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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

What things done to a card that any significant part of the card-collecting population consider to be alterations are not, in fact, alterations and you should not disclose when selling a card?

Personally I am OK with the two things I mentioned, and beyond that I would object with varying degrees of outrage. But I think more than a small minority of people are probably OK with smoothing out a paper lift, or pressing a surface wrinkle, and like it or not there is greater tolerance than I have for cleaning. Whether or not people think of these things as not alterations at all, or as alterations but OK ones, is a matter of semantics. But all that said, I think the poll would mean more if you had defined the term, rather than having a poll where one's definition of the term at issue might determine the answer. Just my two cents.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Personally I am OK with the two things I mentioned, and beyond that I would object with varying degrees of outrage. But I think more than a small minority of people are probably OK with smoothing out a paper lift, or pressing a surface wrinkle, and like it or not there is greater tolerance than I have for cleaning. Whether or not people think of these things as not alterations at all, or as alterations but OK ones, is a matter of semantics. But all that said, I think the poll would mean more if you had defined the term, rather than having a poll where one's definition of the term at issue might determine the answer. Just my two cents.

Personally, I get the same information from tallying the people who claim ignorance and pretend they can't say if alterations should or should not be disclosed because of some X or Y edgecase, the logic of which would not be used for any other kind of fraud or crime.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Options 2 and 3 are likely to include false positives in terms of what you are trying to get at -- people who think cleaning is not an alteration, would not disclose it, but are going to say they think true alterations should be disclosed.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Options 2 and 3 are likely to include false positives in terms of what you are trying to get at -- people who think cleaning is not an alteration, would not disclose it, but are going to say they think true alterations should be disclosed.

If I played this game, we would end up with the 300 page treatise and we would still not get 100% alignment on the exact edges - which is the whole reason this is the sophistry used by most of those who are in favor of frauds, it will never get to an actual decision.

It is being used in the common sense way it has been used in our hobby for three decades or more. I understand and expect the exact list of people who will use this as the angle to hem and haw and avoid clicking yes, but literally nothing will satisfy - there is always one more edge case.

As a common sense person I can say I am against X crime or think Y is fine, as it is generally understood by people who are not pretending they suddenly don't know what a term they have expanded long passages about before means, without going over every possible case of it to categorize if that exact case counts. It should be incredibly obvious that there are edge cases of disagreement; if it was something many of this boards members and friends did not profit from, people would be able to understand this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

If I played this game, we would end up with the 300 page treatise and we would still not get 100% alignment on the exact edges - which is the whole reason this is the sophistry used by most of those who are in favor of frauds, it will never get to an actual decision.

It is being used in the common sense way it has been used in our hobby for three decades or more. I understand and expect the exact list of people who will use this as the angle to hem and haw and avoid clicking yes, but literally nothing will satisfy - there is always one more edge case.

As a common sense person I can say I am against X crime or think Y is fine, as it is generally understood by people who are not pretending they suddenly don't know what a term they have expanded long passages about before means, without going over every possible case of it to categorize if that exact case counts. It should be incredibly obvious that there are edge cases of disagreement; if it was something many of this boards members and friends did not profit from, people would be able to understand this.

From my observations over many years, there isn't as much consensus as you think there is. I think it's more complex than just positing there are a few edge cases but the rest is clear.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Options 2 and 3 are likely to include false positives in terms of what you are trying to get at -- people who think cleaning is not an alteration, would not disclose it, but are going to say they think true alterations should be disclosed.

I'm going to concur with Peter.

Even without a 300-page treatise, maybe just 5-10 examples of alterations (or activities that don't rise to the level of alterations) would be helpful.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

I'm going to concur with Peter.

Even without a 300-page treatise, maybe just 5-10 examples of alterations (or activities that don't rise to the level of alterations) would be helpful.

You are one of the, as of right now, three Yes votes, so you have already voted that alterations need not be disclosed, rather than pleading ignorance.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

You are one of the, as of right now, three Yes votes, so you have already voted that alterations need not be disclosed, rather than pleading ignorance.

Yep. I'm one of 3. Appreciate being outed, so thanks for that.

Full disclosure: I've never altered a card. Except for the one time when I bought a 71 Bazooka Numbered, which was hand cut. The cut job was bad, so I cleaned it up.

