We are specifying that the alterations are not disclosed to the buyer, as some (1) in the other thread are alleging that non-disclosure is viewed as acceptable by a majority.

I don't think there is any debate over whether one may sell a "restored" or "altered" card honestly stating the facts of its nature.

[Lorewalker]

The attempt to reduce the justification of doing something to a card that improves its appearance and not disclose it because a grading company is ok with it, is bs...to me. We saw on BO, a few years ago, examples of millions of dollars worth of cards that went into holders that were recolored, trimmed, etc etc. Were the alterations so great that they were missed or were the people submitting the cards given special treatment?

I find the argument to defer to the grading company once a card passes grading to be entirely dismissive of the responsibility of the submitter/seller to not disclose what was done. And again, if one truly believes they are not doing anything wrong then why not just let people know? Especially if you are in the camp where you feel nobody cares.