Gone with the stain. Dick Towle

[DICKTOWLE]

I would like to thank 15 new customers from Chat 54 that have sent cards to our business to work on. And now there is repeat business from all. Thank you all for the support. Chat 54 is the best.:D

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

What is chat 54?

[bobbyw8469]

laughs....I like it!

[4815162342]

What is chat 54?

Chat 54 is the hippest club in town!

138610

[CW]

For some reason whenever I see the name "Dick Towle" I can't help but think of Towelie from South Park...

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

For some reason whenever I see the name "Dick Towle" I can't help but think of Towelie from South Park...


I think of something a fluffed uses.

[Peter_Spaeth]

For some reason whenever I see the name "Dick Towle" I can't help but think of Towelie from South Park...

Dick are you still taking wrinkles out of cards? Removing signatures from baseballs to give the impression they were single signed?

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=115131

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=115203 post 67

[oldjudge]

Shouldn't this post be somewhere else? Everyone can make their own evaluation of this type of business, but I am not a big fan of using chemicals to treat cards.

Jay Miller

[autograf]

To my knowledge it's only cards.....I'm sure Dick can expand on it. I'm not one of the 'NEW' customers but I did get him to get stains off the back of an N36 Allen & Ginter Indian card and the results were a little scary.....scary good, that is. I didn't do the black light trick nor do I intend to sell but the stains are no longer there. I'm in no way affiliated with the subject, just thought I'd weigh in...........I wish I'd scanned the card before I sent it.

And I agree about Jay about the placement....maybe it'll get moved to the B/S/T.............

[oldjudge]

Do we have a spam folder?

[Leon]

Yes, I consider it advertising spam and it will be dealt with in the future. Since the thread already has legs we'll just leave it.

I am on the fence about the services offered. I have a good hobby friend who is an experienced grader at a large company. He said he sent Dick a few of his personal cards and the results were phenomenal. He said there was no way he could tell anything was done to the cards except what was supposed to be removed was gone with no trace whatsoever left behind.

[bobbyw8469]

Yes, I consider it advertising spam and it will be dealt with in the future. Since the thread already has legs we'll just leave it.

I am on the fence about the services offered. I have a good hobby friend who is an experienced grader at a large company. He said he sent Dick a few of his personal cards and the results were phenomenal. He said there was no way he could tell anything was done to the cards except what was supposed to be removed was gone with no trace whatsoever left behind.

I sent Dick a few personal cards. On a couple the work was phenomenal, on others it looked the same as when I sent them in.

[DICKTOWLE]

I would like to make it clear that I don't remove autographs on baseballs, however I now remove wrinkles on cards and faces:), if I can help someone, and you know who you are;), please contact us

[4815162342]

Maybe this section should be renamed Net54baseball Vintage (Pre-WWII) Baseball Cards, New Member Introductions, & Card Alterer Advertisements.

[1880nonsports]

it's fluffer :o

[Peter_Spaeth]

I would like to make it clear that I don't remove autographs on baseballs, however I now remove wrinkles on cards and faces:), if I can help someone, and you know who you are;), please contact us

Shameless.

[wonkaticket]

Shouldn't this post be somewhere else? Everyone can make their own evaluation of this type of business, but I am not a big fan of using chemicals to treat cards.

Jay Miller

+1

[chipperhank44]

Not a fan of what this guy does at all. I doubt most of his clients are forthcoming when it comes to the history of their cards' restoration when sending it to a TPG or selling.

And the name reminds me of something you might avoid on a dorm room floor....

[KCRfan1]

I know everyone has strong feelings about what Dick does, personally I do not have an issue with his work. What he does is no different than someone who restores paintings or other works of art.

[bbcard1]

It's an interesting conundrum. I would probably do it for a card that was scarce and I intended to keep, but never have had the right combination of factors come up to tempt me.

[slidekellyslide]

Chat 54 <---- This is what we should rename the water cooler section.

[Leon]

Chat 54 <---- This is what we should rename the water cooler section.

Then what would our chat room be? For those that don't know, we have a nice chat room for any and all members to take advantage of. It's always open and seldom taken advantage of.....

[Eric72]

"Gone with the stain. Dick Towle"
Some jokes write themselves.

As some of you know, I personally think that soaking a card constitutes alteration. Yes, I understand that mine is a minority opinion, and don't wish to revisit my recent vodka fueled rant on the subject.

What I do wish is...to state here that someone using chemicals (other than the universal solvent) to remove stains from a card, if they go to sell it without disclosing the alteration, is just plain wrong. And, in my opinion, anyone who has someone else perform the alteration before selling the card without full disclosure is just as unethical.

Additionally, and here is the reason for me leaving this post, I place Mr. Towle in the same category as those who sell pack wrappers with the original pieces of gum or sell the original flips from cracked out graded cards.

Enabling fraud is just shy of actually committing it. Just my two cents...and I actually don't apologize if that statement offends anyone...especially Mr. Dick Towle.

Best regards, and happy to stand by my opinion by having my full name in this post.

[bn2cardz]

I am in the minority and have never had any fixes done, but I don't have an issue with what Mr Towle does. He doesn't add paper or color to cover flaws or take away parts of the card to give an appearance of four sharp corners. The card is 100% original. What he does give the card back some of its luster. Especially the way he removes a card from a scrapbook. I would much rather have the cards he removes from a scrapbook than one where the entire back is ripped off. I consider what he does more of a preservation than an alteration.

[vintagetoppsguy]

To debate whether his service is right or wrong is one thing, but making fun is his name is kind of juvenile.

FWIW, I have never used his service, but I have bought cards from him - about a dozen or so 1956 Topps. They were advertised as NM. I sent them all to SGC for grading and 2 came back a 6, 2 came back an 8 and all the others were either 7 or 7.5. So, his assessment of the cards were spot on. I don't know if any of the cards that I purchased were "cleaned" or not, and I really don't care but, if they were, they got by SGC's graders.

[Eric72]

I don't know if any of the cards that I purchased were "cleaned" or not, and I really don't care but, if they were, they got by SGC's graders.

Sure...why care? So long as the card gets slabbed, why should a serious collector bother getting involved?

[wonkaticket]

Sure...why care? So long as the card gets slabbed, why should a serious collector bother getting involved?

+1

Not sure what is more juvenile having a harmless good natured laugh at someone’s name. Or not caring if you have been taken to the cleaners no pun intended on doctored cards that are all good because they made it into holders to pass onto the next guy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yes, I consider it advertising spam and it will be dealt with in the future. Since the thread already has legs we'll just leave it.

I am on the fence about the services offered. I have a good hobby friend who is an experienced grader at a large company. He said he sent Dick a few of his personal cards and the results were phenomenal. He said there was no way he could tell anything was done to the cards except what was supposed to be removed was gone with no trace whatsoever left behind.

So the better the card doctor, the more acceptable the doctoring? :confused:

[bn2cardz]

Not sure what is more juvenile having a harmless good natured laugh at someone’s name. Or not caring if you have been taken to the cleaners no pun intended on doctored cards that are all good because they made it into holders to pass onto the next guy.

Since you aren't sure let me help you out. It is making fun of someone's name. Not caring about how the previous owner handled the cards prior to you owning is either a well thought out decision on your collecting preference or apathy. Making fun some someone's name is nothing more than a lack of maturity.

[Matt E.]

Dick or anyone,

Just wondering how much does it cost to have a stain or stains removed?

Do tobacco stains cost more than water stains? What determines the cost?

Thanks,

Matt

[vintagetoppsguy]

Sure...why care? So long as the card gets slabbed, why should a serious collector bother getting involved?

If I buy a card that was "cleaned" and I can't detect any evidence, you can't detect any evidence, the graders can't detect any evidence and nobody else can detect any evidence, then what does it really matter? What can be done?

Maybe it's not that I don't care, but I would rather focus my efforts on the types of alterations that do leave evidence and that we can do something about.

[Leon]

So the better the card doctor, the more acceptable the doctoring? :confused:


Why try to put words in my mouth?
I gave no opinion. I only said it wasn't detectable, and in that respect, it's good work. I said I was on the fence about his work as a whole, if you care to actually read what I wrote, instead of being argumentative?

[KCRfan1]

"Gone with the stain. Dick Towle"
Some jokes write themselves.

As some of you know, I personally think that soaking a card constitutes alteration. Yes, I understand that mine is a minority opinion, and don't wish to revisit my recent vodka fueled rant on the subject.

What I do wish is...to state here that someone using chemicals (other than the universal solvent) to remove stains from a card, if they go to sell it without disclosing the alteration, is just plain wrong. And, in my opinion, anyone who has someone else perform the alteration before selling the card without full disclosure is just as unethical.

Additionally, and here is the reason for me leaving this post, I place Mr. Towle in the same category as those who sell pack wrappers with the original pieces of gum or sell the original flips from cracked out graded cards.

Enabling fraud is just shy of actually committing it. Just my two cents...and I actually don't apologize if that statement offends anyone...especially Mr. Dick Towle.

Best regards, and happy to stand by my opinion by having my full name in this post.

Do you also believe it is wrong to have works of art cleaned and restored?

I'm not picking an arguement with you, as I agree that full disclosure must be practiced.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Why try to put words in my mouth?
I gave no opinion. I only said it wasn't detectable, and in that respect, it's good work. I said I was on the fence about his work as a whole, if you care to actually read what I wrote, instead of being argumentative?

Fair enough, but come on bro get off the fence, take a stand!!

[T206Collector]

If I buy a card that was "cleaned" and I can't detect any evidence, you can't detect any evidence, the graders can't detect any evidence and nobody else can detect any evidence, then what does it really matter? What can be done?

Maybe it's not that I don't care, but I would rather focus my efforts on the types of alterations that do leave evidence and that we can do something about.

+1

[ullmandds]

I do not believe it is wrong to restore/conserve/repair works of art so they may be enjoyed by many.

I had a patient once who did paper restoration...and I had him remove pieces of scotch tape from an autographed maris rookie I got from my neighbor growing up as a kid. I'm happy...the card looks much better than before...I will likely keep the card most of my life anyway.

I had Dick remove some nasty tape from an m101-3 cobb...and he did a fine job and I am much happier with the card now! It's still a beater grade wise...and you can obviously still see tape residue...but it's much more presentable.

I don't have a problem with removals if they do not affect the card otherwise.

I have a problem with adding color, adding corners, trimming, changing captions, bleaching...etc.

[Leon]

Fair enough, but come on bro get off the fence, take a stand!!

I am staying on the fence for now, thanks. I really have mixed feelings.....

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am staying on the fence for now, thanks. I really have mixed feelings.....

Indeed.

[frankbmd]

Do you also believe it is wrong to have works of art cleaned and restored?

I'm not picking an arguement with you, as I agree that full disclosure must be practiced.


Noble goal, but has anyone received full disclosure on any 100 year old card that they have purchased? Provenance when available is interesting and when available should be pursued, but I have never seen or heard of a card being promoted with a statement that indicates that the card was cracked out of a PSA slab in 2003 and resubmitted to SGC. Or that a card was sent to PSA seven times until it got the desired the grade. Or how that card may have been stored, handled or displayed for its first 90 years of existence.

Personally I have absolutely no knowledge of what happened to any of my cards in 1964, and in 2064 I doubt that any collectors (with the possible exception of wazoo) will know what a Dick Towle is, what it did or what it means.

Those who practice restoration (by any method) with an intent to deceive will not disclose. As I said, full disclosure is a noble goal, but perhaps a fantasy in the real world and all the pontification in the world will not change that.

Disclaimer: I agree with everyone who has posted in this thread;), and add this editorial comment without prejudice:eek:, so don't try to pick a fight with me.:cool:

[wonkaticket]

Since you aren't sure let me help you out. It is making fun of someone's name. Not caring about how the previous owner handled the cards prior to you owning is either a well thought out decision on your collecting preference or apathy. Making fun some someone's name is nothing more than a lack of maturity.

Thanks for your guidance Andy, or should I say Andy Bo Bandy.

[Jantz]

What can be done?

The fact that cleaned cards get slabbed is possible because graders are unaware of what to look for.

I'm pretty confident nobody lists on the submission form that these cards were cleaned with chemicals before submitting them.

So back to your question David. What can be done?

Maybe a collector could purchase a card that has been cleaned to educate himself/herself.

Just a suggestion.


Jantz

[GoldenAge50s]

If I buy a card that was "cleaned" and I can't detect any evidence, you can't detect any evidence, the graders can't detect any evidence and nobody else can detect any evidence, then what does it really matter?

My feelings also. If you can't see it, smell it or can't know it was done, then was ANYTHING really done?

It's like grading: a card gets a VG 4 for a crease no one can see or find--then to me it isn't there!

[Brian Van Horn]

The basis of this thread repulses me.

[oldjudge]

If you can't detect a trim is that OK? if you can't detect rebuilt corners is that OK? This is a slippery slope you have gotten on.

[freakhappy]

Thanks for your guidance Andy, or should I say Andy Bo Bandy.

Johnny...be nice :)

In my opinion, if there is no trace of "alteration", there is no alteration. Just because the card was cleaned, doesn't mean it was altered. If a card is dirty, was it originally dirty? Of course it wasn't...so if it is then cleaned without any chemicals or something that seems to alter the card in some sort, why is this practice considered unethical?

Also, I believe Frank brings up some great points...way to keep it real, Frank!

[freakhappy]

If you can't detect a trim is that OK? if you can't detect rebuilt corners is that OK? This is a slippery slope you have gotten on.



cleaning is not trimming...



Of course there are some TPG's that miss trimming on some cards, but I would hope that most of it does get caught. And rebuilding is not even close to simply cleaning a stain or dirt from a card.



So all ball players that slide into home and get dirt on their knees...should they not be able to wipe it off??? That would result in alteration!!!:eek::D

[wonkaticket]

So Mike if I cleaned say a 1914 CJ Jackson and removed all the stains made it look brighter and cleaner or a T206 Polar Bear Cobb in the same manner...and you couldn't tell.

You wouldn't mind to find out later you paid a premium due to my "undectable" face lift?

[teetwoohsix]

I just have a question, and will refrain on saying what I think of this.

