Altered high grade E93s in Mile High?

[calvindog]

Gee, those high grade E93s sure look altered to me. Thoughts?

A sample: PSA 9 Cobb: http://www.milehighcardco.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=39084

PSA 9 Wagner: http://www.milehighcardco.com/1910_E93_Standard_Caramel_Honus_Wagner_PSA_9_MINT-lot39083.aspx

[RaidonCollects]

I'm not too sure, I'm no expert, keen too see everyone else's thoughts.

^ You might have to put you're full name under the post.

-Owen

[baztacula]

Gee, those high grade E93s sure look altered to me. Thoughts?

A sample: PSA 9 Cobb: http://www.milehighcardco.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=39084

PSA 9 Wagner: http://www.milehighcardco.com/1910_E93_Standard_Caramel_Honus_Wagner_PSA_9_MINT-lot39083.aspx

I don't know. That's why I like my vintage cards to look "vintage". When they are perfect, they look fake.

[calvindog]

I'm not too sure, I'm no expert, keen too see everyone else's thoughts.

^ You might have to put you're full name under the post.

Owen Randell :)

I'd rather not put my full name under my post.

[pokerplyr80]

I'm certainly not an expert, but other than looking too good to be true, what specifically makes you think these could be altered?

The bottom right corner of the Wagner does look a little off to me.

[calvindog]

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3873/19474230001_cf18fa7ef2_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/vESw7e)

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/384/18847829443_ea0a12dd1f_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/uHw43B)


https://c4.staticflickr.com/4/3898/19463596322_ec3de664d1_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/vDW25W)

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3718/19468438005_7ca0a38684_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/vEmQme)

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/514/19472752431_f3916f6c22_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/vEJWST)

[pencil1974]

I guess I'm not seeing it either. The pic of the Cobb 5 is not even close to the 9 they would have to rebuild that bottom right corner so I would say that one is out. The 6 seems close but it has a diagonal line going from the edge to Cobbs shoulder area plus looks to be a black print dot beside his hat that is not on the 9 either.

Now the Wagner looks really close on the front with what we call in the print industry as a "hickey". Seems to be in the same place on the card but that can happen as I've seen them pull sheets in a run that the hickey is in the same spot of the first 20 sheets and is either fixed or fills in on its own as the run keeps going. There are a few spots on the back of the Wagner that are not on the example of the 6 (could be that the image quality is too bad but you should see it).

So if I'm understanding the comparisons correctly they seem close but not exact. Just my opinion though.

[calvindog]

They're the same cards.

[111gecko]

Oh my.......

[glchen]

For what it's worth, the Wagner cert #50082111 and the Cobb cert #50082116 no longer exist in the PSA cert database, which usually means the card has been cracked out, and the cert returned to PSA. (The Cobb cert #20082114 still exists.)

[Peter_Spaeth]

The two non-9 Cobbs are only two cert numbers apart. Different cards same sub presumably.

[e107collector]

They're the same cards.

OMG!!!

The Wagner has a black printing dot by his right ear on both cards.

Tony

[scottglevy]

Wow Jeff,

The similarities in the Wagner cards are striking. There are other minor printing defects that match up perfectly on the two cards.

It's sad to say but this sort of thing sours me on the hobby so much :(

Best,
Scott

[ullmandds]

Wow Jeff,

The similarities in the Wagner cards are striking. There are other minor printing defects that match up perfectly on the two cards.

It's sad to say but this sort of thing sours me on the hobby so much :(

Best,
Scott

totally agree!

[Bored5000]

Not that I could ever afford a mint caramel or tobacco Hall of Famer, but threads like this make me appreciate my mostly fair to very good pre-war collection.

[autograf]

So do you have the smoking gun or are you going on circumstantial evidence counselor?

[calvindog]

So do you have the smoking gun or are you going on circumstantial evidence counselor?

Fair question but I'd rather not say. Not on Net 54 anyway.

[oldjudge]

Jeff--on the Cobb I can see the 6 turning into the 9. However, if you are saying the 5 became the 6, which became the 9, I can't see that. The 6 has a stain in the UL corner (viewer's UL) that is not on the 5. The Wagner I can absolutely see. Great work!
Can you say if this is the doing of a soon to be incarcerated offender, or a hopefully in the future incarcerated offender?

[autograf]

I can't see the 6 becoming the 9. The orange color shift down on the 6 leads me to believe the 5 became the 9. JMO.........................

[benchod]

My first thought when seeing the auction was that they had been given a " bath".
The orange background on the Cobb is washed out

[ullmandds]

are any of these from the former jim b collection?

[benchod]

No

[steve B]

I'm not sure about the Cobbs, I also think if one was turned into a 9 it was more likely the 5 than the 6 because of the registration.

The Wagners are a different story.
The fisheye behind his head makes the pair more suspect than I'd be comfortable with. Fisheyes are from debris on the offset blanket, and can be on only one card or several, probably fewer back then, potentially hundreds in the 70's probably fewer today.

But the odds of two cards with the same defect in the same spot surviving in really nice condition over a century from (I presume) different original sources? Outside of two finds like the black swamp group, that's pushing the envelope a bit too far.
Now if they were beaters...........Yeah, that stuff happens and two worn cards with the same flaw wouldn't be a surprise.

Steve Birmingham

[benchod]

The Matty is washed out also
Jim B's is much nicer

[Peter_Spaeth]

What a tangled web of sh&t this "hobby" is sometimes.

Quotes Jimi: "Now if 6 turned out to be 9
I don't mind, I don't mind."

Not a bad payday for taking out some stains.

[bbcemporium]

Tough to tell on the Cobb. It looks like the Wagner has been submitted a few times. These all have the black fisheye by the ear, but the red backgrounds appear to have subtle differences, which could just be due to scanner settings.

<a href="http://s408.photobucket.com/user/bbcemporium/media/wagner%208-5_zpsqc6yeq9r.jpeg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp164/bbcemporium/wagner%208-5_zpsqc6yeq9r.jpeg" border="0" alt=" photo wagner 8-5_zpsqc6yeq9r.jpeg"/></a>
<a href="http://s408.photobucket.com/user/bbcemporium/media/wagner%207-5_zpsae3kcxvu.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp164/bbcemporium/wagner%207-5_zpsae3kcxvu.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo wagner 7-5_zpsae3kcxvu.jpg"/></a>
<a href="http://s408.photobucket.com/user/bbcemporium/media/Wanger%209_zps2tkarwwy.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp164/bbcemporium/Wanger%209_zps2tkarwwy.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo Wanger 9_zps2tkarwwy.jpg"/></a>
<a href="http://s408.photobucket.com/user/bbcemporium/media/Wagner%206_zpsu6f7hwij.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp164/bbcemporium/Wagner%206_zpsu6f7hwij.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo Wagner 6_zpsu6f7hwij.jpg"/></a>

(edited to add the PSA 6 and PSA 9 scans for comparison)

[calvindog]

What a tangled web of sh&t this "hobby" is sometimes.

There's a higher percentage of convicted criminals in the baseball card auction house business than there is in the Mafia (not that I'm being critical of Mile High because all they did is accept the consignments). None of this should be a surprise.

[bbcemporium]

Jeff, besides soaking, are there other suspected alterations on the cards?

[benchod]

Well,
I think a big share of the blame falls on the TPG.
It's fairly obvious to the naked eye those cards all have the washed out look from being soaked in chemicals.
"Don't get cheated"







Craig Lipman

[atx840]

Wags is 99%

Cobbs are very very close, likely the same but really need a better scan.

http://i.imgur.com/auxnUBS.gif

[pokerplyr80]

It's certainly hard to argue with the evidence.

I've seen this question asked before on similar threads, but do you guys believe that PSA simply missed this or that they're in on it some how?

[ullmandds]

It's certainly hard to argue with the evidence.

