"Improving" Cards: New poll

[Jeremy102175]

I checked all the boxes. I'm curious why anyone would want to restore a card to begin with, unless it's purely for the $ value. Pencil marks, glue, etc are all a part of the card's journey through the decades.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Jeremy102175

I checked all the boxes. I'm curious why anyone would want to restore a card to begin with, unless it's purely for the $ value. Pencil marks, glue, etc are all a part of the card's journey through the decades.

I could see someone wanting to restore a card for OCD reasons. But the Venn diagram of people who obsess over a card's appearance and people who resell those cards without disclosure seems to be a full circle.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jeremy102175

I checked all the boxes. I'm curious why anyone would want to restore a card to begin with, unless it's purely for the $ value. Pencil marks, glue, etc are all a part of the card's journey through the decades.

And equally importantly, how well they have survived the journey (or not) should determine their relative value -- not the skill of a card doctor/restorer/whatever. It means something if a 100 year old card has actually survived in, say, near mint condition. It means nothing if someone is able to doctor it to make it look near mint.

[Jeremy102175]

Originally Posted by peter_spaeth

and equally importantly, how well they have survived the journey (or not) should determine their relative value -- not the skill of a card doctor/restorer/whatever. It means something if a 100 year old card has actually survived in, say, near mint condition. It means nothing if someone is able to doctor it to make it look near mint.

100%!!!

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And equally importantly, how well they have survived the journey (or not) should determine their relative value -- not the skill of a card doctor/restorer/whatever. It means something if a 100 year old card has actually survived in, say, near mint condition. It means nothing if someone is able to doctor it to make it look near mint.

Well stated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Jeremy102175

I checked all the boxes. I'm curious why anyone would want to restore a card to begin with, unless it's purely for the $ value. Pencil marks, glue, etc are all a part of the card's journey through the decades.

Wouldn't the erasure of a pencil mark also be part of the card's journey?

[Jeremy102175]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Wouldn't the erasure of a pencil mark also be part of the card's journey?

Erasing, trimming, and soaking are all part of the card's journey, but only if you can tell that they occured. In each of those cases though the idea is to conceal or remove the card's imperfections. But yes, if you could tell that there was once pencil on the back of a card and that someone had attempted to erase it, that would certainly be a part of the card's history and journey. A card that has been soaked, trimmed and erased has had its 100+ year journey removed, and is now essentially a 21st century card in my eyes. I completely understand your point, but I tend to think of cleaning cards the same way coin collectors frown on cleaning coins.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Jeremy102175

Erasing, trimming, and soaking are all part of the card's journey, but only if you can tell that they occured. In each of those cases though the idea is to conceal or remove the card's imperfections. But yes, if you could tell that there was once pencil on the back of a card and that someone had attempted to erase it, that would certainly be a part of the card's history and journey. A card that has been soaked, trimmed and erased has had its 100+ year journey removed, and is now essentially a 21st century card in my eyes. I completely understand your point, but I tend to think of cleaning cards the same way coin collectors frown on cleaning coins.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and I see your point. To relate it to my collection, I sometimes bid on GU flannels that have vintage team number changes. This was commonplace back in the pre-1972 era. But I never bid on jerseys that have modern restorations, like new numbers or lettering added. As you say, that makes the shirt 21st century.

[Jeremy102175]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and I see your point. To relate it to my collection, I sometimes bid on GU flannels that have vintage team number changes. This was commonplace back in the pre-1972 era. But I never bid on jerseys that have modern restorations, like new numbers or lettering added. As you say, that makes the shirt 21st century.

I really like that comparison to jerseys. What's interesting as well is that although I knew there were number changes on some vintage jerseys, I didn't realize it was commonplace pre- 1972. Those vintage jerseys' "imperfections" just taught me something about baseball I didn't know until you mentioned it, so to make 21st century alterations that are "corrections" is really a shame in my opinion.