Mr. Towle admits he uses "chemicals" to do his work. So, my question would be this: Since chemicals are admittedly being used, are there any guarantees that 20 years down the road the card/s that this process was done to will not begin to degrade from the chemical exposure? That includes paper degradation, ink fading, etc? Obviously in the short term, it appears that all traces of whatever mysterious chemicals are being used are not detectable. But, I'm wondering about the long term effects-20, 25, 30 years from now-have any long term studies been done?

Thanks-

Sincerely, Clayton

[smokelessjoe]

So Mike if I cleaned say a 1914 CJ Jackson and removed all the stains made it look brighter and cleaner or a T206 Polar Bear Cobb in the same manner...and you couldn't tell.

You wouldn't mind to find out later you paid a premium due to my "undectable" face lift?

Johnka Wonka McDonka :)

Ok, I am wondering about your question? So John, if I dumped chocolate milk (that is a hypothetical liquid - could be pomegranate rind as well) on a lets say 1914 CJ Jackson and added all kinds of stains to make it look darker & dirtier or a T206 Polar Bear Cobb in the same manner.... and you could obviously tell.

Would you mind paying an inferior price due to my "detectable" face lift?

More importantly, would you expect full disclosure of how I altered the cards? My name, when, where, what and how???

Thank you,
Shoney Baloney

[barrysloate]

I always find it fascinating how much collectors will pay for high grade baseball cards when so much can be done to enhance them, much of it undetectable. You would think that there would have to be a very high level of confidence to pay many thousands of dollars for a pristine card, but the only thing that ever seems to matter is the number on the slab. Nothing deters a buyer as long as the label reads 8, 9, or higher. It's an amazing phenomenon.

[glynparson]

Wonka is correct as are the others showing concern for what this does to the future of the card. This is not the same as removing wax from the front of a card with a nylon stocking. Adding a chemical to the card does, if the chemical remains at all, change the card wether we can tell or not. removing the wax restores the card to the original state. I fail to see how we can defend this practice until the long term effects of this chemical exposure are known.

[KCRfan1]

So Mike if I cleaned say a 1914 CJ Jackson and removed all the stains made it look brighter and cleaner or a T206 Polar Bear Cobb in the same manner...and you couldn't tell.

You wouldn't mind to find out later you paid a premium due to my "undectable" face lift?

I believe that you only " washed your face ", to use you analogy. If you had a " face lift ", that would involve some form of reconstructive surgery. A card is only worth what someone will pay, and if I felt the card was worth what I paid then I am happy with my deal.

[KCRfan1]

Wonka is correct as are the others showing concern for what this does to the future of the card. This is not the same as removing wax from the front of a card with a nylon stocking. Adding a chemical to the card does, if the chemical remains at all, change the card wether we can tell or not removing the wax restores the card to the original state. I fail to see how we can defend this practice until the long term effects of this chemical exposure are known.

While I do not have a problem with what Dick does, I too wonder about long term effects. I know Dick has been doing stain removal for years, and would be curious about the card conditions of his earlier work. If any deterioration can be detected at all, I imagine my eyes would need some help from a scientist to tell me what is going on inside the card fabric.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

I always find it fascinating how much collectors will pay for high grade baseball cards when so much can be done to enhance them, much of it undetectable. You would think that there would have to be a very high level of confidence to pay many thousands of dollars for a pristine card, but the only thing that ever seems to matter is the number on the slab. Nothing deters a buyer as long as the label reads 8, 9, or higher. It's an amazing phenomenon.

I couldn't agree with you more Barry. It's amazing beyond rational comprehension and I'll only add that this phenomenon in the Pre-War context also applies to just about all grades - not just 8's or higher.

[barrysloate]

I know Dan. And I don't think collectors want to know what is really going on. They would much prefer to simply protect their investment, and sweep all the bad news under the carpet.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Maybe a collector could purchase a card that has been cleaned to educate himself/herself.

If it were any other kind of alteration, that would be a great idea. However, from what others have said, the stain removal process is undetectable. So, if I buy a card that I know had a stain removed from it, but I can't detect it (can't smell it, can't feel it, can't see it), then how do I learn from it?

[vintagetoppsguy]

I know Dan. And I don't think collectors want to know what is really going on. They would much prefer to simply protect their investment, and sweep all the bad news under the carpet.

It's not that some collectors don't want to know, it's what can you do if you (or anybody else) can't detect it?

Maybe it's just me, but I have way more important things to worry about in life than an undetectable stain removal process in a card.

[smokelessjoe]

I am curious as to why no one seems to be concerned with the existing / first "chemical" alteration ie: The Stain...?

What if my nine year old son dumps some type of Sodium hydroxide solution on one my baseball cards - I let it dry - send it off to be graded - put it up on Ebay to sell - is anyone concerned about long term effects of this chemical exposure? Should I give full disclosure as to how my son altered the card?

[barrysloate]

It's not that some collectors don't want to know, it's what can you do if you (or anybody else) can't detect it?

Maybe it's just me, but I have way more important things to worry about in life than an undetectable stain removal process in a card.

I understand David, and other people have better things to do also. And keeping the status quo is one of them. The hobby is humming along like a well oiled machine, people are making money, so why rock the boat?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Looking at the Gone With The Stain website, it appears that cards with stains or glue removed were later graded by SGC and PSA:

http://www.gonewiththestain.com/mickey-mantle.html

http://www.gonewiththestain.com/samples-of-our-work.html

[wonkaticket]

Johnka Wonka McDonka :)

Ok, I am wondering about your question? So John, if I dumped chocolate milk (that is a hypothetical liquid - could be pomegranate rind as well) on a lets say 1914 CJ Jackson and added all kinds of stains to make it look darker & dirtier or a T206 Polar Bear Cobb in the same manner.... and you could obviously tell.

Would you mind paying an inferior price due to my "detectable" face lift?

More importantly, would you expect full disclosure of how I altered the cards? My name, when, where, what and how???

Thank you,
Shoney Baloney

Shawn if you dump chocolate milk on your cards that’s a tough break you.

Otherwise not sure I follow your thinking? :confused:

I don’t recall the hobby having an issue with people doctoring cards to lower their value secretly before selling to folks.

Cheers,

John

[steve B]

I don't see a problem with cleaning.

It's very common with museums. The LOC has some excellent articles on specific conservation projects they've done.
http://www.loc.gov/preservation/conservators/

They go much farther than most collectors would. But that's not unusual. In some fields it's almost required. Many old posters are preserved by backing them with linen attached with a rice paste. They're simply too fragile otherwise. LOC also does deacidification to slow the degradation of stuff on acidic papers. (They even tried building a machine to do books in bulk since their collection will take so long to do some of it will be lost)

I'm not sure about alterations that go beyond cleaning and preservation when it comes to cards.
Many of the strip cards probably should get some treatment, deacidification for sure for the ones that aren't already brittle and coming apart.

Removing creases and trimming- isn't ok for cards, especially in a collecting context.
Rebuilding and repainting- I don't see it as appropriate, although in extreme cases it might be. The Wagner that was reconstructed the un done was a maybe. And large display pieces perhaps should be restored.

Disclosure is always an issue. Most museums etc now keep careful records of what was done and how. But that wasn't always true. I believe most very old paintings on display have been cleaned. There's been some debate whether it should be done for some. One side wants the painting shown as it was when new, the other prefers leaving it in a preserved state that keeps the original colors muted as we've come to expect to see them under 300+years of dirt/dust from the air.

A straightforward light cleaning will pass SGC and probably PSA.
Here's the before and after of the one I did. Water only, Q-tip and a soft cloth to dry with. probably close to 100 years of dust and soot. The fine cracks in the papers coating wouldn't come clean without more extensive efforts.

Before

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=12668

After

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=9887

Slab aside, which card would you rather own? Who would leave the card dirty, knowing that the dirt would probably cause further damage with time?

Steve Birmingham

[sam majors]

After reading this I am sure that there are three shysters now forming a limited liability corporation. They will specialize in determining if a graded card has been altered, restored or cleaned. Company name will be ARC. They will charge a small fee at first, knowing the lemmings will follow.
Business plan is to hire their children or the kid next door at less than minimum wages to paste labels on the backs of graded cards. To save money and the work load on their sons and the kid next door, they will have only one label printed. All labels will say NOT ALTERED, RESTORED OR CLEANED. The lemmings will follow!
Eighteen months later at "THE NATIONAL" father and son stop at one booth. Son says to Daddy, "Daddy look, here is a PSA 9 Mickey Mantle rookie card!" Daddy grabs the card, turns it over and says, "Son we can't buy this. It has no ARC label."
After hearing this, the dealer immediately rushes over to the ARC booth. Less than 35 seconds later, with a smile on his face, the dealer places the card with the NOT ALTERED, RESTORED OR CLEANED label in the center of his show case.
Next customer says to the dealer, "Can I see that Mantle rookie card? Dealer hands it to him. Customer immediately turns it over, sees the NOT RESTORED, ALTERED OR CLEANED label and says, "I'll take it!"
Another new gimmick!!! ;) ;) ;)

[vintagetoppsguy]

Looking at the Gone With The Stain website, it appears that cards with stains or glue removed were later graded by SGC and PSA:

http://www.gonewiththestain.com/mickey-mantle.html

http://www.gonewiththestain.com/samples-of-our-work.html

That's what I've been saying. If they can remove a stain leaving no detectable evidence (nothing you can see, smell or feel), then how would the grading companies know? Why wouldn't they (or shouldn't they) grade numerically if no evidence is left behind from the process?

[wonkaticket]

BTW this thread is so funny. I would love to hear the comments if the title of this thread said. :)

FBI uncovers evidence of card cleaning by major auction house to increase card values by using chemicals to enhance cards value before they went to auction. The result of which has cost collectors countless amounts of money for chemically treated cards and items.

I’m 100% sure the response would be well I couldn’t tell, how could I tell, TPG's couldn't tell so no big deal, lighten up FBI.

Furthermore let’s be honest this isn’t about flicking a piece of tobacco off with your fingernail or wiping a card with a q-tip. Dick isn’t using a wet towel to remove stains and tape residue from cards he’s using chemicals and solvents, and I'm not naïve enough to think that his clients all have noble intentions for enlisting his services.

Nothing is wrong with some mild conservation work as long as it’s disclosed and everyone here knows it will never be disclosed.

Cheers,

John

[t206trader]

Johnka Wonka McDonka :)

Ok, I am wondering about your question? So John, if I dumped chocolate milk (that is a hypothetical liquid - could be pomegranate rind as well) on a lets say 1914 CJ Jackson and added all kinds of stains to make it look darker & dirtier or a T206 Polar Bear Cobb in the same manner.... and you could obviously tell.

Would you mind paying an inferior price due to my "detectable" face lift?

More importantly, would you expect full disclosure of how I altered the cards? My name, when, where, what and how???

Thank you,
Shoney Baloney

No use in crying over spilt milk. Sorry, had to.

[steve B]

BTW this thread is so funny. I would love to hear the comments if the title of this thread said. :)

FBI uncovers evidence of card cleaning by major auction house to increase card values by using chemicals to enhance cards value before they went to auction. The result of which has cost collectors countless amounts of money for chemically treated cards and items.

I’m 100% sure the response would be well I couldn’t tell, how could I tell, TPG's couldn't tell so no big deal, lighten up FBI.

Furthermore let’s be honest this isn’t about flicking a piece of tobacco off with your fingernail or wiping a card with a q-tip. Dick isn’t using a wet towel to remove stains and tape residue from cards he’s using chemicals and solvents, and I'm not naïve enough to think that his clients all have noble intentions for enlisting his services.

Nothing is wrong with some mild conservation work as long as it’s disclosed and everyone here knows it will never be disclosed.

Cheers,

John

I agree that more aggressive efforts should be disclosed.
And that many of them won't be.

My one attempt at removing scotch tape with solvents went poorly. Fortunately it was a F-G 59 common that I simply wanted to keep it from sticking to the card in front of it. someone had covered the entire front with tape. The tape hade peeled off, leaving a gummy mess of adhesive. The solvent was a bit too solventy (Yeah, not a real word ....Yet) And took only some adhesive along with "some" ink. Totally wrecked.

I guess my ambivalence comes from having a wide range of hobbies and having some restoration being either totally ok or accepted as routine in most of them.

Old bicycles - Original is King, but replacing tires and brake pads is fine for most and full restoration including rechroming and repainting is common. Some team stuff is not what the decals say, and "restorers" have probably wrecked a number of real race bikes fixing "fakes" - Not that there aren't fakes. For most bikes changing parts to suit the person using it is totally ok. It's altering, but can be fixed by changing back if the owner saved the original parts. (Some of my bikes have parts I had to make since they're not available anywhere - My work while it looks ok from a few feet away wouldn't be mistaken for original unless someone had no clue at all, and I've marked the pieces I did a better job of. )

Cars - I'm not active anymore, but restoration is obviously common. As is cobbling things together to make something into something it wasn't. Or if there's enough money involved making one good one out of a bunch of wrecks. ----same issues with disclosure.

Coins - Original is best, and cleaning is frowned on. But nearly all bright silver coins have been cleaned to some degree.

Stamps - Probably the closes to cards. Altering is very bad, repairs as well unless they're disclosed. most are so amateur they don't need much disclosure. A missing corner "repaired" by gluing a corner from a similar stamp onto the back is pretty obvious. But removing old hinges is ok, and especially valuable stuff that's fragile can be stabilized. Lots of fakes, and their version of TPG takes its time rather than rushing the most expensive stuff. (And gets it right nearly all the time)

Antiques - undisclosed repairs aren't ok. different stuff has different standards. most of the stuff is functional or for display, so while originality is massively important nobody looks down on a properly done restoration of something that was basically ruined somewhere along the line.
So the tall chest of drawers on Antiques roadshow that was refinished because the owner didn't like the original finish - not so good. For the one where you find it covered in "antique" paint and toleware decals from the early 1970's refinishing is ok.
A lot of furniture at lower level antique auctions and shops is repaired. Sometimes with old wood and old screws. It's pretty much accepted. Nobody gets too excited if the $500 sideboard has had the drawer that came apart reglued and the missing screw from one leg replaced.