I've seen this question asked before on similar threads, but do you guys believe that PSA simply missed this or that they're in on it some how?

personally I think they are not capable of detecting such alterations.

[Peter_Spaeth]

personally I think they are not capable of detecting such alterations.

It's hard to understand. They have some very experienced people, and you would hope that before giving NINES to very expensive cards, that are almost never seen in that grade, those people would be consulted and that these weren't just the decision of a novice or low level grader. On the other hand, the conspiracy version of the explanation isn't really credible either.

[ullmandds]

It's hard to understand. They have some very experienced people, and you would hope that before giving NINES to very expensive cards, that are almost never seen in that grade, those people would be consulted and that these weren't just the decision of a novice or low level grader. On the other hand, the conspiracy version of the explanation isn't really credible either.

i agree Peter...maybe they funnel such cards as these to the inexperienced graders so the likelihood of them passing muster is greater???

[Peter_Spaeth]

If these cards get pulled, and if PSA is called upon to reimburse the consignor, the bill could be hefty.

[pokerplyr80]

i agree Peter...maybe they funnel such cards as these to the inexperienced graders so the likelihood of them passing muster is greater???

I would assume that multiple people would have to review a card like this, given the highest grade it has ever received. I have called PSA to check the status of a submission and told it was waiting for someone else to review it. And this was a card only worth a few hundred bucks.

To let someone inexperienced encase a card with a grade that will instantly make it worth 30-50k, or more, would seem to undermine the credibility of the entire company.

[Peter_Spaeth]

i agree Peter...maybe they funnel such cards as these to the inexperienced graders so the likelihood of them passing muster is greater???

Look at the sub, well one of them anyhow. Not the type to get kicked down to the basement. I would not think. These aren't 80s commons.
PSA Certficiation Check




Cert Year Brand Player Variety Grade

15132902 1910 E93 STANDARD CARAMEL NAP LAJOIE NM-MT 8
15132903 1910 E93 STANDARD CARAMEL FRED CLARKE NM-MT+ 8.5
15132904 1910 E93 STANDARD CARAMEL FRANK CHANCE EX 5
15132905 1910 E93 STANDARD CARAMEL CLARK GRIFFITH NM-MT 8
15132906
15132907
15132908
15132909 1910 E93 STANDARD CARAMEL HONUS WAGNER NM+ 7.5
15132910 1910 E93 STANDARD CARAMEL TY COBB MINT 9
15132911 1910 E93 STANDARD CARAMEL CHRISTY MATHEWSON MINT 9
15132912 1911 M116 SPORTING LIFE JIMMY WALSH GOOD 2
15132913 1948 BOWMAN HERMAN WEHMEIER MINT 9
15132914 1948 BOWMAN JOE PAGE NM-MT+ 8.5
15132915 1948 BOWMAN FRANK SHEA GEM MT 10
15132916 1948 BOWMAN WARREN SPAHN NM 7
15132917
15132918 1948 BOWMAN RALPH KINER NM-MT 8
15132919 1948 BOWMAN NM-MT+ 8.5
15132920

[ullmandds]

im the wrong kind of doctor!

[ullmandds]

i'm just talking out loud here...trying to hypothesize what may have occurred.

If it were MY grading company you can be assured the best graders as well as myself would see these uber high grade rarities prior to grading them.

Since I don't own PSA...I cannot begin to guess how they handle their business...but from all of the errors I've seen them make...and other shenanigans...I have no idea what to make of this??

[x2drich2000]

Look at the sub, well one of them anyhow. Not the type to get kicked down to the basement. I would not think. These aren't 80s commons.
PSA Certficiation Check




Cert Year Brand Player Variety Grade

15132902 1910 E93 STANDARD CARAMEL NAP LAJOIE NM-MT 8
15132903 1910 E93 STANDARD CARAMEL FRED CLARKE NM-MT+ 8.5
15132904 1910 E93 STANDARD CARAMEL FRANK CHANCE EX 5
15132905 1910 E93 STANDARD CARAMEL CLARK GRIFFITH NM-MT 8
15132906
15132907
15132908
15132909 1910 E93 STANDARD CARAMEL HONUS WAGNER NM+ 7.5
15132910 1910 E93 STANDARD CARAMEL TY COBB MINT 9
15132911 1910 E93 STANDARD CARAMEL CHRISTY MATHEWSON MINT 9
15132912 1911 M116 SPORTING LIFE JIMMY WALSH GOOD 2
15132913 1948 BOWMAN HERMAN WEHMEIER MINT 9
15132914 1948 BOWMAN JOE PAGE NM-MT+ 8.5
15132915 1948 BOWMAN FRANK SHEA GEM MT 10
15132916 1948 BOWMAN WARREN SPAHN NM 7
15132917
15132918 1948 BOWMAN RALPH KINER NM-MT 8
15132919 1948 BOWMAN NM-MT+ 8.5
15132920

Out of curiosity, what is up with the randomly skipped Certs? Cards that got rejected for some reason?

DJ

[Peter_Spaeth]

i'm just talking out loud here...trying to hypothesize what may have occurred.

If it were MY grading company you can be assured the best graders as well as myself would see these uber high grade rarities prior to grading them.

Since I don't own PSA...I cannot begin to guess how they handle their business...but from all of the errors I've seen them make...and other shenanigans...I have no idea what to make of this??

None of the plausible explanations look good for them. One, their best graders missed it. Two, it was signed off on by lesser graders. Three, not sure what three is. We won't hear from them of course, so we will just have to speculate.

[calvindog]

Any question in anyone's mind that these cards aren't pulled from the auction?

[ullmandds]

Any question in anyone's mind that these cards aren't pulled from the auction?

i can't imagine why they'd be pulled?

[bbcemporium]

If these cards were only soaked in water (not a chemical), which alteration is PSA expected to find?

[calvindog]

If these cards were only soaked in water (not a chemical), which alteration is PSA expected to find?

The cards were not simply soaked in water.

[pencil1974]

No chance they are pulled unless there is more evidence than a few lo-res scans that look similar but not exact. I'm not saying you're right or wrong but it's tough to tell by what's provided (at least on the Cobb).

[pokerplyr80]

I don't think there's any chance of them being pulled from the auction.

[ls7plus]

Just weighing in. I think that the old adage likely applies: If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Regards,

Larry

[glchen]

Out of curiosity, what is up with the randomly skipped Certs? Cards that got rejected for some reason?

DJ

The randomly skipped cert #'s would either be cards that were rejected for some reason or cards that were graded, but later cracked out and the cert's sent back to PSA (e.g. to try for re-submission).

[Peter_Spaeth]

The randomly skipped cert #'s would either be cards that were rejected for some reason or cards that were graded, but later cracked out and the cert's sent back to PSA (e.g. to try for re-submission).

Why would someone trying to get a better grade send in the old cert.? In that case why not just submit for a bump?

[swarmee]

Either reason: sending to SGC and want an "unbiased" grade, or sending back to PSA but would rather crack out and try again then send back in for review.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Either reason: sending to SGC and want an "unbiased" grade, or sending back to PSA but would rather crack out and try again then send back in for review.

So why return the certs, especially in the second case where it just telegraphs that the card already has been graded whatever it was graded?

[4815162342]

So why return the certs, especially in the second case where it just telegraphs that the card already has been graded whatever it was graded?


To keep the population low. They could wait until after the cards are re-graded to return the certs.

[ergoism]

So why return the certs, especially in the second case where it just telegraphs that the card already has been graded whatever it was graded?

I think that a lot of people view it as proper etiquette to return the certs so that the population report remains closer to accurate. And for lower pop cards, as was stated above, it's important to not add unnecessary tallies to the pop report.

Edited to add: I don't think anyone is sending in the flip with the card to get regraded. You can send the flips back at any time and they'll know to adjust the pop report accordingly.

[sporteq]

When were the lower grades offered and what was the final hammer price on them? if anyone has that info, thanks.

