Would you prefer to have an authentic, but trimmed T206 card with sharp corners and no creases; or the same card with multiple creases but no alterations? I will always side with the creased card. For me, the card should reflect its natural state of progression from the factory. It should not have been prettied up by someone.
Don't get me wrong, I will permit some cleaning -- e.g., removing glue or gunk from the back of a card, or erasing a pencil mark -- but I draw the line at someone intentionally trying to pretty up a card. Light cleaning with water or an art eraser, on the other hand, is undoing, to some degree, the ugly alterations of gluing a card into a scrap book or writing in pencil on a card. It is not altering the factory issued card in any way, and it is not trying to improve the natural age of the card. The intent is not to remove creases or restore factory condition. The intent is to remove the subsequently added junk.
What about restored cards? In that case I'll also take the beater every time. Otherwise, all you have is a semi-reprint; a recycled paper card. Though it is interesting to note that restoration is common and accepted practice in the art world. How did we wind up with this dichotomy? Why are the Rembrandt collectors less "puritanical" than the Wagner collectors? Perhaps the answer lies in the condition factor of a multi-issued set. While each Rembrandt is an original single-print 1-of-1, there are usually many multiples of the same baseball card -- condition provides the scale by which to value the multi-prints.
If you've got any beater T206s to sell, feel free to drop me an email -- SignedT206@gmail.com. I'm making a low-condition / collector-grade run at the Monster.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment