Is this card unaltered?

I view it as a card which has had its corners deliberately ripped off.

As a comparison, below is a portion of a card which has experienced (what is believed to be) genuine wear attributable to pinholing. I offer no conclusions at this time. Solely an inquiry.

My vote is for "unaltered". The Mayo Anson card wasn't doctored with the intent to deceive anyone. My guess is that it was tacked up to a wall many years ago, and later removed rather carelessly. What you're left with is a "beater" card, not an altered one (imo). To me, there's a huge difference between this kind of damage, and a card that has been trimmed, rebuilt, pressed, recolored, etc.

With that said, I do think the Anson deserves an "AUT" grade, because too much of the card is missing for it to meet the requirements of a SGC 10/PSA 1.

Ben,
I believe what remains of the Anson card is that which results when an inadequate "doctor" attempts to defraud, and gets caught at it by the grading company. That is: I believe that the corners were deliberately ripped out when rebuilding attempts failed. It does not look like wear to me.
Gil

Gil, Which would be worth more, a card with touched up corners or a card with No Corners. I'd rather have a card with touched up corners. But thats just me.

I'm with Ben. At least in the hobby, altered carries a very negative connotation - as in someone doing something to a card with an intent to deceive. Both cards just look like they have very heavy corner wear, to put it mildly, and both look like they would only receive an Auth designation because of the amount of surface area missing from the original card.

I suppose the Anson's wear might not be original, turn-of-the-last-century wear and that a very poor card doctor might have ripped the corners from the Anson after half-assing the attempt to color or to rebuild them, but I'm not sure it really matters at this point in the card's existence.


Edited to add: Giraffes sure are cool animals.