[autograf]

I can't see the 'send in the flips' crowd out there. Explain how if this Cobb gets a 9 why anyone would want to send in a flip that was a 6 or an 8. I understand the 'keep the Pop report right' scenario, but isn't it to the high grade crowd's favor to have MORE lower graded cards in the Pop report--right or wrong--than to be sure it's 'right'. The more cards at a lower level, the more impact that saying '1 of 1' or '1 of 2' really gets. I can't believe many people send in flips after cracking and resubmitting.....

[ergoism]

Stain removal from cards seems like such a gray area. If you showed me a nice 52 Mantle at auction then showed me an earlier picture of the card that showed tape stains, I'd still have the same level of interest in the card. However, if I saw a picture of the card and saw that it was recolored, re-backed, or had corners or edges rebuilt, then I'd have a problem as it would then be someone else's creation.

If it was a chemical process that could lead to long term damage of the card, I'd be worried. But from what I understand, the process isn't harmful to cards. If someone wants to take the Mantle in this PWCC listing (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-Mickey-Mantle-311-PSA-1-5-FR-PWCC-/351440140119?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item51d376f757) and remove the stains then sell me the card a few grades higher, I truly wouldn't mind.

I understand everyone has their own opinions on this and some view it as taboo since there is no disclosure in most cases. I'm a big fan of 80s Fleer basketball cards. If I open a wax box and decide to grade a few stickers, before I sell do I need to let someone know that these cards came with wax stuck on them and I had to take it off with panty hose?

SCD did a very informative interview with stain remover Dick Towle that sheds some light on the process. It's worth a read: http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.com/features/nerattowle

[Peter_Spaeth]

So fading the colors is not harming the card?

[benchod]

Faded colors and a chemical smell that is distinctive

[Peter_Spaeth]

If water took out caramel stains, bleached Cracker Jacks would not be such an issue.

[DeanH3]

I read that article years ago but it's great to read it again. To me the biggest problem I have is the non disclosure. If it's not seen as an overall negative, then why don't these prominent dealers say upfront why has been done to their cards? Well we all know the answer to that....M-O-N-E-Y! I might still be ok with buying a card that has had something removed. I just want to know upfront and let me decide.

[bosoxphan]

Im surprised we havent had a restored classification in the hobby yet, much like what has happened with comic books

[Peter_Spaeth]

Im surprised we havent had a restored classification in the hobby yet, much like what has happened with comic books

We do -- "Authentic."

[ls7plus]

Im surprised we haven't had a restored classification in the hobby yet, much like what has happened with comic books

I think that eventually the TPG's will go to such a designation, rather than "altered." With cards which are truly rare and significant, I don't believe a restored card, with the matter disclosed and transparent, will be viewed very negatively (I am probably somewhat biased, as I have at least one potential candidate--a '29 Kashin R316 Mel Ott rookie, which is exceptionally well-centered for the card, but with the lower right corner missing and some damage to the lower right side of the card above that. Was consequently graded SGC poor, of course).

Best to all,

Larry

[ergoism]

We do -- "Authentic."

With comics, they grade the books with a numerical grade, the flip is a different color, and it is designated as restored. The restored versions obviously don't command the same prices as their natural counterparts but it adds another dimension to the hobby. I would imagine the card industry would benefit from it as well.

I'm not sure how it would apply to stain removal if it is indeed undetectable but an intriguing topic nonetheless.

[darwinbulldog]

The cards were not simply soaked in water.

And since when is water not a chemical?

[Peter_Spaeth]

With comics, they grade the books with a numerical grade, the flip is a different color, and it is designated as restored. The restored versions obviously don't command the same prices as their natural counterparts but it adds another dimension to the hobby. I would imagine the card industry would benefit from it as well.

I'm not sure how it would apply to stain removal if it is indeed undetectable but an intriguing topic nonetheless.

As long as card doctors can make tons of money by getting altered cards into holders without disclosure, I don't see much hope for a restored segment.

[ullmandds]

And since when is water not a chemical?

i think water would be a compound...no?

as well as a molecule apparently.

[Peter_Spaeth]

And since when is water not a chemical?

We had an extensive discussion of this years ago, perhaps someone with better search skills can find it.

[GasHouseGang]

We had an extensive discussion of this years ago, perhaps someone with better search skills can find it.

If you go to this link it has an extensive discussion on the topic.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=185334

[Peter_Spaeth]

By this definition, no.

noun

noun: chemical; plural noun: chemicals; noun: chem.



1.


a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially.

[GasHouseGang]

According to a chemistry website I looked at:

Chemical Definition: Everything which has mass is a chemical. Anything consisting of matter is a chemical. Any liquid, solid, gas. Any pure substance; any mixture.

Examples: water, pencil, air, carpet, lightbulb, copper, bubbles, baking soda

[Peter_Spaeth]

According to a chemistry website I looked at:

Chemical Definition: Everything which has mass is a chemical. Anything consisting of matter is a chemical. Any liquid, solid, gas. Any pure substance; any mixture.

Examples: water, pencil, air, carpet, lightbulb, copper, bubbles, baking soda

Reductio absurdum, or something like that.

[GasHouseGang]

I really don't want to argue what is or isn't a chemical, I was just having some fun. I think what most people really mean to say when they argue against the use of chemicals, is that they don't want any man-made solvents used on their cards. Some would take it even further, and say they don't want a card they are buying to be soaked in water either.

[RGold]

Reductio absurdum, or something like that.

reductio ad absurdum :D:D:D

Carry on. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Peter_Spaeth]

reductio ad absurdum :D:D:D

Carry on. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Ad damnum you.:D

[DICKTOWLE]

stain removal from cards seems like such a gray area. If you showed me a nice 52 mantle at auction then showed me an earlier picture of the card that showed tape stains, i'd still have the same level of interest in the card. However, if i saw a picture of the card and saw that it was recolored, re-backed, or had corners or edges rebuilt, then i'd have a problem as it would then be someone else's creation.

If it was a chemical process that could lead to long term damage of the card, i'd be worried. But from what i understand, the process isn't harmful to cards. If someone wants to take the mantle in this pwcc listing (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-topps-mickey-mantle-311-psa-1-5-fr-pwcc-/351440140119?pt=lh_defaultdomain_0&hash=item51d376f757) and remove the stains then sell me the card a few grades higher, i truly wouldn't mind.

I understand everyone has their own opinions on this and some view it as taboo since there is no disclosure in most cases. I'm a big fan of 80s fleer basketball cards. If i open a wax box and decide to grade a few stickers, before i sell do i need to let someone know that these cards came with wax stuck on them and i had to take it off with panty hose?

Scd did a very informative interview with stain remover dick towle that sheds some light on the process. It's worth a read: http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.com/features/nerattowle

for 22 years many people are pleased with all the work that was done to cards. There are some people that drive around cars with dents and say the car is great, there are people that get the dent out.this is a choice people have like cards- if a water stain can be removed and the card is a 5 before and now gets 8 well--again gonewiththestain.com says it all. Our family enjoys the work and the great people who i work for. Thank you a god bless

[MetsBaseball1973]

No expert but just taking a hard look at the pictures provided. That Wagner 6 does not have the same top border width as the Wagner 9, to my eye. The top border widths look different. It's also worth noting that multiple cards can have the same print dot.

Also, there is a small black dot to the left of the 9 Cobb's head that is not present on the 6 pictured.

Doubtless stain removal happens and gives cards a telltale washed-out look, but it doesn't look to my eyes at least like the cards pictured here are the same, given the Wagner border width and the PD in the Cobb being only on the 9.

