Some collectors feel that they are custodians of historical

artifacts in their card collection which therefore are inviolate, while others feel that they have purchased an item, and it is theirs to improve its appearance, if they so choose.
I am of the former thinking, what are your views?

I have no issue with someone who takes an old card and modifies it in some way to improve its appearance if it is going to stay in their collection. My issue is when such a card is presented for sale in such a way as to try to hide that anything was done to it. So, it is more about the disclosure than the modification.

Put another way, if there were a CJ card in someone's permanent collection that was missing some red and they were able to add the red color such that it improved its appearance to their liking. I don't see a problem with them doing that. Again, if that card were to ever be sold, the disclosure of the modification would be crucial so that someone isn't duped into thinking it is hasn't been altered / restored / etc.

Aside from retrimming a previously hand cut card (which has been discussed elsewhere) and perhaps creating a cool die-cut Delong set or '14 CJ Matty die-cut, trimming of cards is almost always malicious... which goes to the disclosure issue again.

Personally, I would be too concerned about destroying the value of a card to do anything to it. So, my motivation isn't based on viewing myself as a custodian of historical artifacts, it is based on the attempt to preserve value while it is in my custody. I mean, lets face it... nobody wants an investment to lose value right? Coloring the CJ may increase the card's worth to that owner, but decrease its resale value. If any modification is done to attempt to increase the card's value, then I have a problem with that.

I can only think of one exception to that rule of thumb. Relatively recently, I saw a Just So Jesse Burkett card where Jesse's image had apparently been remounted on another Just So card. This essentially cannibalized a lesser valued Just So card to "recreate" a much nicer Jesse Burkett Just So card. This was disclosed in the description and on the flip, so I have no issue with it. (It looked very nice if I recall correctly). In this case, it probably increased both worth and value. Any Just So experts may feel free to jump in an correct me if I am incorrect in this, but those cards are a little different animal since they were originally players images that were mounted on a Just So mat to begin with.

...editted to change the name from Cy Young to Jesse Burkett. I remembered the player incorrectly.

I am of the custodian vein, but truth be told, I'd love to remove the ink stamp from the back of my Thorpe card. I'm just scared that no matter good the person is at doing something like that, something would go wrong and the card would be ruined. That's pretty much how my luck runs.

I wished that card companies looked at themselves as custodians rather than chop shops for historical artifacts. I'd rather see them give away the whole bat/jersey whatever in a promo, than chop the item up.

I will admit that I don't have a problem with chopping up modern (1980s to present) stuff sine these players literally have hundreds of bats and jerseys made for them for the sole purpose of resale. Even gamers are meaningless as evidenced by what Pete Rose did in his pusuit of the hit record. He changed his jersey every half inning meaning that there were 18 game worn Pete Rose jersey from that game.

Jay