Most older mechanical stuff like clocks and science equipment needs maintainance to prevent needing major repairs. Replacing something like a mainspring isn't a bad thing if it's needed.



I get that if someone is paying a LOT of money for originality then the item should be original.

But some damage that's easily undone probably should be.


Steve B

[Peter_Spaeth]

BTW this thread is so funny. I would love to hear the comments if the title of this thread said. :)

FBI uncovers evidence of card cleaning by major auction house to increase card values by using chemicals to enhance cards value before they went to auction. The result of which has cost collectors countless amounts of money for chemically treated cards and items.

I’m 100% sure the response would be well I couldn’t tell, how could I tell, TPG's couldn't tell so no big deal, lighten up FBI.

Furthermore let’s be honest this isn’t about flicking a piece of tobacco off with your fingernail or wiping a card with a q-tip. Dick isn’t using a wet towel to remove stains and tape residue from cards he’s using chemicals and solvents, and I'm not naïve enough to think that his clients all have noble intentions for enlisting his services.

Nothing is wrong with some mild conservation work as long as it’s disclosed and everyone here knows it will never be disclosed.

Cheers,

John

More likely, the FBI will say if collectors don't seem to care, why should we?

[atx840]

I'd like to see the TPGs one day be able to detect when chemicals have been used, just like PED testing has improved over the years....maybe then we will see how people feel when their pristine cards come back as "Altered".

It's your cardboard, I guess do what you want but we all know at some point most of our collections will end up back in the hobby....likely without a caveat.

Spring cleaning comes early to the Plank household... (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=132902)

[dstudeba]

Each collecting area has to make up its own mind about the extent or restoration they will permit. Just because it is allowed in paintings or movie posters doesn't mean it is acceptable everywhere else. In the antique furniture market uncleaned examples are more valuable than cleaned ones, similar in the coin world.

Also I highly doubt that the work he does is undetectable. It is imperceptible but not undetectable. Take some of the cards into any undergraduate analytical chemistry lab and you will be able to detect a difference between a card that has been through his process and one that hasn't.

It might take a little more work, but you could also tell the difference between a card that has been soaked and one that hasn't.

[freakhappy]

BTW this thread is so funny. I would love to hear the comments if the title of this thread said. :)

FBI uncovers evidence of card cleaning by major auction house to increase card values by using chemicals to enhance cards value before they went to auction. The result of which has cost collectors countless amounts of money for chemically treated cards and items.

I’m 100% sure the response would be well I couldn’t tell, how could I tell, TPG's couldn't tell so no big deal, lighten up FBI.

Furthermore let’s be honest this isn’t about flicking a piece of tobacco off with your fingernail or wiping a card with a q-tip. Dick isn’t using a wet towel to remove stains and tape residue from cards he’s using chemicals and solvents, and I'm not naïve enough to think that his clients all have noble intentions for enlisting his services.

Nothing is wrong with some mild conservation work as long as it’s disclosed and everyone here knows it will never be disclosed.

Cheers,

John

I get what you're saying John, but that's just not the case. We can't just play "what if's" and if we did, this site would be frustrating as hell. The standing point from the other side has been that this sort of cleaning is not leaving any evidence of altering or defects...so why are we calling it unethical? If cleaning a card alters it in any way, I would be against it...so I guess time may be the determining factor here for me. But to just say it's wrong without having something to fully back it up just seems like a weak rebuttal to the original statement.

[freakhappy]

I'd like to see the TPGs one day be able to detect when chemicals have been used, just like PED testing has improved over the years....maybe then we will see how people feel when their pristine cards come back as "Altered".

It's your cardboard, I guess do what you want but we all know at some point most of our collections will end up back in the hobby....likely without a caveat.

Spring cleaning comes early to the Plank household... (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=132902)

That would suck, Chris...a lot of good buddies here on the board would be very bummed out if that happened as they collect very high end cards. Just not sure it's worth the crash of that part of our hobby to do so.

[vintagetoppsguy]

It's your cardboard, I guess do what you want but we all know at some point most of our collections will end up back in the hobby....likely without a caveat.

I've heard a few similar statements such as yours. However, your statement is based on your own personal feelings. It infers that the next owner of a "cleaned" card would care as much as you do. What if that next owner doesn't care that their card was "cleaned" by a previous owner? It's a fact, just from reading this thread, that some people don't care (as long as there is no detectable evidence).

[wonkaticket]

I get what you're saying John, but that's just not the case. We can't just play "what if's" and if we did, this site would be frustrating as hell. The standing point from the other side has been that this sort of cleaning is not leaving any evidence of altering or defects...so why are we calling it unethical? If cleaning a card alters it in any way, I would be against it...so I guess time may be the determining factor here for me. But to just say it's wrong without having something to fully back it up just seems like a weak rebuttal to the original statement.

Mike, I’m sorry if you can’t grasp that if someone cleans a stained and ugly card to a bright clean pack fresh finish with chemicals and solvents. Then passes on this card into the hobby without disclosure for a profit that this is unethical to some. We know this is the case how many auctions have you seen listed with the desc. line " the following work performed by Dick Towle" please bid accordingly? :)

If your bank stole $1.00 from you and others each year and nobody noticed that doesn’t make it ok. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Cheers,

John

[freakhappy]

Mike, I’m sorry if you can’t grasp that if someone cleans a stained and ugly card to a bright clean pack fresh finish with chemicals and solvents. Then passes on this card into the hobby without disclosure for a profit that this is unethical to some. We know this is the case how many auctions have you seen listed with the desc. line " the following work performed by Dick Towle" please bid accordingly? :)

If your bank stole $1.00 from you and others each year and nobody noticed that doesn’t make it ok. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Cheers,

John

Johnny...I like you, but you're falling back a little. My bank stealing money from me? Dick Towle cleaning cards? I'm just not seeing it.

Everyone has their own opinions and I'm good with that, but it's YOUR OPINION AND NOT A FACT...that's what you are clearly missing here. It's ok to state it, but to act like that is set in stone and something to abide by is sadly wrong.

Love you bro :cool:

[chernieto]

That's what I've been saying. If they can remove a stain leaving no detectable evidence (nothing you can see, smell or feel), then how would the grading companies know? Why wouldn't they (or shouldn't they) grade numerically if no evidence is left behind from the process?

Every museum in the word cleans restores pieces of art. It amazes me that tobacco cards could or should be held to higher standards than those applied by art museums dealing with "one of a kind" treasures of art, many older than the cardboard discussed here.
If you found out your favorite card had been treated and cleaned would you obsess over it? sell it ,or love it less or just find something else to fret over?
FYI I never heard of this service before.
Paul C

[Cardboard Junkie]

Water is a chemical, and ANY alterations are detectable with the correct knowledge and equipment.

[Paul S]

and pyrolysis

[Peter_Spaeth]

Water is a chemical, and ANY alterations are detectable with the correct knowledge and equipment.

Agreed. For your 5 bucks you aren't hiring a crime lab when you submit a card to a TPG service.

[ctownboy]

I hate the idea of cards being cleaned to increase their value. It doesn't matter that they can't be detected NOW.

With works of art, they were created to be LOOKED at and admired. The value for them comes from being ABLE to see the beauty. If they are dirty or damaged then the beauty (and pleasure) of looking at them is diminished. Cleaning and/or restoring them brings them BACK (or close to) what they were before and THAT is something to be looked at and admired. Even when cleaning and restoring, the people doing the work try and make sure they don't do something that will cause problems in the future.

With automobiles, yes, they are being restored. Why? Because the original intent of the car was to be driven. For most people, the pleasure of owning that car was to be able to DRIVE it. If it is dirty, damaged and/or undrivable then the pleasure of the original intent is not there. So, people get their cars restored.

BUT, that restoration work is usually disclosed (or is glaringly obvious). In years past, those restored cars sold for much more than unrestored cars or cars that were cobbled together. However, in the last five to 10 years, things have somewhat changed and original cars are selling for as much or more than cars that have been restored. Why? People have gotten tired of cars that are over - restored (and the cost that is associated with doing it).

With baseball cards, what was the original intent? Usually it was for them to be used as enticements or advertising for products. After they were out in the public, they were played with, flipped, traded and collected (not necessarily in that order).

1914 Cracker Jack cards are, for example, EXPECTED to have candy stains on them. Some cigarette cards are expected to have tobacco stains on them. Some gum cards are expected to have gum stains on them. That is how they were packaged and that is how they originally came out. After that, the normal wear and tear of being handled and traveling about for years and years is to be expected.

People pay BIG money today for cards in GREAT condition because they are "supposed" to be abnormal. After being packaged with products, handled, flipped, traded and played with by kids, boxed, stored and moved, they are SUPPOSED to show that. Cards that DIDN'T get this treatment and stayed close to original get the BIG money paid for them.

So, imho, cards that are trimmed, rebacked, have color added, have corners rebuilt or are cleaned, are ALL altered and shouldn't receive the BIG dollar prices that they sometimes do and that is because they are NOT original and have NOT lasted the years in original condition.

As far as cleaning cards and them not being able to be detected. So, what? Not only should people with cleaned (and enhanced value) cards be worryng about what the chemicals are doing to them now or what they will do in the future but they should ALSO be worrying about technology.

No, there may not be technology that can detect the cleaning now (or, if there is it is so limited or so expensive that it cant or wont be used) that doesn't mean that technology wont be here in the future. So what happens then?

I imagine cards that have been micro - trimmed with lasers or that have been chemically cleaned will be worth less money and those people who are saying "no big deal" today will say something different when it comes time to sell those cards and they (or their heirs) receive less (probably much less) money than they were expecting.

David Smith

[wonkaticket]

Johnny...I like you, but you're falling back a little. My bank stealing money from me? Dick Towle cleaning cards? I'm just not seeing it.

Everyone has their own opinions and I'm good with that, but it's YOUR OPINION AND NOT A FACT...that's what you are clearly missing here. It's ok to state it, but to act like that is set in stone and something to abide by is sadly wrong.

Love you bro :cool:

Mike like you too buddy. :)

Last attempt Dick is cleaning cards for folks using chemicals and solvents and if they are passing on those items for significant profit with no disclosure that is not on the up and up to me. Like I said if an auction house got busted doing this, or this was part of their operations I doubt folks would be so easy going.

This is not a farfetched guess that these cleaned cards go out into the world no disclosure. I have yet to see a disclaimer listed on any card for sale saying cleaned by Dick Towle. Or perhaps all of the items Dick cleans never go up for sale. :)

Just because you don’t know it happened, or can’t tell doesn’t make it all good in my book hence my bank analogy.

Cheers,

John

[oldjudge]

Paintings are one of a kind pieces and any restoration is documented and follows the painting around. Cards are not, for the most part, one of a kind, and restoration is not disclosed. That is the difference. Cards, for the most part, are restored with the intent to deceive future buyers(just my opinion).

[Section103]

I don't have an issue with people using Dick's services, but I do believe full disclosure should be made if and when the cards are ever sold and every time after. That disclosure just doesn't happen and it is problematic for the hobby.

[smokelessjoe]

The cards have already been altered when they get to Dick.... The cards have been manipulated by humans... Its not like Dick is the first one to get to the cards and screw around with them... Somebody else has already dumped something, spit on em, left them out in the rain, glued them etc...

Some T206s have been autographed / "altered" and now they bring more money... Is this acceptable?? It has INK written across the front & brings more money?

Side Note:

I should clarify... We have had this debate several times over the years - I've always thought it was intriguing. I like to play the devil on this one because it is just my nature. I try to keep everything in my life in an as found state :) Hell, it even bothers me to clean the dirt off arrowheads when I find them. My reasoning for leaving things alone has nothing to do with anything other than I am weird about it...

I remember some years back Leon had a Horner Composite "cleaned" and everyone whooped and hollered. The cleaning did make it more visible and I liked it, but I have to admit I did cringe a little.

The argument about chemicals on cards drives me nuts though :) There is already a chemical / stain on the card and who is to say what issues will arise from it?

[Runscott]

I'd like to see the TPGs one day be able to detect when chemicals have been used, just like PED testing has improved over the years....maybe then we will see how people feel when their pristine cards come back as "Altered".

The ethics of this has been covered well by you guys, but Chris' point above really concerns me - if the TPGs either can't detect chemical alteration today, or can only do so if alerted to it beforehand (not sure if this is true), but someday they COULD be able to detect it, then some collectors today could later find themselves screwed, especially if they are purchasing '52 Mantles, T206 Planks, etc., that show no evidence today of Dick's tampering.

[vintagetoppsguy]

The ethics of this has been covered well by you guys, but Chris' point above really concerns me - if the TPGs either can't detect chemical alteration today, or can only do so if alerted to it beforehand (not sure if this is true), but someday they COULD be able to detect it, then some collectors today could later find themselves screwed, especially if they are purchasing '52 Mantles, T206 Planks, etc., that show no evidence today of Dick's tampering.

The word "screwed" infers that it would lower the value of the card. Nobody knows if it would or not. Did Kendrick's T206 Wagner lose value now that we all know it's trimmed? Who knows?

[ullmandds]

The ethics of this has been covered well by you guys, but Chris' point above really concerns me - if the TPGs either can't detect chemical alteration today, or can only do so if alerted to it beforehand (not sure if this is true), but someday they COULD be able to detect it, then some collectors today could later find themselves screwed, especially if they are purchasing '52 Mantles, T206 Planks, etc., that show no evidence today of Dick's tampering.

I believe the technology to detect such chemicals/alterations is readily available at this time...just not cost effective...I mean we're talking baseball cards here!!!!

I agree that someday if this becomes available at low cost...there will be many pissed off collectors/investors!!!

[rainier2004]

My problem is with the disclosure, pretty rare to see a card advertised and "cleaned".

"Character is built when no one is looking"

Just b/c its undetectable does not make it ethical. When I buy my cards I expect them to be unrestored and unaltered, I believe that 99.9% of my cards follow these rules. It is impossible to know the provenance to all your cards, that still doesn't make it ok for someone to restore it and sell it w/o disclosure. I am very surprised how many are ok with this...