[Peter_Spaeth]

for 22 years many people are pleased with all the work that was done to cards. There are some people that drive around cars with dents and say the car is great, there are people that get the dent out.this is a choice people have like cards- if a water stain can be removed and the card is a 5 before and now gets 8 well--again gonewiththestain.com says it all. Our family enjoys the work and the great people who i work for. Thank you a god bless

I would be pleased too, if altering a card with solvents and whatever else you do enabled me to get it past a grading service and make a nice profit when I sell it without disclosure. Do you think by chance any of your clients are doing that, Dick?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ah yes I just remembered Dick has acknowledged that one of his "services" is wrinkle removal. Lovely.

#13 Report Post Old 03-24-2014, 05:17 PM
DICKTOWLE DICKTOWLE is offline
member Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 94

Default Gone with the stain

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[vintagetoppsguy]

I don't have a problem with Dick's service as long as there are no long term effects and that it can't be detected in any way by myself or any other card expert (i.e. TPGs).

I disagree that stain removal is 'altering' a card. If I spill wine on my carpet and hire a professional cleaning service to remove the stain, is that altering the carpet, or is it removing something that shouldn't have been there in the first place?

I know my opinion may be in the minority, but so be it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So if you're REALLY good at card doctoring and it can't be detected, at least in the cursory review TPGs give, that isn't card doctoring. Oh that's great David. Very cogent. Whatever.

And your carpet example is completely irrelevant and you know it.

[vintagetoppsguy]

So if you're REALLY good at card doctoring and it can't be detected, at least in the cursory review TPGs give, hat isn't card doctoring. Oh that's great David. Very cogent. Whatever.

And your carpet example is completely irrelevant and you know it.

I disagree that soaking a card to remove a stain is 'doctoring'. There is another thread on the main page about scrap book soaking. Do you consider that 'doctoring' too?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I disagree that soaking a card to remove a stain is 'doctoring'. There is another thread on the main page about scrap book soaking. Do you consider that 'doctoring' too?

Soaking something out of a scrapbook with water is fine with me. Getting out stains with solvents or taking out wrinkles is not.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Soaking something out of a scrapbook with water is fine with me. Getting out stains with solvents or taking out wrinkles is not.

In the scrapbook thread, he soaked the cards in more than water. He used Bestine (a solvent). Unfortunately, it didn't work for him as you can see by the results. But, if it had worked for him, would you be as vocal in that thread?

[Peter_Spaeth]

In the scrapbook thread, he soaked the cards in more than water. He used Bestine (a solvent). Unfortunately, it didn't work for him as you can see by the results. But, if it had worked for him, would you be as vocal in that thread?

It depends on what he did with the cards. If he sold them without disclosure, perhaps. If he kept them for his collection, no.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Soaking something out of a scrapbook with water is fine with me. Getting out stains with solvents or taking out wrinkles is not.

Isn't water a solvent?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Isn't water a solvent?

Not as I think of the term, no. Not a chemical solvent, anyhow. I believe it is generally accepted that water does not affect the integrity of the surface. I don't believe that is the case for chemical solvents. And I am virtually certain that if you told a TPG that you had used a chemical solvent, that would be considered an unacceptable alteration.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Not as I think of the term, no. Not a chemical solvent, anyhow.

I guess I just don't see the difference. If I have a card with a stain and I soak it to remove the stain, what difference does it make what I used (water or chemical solvent), as long as no one can tell and there are no long term effects? Whether it was water or a chemical solvent, isn't the result still the same? So, what does it matter what was used?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I guess I just don't see the difference. If I have a card with a stain and I soak it to remove the stain, what difference does it make what I used (water or chemical solvent), as long as no one can tell and there are no long term effects? Whether it was water or a chemical solvent, isn't the result still the same? So, what does it matter what was used?

So why do the TPGs say you can't do it? Probably because it is not established that the solvents don't do damage. Indeed look at the faded colors on the E93s.

[Peter_Spaeth]

By your logic it's OK to take out a major crease if you can't tell. I guess I just don't feel the same way. And neither do the TPGs. It's deception, and someone who does it for clients who then submit the cards without disclosure is enabling fraud.

PS I bet if you used sophisticated enough equipment you could tell that solvents had been used.

[vintagetoppsguy]

So why do the TPGs say you can't do it? Probably because it is not established that the solvents don't do damage. Indeed look at the faded colors on the E93s.

Which TPG's say you can't do it? That is a common misconception. They don't say you can't do it, they say there can be no evidence of it. Quite a difference.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Which TPG's say you can't do it? That is a common misconception. They don't say you can't do it, they say there can be no evidence of it. Quite a difference.

I completely disagree with the conclusion you draw from that wording. Do you REALLY think a TPG's position is that it blesses really good card doctoring? IMO there is no way Dave Forman or Joe Orlando would say that.

[vintagetoppsguy]

By your logic it's OK to take out a major crease if you can't tell.

Quite different. Removing a crease is altering the paper stock of the card. If removing a stain doesn't effect the card in any way, then the paper stock has not been altered.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Quite different. Removing a crease is altering the paper stock of the card. If removing a stain doesn't effect the card in any way, then the paper stock has not been altered.

And your evidence that solvents don't is.......

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't read this as saying it's inappropriate only if PSA can detect it and otherwise it is OK. I don't think anybody could, reasonably.

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.

[DICKTOWLE]

To All, All of my work comes with an invoice and full disclosure on every card that is done- All detail is there to see what was done on the card. When the cards leave my home back to clients, what they do is there business, not mine.

I hope this answer's any question about my work and the integrity behind our family business.

:D

[Peter_Spaeth]

To All, All of my work comes with an invoice and full disclosure on every card that is done- All detail is there to see what was done on the card. When the cards leave my home back to clients, what they do is there business, not mine.

I hope this answer's any question about my work and the integrity behind our family business.

:D

I completely disagree that that lets you off the hook, Dick. You know exactly what your clients are doing (or some of them), and that makes you an enabler, in my opinion. Unless you are going to tell us that dealers don't use your services and it's only collectors. By the TPGs' standards you are making unacceptable alterations to cards, and you well know your services are sought in order to profit from deception.

PS those invoices would certainly make interesting reading.

[1880nonsports]

as a solution would you suggest suppressing DT's right to perform such an activity and an individuals right to have something like a stain removed from a card or do you have another idea? Where does the actual responsibility lie and where is the line drawn?

[DICKTOWLE]

I completely disagree that that lets you off the hook, Dick. You know exactly what your clients are doing (or some of them), and that makes you an enabler, in my opinion. Unless you are going to tell us that dealers don't use your services and it's only collectors. By the TPGs' standards you are making unacceptable alterations to cards, and you well know your services are sought in order to profit from deception.

PS those invoices would certainly make interesting reading.

PETER, SEND ME A CARD TO WORK AND I WILL SEND YOU A INVOICE OF MY WORK--- :confused:

[ullmandds]

"By the TPGs' standards you are making unacceptable alterations to cards."

How can such practices be unacceptable to the TPG'ers if they can't even tell if they were done?

[Peter_Spaeth]

PETER, SEND ME A CARD TO WORK AND I WILL SEND YOU A INVOICE OF MY WORK--- :confused:

No thanks Dick. I don't believe in altering cards, in case you missed that. But feel free to send me, or law enforcement, your other invoices.

[Peter_Spaeth]

"By the TPGs' standards you are making unacceptable alterations to cards."

How can such practices be unacceptable to the TPG'ers if they can't even tell if they were done?

Pete that is just not worthy of you. The practices are unacceptable, period, in the eyes of the TPGs. They say so, right in their standards. That there are people good enough to DECEIVE the TPGs -- who by the way don't have crime labs -- is a completely different point, and shows only that there are fraudsters out there.

By your logic, Pete, it's OK to rob a bank if you get away with it. Think about it.

[steve B]

I hate to disagree with anyone who can quote Hendrix while discussing altered cards. But.................

Water is a solvent. Many things are described as "water soluble" or "oil soluble" And that difference is what the process that produced the cards is based on.

