Two hour interview with.... Bill Mastro

[Balticfox]

An interesting and now very controversial question. For 25+ years the definite guide to restoration procedures could be found in the annual Overstreet Price Guide. Then CGC came around in 2000 and unbeknown to all but a few dealers close to CGC, their definition of restoration did not include all the procedures included in Overstreet's guide to restoration. Most contentious was pressing.

As a result, those dealers close to CGC had comics cleaned and pressed and got Blue(unrestored) labels for the comics they'd submitted to CGC. But buyers of these early slabs were under the impression that the comics contained were unrestored under Overstreet's previous guidelines to comic restoration. This of course gave those dealers who were close to CGC a tremendous and very unfair advantage in the marketplace.

Nonetheless, CGC classifies trimming as well as cleaning with solvents as restoration and in particular notes any trimming detected on the label (or so I understand).

[Balticfox]

What's also interesting is stamp collecting started way back in the 1840's which is far earlier than trade card or comic collecting. Are there any stamp collectors on this board who can tell us what can be done to stamps without raising hackles/alarm bells?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

What's also interesting is stamp collecting started way back in the 1840's which is far earlier than trade card or comic collecting. Are there any stamp collectors on this board who can tell us what can be done to stamps without raising hackles/alarm bells?

That's a semi contentious area there too.
Especially after grading came along.

The answer will vary depending on the issue.
One set from Germany had acidic gum, and it's expected and almost required that it be removed by soaking.
For a long time unused US stamps that were precancelled for bulk mailers were not allowed to be sold to collectors, but of course were sold by a few different places, the minimum required to be a permit holder for a smaller town was an expected 500 mail pieces.
Most of the dealers could get their hands on thousands at a time, and soaked the gum off to sort of cover up their purchases.

Most yellow or orange stamps oxidize to orange or brown, and a lot of people will reverse this by a quick dip in hydrogen peroxide. I don't, most of the stamps it happens to are inexpensive, and nice ones are easily found.

Things like extra long bits between perforations and routinely shortened, doing that by pulling with a tweezers is generally ok, cutting with an exacto knife isn't. Again, if something is the minimum catalog value of 25 cents like nearly every stamp since the 30's it isn't usually done.

For used stamps, soaking to remove paper and envelope bits is generally ok , In some cases the piece it's on and the cancel showing can be worth a lot more than the stamp so caution is needed.
A stamp with a lot of dirt also often gets soaked.

The grading companies do give very high grades to stamps issued without perforations cut from blocks so you get a stamp with eight others showing in the margins, I don't think that's at all good, but it seems to have become mostly ok. Sort of like trimming a hand cut card like Hostess.


Anything else does happen, and is NOT ok. The degree varies as does how it affects the price.

Removing the perforated border,
adding a perforated border
repairing tears
Painting in details a stamp never had so it seems like a more expensive version.
Fixing thin spots
washing out cancels
adding fake cancels
Faking overprints
Obscuring overprints
Chemically altering the color
rebuilding or adding back damaged areas
Putting on new gum
redistributing the original gum

The expertizers are very good at catching that stuff, and are typically experts in a fairly narrow field.

All that can lead to interesting situations.
Here's a stamp I sent in via a friend.
The first foreign entry of it's kind to be expertized.
But with a fake cancel.
At some point, a used O6 was an easier thing to sell, or higher priced than one that was unused with no gum.
I only know of 6-7 examples of that foreign entry.

Rare, but a bit messed up.

[pbspelly]

Forgive my ignorance (I haven't submitted anything for grading in years), but do the grading companies ask that you disclose known alterations? Is there a question on the submission form about this? Does the form (or the terms and conditions of submission) state that there is an "obligation to disclose"? If it doesn't, maybe it should. Because if there isn't a spelled-out obligation to disclose, then there may not be an affirmative obligation to do so, which leaves it up to the grading companies to discern the alteration. Legally, anyway. Ethically, of course, I would think a submitter should disclose what they know.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by pbspelly

Forgive my ignorance (I haven't submitted anything for grading in years), but do the grading companies ask that you disclose known alterations? Is there a question on the submission form about this? Does the form (or the terms and conditions of submission) state that there is an "obligation to disclose"? If it doesn't, maybe it should. Because if there isn't a spelled-out obligation to disclose, then there may not be an affirmative obligation to do so, which leaves it up to the grading companies to discern the alteration. Legally, anyway. Ethically, of course, I would think a submitter should disclose what they know.