[Leon]

The cards have already been altered when they get to Dick.... The cards have been manipulated by humans... Its not like Dick is the first one to get to the cards and screw around with them... Somebody else has already dumped something, spit on em, left them out in the rain, glued them etc...

Some T206s have been autographed / "altered" and now they bring more money... Is this acceptable?? It has INK written across the front & brings more money?

Side Note:

I should clarify... We have had this debate several times over the years - I've always thought it was intriguing. I like to play the devil on this one because it is just my nature. I try to keep everything in my life in an as found state :) Hell, it even bothers me to clean the dirt off arrowheads when I find them. My reasoning for leaving things alone has nothing to do with anything other than I am weird about it...

I remember some years back Leon had a Horner Composite "cleaned" and everyone whooped and hollered. The cleaning did make it more visible and I liked it, but I have to admit I did cringe a little.

The argument about chemicals on cards drives me nuts though :) There is already a chemical / stain on the card and who is to say what issues will arise from it?

Correction. "I" didn't have my Horner Composite cleaned. It came that way. The guy before me had it done. Had it not then I probably would have sent it in. It was also de-acidified and preserved. It also had a tiny, tiny bit of in-painting done to it. I will disclose all of this when I go to sell it. I feel it enhanced the value because now it is more stable. The one thing I did do to it is I had it archival framed. They did a magnificent job on it. I am still on the fence about Dick's work but I am not on the fence with taking things off that aren't supposed to be there in the first place. Anything more than water and I am not so sure about. But water, I don't care the least bit.

[Runscott]

The word "screwed" infers that it would lower the value of the card. Nobody knows if it would or not. Did Kendrick's T206 Wagner lose value now that we all know it's trimmed? Who knows?

I'm making the assumption that if chemical alteration could be detected, that the TPG's would not slab the card. So in my hypothetical situation, someone buys a chemically-altered PSA-slabbed '52 Mantle today, then it later gets cracked for SGC and turns out to be chemically-altered, and thus does not get a numeric grade. I think we could agree that the card's value would go down.

I'm not giving a raw '52 Mantle example, but that could end up even worse if the original buyer bought it as unaltered and the TPG later detected chemical alteration.

[Runscott]

Anything more than water and I am not so sure about. But water, I don't care the least bit.

I'm sitting on the fence next to Leon, hoping it doesn't break.

[glynparson]

Someone can prove to me it does not increase the speed of degradation of the card I can not support the process. I see it akin to repairing or repainting a card as you are adding something. FYI some of the chemicals due leave trace tells according to Kevin Saucier when he and I discussed some of this stuff a few years back.

[Runscott]

BTW this thread is so funny. I would love to hear the comments if the title of this thread said. :)

FBI uncovers evidence of card cleaning by major auction house to increase card values by using chemicals to enhance cards value before they went to auction. The result of which has cost collectors countless amounts of money for chemically treated cards and items.

I’m 100% sure the response would be well I couldn’t tell, how could I tell, TPG's couldn't tell so no big deal, lighten up FBI.

....

John

This is intriguing - would the FBI consider chemical treatment the same as they considered trimming? If neither was disclosed, both cards ended up slabbed, and the 'work' was done to enhance value without disclosure, other than the fact that the 'stuff removed wasn't actually 'card', it sure seems like the same thing.

[smokelessjoe]

Sorry about that Leon.. That was some time ago... I thought I remembered you asking about whether you should or shouldn't have it cleaned - but that was probably in regards to having it framed. My apologies.

[barrysloate]

I actually don't think cleaning a card is such a terrible thing, but I do believe a cleaned card should receive nothing more than an AUTH grade. Problem is, the graders can't detect the cleaning. That's not a good thing.

[chernieto]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/351030629038

Nice lot --with pencil markings on back. The Pencil markings altered the cards- cleaning the cards would help restore them closer to the original state which would be more appealing to my eye anyway.
Paul C.

[ullmandds]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/351030629038

Nice lot --with pencil markings on back. The Pencil markings altered the cards- cleaning the cards would help restore them closer to the original state which would be more appealing to my eye anyway.
Paul C.

I love the way 1/6th of a set is considered a partial set...better than a near set I suppose!!!! Not likely heavy pencil can be removed and be undetectable!

[chernieto]

I love the way 1/6th of a set is considered a partial set...better than a near set I suppose!!!! Not likely heavy pencil can be removed and be undetectable!

very true!

[atx840]

If at The National, the SGC booth had a free, private scanner setup where you wave your raw or graded cards under and it would light up green for original, red for altered due to chemical cleaning.

Would you check your cards, would you be Ok if some of your best came back red that you thought were green, and would you then disclose this information when its time to sell?

[smokelessjoe]

There could already be something on your card (not visible to the eye) that was put there 100 years ago! No telling what kind of chemicals already exist on our cards without any intent of cleaning etc...

[joeadcock]

Chris

As the chief said in the Last of the Mohicans:"...what are we to do". You are right. A card changed, altered, whatever, in our possession(but unknown to us when we acquired it), would likely lead to "no way, not this card", or anger, or depressed, etc.

We'll never know what cards we have that have been changed, altered, etc.



If at The National, the SGC booth had a free, private scanner setup where you wave your raw or graded cards under and it would light up green for original, red for altered due to chemical cleaning.

Would you check your cards, would you be Ok if some of your best came back red that you thought were green, and would you then disclose this information when its time to sell?

[MattyC]

If you have a drop dead gorgeous wife who makes you happy, whom you adore looking at, and whom legions of other men desire badly, do you really care or want to know what she may have done one night before she met you? Every woman has a past.

[glynparson]

Something Spilt on a card or put there intentionally. Some of you honestly don't see a difference? Seriously? Wow.

[bijoem]

I would like to make it clear that I don't remove autographs on baseballs, however I now remove wrinkles on cards and faces:), if I can help someone, and you know who you are;), please contact us


Just reading through this now....

Like Leon - I am on the fence.... but....

my juvenile-humor mind can't get past the revelation...


Dick Towle doesn't work on balls.

:)

[freakhappy]

My problem is with the disclosure, pretty rare to see a card advertised and "cleaned".



"Character is built when no one is looking"



Just b/c its undetectable does not make it ethical. When I buy my cards I expect them to be unrestored and unaltered, I believe that 99.9% of my cards follow these rules. It is impossible to know the provenance to all your cards, that still doesn't make it ok for someone to restore it and sell it w/o disclosure. I am very surprised how many are ok with this...


And just because it's detectable doesn't make it unethical. So it seems like a good deal of people are on both sides of the fence...so who actually makes the call on ethics here?

Ok, so some people believe that by cleaning a card, you take it out of it's natural state. How about all of the chemicals that every t-card absorbed when they were around cigarette smoke or maybe inside the package before opened? I mean, which chemicals are we going to allow? I think we have to put the ethics debate on hold until we actually know what we are talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CardboardCollector]

Interesting thought. What would the threshold be to indicate the use of chemicals?

I need to put my cards away next time my cleaning lady shows up. You never know what she is spraying around.


If at The National, the SGC booth had a free, private scanner setup where you wave your raw or graded cards under and it would light up green for original, red for altered due to chemical cleaning.

Would you check your cards, would you be Ok if some of your best came back red that you thought were green, and would you then disclose this information when its time to sell?

[Runscott]

And just because it's detectable doesn't make it unethical. So it seems like a good deal of people are on both sides of the fence...so who actually makes the call on ethics here?

I was hoping Wonka's post would get that question discussed, but it didn't, so I'll discuss it with myself. Unfortunately, it seems to be PSA's call. They said they wouldn't put a number on a trimmed card, so the Gretzky Wagner eventually landed people in prison. If they were to say they wouldn't slab cards treated with chemicals, then something similar could occur. If PSA says they will assign numeric grades to such 'chemical' cards, and won't indicate the chemical component, then deception (and thus, ethics) become a moot point, at least legally.

Ok, so some people believe that by cleaning a card, you take it out of it's natural state. How about all of the chemicals that every t-card absorbed when they were around cigarette smoke or maybe inside the package before opened? I mean, which chemicals are we going to allow? I think we have to put the ethics debate on hold until we actually know what we are talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My read is that the beef is about making money through deception - the final state of the card is irrelevant.

I'm on the fence primarily because I don't collect graded cards, so if I could not tell that the card had been changed, I wouldn't care; however, I also realize that some people do care, and they have every right to want their cards to not be touched by chemicals.

Also, some cards end up in slabs, and I have to be aware of the implications of that for chemicalized cards.

[steve B]

I was hoping Wonka's post would get that question discussed, but it didn't, so I'll discuss it with myself. Unfortunately, it seems to be PSA's call. They said they wouldn't put a number on a trimmed card, so the Gretzky Wagner eventually landed people in prison. If they were to say they wouldn't slab cards treated with chemicals, then something similar could occur. If PSA says they will assign numeric grades to such 'chemical' cards, and won't indicate the chemical component, then deception (and thus, ethics) become a moot point, at least legally.



My read is that the beef is about making money through deception - the final state of the card is irrelevant.

I'm on the fence primarily because I don't collect graded cards, so if I could not tell that the card had been changed, I wouldn't care; however, I also realize that some people do care, and they have every right to want their cards to not be touched by chemicals.

Also, some cards end up in slabs, and I have to be aware of the implications of that for chemicalized cards.

In the US, it probably should be defined by the AIC, they're the standard the LOC teaches. While the practices part isn't entirely practical outside of an archive or museum, it's a good set of guidelines.
http://www.conservation-us.org/about-us/core-documents/code-of-ethics#.UzIPbDeYaUk

While I've had a few cards graded, I was against it initially. (Back when it was new)
I don't believe the grade should include things like centering. Every item is made in some way, and a technical grade should indicate the state of preservation only
My other opposition was that keeping something that degrades and releases an acid that hastens the degradation inside an enclosed container can't be good for it in the long term.
Some prewar cards aren't prone to that, and will be fine. Others, and the immediate postwar cards are and may suffer in the long term.

At some point for some objects we as a hobby will have to decide between loss and preservation. Some 20's strip cards have already become brittle enough to be fragile. Even deacidification may not save them at this point. I'd expect to see this happen to late 40's cards in another 20 years. It's already possible to see the beginnings of it on some. Poor storage is the primary problem, but eventually all things printed cardstock with a high wood pulp content will degrade.

I'm occasionally amazed that the same group that sees trimming up the borders of a handcut card to make it look better as ok can be strictly against removing scrapbook residue or dirt.

Alteration purely for profit is wrong, but somewhere along the line preservation and profit take the same path.

Steve Birmingham

[wonkaticket]

Alteration purely for profit is wrong, but somewhere along the line preservation and profit take the same path.Steve Birmingham

For the most part Jay was correct we are not talking about saving for future generations one of a kind historical documents or works of art, that if actions are not taken will be lost to the ages. There are plenty of 1952 Mantles around as well as most other issues Dick is working on.

Lets also be honest if the above is a toll road with innocent preservation/disclosure being the south bound lane and profit/deception being the north bound lane....which do you think has more traffic jams in our hobby?

Cheers,

John

[HRBAKER]

I'd say they had to install an EZ Pass lane headed northbound John.

[frankbmd]

..........

Lets also be honest if the above is a toll road with innocent preservation/disclosure being the south bound lane and profit/deception being the north bound lane....which do you think has more traffic jams in our hobby?

Cheers,

John


John, so that was Leon selling cards in the median strip the other day.

[andybecker]

i agree with Jay.....this is a very slippery slope......

cards, for the most part, are not unique (i think Jay said that too) and their respective value is based on availability and condition.

i also find it very telling that on Dick's website he has 6 testimonials and nobody gave their last name.

[Eric72]

i agree with Jay.....this is a very slippery slope......

cards, for the most part, are not unique (i think Jay said that too) and their respective value is based on availability and condition.

i also find it very telling that on Dick's website he has 6 testimonials and nobody gave their last name.

I also agree that this is a very slippery slope.

[T206Collector]

Maybe it's just me, but I have way more important things to worry about in life than an undetectable stain removal process in a card.


+1. (It's not just you.). :D

[KCRfan1]

i agree with Jay.....this is a very slippery slope......

cards, for the most part, are not unique (i think Jay said that too) and their respective value is based on availability and condition.

i also find it very telling that on Dick's website he has 6 testimonials and nobody gave their last name.

I do not find it " telling " at all that a last name has not been given. There is a lot of information floating on the internet, and I do not want my name out there any more than it needs to be either.

[Runscott]

Lets also be honest if the above is a toll road with innocent preservation/disclosure being the south bound lane and profit/deception being the north bound lane....which do you think has more traffic jams in our hobby?

Cheers,

John

The problem is that the toll booth is in the wrong lane.

[CobbvLajoie1910]

I'd say they had to install an EZ Pass lane headed northbound John.

Quite literally snorted my beer out onto my iPad.

Well played, Jeff.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

For reasons I do not understand card collectors have not accepted preservation like other hobbies. I don't completely understand why, but it is a rule of the hobby and I follow it.

[glynparson]

a testimonial for someone feel free to use my full name. What are you trying to hide, if your testimonial was true at the time you gave it? Also resteration and preservation are not necessarily the same thing. I am for preservation against most restoration.

[the 'stache]

Paintings are one of a kind pieces and any restoration is documented and follows the painting around. Cards are not, for the most part, one of a kind, and restoration is not disclosed. That is the difference. Cards, for the most part, are restored with the intent to deceive future buyers(just my opinion).

This is the exact point I was going to make.

[barrysloate]

For reasons I do not understand card collectors have not accepted preservation like other hobbies. I don't completely understand why, but it is a rule of the hobby and I follow it.

Coins are in the same boat as cards. If it's been determined that a coin has been cleaned, even ever so slightly, it's not eligible for a numeric grade. It gets the equivalent of an AUTH. Certain hobbies simply do not accept cleaning or altering of any kind. And yes, sometimes the coin graders miss it, and sometimes there is a difference of opinion- one grader says cleaned, the other says original.

[kcohen]

If you have a drop dead gorgeous wife who makes you happy, whom you adore looking at, and whom legions of other men desire badly, do you really care or want to know what she may have done one night before she met you? Every woman has a past.