I think there's room for both some restoration with disclosure and an approach of no restoration. Fortunately or not - for me the difference between a 6 and 9 on most prewar cards isn't an everyday issue. I can't afford either. But if I could, I'd want to know about alterations/cleaning/etc that had been done.

If a TPG wanted to they could probably detect most oil based solvents or cleaning done with water plus other substances. They could also probably detect cleaning done with water.
But that would take time, and their entire business model is reversed so that the cards that should get a very close look are less likely to get that. A common from many sets could lay around for a while before it gets looked at, but the expensive stuff gets in and out in a day or two, maybe less.

Yes, most dealers probably need to get their cards back quickly so they can be resold. And that need drives the TPGs. It also allows a lot of space for "inappropriate shenanigans" since the TPGs don't have the time for a proper examination. As such they're probably bigger enablers than nearly anyone.


Whether stain removal or cleaning or any other alteration/restoration is acceptable is a topic that won't be an easy one for the hobby to deal with until the TPGs can take the time to pick that stuff up. I don't really have a problem with it other than the issue I think Peter points out, that being the deception and the money involved in that deception. Many stains will or can do damage long term, and probably should be removed. Not mentioning the removal is wrong in any number of ways.

Steve Birmingham

PS - Rewriting that song to make it about the hobby would be pretty interesting.
"If that scrapbook all came free....let it be
If the doctors cut of any border that'd be out of order"

Nah, not quite good enough.

[vintagetoppsguy]

The practices are unacceptable, period, in the eyes of the TPGs.

No they're not. They say no "Evidence" of it. Again, there is a difference.

By your logic, Pete, it's OK to rob a bank if you get away with it. Think about it.

If there is no evidence that you robbed the bank, how can you be convicted?

[Peter_Spaeth]

No they're not. They say no "Evidence" of it. Again, there is a difference.



If there is no evidence that you robbed the bank, how can you be convicted?

That is lame beyond belief. So you think they are saying, it's unacceptable to alter a card only if you leave evidence that it was altered? That is one of the most absurd things I ever have read. No, David, they are saying the practice is unacceptable. Now they might screw up and miss the evidence, or they might not have equipment sophisticated enough to detect the evidence, but that sure as hell does not mean really good alteration is acceptable.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Lemme put it another way for you. They will reject a card when there is EVIDENCE of alteration. That does not mean it is ACCEPTABLE to alter a card in such a way that they might miss the evidence, or be unable to detect it due to technical limitations or lack of resources.

[bnorth]

Would it be ethical to sell this 1958 Blue Front Hank Aaron #30 Topps card knowing it is altered if PSA or SGC would give it a # grade? It is a only known version. It has the blue background, Missing yellow in Milwaukee Braves, but has perfect yellow in the Braves logo. It is an amazing card. If your answer is yes PM me with outrageous offer.;):D:eek:

[calvindog]

This is like watching Godzilla vs. Mothra -- in the battle of cunning linguists. First guy to pass out cold from splitting hairs loses.

[4815162342]

SGC only uses the word "evidence" for trimmed cards, not for Altered, Bleached, Color Added, Power Erased, Pressed, Rebuilt, or Resurfaced.

http://sgccard.com/GradingScale.aspx

196807

[vintagetoppsguy]

That is lame beyond belief. So you think they are saying, it's unacceptable to alter a card only if you leave evidence that it was altered? That is one of the most absurd things I ever have read. No, David, they are saying the practice is unacceptable. Now they might screw up and miss the evidence, or they might not have equipment sophisticated enough to detect the evidence, but that sure as hell does not mean really good alteration is acceptable.

Do you really think if I have a card with wax residue on the front and I clean it with a solution that can't be detected and doesn't alter the stock in any way, that PSA really gives a crap???

[Peter_Spaeth]

Until they change their public standards, David, I will take them at face value.

[benjulmag]

The logical extension of the argument that it is okay to alter cards if the alteration is undetectable is that it would also be okay to CREATE a card if the creation is undetectable. So if hypothetically the original printing plate of the T206 Wagner is someday found, and if I can find period paper and period dyes that forensically test and look identical how a "real" Wagner would test and look, it is okay that I just created a $3 million plus card?

So let's say this happens and it gets slabbed a 9. The overjoyed buyer, having no knowledge of what happened (because after all I am the only person who knows what went on), would be totally cool if I should later divulge what happened? Don't you think anyone in that position would be outraged, feeling he/she had been defrauded and that such a thing should not be allowed to take place in the hobby?

[vintagetoppsguy]

The logical extension of the argument that it is okay to alter cards...

I didn't quote your enitre post because we can stop right there. That is where we disagree. To me, soaking a card is not altering it. If you think it is, you need to go look up the word alter in the dictionary. After that, if you still think soaking a card is a form of alteration, then we'll just have to disagree.

[Peter_Spaeth]

David, do you disagree with Steve B. that even soaking in water is detectable (as I understood him) if one looks hard enough with good enough equipment?

[benjulmag]

I didn't quote your enitre post because we can stop right there. That is where we disagree. To me, soaking a card is not altering it. If you think it is, you need to go look up the word alter in the dictionary. After that, if you still think soaking a card is a form of alteration, then we'll just have to disagree.

Do you remove creases/wrinkles, yes or no?

Do you remove stains with chemical solvents that change the physical composition of the card compared to when first issued, yes or no?

If the answer to either of these questions is yes, IMO you are altering a card. And if the hobby feels it is okay to sell such "altered" cards without disclosure, knowing it will not be detected by TPG, then we can assume the practice will become widespread. The end result will be a substantial increase in the pop reports of higher-graded cards, resulting in a significant price reduction.

[Peter_Spaeth]

as a solution would you suggest suppressing DT's right to perform such an activity and an individuals right to have something like a stain removed from a card or do you have another idea? Where does the actual responsibility lie and where is the line drawn?

So Henry here is the problem. Let's suppose I send Dick a card, or work it myself, with the intent of simply improving its appearance and keeping it in my collection. And let's suppose hypothetically that if submitted, or viewed by the average buyer raw, the work done while generally viewed as an alteration would not be detected. Now eventually, that card, unless I burn it, is going to get into the marketplace. And be graded. So thus, even in this circumstance, I have created the potential for a deceptive transaction to occur. So if pushed I would take an absolute position that it is not proper, ever, to alter a card. Now yes, someone could make a slippery slope argument back, but one can almost always do that with an absolute position. if there is some other better place to draw the line, I don't know what it is right now.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Do you remove creases/wrinkles, yes or no?

No. I consider that an alteration.

Do you remove stains with chemical solvents that change the physical composition of the card compared to when first issued, yes or no?

No. I don't belive I've ever soaked a card in anything other than water. However, I am not opposed to soaking cards in chemicals if they do not change the composition of the card - the look (washed out colors), the feel, the smell, etc. If anything changes the look, feel or smell of the card, then that is an alteration in my opinion.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So which chemicals, in your opinion, do not change anything about a card?

[vintagetoppsguy]

So which chemicals, in your opinion, do not change anything about a card?

Peter, I don't know enough about checmicals to answer that.

But if there is a chemical(s) that can remove a stain and NEVER be detected, I don't have any problem with it - again as long as it doesn't change the look, feel or smell of the card.

And your analogy above is silly. You can't be responsible 'creating the potential for a deceptive transaction to occur' when you can't control what happens after the sale.

That's like saying wax vendors shouldn't sell wax packs/boxes because somewhere down the road those packs could possibly be opened, searched and resealed.

[bnorth]

Peter, I don't know enough about checmicals to answer that.

But if there is a chemical(s) that can remove a stain and NEVER be detected, I don't have any problem with it - again as long as it doesn't change the look, feel or smell of the card.

And your analogy above is silly. You can't be responsible 'creating the potential for a deceptive transaction to occur' when you can't control what happens after the sale.