And I would argue that alteration is completely acceptable, without needing to be disclosed to a potential buyer. It's still in my PC, so I haven't sold it. But I will have no problem someday selling it without disclosing my hack job to the buyer.

[Facilitypro]

If you define "altering" as wiping off fingerprints/wax/gum residue or such, then I think that is acceptable without disclosure.

If you define "altering" as trimming/pressing/recoloring, then I think that is not acceptable.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I thought polls were anonymous?

[packs]

I feel like it's reasonable to set some parameters here. If you don't want to define what you mean it can be agreed that creasing a card is altering it. But I would also agree that maybe there's no need to disclose you personally creased the card if you can see the crease in your scan.

[Snowman]

As should be expected by anyone who reads my numerous posts on the topic, I voted "No, it is unethical to not disclose alterations."

But I don't think this is the point of disagreement that matters most. The more important line in the sand is what qualifies as an "alteration" to begin with. Most people (and ALL grading companies) do not consider a soaked or properly cleaned card to be altered. Same with flatting out a bent corner.

[Mark17]

Also depends on the card. If I get a 1961-63 Post Cereal card with a fuzzy edge and trim it straight, I don't consider that to be a sin against the hobby, since the cards were hand-cut in the first place. Same with other hand-cut issues (strip cards, Hostess panels, Bazooka, etc.)

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

Yep. I'm one of 3. Appreciate being outed, so thanks for that.

Full disclosure: I've never altered a card. Except for the one time when I bought a 71 Bazooka Numbered, which was hand cut. The cut job was bad, so I cleaned it up.

And I would argue that alteration is completely acceptable, without needing to be disclosed to a potential buyer. It's still in my PC, so I haven't sold it. But I will have no problem someday selling it without disclosing my hack job to the buyer.

You're welcome. I believe everyone can see who voted for what? The poll is not set to private, because I knew full well some people would plead ignorance but then vote yes to up those numbers without looking responsible for it.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

You're welcome. I believe everyone can see who voted for what? The poll is not set to private, because I knew full well some people would plead ignorance but then vote yes to up those numbers without looking responsible for it.

That's exciting. Didn't realize that until now. I guess if you click on the hyperlinked number of votes for any given option, it will show the list of who voted for each option. And it looks like Snowman voted for option #2. I suspect because his definition of alterations is different than yours.

[glchen]

As other have said, there are many definitions of alterations in the hobby. Here are a few that I can think of:

Soaking a card glued onto something else like a scrapbook: Acceptable
Soaking and pressing a card to remove wrinkles: Not Acceptable
Trimming a hand cut card such as a strip card: Acceptable
Trimming an oversized factory cut card: Not Acceptable
Erasing a pencil mark from a card using a standard eraser: Maybe?
Erasing a pen/ink mark from a card using chemicals: Not Acceptable
Adding color to a card: Not Acceptable
Rebuilding corners: Not Acceptable
Re-backing a skinned card: Not Acceptable

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by raulus

Yep. I'm one of 3. Appreciate being outed, so thanks for that.

Full disclosure: I've never altered a card. Except for the one time when I bought a 71 Bazooka Numbered, which was hand cut. The cut job was bad, so I cleaned it up.

And I would argue that alteration is completely acceptable, without needing to be disclosed to a potential buyer. It's still in my PC, so I haven't sold it. But I will have no problem someday selling it without disclosing my hack job to the buyer.

Perhaps you could reasonably draw a line at trimming hand-cut cards, because the borders are only ever defined by an end-user who tears or otherwise takes scissors to a factory sheet of some sort. You might be able to carve out an exception there without going down a slippery slope, because third-party graders even disclose the inevitable alteration right there on the label: "Hand Cut."

You can draw a sharp line at changing the size of a card that came from a factory and that was not distributed direct to consumers with dotted lines or borders or perforations.

Personally, I'd also draw a sharp line at adding any chemicals to the card, including water. To put that in context, I'd concede that soaking probably doesn't do longterm damage to some cards, and I probably own soaked T206s without knowing it. But we add shades of gray when a card cleaner decides to use tap water or starts messing around with Kurt's secret, proprietary "water-like" formula.

Frankly, I wouldn't trust a stranger with a financial interest in changing a card's appearance without detection to be the final arbiter of what an objectively acceptable soak looks like. Travis' comments here illustrate the point. Letting card doctors decide what counts as doctoring is like letting the fox guard the proverbial henhouse.