Not sure that I grasp the relevance here unless you plan on selling her to another man without divulging that past. Nonetheless, I think that the more apt analogy here would be disclosing, or not, if she had had plastic surgery. :)

[bobbyw8469]

Not sure that I grasp the relevance here unless you plan on selling her to another man without divulging that past. Nonetheless, I think that the more apt analogy here would be disclosing, or not, if she had had plastic surgery. :)

I don't think Dick Towle does plastic surgery. I equate it more with taking off her blush and mascara, which should have never been on in the first place.

[smokelessjoe]

Coins are in the same boat as cards. If it's been determined that a coin has been cleaned, even ever so slightly, it's not eligible for a numeric grade. It gets the equivalent of an AUTH. Certain hobbies simply do not accept cleaning or altering of any kind. And yes, sometimes the coin graders miss it, and sometimes there is a difference of opinion- one grader says cleaned, the other says original.

You are allowed to clean dirt & grime off of coins and still have them graded...

[frankbmd]

The problem is that the toll booth is in the wrong lane.

Don't you mean the Towle booth, Scott?;)

[barrysloate]

You are allowed to clean dirt & grime off of coins and still have them graded...

Dirt and grime yes. But I collect copper coins and they typically tarnish and corrode. If the graders feel the coin was improperly cleaned or recolored, it's dead in the water. It might get a slab but it won't get a grade.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't think Dick Towle does plastic surgery. I equate it more with taking off her blush and mascara, which should have never been on in the first place.

I would not put removing wrinkles in that category.

[DICKTOWLE]

Now that the world has replied again and understand, I respect all answers, I would like to say a few things. All I here is the word "cleaning" on this site with the use of chemicals. The solvent I developed are used on three issues.

1. Remove tape and glue and paper on the back of cards.
2. Remove deep wax imbedded on the back or cards.
3. in most cases remove paper and contact cement on the back of cards.


If that is cleaning then yes, for those who don't believe in this then so be it, but I would rather enjoy a card with tape , glue, and contact cement removed. Thank you all again and be well.

[Leon]

Now that the world has replied again and understand, I respect all answers, I would like to say a few things. All I here is the word "cleaning" on this site with the use of chemicals. The solvent I developed are used on three issues.

1. Remove tape and glue and paper on the back of cards.
2. Remove deep wax imbedded on the back or cards.
3. in most cases remove paper and contact cement on the back of cards.


If that is cleaning then yes, for those who don't believe in this then so be it, but I would rather enjoy a card with tape , glue, and contact cement removed. Thank you all again and be well.

Thanks for responding, Dick. Do you have any data on the chemical(s) you use deteriorating the paper over time (if it does)?

I have more of a concern about wrinkles being taken out than dirt/grime/glue taken off. Can you say for sure that those wrinkles won't come back over time? Honestly, I am not in favor of wrinkle removal....

[vintagetoppsguy]

Can you say for sure that those wrinkles won't come back over time? Honestly, I am not in favor of wrinkle removal....

From what i understand, he doesn't remove wrinkles.

1. Remove tape and glue and paper on the back of cards.
2. Remove deep wax imbedded on the back or cards.
3. in most cases remove paper and contact cement on the back of cards.

[Leon]

From what i understand, he doesn't remove wrinkles.

1. Remove tape and glue and paper on the back of cards.
2. Remove deep wax imbedded on the back or cards.
3. in most cases remove paper and contact cement on the back of cards.

see post #13

[steve B]

For the most part Jay was correct we are not talking about saving for future generations one of a kind historical documents or works of art, that if actions are not taken will be lost to the ages. There are plenty of 1952 Mantles around as well as most other issues Dick is working on.

Lets also be honest if the above is a toll road with innocent preservation/disclosure being the south bound lane and profit/deception being the north bound lane....which do you think has more traffic jams in our hobby?

Cheers,

John

Obviously the northbound lane has been a parking lot for years. Sometimes a breakdown gets towed, making room for a new busload. :(

I usually take a very long view of things. It's very true there are plenty of more modern cards around now. That will probably remain true in my lifetime.(The 52 mantle is a doubleprint after all, plenty to go around)

I do think there's room to consider the very long term results of what we do today. That includes whether any cleaning done now will cause a larger problem later.
Places like the LOC don't just do the preservation work on unique and valuable documents and art. They deacidify in the neighborhood of a million books and documents a year :eek: Obviously not all of it is rare, valuable or even interesting.
http://www.loc.gov/preservation/scientists/projects/mass_deacid.html


I'm sure some of my feeling that properly done preservation is ok comes from learning some stuff about non-card items where it's more critical. (more below, under the line if you want to ignore it -Being concise isn't a skill I have.)
The word properly is critical here - Some of what's done may hide problems or create new problems- I'd have to know a lot more about exactly what Mr Towle does to figure out how to categorize it. And unfortunately it's a trade secret.
Removing surface filth is obviously something I agree with, I've done it myself. The trick is in having limits. I probably could have cleaned the card I showed better. But I had problems with going farther. What I did was near the limits of my skill, and near the limits of what I felt was proper.

I think removing tape is good if it can be done in a way that ends up neutrally- All adhesive gone and solvents neutralized.
Water stains usually come with some degree of cardboard damage. removing the stain probably just hides the problem. Fixing the damage would I think be going too far.
Scrapbook residue that can be removed easily should probably be removed.
Some of the glues are acidic, and taking the long view should be removed.

It's hard to know just where to draw the line sometimes.

And I'm sure I might feel differently if my collecting was in a different price bracket. The 59 common I tried to save would go to recycling or my kids these days.
I do think the TPGs need to change things- reverse the time factor, spend more time on detection of problems. If someone is spending more to have an expensive card looked at I think both the hobby and the submitter deserve a bit more time spent rather than simply bumping the 60 second look to the front of the line.

Steve Birmingham

------------------------------------------------
Old newspapers suffer terribly from the nature of the paper they're on, and films can suffer from both the film itself and the sort of emulsion holding the image.
As an example
Technicolor should remain looking good for several more lifetimes. But it stopped production in the US in 1974-5 and in Europe and the UK in 1980 and 78.

But most stuff that was needed inexpensively and quickly was done on Eastmancolor film introduced in 1952, and that stuff loses color easily.

Television was distributed on film in the 60's-70's, so the NFL game of the week was on film, ALL Eastman, all fading to nothing but red.
The world series highlight reels made by Coca-Cola are almost all Eastman color. And all faded. (I own the only Technicolor one I've ever seen, so there are a few out there.)
Poor storage can cause the plastic itself to break down and release acetic acid, which accelerates the breakdown.

Oddly home movie film was more likely to be Kodachrome than a commercial film. And Kodachrome is pretty much as good as Technicolor.

[vintagetoppsguy]

see post #13

Yup, I see it now.

[T206Collector]

The last time we discussed this issue, didn't someone talk about how old time collectors of T206 cards used to drop scrapbooks filled with them into a bathtub of water? Frankly, I have always assumed since then that any high-grade T206 card was once glued into a scrapbook and then removed in this process. That's why the corners stayed sharp and the borders stayed white -- they were in scrapbooks.

A lot of collectors got pretty upset learning about that, if I recall. Especially the PSA 8 collectors who thought their cards were pure and divine. To many, soaking a card in water is taboo. But ethics doesn't enter into it when an untold number of T206 cards already have been soaked for decades and decades. Today's collector cannot be held to a stronger standard than yesterday's collector when we're talking about cards that have been exchanging hands for now over 100 years.

[wonkaticket]

Steve in the end I would say most if not all of Dick’s customers are not esteemed institutions such as the LOC. The LOC isn’t flipping items for sale in the near future. If an institution would like to perform preservation work on their collections that’s nothing new.

However I feel making the parallel between something like the Library of Congress and some dude with a wax stained 52 Mantle looking to make a buck is a bit of a stretch IMO.

Cheers,

John

[wonkaticket]

The last time we discussed this issue, didn't someone talk about how old time collectors of T206 cards used to drop scrapbooks filled with them into a bathtub of water? Frankly, I have always assumed since then that any high-grade T206 card was once glued into a scrapbook and then removed in this process. That's why the corners stayed sharp and the borders stayed white -- they were in scrapbooks.

A lot of collectors got pretty upset learning about that, if I recall. Especially the PSA 8 collectors who thought their cards were pure and divine. To many, soaking a card in water is taboo. But ethics doesn't enter into it when an untold number of T206 cards already have been soaked for decades and decades. Today's collector cannot be held to a stronger standard than yesterday's collector when we're talking about cards that have been exchanging hands for now over 100 years.

I mentioned that once could be me. Being transparent soaking a card off a page doesn't bother me one bit. I have a few in my collection any graded cards got 2's look because of stains etc. Where I draw the line is using solvents and cleaners to remove stains and brighten up cards.

If the problem can't be solved with a bowl of warm tap water then I'm out, that's just my stance. Also if your stance isn't mine all good.

My major problem here is disclosure. As I said earlier if this was uncovered as something a major auction house was doing by taking nasty cards and using chemicals and solvents to work cards to high dollar status and doing so without disclosure. Well I doubt very much folks would be so quick to tell an REA no biggie that you took me for an extra 50k not being forthcoming after all I couldn’t tell good on you.

Cheers,

John

[Runscott]

Now that the world has replied again and understand, I respect all answers, I would like to say a few things. All I here is the word "cleaning" on this site with the use of chemicals. The solvent I developed are used on three issues.

1. Remove tape and glue and paper on the back of cards.
2. Remove deep wax imbedded on the back or cards.
3. in most cases remove paper and contact cement on the back of cards.


If that is cleaning then yes, for those who don't believe in this then so be it, but I would rather enjoy a card with tape , glue, and contact cement removed. Thank you all again and be well.

The examples given here by your customers included stain removal. Stain removal is cleaning, by anyone's definition.

As far as 'chemical' vs 'solvent', a solvent is simply something that something else can dissolve in. For removing water-based glue, that would be water. For anything else, that would generally be something that most people consider to be a 'chemical'.

No tap-dancing, please.

Edited to add: I just got off the fence.

[autograf]

It was beginning to sway anyway with you and Leon on it............

[Runscott]

It was beginning to sway anyway with you and Leon on it............

Hey, I'm not sure how to take that...as long as it wasn't a sexual innuendo.

[steve B]

Steve in the end I would say most if not all of Dick’s customers are not esteemed institutions such as the LOC. The LOC isn’t flipping items for sale in the near future. If an institution would like to perform preservation work on their collections that’s nothing new.

I think we're closer in thought than I figured. Many of the customers probably do step over the line.

However I feel making the parallel between something like the Library of Congress and some dude with a wax stained 52 Mantle looking to make a buck is a bit of a stretch IMO.

Cheers,

John

Burned by my own long windedness again I guess.

I wasn't making them parallel, just pointing out that preservation is important even for common items. While I can't come close to what a real archive can do, I do what I can within budget.

The rest gets like one of those unanswerable questions. If the right thing is done for the wrong reason is it still wrong?

I think we're also not so far apart here. I can appreciate the act, but not the intent. I also have few illusions about that intent.

I do wish I could express complex things briefly and effectively.

Steve B

[T206Collector]

If the problem can't be solved with a bowl of warm tap water then I'm out, that's just my stance. Also if your stance isn't mine all good.

My sense is that a lot of the people who dislike the chemical bath also abhor the water bath. But, if you can draw the line between water and undetectable chemicals, then you're a better man than I.

When I was a kid, I learned you could take wax stains out of a 1987 Topps card by pouring lighter fluid on it, and then sitting it on the radiator for a short while. Pretty amazing and no residue or anything was left behind. It was magic. My guess is that Dick uses something like that, maybe something alcohol based, which evaporates a lot faster than water and leaves no trace. Maybe he uses hydrogen peroxide. Then you're talking about the difference of one extra oxygen atom -- H202 vs. H2O. Who knows?! Dammit, Jim! I'm a card collector not a scientist!!

In any event, if the "chemical" leaves the same trace as water (i.e., no trace at all), then I'm still in. No harm comes to the fibers of the card, and the effects are simply not detectable within the lifetime of my immediate heirs. I accept this work has been done on every card I own, and I sleep well at night.

But, if you get a gag reflex from a good warm water bath for your T206 card, then you probably just don't understand how many of these little guys have spent some time in water over the past 103 years.

[Runscott]

My sense is that a lot of the people who dislike the chemical bath also abhor the water bath.

That's not what the posts in this thread would indicate.

[Leon]

That's not what the posts in this thread would indicate.

I agree Scott. Big difference to most/many collectors, I would say.

[ullmandds]

So then this question remains...if the solvents that Dick uses can be proven to cause no permanent changes to the cardboard stock...the colors/images...would people still have a problem with this?

[T206Collector]

***That's not what the posts in this thread would indicate.***

***I agree Scott. Big difference to most/many collectors, I would say.***

Stated another way, how can you distinguish from water when you have no evidence that what Dick uses has any lasting effect distinguishable from water?

People may say they have no problem with water, but then they do have a problem when a "mysterious chemical solvent" that has the same lasting effect as water (i.e., none at all) is used.

Again, if Dick was using H202 (hydrogen peroxide) instead of H20 (water), then you are arguing over a single oxygen atom. Seriously? Wouldn't you want to know what your chemical is before drawing a line that shows a "big difference" of opinion?

[T206Collector]

So then this question remains...if the solvents that Dick uses can be proven to cause no permanent changes to the cardboard stock...the colors/images...would people still have a problem with this?

+1 - that's the relevant question, not whether it is water or something else. If you are comfortable with the illicit uses of water on baseball cards for these reasons, then why are you uncomfortable with the illicit uses of CHEMICAL X for the same reasons?

[baseballart]

I knew I should have paid more attention in Grade 12 Chemistry class

[bnorth]

If the problem can't be solved with a bowl of warm tap water then I'm out, that's just my stance. Also if your stance isn't mine all good.


I have no problem with soaking a card in water. Just commenting on the water being used. Please do not use warm tap water. Most tap water is highly alkaline and has a lot of chemicals in it. Using tap water that has gone through a hot water heater is even worse. Using high end RO(reverse osmosis) water is just as bad. It does not have the chemicals, but is acidic. The best water IMO is warm purified/filtered bottled water. It has about 1/3 the chemicals as tap water and is not acidic like high end RO water. I know a lot of bottled water says it is RO water but it is low end RO water.