That's like saying wax vendors shouldn't sell wax packs/boxes because somewhere down the road those packs could possibly be opened, searched and resealed.

Lol, How can anything clean it without changing the look? The 58 Aaron card I pictured has no chemical residue would it be ok to sell if graded?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Peter, I don't know enough about checmicals to answer that.

But if there is a chemical(s) that can remove a stain and NEVER be detected, I don't have any problem with it - again as long as it doesn't change the look, feel or smell of the card.

And your analogy above is silly. You can't be responsible 'creating the potential for a deceptive transaction to occur' when you can't control what happens after the sale.

That's like saying wax vendors shouldn't sell wax packs/boxes because somewhere down the road those packs could possibly be opened, searched and resealed.

So David at the end of all this back and forth we pretty much are where we started, with me saying I thought water soaking was OK, and you now saying water soaking is the only thing you know of that is OK. What did we just have a two hour debate for?:confused::confused:

[Peter_Spaeth]

Peter, I don't know enough about checmicals to answer that.

But if there is a chemical(s) that can remove a stain and NEVER be detected, I don't have any problem with it - again as long as it doesn't change the look, feel or smell of the card.

And your analogy above is silly. You can't be responsible 'creating the potential for a deceptive transaction to occur' when you can't control what happens after the sale.

That's like saying wax vendors shouldn't sell wax packs/boxes because somewhere down the road those packs could possibly be opened, searched and resealed.

I don't buy that analogy at all. By your logic I could without any ethical issue sell a gun to Jesse Holmes or Adam Lanza strongly suspecting what his plans were, because I have no control over it. Or maybe you believe that I could?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Lol, How can anything clean it without changing the look? The 58 Aaron card I pictured has no chemical residue would it be ok to sell if graded?

When I say clean it w/o changing the look, I am referring to fading the colors, removing original gloss, etc.

As far as the Aaron, I'm not even sure why that is part of the discussion. You sun bleached that, right?

[vintagetoppsguy]

I don't buy that analogy at all. By your logic I could without any ethical issue sell a gun to Jesse Holmes or Adam Lanza strongly suspecting what his plans were, because I have no control over it. Or maybe you believe that I could?

I'm talking about selling something in 'good faith'. Huge difference.

[GregMitch34]

What if you take a card that is a little dark and murky and simply put it in the sun a bit and it lightens and clears in a very pleasing way--is that okay because it's organic?

[vintagetoppsguy]

So David at the end of all this back and forth we pretty much are where we started, with me saying I thought water soaking was OK, and you now saying water soaking is the only thing you know of that is OK. What did we just have a two hour debate for?:confused::confused:

No, Peter, that's not what I'm saying. I don't care if DT uses Raid Bug Spray to remove the stains or any other checmical as long as it has no lasting effects, can't be detected and doesn't change the look, feel or smell of the card.

[barrysloate]

Let's make one thing perfectly clear: 99+ % of the people who use the services of someone like Mr. Towle do so for one reason and one reason only- to resubmit the card to TPG in order to get a higher than merited grade. And this in turn makes them lots of money. Which leads me to what I always say about TPG's- that they mint money. It's like having a printing press and making hundred dollar bills with it. TPG's have too much power, period.

Second, it is in the interests of all businesses to have satisfied customers. And one way to do that is to make sure customers are happy with the grades they are getting. As a result, there is a distressing number of high grade cards in holders that have been altered, cleaned, or processed in some way. This is a very bad sign for the future of the hobby.

[bnorth]

When I say clean it w/o changing the look, I am referring to fading the colors, removing original gloss, etc.

As far as the Aaron, I'm not even sure why that is part of the discussion. You sun bleached that, right?

Ok, understand your meaning of changing the looks.

The Aaron is altered and it is undetectable by the grading companies. So it fits the description of what you and Peter are talking about. No it was not faded in the sun.

[CMIZ5290]

Let's make one thing perfectly clear: 99+ % of the people who use the services of someone like Mr. Towle do so for one reason and one reason only- to resubmit the card to TPG in order to get a higher than merited grade. And this in turn makes them lots of money. Which leads me to what I always say about TPG's- that they mint money. It's like having a printing press and making hundred dollar bills with it. TPG's have too much power, period.

Second, it is in the interests of all businesses to have satisfied customers. And one way to do that is to make sure customers are happy with the grades they are getting. As a result, there is a distressing number of high grade cards in holders that have been altered, cleaned, or processed in some way. This is a very bad sign for the future of the hobby.
+1, agree with Barry. I have always been confused about "soaking cards". Doesnt that compromise the structure of the card? To me, it would take huge balls to do this in the first place...

[Peter_Spaeth]

No, Peter, that's not what I'm saying. I don't care if DT uses Raid Bug Spray to remove the stains or any other checmical as long as it has no lasting effects, can't be detected and doesn't change the look, feel or smell of the card.

David it's a meaningless hypothetical, because other than water (and Steve B disagrees here) you cannot name one chemical that fits that category. So what is the point?

[vintagetoppsguy]

David it's a meaningless hypothetical, because other than water (and Steve B disagrees here) you cannot name one chemical that fits that category. So what is the point?

Dick Towell's chemical. How about that?

[Stonepony]

Where that line is drawn is certainly up to the individual. Depending on the collector, "altering" is somewhere on the spectrum between removing a stray toast crumb and manipulation of the card stock itself. I doubt many of us stand on the exact grey line , and while I see the wisdom in the various opinions, I don't see onevthat I'm complete agreement with. I just know we need slot more honesty in the hobby.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Dick Towell's chemical. How about that?

They might get past some graders at some times, but I seriously doubt they meet your criteria. Just look at the washed out cards that started this thread. Stuff gets by them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

+1, agree with Barry. I have always been confused about "soaking cards". Doesnt that compromise the structure of the card? To me, it would take huge balls to do this in the first place...

I will defer to Steve B. here, but certainly I had thought there was close to a consensus that just soaking in water doesn't compromise the card in any meaningful way.

[CMIZ5290]

Thanks Peter, this is just a very confusing task to understand. If you have a high profile T206 graded psa 5 with some stains, what exactly is the process? thanks...Kevin

[Stonepony]

I will defer to Steve B. here, but certainly I had thought there was close to a consensus that just soaking in water doesn't compromise the card in any meaningful way.

Of course it alters the integrity of the card stock. That's why all recommendations for soaking include pressing the soaked cards under a huge stack of books as part of the process. This removes the warping and wrinkles.... which sounds like "altering" under some people definition

[CMIZ5290]

Of course it alters the integrity of the card stock. That's why all recommendations for soaking include pressing the soaked cards under a huge stack of books as part of the process. This removes the warping and wrinkles.... which sounds like "altering" under some people definition

Yea....this takes bigger balls than I have...

[1880nonsports]

without accepting the practice of soaking them in water (what I'm comfortable with in terms of application and what I believe the majority accepts at least up to this point) likely more than 75% of the cards in the marketplace would have to be entombed adhered to tobacco album pages (and scrapbooks) and would result in a defacto inability to see anything on their backs. The percentage obviously smaller in most T sets but that's a lot of cards!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Thanks Peter, this is just a very confusing task to understand. If you have a high profile T206 graded psa 5 with some stains, what exactly is the process? thanks...Kevin

Search me. Maybe Dick can help you.

[CMIZ5290]

Search me. Maybe Dick can help you.

I did not mean that Peter, I was simply asking what the process was for someone doing this....This is all new to me, even with 25 years in the hobby....I simply don't know...

[Peter_Spaeth]

I did not mean that Peter, I was simply asking what the process was for someone doing this....This is all new to me, even with 25 years in the hobby....I simply don't know...

Kevin I was just being sarcastic. I really don't know how it's done, but there are a lot of soakers on the Board who likely can explain.