I guess you missed this thread, where PSA changed their terms for submitters.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=353374

[Peter_Spaeth]

How many people in the history of PSA have submitted cards noting the alterations they had made?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How many people in the history of PSA have submitted cards noting the alterations they had made?

I actually know one guy that sent in a counterfeit card with details describing the exact differences between it and a real card. It came back from PSA in a 9 slab graded as a real card. It is a longtime friend and fellow member who posted about it on here when it happened.

[OhioLawyerF5]

I've always found it odd to compare restoration in the fine art world to restoration of baseball cards. The two are incomprable. A one of a kind painting being restored and preserved is not even remotely similar to a mass produced baseball card where the market places a value difference between cards of different conditions. It's literally the condition that gives the card its value, relative to other copies of the same card. So no, it's nothing like restoring a one of a kind painting.

The better analogy would be the ephemera market. A movie poster, or advertisement that was mass produced. Altering and restoring those things will decrease the value compared to a similarly conditioned untouched copy. Or if you insist on fine art, a statue cast from a mold, where hundreds of copies exist. If Remington's famous Broncho Buster statue had the cowboy's arm broken off and glued back on, take a guess of it's value compared to an unrestored version.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I've always found it odd to compare restoration in the fine art world to restoration of baseball cards. The two are incomprable. A one of a kind painting being restored and preserved is not even remotely similar to a mass produced baseball card where the market places a value difference between cards of different conditions. It's literally the condition that gives the card its value, relative to other copies of the same card. So no, it's nothing like restoring a one of a kind painting.

The better analogy would be the ephemera market. A movie poster, or advertisement that was mass produced. Altering and restoring those things will decrease the value compared to a similarly conditioned untouched copy. Or if you insist on fine art, a statue cast from a mold, where hundreds of copies exist. If Remington's famous Broncho Buster statue had the cowboy's arm broken off and glued back on, take a guess of it's value compared to an unrestored version.

An even simpler difference -- baseball card restoration is done to deceive, art restoration is done with disclosure to enhance people's experience.

LOL just recalling the Brent Huigens nonsense about "conservation."

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

An even simpler difference -- baseball card restoration is done to deceive, art restoration is done with disclosure to enhance people's experience.

LOL just recalling the Brent Huigens nonsense about "conservation."

While that's true, you need to consider why there needs to be deception in cards, but not paintings. If alterations didn’t matter in cards, it wouldn't be information that is withheld. The reason it matters in cards is what I pointed out above: original survivor cards are differeiated from other mass-produced copies based on condition. You don't have that market dynamic with unique paintings.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

While that's true, you need to consider why there needs to be deception in cards, but not paintings. If alterations didn’t matter in cards, it wouldn't be information that is withheld. The reason it matters in cards is what I pointed out above: original survivor cards are differeiated from other mass-produced copies based on condition. You don't have that market dynamic with unique paintings.

This is the central question nobody has ever answered satisfactorily -- not Brent, not Travis, not anyone else -- if people don't care and it won't affect price, why don't you just disclose it? Ask it and watch the BS start to flow.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This is the central question nobody has ever answered satisfactorily -- not Brent, not Travis, not anyone else -- if people don't care and it won't affect price, why don't you just disclose it? Ask it and watch the BS start to flow.

Don't be silly, Peter. They don't disclose it because there is nothing to disclose, not because it would negatively impact the price. Honesty is kept out of the equation for other reasons.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Don't be silly, Peter. They don't disclose it because there is nothing to disclose, not because it would negatively impact the price. Honesty is kept out of the equation for other reasons.

There are days I'm pretty pessimistic and have come close to abandoning this thinking, but overall, I think at least some substantial part of the hobby still views most stuff done to cards as something they would want to know about.

And yes, it's a slippery slope, and there's no perfect definition of what is material alteration and what isn't that will satisfy everyone, I get that. But that doesn't invalidate the overarching point. I can have a valid general principle even if I can't perfectly and consistently apply it in every case. And anyhow, disclosure is the perfect solution, let people decide for themselves if they care.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

Don't be silly, Peter. They don't disclose it because there is nothing to disclose, not because it would negatively impact the price. Honesty is kept out of the equation for other reasons.

THAT is exactly what Snowman wrote the last time he got rung up on this topic. Very convenient stance.