I grow hydroponic produce for a living so I have learned a lot about water quality in the last few years. With out getting technical the average gallon of tap water has about 1 teaspoon of chemicals in it. I know that does not sound like much but 1 1/2 teaspoons of fertilizer per gallon of water gives it all the nutrients vegetables need to grow hydroponically.

[smokelessjoe]

Question:

Say I spill red Kool aid on one of my wonderful T206s and stain the whole card red - three weeks later I make a new batch of red Kool Aid and discover that by removing the red dye (yet keep all chemical properties the same) and dumping it on the same card that I can remove the red stain... Essentially I have swapped one chemical for another or washed it with the same chemical.

Please note that at this time No One knows what Kool Aid will or will not do to the card as far as preservation or lack there of...

Would this be acceptable?

(I know Kool Aid jokes are coming) :)

[wonkaticket]

I have no problem with soaking a card in water. Just commenting on the water being used. Please do not use warm tap water. Most tap water is highly alkaline and has a lot of chemicals in it. Using tap water that has gone through a hot water heater is even worse. Using high end RO(reverse osmosis) water is just as bad. It does not have the chemicals, but is acidic. The best water IMO is warm purified/filtered bottled water. It has about 1/3 the chemicals as tap water and is not acidic like high end RO water. I know a lot of bottled water says it is RO water but it is low end RO water.

I grow hydroponic produce for a living so I have learned a lot about water quality in the last few years. With out getting technical the average gallon of tap water has about 1 teaspoon of chemicals in it. I know that does not sound like much but 1 1/2 teaspoons of fertilizer per gallon of water gives it all the nutrients vegetables need to grow hydroponically.

Never had a problem with warm H20 granted I have a filter on my tap....

[DICKTOWLE]

Leon, I developed this solvent 19 years, after 2 years of testing on the cards, all is well. These are oil base solvents, with the proper mixture there is never an issue with the cards. I can put these cards in the solvent for a week, take it out , you would never know. Understand the solvent attacks what is on the card, not the paper. The paper will always be fine and is never an issue with anybody.

As a oil base, the solvents sits on top of the card, once exposed to air, it is gone and that allows me to attack the issue. I even was contacted by a restoration house asking how we did this because they had cards sent to them, I ended up receiving the job.

I enjoy helping people, hearing there stories how they got the cards, few people really enjoy there work, our family does. So I thank you again for the input. There are a lot of happy people around with crap removed from front and back of cards. After all, life should be a smile and not a frown, Thank you and God Bless.

[Section103]

So the only difference between water and hydrogen peroxide is "one little oxygen atom"? Yeah, lets see the line of people willing to drink a glass of hydrogen peroxide.:rolleyes:

[Runscott]

***That's not what the posts in this thread would indicate.***

***I agree Scott. Big difference to most/many collectors, I would say.***

Stated another way, how can you distinguish from water when you have no evidence that what Dick uses has any lasting effect distinguishable from water?

People may say they have no problem with water, but then they do have a problem when a "mysterious chemical solvent" that has the same lasting effect as water (i.e., none at all) is used.

Again, if Dick was using H202 (hydrogen peroxide) instead of H20 (water), then you are arguing over a single oxygen atom. Seriously? Wouldn't you want to know what your chemical is before drawing a line that shows a "big difference" of opinion?

Yeah, you are right - bring on the hydrogen peroxide.

[Runscott]

I knew I should have paid more attention in Grade 12 Chemistry class

Haha. Yeah, you and at least one other forum member.

[T206Collector]

So the only difference between water and hydrogen peroxide is "one little oxygen atom"? Yeah, lets see the line of people willing to drink a glass of hydrogen peroxide.:rolleyes:

If only baseball cards were made of living cells, this difference might matter.

[Runscott]

If only baseball cards were made of living cells, this difference might matter.

So, since they aren't, bleaching them with hydrogen peroxide is the same as soaking them in water? :confused:

I'm picturing two T206 collectors crawling through the desert, dying of thirst. They come upon a huge vat of hydrogen peroxide. The one who studied basket-weaving exclaims: "This is more water than we can possibly drink, and with all the extra oxygen, we should be able to jog out of this desert!!!"


To T206collector: This is all harmless fun. Please do not take offense, as I get what you are saying. I just don't think you chose a great example to support your argument.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Paul how do you feel about a trim that can't be detected by a grading company in their normal review process?

[chernieto]

So, since they aren't, bleaching them with hydrogen peroxide is the same as soaking them in water? :confused:

I'm picturing two T206 collectors crawling through the desert, dying of thirst. They come upon a huge vat of hydrogen peroxide. The one who studied basket-weaving exclaims: "This is more water than we can possibly drink, and with all the extra oxygen, we should be able to jog out of this desert!!!"


To T206collector: This is all harmless fun. Please do not take offense, as I get what you are saying. I just don't think you chose a great example to support your argument.

I'm imagining 2 T206 collectors at a estate sale and they find an old album with amazing T206 collection of HOF cards glued in the album. One wants to buy it and remove the cards from the album pages- and the other says "you can't do that! It will destroy the hobby! It's evil & illicit to do that and I will never sleep again!!"
Paul C

[Exhibitman]

Especially the PSA 8 collectors who thought their cards were pure and divine.

As opposed to cut from a sheet, trimmed, and put it into a PSA 8 holder...

Too soon?

[T206Collector]

Paul how do you feel about a trim that can't be detected by a grading company in their normal review process?

I appreciate the effort to find a slippery slope in my reasoning, but this isn't one of them.

A normal grading review that misses a trim is not the same thing. In any hypothetical where the fibers of the card are damaged by the treatment, I am on the side of the fence against the treatment. What I don't understand is why people build a fence between water and a chemical with the same properties of water when applied to a T206 card.

Stated another way, I think it is more intellectually honest to be against water and all chemicals, than to segregate water from the list of unmentionables.

[T206Collector]

So, since they aren't, bleaching them with hydrogen peroxide is the same as soaking them in water? :confused:

To T206collector: This is all harmless fun. Please do not take offense, as I get what you are saying. I just don't think you chose a great example to support your argument.

I thought you understood that I was using a hypothetical, not that I was countenancing the use of hydrogen peroxide on a tobacco card. I have no idea what the interaction would be -- and severe damage or bleaching may certainly result.

I take no offense, and I don't mind the fun, but I do think it is critical to get at the heart of what people expect from their 100+ year old cardboard.

[Runscott]

I thought you understood that I was using a hypothetical, not that I was countenancing the use of hydrogen peroxide on a tobacco card. I have no idea what the interaction would be -- and severe damage or bleaching may certainly result.

I take no offense, and I don't mind the fun, but I do think it is critical to get at the heart of what people expect from their 100+ year old cardboard.

I did understand, but you definitely should have an idea as to what the interaction would be; if not, then it's hard to take you seriously when you are talking about chemicals and their effects.

[wonkaticket]

What I don't understand is why people build a fence between water and a chemical with the same properties of water when applied to a T206 card.

What chemical is being used that has the exact same properties of water? Did I miss something in this thread? :confused:

For me the line is easy the day a glass of tap water can make stains like these disappear, and the day items like this are sold with disclosure about the cleaning undergone be sure to let me know.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=132902

Otherwise you are doing something to alter the appearance of the card found and therefore increasing its value with secrecy which to me is not on the up and up. Also if our hobby was so excepting of this it would be disclosed all the time hmmm I wonder why it's never mentioned in auction write ups?

Just because one may spread icing on a turd doesn’t make it chocolate cake in my book regardless if I can taste the difference or not. :)

Cheers,

John

[chernieto]

Just because one may spread icing on a turd doesn’t make it chocolate cake in my book regardless if I can taste the difference or not. :)

Cheers,

John[/QUOTE]

Please do not try this at home! Or anywhere....

[wonkaticket]

Just because one may spread icing on a turd doesn’t make it chocolate cake in my book regardless if I can taste the difference or not. :)

Cheers,

John

Please do not try this at home! Or anywhere....[/QUOTE]

There goes my Net54 cookbook deal...

[T206Collector]

This is perfect. How does what you said here apply differently when water is used:

[Y]ou are doing something to alter the appearance of the card found and therefore increasing its value with secrecy which to me is not on the up and up. Also if our hobby was so excepting of this it would be disclosed all the time hmmm I wonder why it's never mentioned in auction write ups?

[T206Collector]

I did understand, but you definitely should have an idea as to what the interaction would be; if not, then it's hard to take you seriously when you are talking about chemicals and their effects.

Actually, I am pretty sure you got sidetracked by the actual effects of H202 on a piece of cardboard, which is wholly irrelevant to what anyone was saying in this thread.

[Taxman]

H2O2 = hydrogen peroxide
H2O = water

[wonkaticket]

This is perfect. How does what you said here apply differently when water is used:

Paul read my post...and look at the link. Let me know when tap water makes major stains on a T206 Plank go away.

[T206Collector]

Paul read my post...and look at the link. Let me know when tap water makes major stains on a T206 Plank go away.

Not relevant to what I am saying, but thanks anyway. Answer my question first.

[Runscott]

Actually, I am pretty sure you got sidetracked by the actual effects of H202 on a piece of cardboard, which is wholly irrelevant to what anyone was saying in this thread.

You need to give it up. I wasn't the one who incorrectly compared water to hydrogen peroxide. Go take 30 hours of chemistry, then come back and we can continue this discussion.

Okay, where were we?

[T206Collector]

You need to give it up. I wasn't the one who incorrectly compared water to hydrogen peroxide. Go take 30 hours of chemistry, then come back and we can continue this discussion.

Okay, where were we?

I need to give what up, exactly? Show me where I said that water and hydrogen peroxide would have the same effect on a T206 card?

[Runscott]

I need to give what up, exactly? Show me where I said that water and hydrogen peroxide would have the same effect on a T206 card?

What is your first name?

This conversation is over, but if we are going to talk in the future, I would prefer to be able to address you by your name. Thanks, Scott

[smokelessjoe]

Never had a problem with warm H20 granted I have a filter on my tap....

Wonka,

Are you saying you have cleaned some of your cards with warm H20 in the past and had no issues?

Does not seem right that you are ok with removing stains with water regardless of how much or little of the stain "you think" will be removed... You can not possibly know how much stain would be removed until you are done.

I can recall over the years people posting about (how can I clean) my card and then posting the results as they turned out - then people say great job etc.... I can recall things like distilled water, drop of dawn, wrap in paper towel place in book etc... I do not recall people flipping out about it - instead handing out Kudos....?

[T206Collector]

Sorry, Paul M. is my name. I thought you knew that. You and I have exchanged several personal emails over the years -- at least five times between 2005 and 2012.

[wonkaticket]

Not relevant to what I am saying, but thanks anyway. Answer my question first.

Paul I have stated an answered your question about ten times in this thread perhaps indirectly sorry.

Soaking a card in water doesn’t clean cards to the extent of the example posted above. This is what some of us myself included have issues with in terms of chemicals and solvents used by Dick. Soaking some OJ’s from a scrap book like Jay did with the Cambridge collection still leaves cards that have flaws and would grade likewise. They just won’t be attached too old nasty 8.5x 11 sheets of paper anymore.

However having chemicals applied to remove any trace of residue or brighten a card beyond its dingy dirty state without some sort of disclosure like the example above is not on the up and up. Hence why it’s not mentioned and hidden 99% of the time. This exactly what Paragon did in my example above no mention in print about the cleaning. Once caught hand deep in the cookie jar they quickly changed the online description. Does this seem like something folks do since everyone is so open to this in our hobby and its so harmless and accepted?

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/junkforumimages/plank.jpg

So now that I have outlined my simple position once again. Please help me understand how tap water was used to remove the stains from the card above? Or what harmless water like substance was used and why it wasn’t disclosed since it's harmless?

Don't know why this harmless no worse than water cleaning of Plank wasn't disclosed in the write up I'll give you a hint.... :)

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/net54shared/websize/holding-money.jpg

Cheers,

John

[T206Collector]

John,

Respectfully, I think your argument boils down to "If water would remove the stain, then it is okay to use and it is not deceptive to hide disclosure." Did I get that correctly? For what it's worth, I agree with this statement.

But, if you are also saying "I would only use water to remove the stain even if a chemical would have the same impact as water would" then I just don't know why you would draw the line at the chemical, as opposed to the impact on the card. To me the impact on the card is paramount, and I do not know how I would ever determine whether water or a chemical would have dissimilar effects on the same stain.

I am not trying to be obtuse here.

Paul M.

[wonkaticket]

Wonka,

Are you saying you have cleaned some of your cards with warm H20 in the past and had no issues?

Does not seem right that you are ok with removing stains with water regardless of how much or little of the stain "you think" will be removed... You can not possibly know how much stain would be removed until you are done.

I can recall over the years people posting about (how can I clean) my card and then posting the results as they turned out - then people say great job etc.... I can recall things like distilled water, drop of dawn, wrap in paper towel place in book etc... I do not recall people flipping out about it - instead handing out Kudos....?

I have never cleaned a card. About all I have ever done in terms of using water is to remove some non-sports actress cards from scrap book pages so they can fit into sheets and done this about twice in my life and only recently. In fact I bought a non-sports card from Jay recently and had him soak it off the Cambridge collection page as I was to afraid to try it. :)

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/net54shared/websize/Seal.jpg

You can still clearly make out where it was once glued..."gone with the stain" far from it....

Cheers,

John

[smokelessjoe]

I have never cleaned a card. About all I have ever done in terms of using water is to remove some non-sports actress cards from scrap book pages so they can fit into sheets and done this about twice in my life and only recently. In fact I bought a non-sports card from Jay recently and had him soak it off the Cambridge collection page as I was to afraid to try it. :)

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/net54shared/websize/Seal.jpg

You can still clearly make out where it was once glued..."gone with the stain" far from it....

Cheers,

John

Added to the "Value" definitely....

[wonkaticket]

John,

Respectfully, I think your argument boils down to "If water would remove the stain, then it is okay to use and it is not deceptive to hide disclosure." Did I get that correctly? For what it's worth, I agree with this statement.