[bnorth]

Thanks Peter, this is just a very confusing task to understand. If you have a high profile T206 graded psa 5 with some stains, what exactly is the process? thanks...Kevin

I highly doubt any card doctor will come on here and give you directions on how exactly to alter your card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I highly doubt any card doctor will come on here and give you directions on how exactly to alter your card.

One just came on the board today and defended the integrity of his family business, so ya never know. But seriously I think a lot of guys soak and feel it's OK so they might well explain how they go about it.

[bnorth]

One just came on the board today and defended the integrity of his family business, so ya never know. But seriously I think a lot of guys soak and feel it's OK so they might well explain how they go about it.

There are several threads already that explain in detail how to soak a card. I doubt DT is going to be giving away his family secrets on altering cards any time soon.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Let's make one thing perfectly clear: 99+ % of the people who use the services of someone like Mr. Towle do so for one reason and one reason only- to resubmit the card to TPG in order to get a higher than merited grade.

That's silly! There have been gum and wax removing solutions long before TPGs even came into existence. What was the motivation before the TPGs?

TPGs could all go out of business tomorrow and I highly doubt Dick's business would skip a beat.

[ullmandds]

Let's make one thing perfectly clear: 99+ % of the people who use the services of someone like Mr. Towle do so for one reason and one reason only- to resubmit the card to TPG in order to get a higher than merited grade. And this in turn makes them lots of money. Which leads me to what I always say about TPG's- that they mint money. It's like having a printing press and making hundred dollar bills with it. TPG's have too much power, period.

Second, it is in the interests of all businesses to have satisfied customers. And one way to do that is to make sure customers are happy with the grades they are getting. As a result, there is a distressing number of high grade cards in holders that have been altered, cleaned, or processed in some way. This is a very bad sign for the future of the hobby.

Exactly what Barry said.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I would bet if Dick supplied his client list it would confirm what Barry said.

And if there were no TPGs the motivation would be the same -- to get more money for altered cards.

[barrysloate]

Gum and wax removal is minimal David. I'm talking about any process that will add grading points to a card. That's a whole different thing. There are people who build corners, who glue the fronts and backs of two different cards together and then submit them and get high numerical grades. Some of these alterations are caught by the graders, but many of them are missed too. That would concern me greatly if I were buying expensive high grade cards ( I don't).

[ejharrington]

Getting back to the original post, the poster claims he has information that he does not want to share. I see no conclusive evidence. Who's to say this guy doesn't want to buy the card himself and is just trying to dampen bidding? I wonder if he can be sued by the consignor if the bidding suddenly dries up?

[ctownboy]

ejharrington,

I believe the person who started this thread is an attorney. I also believe, if what he says is true, that he would WELCOME a lawsuit. That way, the person or people who own the cards that he is saying have been doctored will have to prove they haven't been doctored.

David

[ejharrington]

I'm not a lawyer but I think the poster has to prove the cards are doctored...not the other way around. I don't know how the owner would prove a negative.

[calvindog]

Getting back to the original post, the poster won't give his name but claims he has information that he does not want to share. I see no conclusive evidence. Who's to say this guy doesn't want to buy the card himself and is just trying to dampen bidding? I wonder if he can be sued by the consignor if the bidding suddenly dries up?

I refuse to give my name. And how on earth did you figure out my true motive? You damn pesky kids!

[ejharrington]

I didn't claim any motives; I just asked the questions.

[Rob D.]

I refuse to give my name. And how on earth did you figure out my true motive? You damn pesky kids!

I know you ... you're J3ff L!(h+m@n.

[Sean]

Getting back to the original post, the poster won't give his name but claims he has information that he does not want to share. I see no conclusive evidence. Who's to say this guy doesn't want to buy the card himself and is just trying to dampen bidding? I wonder if he can be sued by the consignor if the bidding suddenly dries up?

I must say Jeff, you took that a lot more calmly than I would have.

And how do people keep missing your name in your posts?

[benchod]

I must say Jeff, you took that a lot more calmly than I would have.

And how do people keep missing your name in your posts?

Kid gloves

[Peter_Spaeth]

Getting back to the original post, the poster won't give his name but claims he has information that he does not want to share. I see no conclusive evidence. Who's to say this guy doesn't want to buy the card himself and is just trying to dampen bidding? I wonder if he can be sued by the consignor if the bidding suddenly dries up?

The old Hal Lewis playbook.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I love when nonlawyers make pronouncements about the law. Is our resident class action expert Kevin Quinn still out there?

[Kenny Cole]

As a Plaintiff lawyer, I think it would be awesome if in a civil case the defendant had the burden of persuasion to disprove the plaintiff's allegations. That would make my job exponentially easier. On the criminal side, those pesky constitutional considerations cause me to grudgingly say that I guess the status quo should be maintained and that the prosecution has to still be able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[benjulmag]

............No. I don't belive I've ever soaked a card in anything other than water. However, I am not opposed to soaking cards in chemicals if they do not change the composition of the card - the look (washed out colors), the feel, the smell, etc. If anything changes the look, feel or smell of the card, then that is an alteration in my opinion.

Putting aside the question whether a chemical that does not change the look, feel or smell is an alteration, it none of those things are taking place, then why on earth is someone willing to pay somebody to apply to apply such a chemical?

[ejharrington]

No one has addressed my original questions. I've seem enough scumbaggery within this hobby to not put it above somebody to drive down bidding with unfounded allegations. I have no dog in the fight and don't know anyone in the hobby. I find the timing of the post interesting; the auction has been open for weeks and the post occurs two days before it is due to end. Why wait if you have evidence or inside information? People have bid been tens of thousands of dollars on the cards that they may have not have bid on if this allegation was made earlier. Why does the title of the post have a ? at the end if he is sure? How could PSA miss a rebuilt corner on the Cobb? I think these are all legitimate questions.

[Stonepony]

They're the same cards.
Jeff has made his opinion crystal clear. As to the (?) in the OP, I think that was his way of inviting conversation. I welcome such post before an auction ends rather than after.

[Econteachert205]

In the art world it is perfectly acceptable to remove old varnish and layers of dirt and nicotine using solvents. Holding baseball cards to a higher standard than masterpiece paintings seems a bit much.

[ullmandds]

In the art world it is perfectly acceptable to remove old varnish and layers of dirt and nicotine using solvents. Holding baseball cards to a higher standard than masterpiece paintings seems a bit much.

These pieces of art are 1 of a kind original masterpieces...so without preservation they would be gone...whilst most baseball cards were mass produced...kinda like artist lithographs...which would not be as acceptable to clean/preserve in my opinion.

A vintage bb card that is a one of a kind would likely receive less scrutiny if restored/cleaned...like the just so young.

[Cozumeleno]

Maybe it's just me, but ...

To be honest, I don't see soaking in water as any different than using another chemical. The ultimate intent is to remove something you don't want on the card for whatever the reason - for it to sit in your collection, for financial gain, etc. What does it matter if it's a chemical instead of water?

I'm willing to concede that some chemicals may cause harm to the card over the years, but that's another discussion. If we're talking about altering cards for deceitful purposes (assuming there's no disclosure), aren't soaking in water and chemicals pretty much the same thing?

Is soaking/chemical removal okay? That's up to each individual person to decide. But frankly, I just don't see the difference since the intent is exactly the same - to improve the quality of the card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The intent of soaking in water can be just to get the cards out of a scrapbook in the first place.

[Peter_Spaeth]

These pieces of art are 1 of a kind original masterpieces...so without preservation they would be gone...whilst most baseball cards were mass produced...kinda like artist lithographs...which would not be as acceptable to clean/preserve in my opinion.

A vintage bb card that is a one of a kind would likely receive less scrutiny if restored/cleaned...like the just so young.

It's all a question of what is considered acceptable in the community. Probably for the reasons Pete says, restoration that is undisclosed has never been considered acceptable, and originality is of paramount importance, in the card community.

[Cozumeleno]

The intent of soaking in water can be just to get the cards out of a scrapbook in the first place.

