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

[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?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought polls were anonymous?

You can choose either way. When not anonymous I doubt they are very accurate.

[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.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yep. For that matter, taking a card out of a pack could be altering it.

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

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.

Respect to those who have been honest. Honesty is always a virtue, whether I agree with them or not. I hold the Yes voters in higher regard than the people who pretend they have no idea what an altered card means.

Yes, Snowman's is that the word means the exact opposite of what the hobby has meant for 3 decades+, that a crease is alteration and not his work on a card. If I say I define a tree as a rhinoceros, that doesn't make the tree a rhinoceros. His definition is not the ignorance the others claim whenever convenient, but that it means the exact opposite.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

Respect to those who have been honest. Honesty is always a virtue, whether I agree with them or not. I hold the Yes voters in higher regard than the people who pretend they have no idea what an altered card means.

I'm not sure if my vote was motivated by honesty. It was as much a function as a protest vote, due to my contrarian nature.

That and whenever people demand absolute answers based on ambiguous criteria, my contrarian streak tends to run amok even more violently than usual.

[drcy]

It not only obviously is unethical, it is illegal.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

I'm not sure if my vote was motivated by honesty. It was as much a function as a protest vote, due to my contrarian nature.

That and whenever people demand absolute answers based on ambiguous criteria, my contrarian streak tends to run amok even more violently than usual.

I'm probably very aligned with Greg on the ethics of all this, but I agree a poll based on a loaded term does not work.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

I'm not sure if my vote was motivated by honesty. It was as much a function as a protest vote, due to my contrarian nature.

That and whenever people demand absolute answers based on ambiguous criteria, my contrarian streak tends to run amok even more violently than usual.

Oh I wasn't counting you among the honest, as you said one thing and voted another, when you apparently did not realize the contradiction could be seen.

[BabyRuth]

I wonder if it would be acceptable to "alter" the options as follows:

Option 1)
Yes, it is perfectly acceptable and ethical to sell an altered card without disclosing this to the buyer


Option 2)
No, it is unethical to not disclose the alterations

[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

[packs]

Yeah, I agree with soaking. I don't see the alteration aspect of soaking a card. The card wasn't glued to anything when it was issued, so to me the alteration was gluing it to something. If you're able to soak it apart from what it was glued to, the card is in its original form and I don't see how it's been altered.

[FrankWakefield]

Soaking a T206.... I understand that some folks here think that soaking a T206 is altering a T206. I think that folks that have more than just a few T206s, graded and or not graded, have cards that have been soaked. Almost all of them have been soaked. ESPECIALLY if the card had great corners (which to me indicates a higher likelihood that the card was flour pasted into a scrapbook 115 years ago, and that is why the corners survived. A bunch of folks seem to be sanctimoniously in denial about that.

Slabs... When I buy a slabbed card ( think a T206 in a PSA 3 holder ), if I then break it out and put the card in with my other T206s, have I then altered that card? Haven't I altered it from graded to raw? Don't some folks buy the grade, not the card? If I sell a breakout card, should I disclose that it was graded? If I don't, is that fraud?

Where's that beating a dead horse video?

[FrankWakefield]

I have a T206 that I asked Ted Zanidakis to sign on the back. He did sign, and sent it back to me. So... Ted altered the card??? I'm complicit to that??? If I sell that card to someone, it's pretty obvious that Ted Z signed the back. I need to disclose that to a buyer anyway??? IF, in the process of taking scissors to a over-taped mailing package that I get one day, in the process of using the scissors, I cut a T206 in half, if I then sell that card, am I committing fraud if I don't tell the buyer that I cut that card in half???

[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.