But, if you are also saying "I would only use water to remove the stain even if a chemical would have the same impact as water would" then I just don't know why you would draw the line at the chemical, as opposed to the impact on the card. To me the impact on the card is paramount, and I do not know how I would ever determine whether water or a chemical would have dissimilar effects on the same stain.

I am not trying to be obtuse here.

Paul M.

99% there Paul, I would expect disclosure if one used any method to remove stains and or clean up a card. If disclosure was made and it was only water.... I guess it would boil down to how much I trusted the person selling me the item and how much I needed that item. Does that make sense?

Cheers,

John

[Runscott]

Sorry, Paul M. is my name. I thought you knew that. You and I have exchanged several personal emails over the years -- at least five times between 2005 and 2012.

My apologies, Paul - I recognized your handle and knew that I should remember who you were.

[wonkaticket]

My apologies, Paul - I recognized your handle and knew that I should remember who you were.

Scott my real name in case you forgot...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/F_8RH2hiqMQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[smokelessjoe]

Scott my real name in case you forgot...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/F_8RH2hiqMQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

How could you ever forget a name like that... :) That's better than shorty....

[Runscott]

Scott my real name in case you forgot...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/F_8RH2hiqMQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Whew. I thought it was LongJohn von WonkaDonka

[T206Collector]

99% there Paul, I would expect disclosure if one used any method to remove stains and or clean up a card. If disclosure was made and it was only water.... I guess it would boil down to how much I trusted the person selling me the item and how much I needed that item. Does that make sense?

Yes, okay. I think disclosure is unrealistic even in the water context because of the profit issue. Also, I think disclosure of water is unfair given how many of our forefathers practiced ritual T206 soakings. I believe many of my SGC 60+ T206 cards have spent some time in the bath, which is why they remain so fresh. And, finally, I think a chemical which leaves the card in the same state as water does is just fine with me.

I think I've now beaten my dead horse enough, but at least I feel better having talked it through.

:D

[RGold]

My mom always cleaned my cards with this. :D:D:D

http://photos.imageevent.com/rgold/ebay/image_8.jpg

[wonkaticket]

Yes, okay. I think disclosure is unrealistic even in the water context because of the profit issue. Also, I think disclosure of water is unfair given how many of our forefathers practiced ritual T206 soakings. I believe many of my SGC 60+ T206 cards have spent some time in the bath, which is why they remain so fresh. And, finally, I think a chemical which leaves the card in the same state as water does is just fine with me.

I think I've now beaten my dead horse enough, but at least I feel better having talked it through.

:D

Agree depending on folks to come clean wink wink is not going to happen.

However if I bought a 20k card from you and got before images down the road from someone else, and they said you know Paul bought that card like this and then worked some magic on it. To find out you sold it to me with no mention of the cleaning water/chemical whatever it would be the last transaction I would do with you.

To me if this is so innocent and harmless why would anyone choose to omit.

Cheers,

John

[Runscott]

99% there Paul, I would expect disclosure if one used any method to remove stains and or clean up a card. If disclosure was made and it was only water.... I guess it would boil down to how much I trusted the person selling me the item and how much I needed that item. Does that make sense?

Cheers,

John

That's a question I have avoided (should you disclose soaking?). I personally don't think it's necessary, given the affect of water on cards; however, I do respect the opinions of collectors who don't want a soaked card. If I was selling or trading a card that I knew had been soaked, to someone who either asked that question, or who I knew was adamantly anti-soak, then I would certainly disclose it. I rarely soak cards anymore (and don't own any as far as I know), so it probably will never be an issue. If I were to obtain "a lot" of cards that needed to be soaked, then I probably would put a line in every sale page, mentioning that all the cards in the current group being sold, had been soaked from an album.

As you have mentioned, water doesn't remove everything - I have never had it completely remove a stain, or even have much impact on a stain; however, it does take off old tobacco, most dirt, and paper affixed by water-based glue. And I think that's good.

As an aside, I have a few great baseball albumen images with horribly disfigured mounts - I'm looking for similar mounts in better condition with uninteresting pictures and plan to do a transplant.

I would disclose the transplant when sold.

[Eric72]

To me if this is so innocent and harmless why would anyone choose to omit.



+1

[smokelessjoe]

I once heard about this secret mud that would be dug from a river bank by umpires and they would rub onto baseball cards as a protective coating... I have nothing to back this up though...

[wonkaticket]

My mom always cleaned my cards with this. :D:D:D

http://photos.imageevent.com/rgold/ebay/image_8.jpg

Ron, I guess it beats the other brand.... :D

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/junkforumimages/websize/129617958519.jpg

[Runscott]

I found these instruction for using Hydrogen Peroxide, and thought I would share.

http://rocketbelts.americanrocketman.com/HP/HYDROGEN_PEROXIDE_WARNING.gif

Also note - if you are using this product to clean vintage baseball cards, please be sure to remove one Oxygen molecule for each two Hydrogens. If you get confused and instead accidentally remove one Hydrogen for each Oxygen, the result will be Hydroperoxyl, which is responsible for the destruction of ozone in the stratosphere. Don't get confused and end up accidentally destroying ozone in the stratosphere.

[1880nonsports]

it's so much a personal call as to where the line gets drawn. The "hobby" seems most accepting of soaking - the rest not so much.

It's not OK to do anything to a card.
It's OK to soak a card in water to remove it from something.
It's OK to soak a card in another solution to accomplish the task.
It's OK to soak a card in water to remove surface glue or paper remains.
It's OK to soak a card in another solution to do the same thing.
It's OK to soak a card in water to remove a stain.
It's OK to soak a card in another solution that will do the same thing.

Water contains "chemicals". Water can also leave a stain and react with inks and fibers. How it will impact the future of the card is unknown but everything degrades with time. Without soaking most cards would still be in albums. Some people might think that isn't a bad thing. We are temporary keepers of this "stuff". I try and leave everything as I found it unless it's rapidly degrading or the problem is such that it prevents my enjoyment of the aesthetic elements. Everything degrades over time - I'm on "the back nine" and showing some stains myself but I wouldn't want to wittingly be the root cause of accelerating the decline of myself or stuff. I have soaked cards in distilled water and that's about as far as I am comfortable going. I haven't seen evidence 20 years later that the few cards I still have from then are any different. I have restored/conserved 2/3 posters and a tin sign. Restoration of such items is accepted and often encouraged - cards not so much.....
While the issues surrounding disclosure are thought provoking (personal responsibility) as are the "if you can't see it how do you know it's there?" arguements - I assume most of my cards have been soaked in some solution and rely on my experience to foster the self preserving belief that nearly all are unaltered otherwise. I'm fine with that.
Mostly these days I find myself grappling with the issues of personal freedom and the moral and ethical implications of making something available in the marketplace that likely will be used in a deceptive manner (recent threads on flips and empty slabs comes to mind). I have to rely on my core belief that there's no reason Dick can't offer such a service that enables others to enjoy their cards in whatever form and condition they want? I have a friend who is a board member here. He collects early base ball and he loves his cards. He took a marker and colored all the edges of his Mayo's becuse he liked the uniformity. It kills me - but they're his cards. That others have and likely will continue to use the service and not disclose what was done to enhance a particular card is troublesome but out of our control. I can only be responsible for myself and that's enough of a struggle.
I like that DT has come here (albeit with an expected outcome that he will do more business) and explained his position. Like the subject of TPG this is a divisive topic. I appreciate when threads like this come up as it helps me to define and redefine how I feel........

[GasHouseGang]

I may be repeating something already said, but water is a chemical. It's also the most widely used solvent there is. If you look up water in a chemistry book it will tell you water is called the universal solvent because more substances dissolve in water than in any other chemical. So to say I would never soak my card in a chemical, but soaking a card off a page in water is ok, is a contradiction. Your just taking a less aggressive approach.

[Runscott]

I may be repeating something already said, but water is a chemical. It's also the most widely used solvent there is. If you look up water in a chemistry book it will tell you water is called the universal solvent because more substances dissolve in water than in any other chemical. So to say I would never soak my card in a chemical, but soaking a card off a page in water is ok, is a contradiction. Your just taking a less aggressive approach.

So if we drop the semantics, as I'm sure you've never referred to drinking a glass of water as 'drinking a glass of chemicals', so you do realize that water and [other] chemicals are generally, using the English language, typically differentiated in conversation...your point is that water is less aggressive than chemicals?

Okay, Thanks.

[T206Collector]

So to say I would never soak my card in a chemical, but soaking a card off a page in water is ok, is a contradiction.

+1, or at least hypocritical. To focus on the solvent (water or otherwise) as opposed to the impact on the collectible, is misguided, in my view.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I may be repeating something already said, but water is a chemical. It's also the most widely used solvent there is. If you look up water in a chemistry book it will tell you water is called the universal solvent because more substances dissolve in water than in any other chemical. So to say I would never soak my card in a chemical, but soaking a card off a page in water is ok, is a contradiction. Your just taking a less aggressive approach.

+2

[Eric72]

So if we drop the semantics, as I'm sure you've never referred to drinking a glass of water as 'drinking a glass of chemicals', so you do realize that water and [other] chemicals are generally, using the English language, typically differentiated in conversation...your point is that water is less aggressive than chemicals?

Okay, Thanks.

Scott,

I actually agree with his stance on water being the universal solvent. Having said that, I understand that water is delivered (or collected, plumbed, etc.) differently by people, depending where they are. This likely presents in a fashion most varied when discussing "tap" water.

It appears that you know more about chemistry than some of us. Please explain why the "chemical" water I drink when in Philadelphia is different than the distilled water I buy at the grocery store.

I truly do respect you (and always have) and sincerely want your opinion on this.

Best regards,

Eric

[wonkaticket]

I may be repeating something already said, but water is a chemical. It's also the most widely used solvent there is. If you look up water in a chemistry book it will tell you water is called the universal solvent because more substances dissolve in water than in any other chemical. So to say I would never soak my card in a chemical, but soaking a card off a page in water is ok, is a contradiction. Your just taking a less aggressive approach.

Sure thing guys, what type of plain old water removes these stains again and makes whites pop like an oxy clean ad? :rolleyes: :)

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/junkforumimages/huge/plank.jpg

Sure I guess one could say a pocket knife is a self defense weapon...but I don't think it would be hypocritical stance to say a gun has a bit more punch compared to grandpa's Swiss Army with a can opener. To me that's difference here from a little water to Billy Mays Towle.

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/junkforumimages/i2.jpg

P.S. Eric maybe it is our Philadelphia water. :)

[Eric72]

I may be repeating something already said, but water is a chemical. It's also the most widely used solvent there is. If you look up water in a chemistry book it will tell you water is called the universal solvent because more substances dissolve in water than in any other chemical. So to say I would never soak my card in a chemical, but soaking a card off a page in water is ok, is a contradiction. Your just taking a less aggressive approach.

I agree with this statement.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't think of water as a chemical. I think of substances that are synthesized for particular purposes as chemicals. But whatever. Who wants to defend Towle's removal of wrinkles, any takers?

[Eric72]

P.S. Eric maybe it is our Philadelphia water. :)

John,

Philly water drawn from the Schuylkill may very well be the most toxic substance on the planet.

Soaking anything in Schuylkill Punch is a bad idea. And not disclosing such a soak should be downright criminal.

Best regards,

Eric

[atx840]

Soaking a card from a notebook, to me is the same as removing a card from a GIA slab. I'm simply freeing it from a holder. One requires a hammer the other water. I'm not in any way trying to improve the card other then removing it from the page/remove the page from it. Is that hypocritical?

My issue is using a man made, specially designed chemical to remove stains, residue and make whites pop. Pressing corners/wrinkles & trimming arealso meant to deceive that a card has survived in a much nicer condition then it truly has.

Edited. I've tried it once, just to see what happens.

Vid http://youtu.be/y1QFe7T8zK8

[Eric72]

I don't think of water as a chemical. I think of substances that are synthesized for particular purposes as chemicals. But whatever. Who wants to defend Towle's removal of wrinkles, any takers?

Peter,

I will not bite on defending Dick. However, I will say that water is a chemical...with a pH very close to 7. Whatever solution he uses is close to that, chemically.

Best,

Eric

[Leon]

What is your first name?

This conversation is over, but if we are going to talk in the future, I would prefer to be able to address you by your name. Thanks, Scott

I was away for several hours or would have addressed this earlier. You are not only correct Scott, you didn't go far enough on the name issue. The litmus test I use, besides the easy rule at the top of every page, is "if someone said that to me, or in response to me, would I want to know who they are?" If the answer is yes (and I almost always want to know), then the FULL name needs to be in the post, thread or easily obtainable from that thread. This is the same rule for the last 10 yrs so it's not new news. And in that respect Paul is Pau.l Mif.sud .....thanks everyone....

[wonkaticket]

I don't think of water as a chemical. I think of substances that are synthesized for particular purposes as chemicals. But whatever. Who wants to defend Towle's removal of wrinkles, any takers?

Good point, I'm actually a little surprised how laid back folks are about Dick's work. Like the Plank above wouldn't bother anyone? Just me? We all know that wasn't water that did that...let alone Dick's comment on taking out wrinkles. Seems more like folks are into splitting hairs or arguing semantics on what a chemical is vs. addressing the fact that this is used to profit and done under secrecy.

Even funnier over the years there have been countless threads posting dirty items from eBay or previous auctions selling in new auctions all cleaned up etc. I don’t seem to remember the “no big deal” vibe from those threads. :)

Cheers,

John

[Eric72]

NM

[Peter_Spaeth]

PSA doesn't like chemicals either. even if they can't detect them.

N-7 Evidence of Cleaning - When a whitener is used to whiten borders or a solution is used to remove wax, candy, gum or tobacco stains.

[Leon]

Soaking a card from a notebook, to me is the same as removing a card from a GIA slab. I'm simply freeing it from a holder. One requires a hammer the other water. I'm not in any way trying to improve the card other then removing it from the page/remove the page from it. Is that hypocritical?

My issue is using a man made, specially designed chemical to remove stains, residue and make whites pop. Pressing corners/wrinkles & trimming arealso meant to deceive that a card has survived in a much nicer condition then it truly has.

Edited. I've tried it once, just to see what happens.

Vid http://youtu.be/y1QFe7T8zK8


Nice video....I have done that many times. One of the times I remember distinctly was from an original find that I called the Trucker Boy Find. Long story but it was a west coast collection...this card had paper similar to that card in the youtube video, over about 20% of the upper back.

http://luckeycards.com/pt2123weaver.jpg

[atx840]

I guess I just don't see the act as different.

Some kid puts a card in a notebook with water based glue 100 years ago to display it, and somewhat to protect it.

I have SGC glue two pieces of plastic around my cards for the same reasons.

Removing them, to me is not trying to deceive anyone.

[T206Collector]

And in that respect Paul is Pau.l Mif.sud .....thanks everyone....

I feel so ...exposed!

:eek:

[Runscott]

I don't think of water as a chemical.

Peter, you are so weird. I drink a quart of chemicals every morning when I get up. Get with the program.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I mix a little hydrogen peroxide with mine. Those extra atoms rev me up.

[Runscott]

Good point, I'm actually a little surprised how laid back folks are about Dick's work. Like the Plank above wouldn't bother anyone? Just me? We all know that wasn't water that did that...let alone Dick's comment on taking out wrinkles. Seems more like folks are into splitting hairs or arguing semantics on what a chemical is vs. addressing the fact that this is used to profit and done under secrecy.

Even funnier over the years there have been countless threads posting dirty items from eBay or previous auctions selling in new auctions all cleaned up etc. I don’t seem to remember the “no big deal” vibe from those threads. :)

Cheers,

John

Well-said, John. Earlier today I didn't mind debating the differences between water and chemicals, because I was bored and not inclined to work. Now I'm relaxed and that conversation seems incredibly stupid.

[Section103]

Calling something "chemical" in the purely scientific sense is meaningless in normal conversation. Can anyone name any substance or solution that isnt chemical? Of course water is chemical. So is air. So is everything else. When you get down to it, the sun is LESS likely to rise in the eastern sky tomorrow than for us to find a substance or solution that isnt chemical.

[Runscott]

Scott,

I actually agree with his stance on water being the universal solvent. Having said that, I understand that water is delivered (or collected, plumbed, etc.) differently by people, depending where they are. This likely presents in a fashion most varied when discussing "tap" water.

It appears that you know more about chemistry than some of us. Please explain why the "chemical" water I drink when in Philadelphia is different than the distilled water I buy at the grocery store.

I truly do respect you (and always have) and sincerely want your opinion on this.

Best regards,

Eric

Eric, yes I do know a lot more about chemistry than some of the people posting in this thread. That doesn't mean I know much :)

I took 3 chemistry classes in high school, and 8 in college. I am not a chemist. My daughter ran some tests on tap water in Atlanta and told me that it was unfit to drink. The tap water in Seattle is incredibly drinkable. I also know that the bottled water you buy in the store is often no more pure than your local tap water, but I have no idea what you are drinking in Philadelphia.

Personally, I drink tap water unless it tastes bad or someone tells me it is unsafe. I don't like the taste of 'soft' water.

That's all I know, and water doesn't interest me enough for me to do additional research. Oh yeah, it has one less 'H' than Hydrogen Peroxide, and that makes a really big difference if you are debating on which one to drink.

[Runscott]

Calling something "chemical" in the purely scientific sense is meaningless in normal conversation. Can anyone name any substance or solution that isnt chemical? Of course water is chemical. So is air. So is everything else. When you get down to it, the sun is LESS likely to rise in the eastern sky tomorrow than for us to find a substance or solution that isnt chemical.

You make some good points - points that shouldn't be necessary, but in the spirit of debate, are winners. But in the end, as ridiculous as this tangent might be, we still have to thank Leon for allowing this thread to continue, because it has certainly yielded a lot of entertainment today.

Can anyone disagree with that?

[wonkaticket]

PSA doesn't like chemicals either. even if they can't detect them.

N-7 Evidence of Cleaning - When a whitener is used to whiten borders or a solution is used to remove wax, candy, gum or tobacco stains.

I agree they are not for it....unless Paragon submits a Plank on a $5 bulk submission. :D

[1880nonsports]

Scott,

I actually agree with his stance on water being the universal solvent. Having said that, I understand that water is delivered (or collected, plumbed, etc.) differently by people, depending where they are. This likely presents in a fashion most varied when discussing "tap" water.

It appears that you know more about chemistry than some of us. Please explain why the "chemical" water I drink when in Philadelphia is different than the distilled water I buy at the grocery store.

I truly do respect you (and always have) and sincerely want your opinion on this.

Best regards,

Eric

this is as far as I've gotten in the thread - but I wanted to suggest for your longevity that distilled water is not a source of water to sustain your life - as everything has been removed........

[Runscott]

this is as far as I've gotten in the thread - but I wanted to suggest for your longevity that distilled water is not a source of water to sustain your life - as everything has been removed........

I think he meant 'bottled water', but I'm just guessing.

(This thread has it all)

[dstudeba]

Scott,

I actually agree with his stance on water being the universal solvent. Having said that, I understand that water is delivered (or collected, plumbed, etc.) differently by people, depending where they are. This likely presents in a fashion most varied when discussing "tap" water.

It appears that you know more about chemistry than some of us. Please explain why the "chemical" water I drink when in Philadelphia is different than the distilled water I buy at the grocery store.



Water has the chemical formula H2O. What comes out of the tap has a variety of other molecules in it. Most common will be elements such a calcium and magnesium which stain your bathtub and sink fixtures. There are also a number of other chemicals that haven't been completely filtered out at the water plant. When water is distilled it is evaporated and condensed to remove other products which don't have the same boiling point. The distillation process and the number of distillations will determine how pure the water is.

Water is a chemical and a solvent like other solvents. They all behave differently. Water can be extremely dangerous and reactive in certain situations.

As I mentioned before, the process of soaking in water or soaking in Towle solution is detectable. It might be cost prohibitive for the grading companies to detect it, but it is detectable.

[dstudeba]

this is as far as I've gotten in the thread - but I wanted to suggest for your longevity that distilled water is not a source of water to sustain your life - as everything has been removed........

This is a joke right?

[Runscott]

As I mentioned before, the process of soaking in water or soaking in Towle solution is detectable. It might be cost prohibitive for the grading companies to detect it, but it is detectable.

The question is whether or not it matters. How detectable is water? How much does it change the item? Ask the same questions about Dick's chemicals. Drinking water is not going to kill you, but I'm guessing that drinking Dick's solution might make you a little sick. But maybe it's just like water - that's what some here would have us believe.

Common sense tells most of us that water is well, sort of safe. It washes stuff off, wood is basically made of water, and paper is made from wood, etc., etc. But let's not let common sense confuse the issue. After all, water is a chemical.

[Runscott]

This is a joke right?

No, it's a fact. Distilled water has most of the minerals removed, and we need minerals in order to survive. You can drink distilled water, but why would you pay more to drink water that is less healthy?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Water is a chemical. Bleach is a chemical. Therefore water is bleach. Or, at least, there is no difference between soaking a card in water and bleaching a card. QED.

[vintagetoppsguy]

FWIW, water is not really a chemical, it's an compound - a combination of two or more elements (hydrogen and oxygen).

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

FWIW, water is not really a chemical, it's an compound - a combination of two or more elements (hydrogen and oxygen).


Shit just got real!

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

I have said for a while that I believe a lot of high grade cards were soaked from albums. Who cares? In a perfect world this stuff should be disclosed, but it rarely is. To me, right or wrong, it is just a part of the hobby.

[wonkaticket]

Note to auction houses and sellers, feel free to clean up cards with solvents and chemicals no need to disclose to collectors as long as nobody can tell. Sell away...

But god help you if you get your chemistry notes wrong. :D

It's like a Breaking Bad episode up in here. :)

Cheers,

John

[Runscott]

Note to auction houses and sellers, feel free to clean up cards with solvents and chemicals no need to disclose to collectors as long as nobody can tell. Sell away...

But god help you if you get your chemistry notes wrong. :D

It's like a Breaking Bad episode up in here. :)

Cheers,

John

I learned a lot, and was reminded of a lot, in 'Breaking Bad'. Great great show.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

I learned a lot, and was reminded of a lot, in 'Breaking Bad'. Great great show.


One of the best ever!

[Runscott]

I have said for a while that I believe a lot of high grade cards were soaked from albums. Who cares? In a perfect world this stuff should be disclosed, but it rarely is. To me, right or wrong, it is just a part of the hobby.

Alex, I've noticed a couple of forum members stating this. I'm sure this is part of it, but I really think that most of the high-grade slabbed cards were simply larger cards that were trimmed. Soaking card from albums, from my experience, doesn't generally create a 'perfect' card. Most album cards do not have sharp corners, and when soaked, usually still have imperfections that occurred as a result of being glued to an album page.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Alex, I've noticed a couple of forum members stating this. I'm sure this is part of it, but I really think that most of the high-grade slabbed cards were simply larger cards that were trimmed. Soaking card from albums, from my experience, doesn't generally create a 'perfect' card. Most album cards do not have sharp corners, and when soaked, usually still have imperfections that occurred as a result of being glued to an album page.


That is entirely possible. However, I recently purchased an N28 that was removed from an album and the corners were pretty nice.

[wonkaticket]

Perhaps Dick and "gone with the stain" work under a shell company...

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/net54shared/image.jpg

[dstudeba]

No, it's a fact. Distilled water has most of the minerals removed, and we need minerals in order to survive. You can drink distilled water, but why would you pay more to drink water that is less healthy?

Sorry Scott, you are correct it is more healthy to drink water with minerals in it than without. I misinterpreted his post to mean that you couldn't drink distilled water.

[dstudeba]

FWIW, water is not really a chemical, it's an compound - a combination of two or more elements (hydrogen and oxygen).

If you are going to make statements like this please specify your definition of a chemical. If you type chemical into google the first entry is chemical substance on wikipedia which uses water as the first example. My guess is you are referring to chemical elements. Since the only elements which are liquid at room temperature and pressure are mercury and bromine, I don't think anyone was referring to soaking cards in a chemical element.

[ethicsprof]

fabas indulcet fames.

best,
barry

[1880nonsports]

try and save a guys life and what happens :-)

[Leon]

try and save a guys life and what happens :-)

It's a crazy world ain't it Henry?

[joeadcock]

Hey Barry

Lots opinions all over the place

[Jantz]

I know for a fact that one of these T206s below was attached in a scrapbook and took a bath in 2009.

For the record, I knew the T206 was removed from a scrapbook and who I was buying it from.

Anyone want to take a guess which T206 went for a swim?

Jantz

[smokelessjoe]

I can see that Wonka is hung up on Brite White Borders... Ok Wonka, lets say you have a card that already has Brite White Borders but also has a streak of something running horizontally across the card and unfortunately right across the players face - you cannot tell me for a fact that you know what soaking this card in water or anything else is going to do... Would you have a problem if using the water removed all the evidence of the stain? But do not forget this card has Brite White Borders before and after the soak - no change in that regard.

I see your stance (wonka) as a double standard - its convenient for you as water is something you have dealt with. This reminds of some arguments that my wife will often pose in that "I do not do it anywhere near as much as she does".

I think you are telling me as well, that you would be ok with Dick Towles process as long as the stain removal process he uses left some evidence of the stain? Is this correct?

John,
Nothing personal here - like I said earlier its an interesting subject to me.

[T206Collector]

I have said for a while that I believe a lot of high grade cards were soaked from albums. Who cares? In a perfect world this stuff should be disclosed, but it rarely is. To me, right or wrong, it is just a part of the hobby.

+1

[vintagetoppsguy]

If you are going to make statements like this please specify your definition of a chemical. If you type chemical into google the first entry is chemical substance on wikipedia which uses water as the first example. My guess is you are referring to chemical elements. Since the only elements which are liquid at room temperature and pressure are mercury and bromine, I don't think anyone was referring to soaking cards in a chemical element.

My definition of a chemical is a substance created by chemistry (changes in the composition of molecules). There are chemicals in water - some added intentionally (chlorine), some naturally (iron, calcium), some just seep into the water supply (pesticides), but water itself is not a chemical.

Soaking a card in water is no different than soaking a card in a chemical that doesn’t leave any evidence (something you can see, smell or feel). One may not like the idea of soaking cards and that’s certainly their right, but they can not argue the fact that the end result (a card free from any evdience of soaking) is still the same rather they like the idea or not.

[dstudeba]

My definition of a chemical is a substance created by chemistry (changes in the composition of molecules). There are chemicals in water - some added intentionally (chlorine), some naturally (iron, calcium), some just seep into the water supply (pesticides), but water itself is not a chemical.


So chlorine, iron, and calcium are created by chemistry? These chemicals are found in nature just as water is. If you are going to make up your own definitions at least make them consistent.

[Leon]

We could probably play semantics the rest of our lives but in the real world hobbyists don't consider water a chemical. It is especially true in this discussion. I have no issue with using water on a card. If I was asked I would tell, it not, probably not.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Hope this helps with the intense water-chemical convo.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080311200345AAlFaC0

[vintagetoppsguy]

So chlorine, iron, and calcium are created by chemistry? These chemicals are found in nature just as water is. If you are going to make up your own definitions at least make them consistent.

I know what I'm talking about. I hold a water license from the State of Texas. Those are my credentials. What are yours?

Do you want to keep talking and looking more foolish and do you want to shut up at this point since you really don't know what you're talking about? I would suggest the latter, but that is up to you.

[bn2cardz]

My definition of a chemical is a substance created by chemistry (changes in the composition of molecules). There are chemicals in water - some added intentionally (chlorine), some naturally (iron, calcium), some just seep into the water supply (pesticides), but water itself is not a chemical.

Water = Chemical compound (H2O)
Chlorine Chemical element (Cl)
Iron = Chemical element (Fe)
Calcium = Chemical element (Ca)

So it really sounds like you only consider a single element a chemical and not a compound?

A great site that plays with the semantics of Water being a chemical is http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html.

From the site
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

[Edward]

Is vitamin water okay?