That's true, but it's still altering the card from it's current state, isn't it?

Soaking a card in water with glued paper on the back is still altering the card from its current condition. The card was glued and has residue/paper now stuck to it. I am removing that residue/paper and that changes the card (in my mind). It wasn't intended to be there but neither were ink marks, stains, etc. that are removed by chemical.

I don't know, maybe I'm splitting hairs here. But I consider that pretty much the same thing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I have no issue with being as purist, but at the same time I would point out that soaking out of a scrapbook is (I think) generally accepted by the community whereas most other things are not.

[Cozumeleno]

Oh yeah, I totally agree with you, Peter. It's definitely considered to be more acceptable. I just don't necessarily think it should be.

And as full disclosure here, I've soaked cards in water but haven't used any other chemicals, etc., so this definitely isn't a holier than thou kick against soakers. :) I just have a hard time separating the two as much as the majority.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I assume one rationale for the distinction is that water is not generally believed to adversely affect the integrity of the underlying card whereas chemical solvents (using the term in its common sense) generally are believed to do so. But it's probably hard to articulate a distinction that one couldn't find some fault with.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I assume one rationale for the distinction is that water is not generally believed to adversely affect the integrity of the underlying card whereas chemical solvents (using the term in its common sense) generally are believed to do so. But it's probably hard to articulate a distinction that one couldn't find some fault with.

Peter, if there were a chemical solvent that could remove any stain, tape residue, ink, etc and research proved that it was totally undetctable and had no long term effects, would that be acceptable to you?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Peter, if there were a chemical solvent that could remove any stain, tape residue, ink, etc and research proved that it was totally undetctable and had no long term effects, would that be acceptable to you?


Peter?

(Anybody else can answer the question as well)

[barrysloate]

David- if it were totally undectable, how would anybody even know it was used?

[vintagetoppsguy]

David- if it were totally undectable, how would anybody even know it was used?

Exactly, Barry! That's the same statement Dick Towell makes about his service - that the TPGs (or anybody else for that matter) can't detect it. So why is DT taking so much crap!?!

[barrysloate]

Obviously the idea that some kind of restoration can be done to improve a card without detection does not sit well with collectors who spend a lot of money on high grade cards. I can't speak for everyone, but that certainly bothers people.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Exactly, Barry! That's the same statement Dick Towell makes about his service - that the TPGs (or anybody else for that matter) can't detect it. So why is DT taking so much crap!?!

Because he is enabling fraud. And i do not for a minute believe they could not detect it if they tried hard enough. Ask Steve B. and read his post from yesterday. Ask people who really know paper. Dick Towle does not have magic potions that defy the laws of nature. He and his clients are taking advantage of a flawed grading system and limited detection capabilities. David you are engaged in magical thinking.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Obviously the idea that some kind of restoration can be done to improve a card without detection does not sit well with collectors who spend a lot of money on high grade cards. I can't speak for everyone, but that certainly bothers people.

Including YOU, I hope.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Exactly, Barry! That's the same statement Dick Towell makes about his service - that the TPGs (or anybody else for that matter) can't detect it. So why is DT taking so much crap!?!

You said yesterday you did not approve of crease/wrinkle removal. Suppose someone could do it in a way that the TPGs could not detect. Happens all the time, actually. So do you now think that's fine?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Because he is enabling fraud. And i do not for a minute believe they could not detect it if they tried hard enough. Ask Steve B. and read his post from yesterday. Ask people who really know paper. Dick Towle does not have magic potions that defy the laws of nature. He and his clients are taking advantage of a flawed grading system and limited detection capabilities. David you are engaged in magical thinking.

If DT says that it can't be detected by a TPG, I take him at his word. Do you know of any cards a TPG has rejected as a result of DT's process? The cards seem to make it past PSA and SGC. If his process was being detected by TPGs, don't you think the word would get around and those that send him cards in hopes of better grades would stop doing so?

[vintagetoppsguy]

You said yesterday you did not approve of crease/wrinkle removal. Suppose someone could do it in a way that the TPGs could not detect. Happens all the time, actually. So do you now think that's fine?

I'll answer your question as ridiculously as you answered mine: Peter, you are engaged in magical thinking. :D

[Peter_Spaeth]

If DT says that it can't be detected by a TPG, I take him at his word. Do you know of any cards a TPG has rejected as a result of DT's process? The cards seem to make it past PSA and SGC. If his process was being detected by TPGs, don't you think the word would get around and those that send him cards in hopes of better grades would stop doing so?

Are you serious? This is not an all or nothing endeavor. Suppose half the cards, or a quarter, make it through. Do you have any idea how much money is involved? David in your zeal to be contrarian you are not making good arguments here.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'll answer your question as ridiculously as you answered mine: Peter, you are engaged in magical thinking. :D

Only because you keep pushing this silly discussion. :D

[vintagetoppsguy]

Only because you keep pushing this silly discussion. :D

If I'm pushing it, it's because you won't answer my question as it was worded. I asked "Peter, if there were a chemical solvent that could remove any stain, tape residue, ink, etc and research proved that it was totally undetctable and had no long term effects, would that be acceptable to you?"

Instead of giving me a yes or no answer, you just say that you "not for a minute believe they could not detect it if they tried hard enough."

How about answering the question as asked - with a yes or a no?

[Peter_Spaeth]

David, I think the hypothetical is magical thinking, but no, I would not consider it acceptable just because it couldn't be detected. That to me suggests that the better the fraud is, the more acceptable it is. Not going there.

[benjulmag]

If DT says that it can't be detected by a TPG, I take him at his word. Do you know of any cards a TPG has rejected as a result of DT's process? The cards seem to make it past PSA and SGC. If his process was being detected by TPGs, don't you think the word would get around and those that send him cards in hopes of better grades would stop doing so?

So you're saying then that if such work is undetectable, it is okay to do so without disclosure, even though a prospective buyer would regard such information to be material to his/her decision whether or not to purchase the card?

If the answer is yes, then I repeat what I said yesterday; the logical extension of this argument is that it is okay to create cards. I don't agree with you that that is something different. Both instances -- new creation and alteration of an existing card without disclosure -- involve withholding material information that a prospective buyer would reasonably want to know in deciding whether to purchase the item and how much to pay.

And, as to Peter's point that such an argument is analogous to saying what's wrong with robbing a bank if the crime is never detected, I agree.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Fine, Peter. I respect your opinion. I feel otherwise and my position is based on the premises that his work is undetectable as has been proven so far. If at some point it is proven that it is detectable, I would feel different. Until then, that’s where I stand. Thanks for the discussion.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Fine, Peter. I respect your opinion. I feel otherwise and my position is based on the premises that his work is undetectable as has been proven so far. If at some point it is proven that it is detectable, I would feel different. Until then, that’s where I stand. Thanks for the discussion.

How has that been proven, David? We have no information one way or the other about what percentage of his doctored cards get through. Have you made an extensive study of his clients' PSA or SGC submissions?

[vintagetoppsguy]

So you're saying then that if such work is undetectable, it is okay to do so without disclosure, even though a prospective buyer would regard such information to be material to his/her decision whether or not to purchase the card?

Your question is based on the assumption that the buyer would want to know as if might influence his/her purchasing decision. If it were me, and I was buying a card that had had a stain removed and there was absolutely no trace, I couldn't care less and it wouldn't make a difference in my buying decision one way or another.

Let me turn the question around on you. So, let's say you're buying a card that had a stain removed, but there was absolutely no detectable trace. What difference does it make in your purchasing decision if you (or anyone else) can't tell?

[pokerplyr80]

Whether or not the work itself is ethical is a fine line. It sounds like the problem many have is that people are then submitting these cards for grading without disclosing the alteration. Since they pass grading they are then sold as authentic and unaltered for large sums of money. This is where the problem lies.

Just because you can get away with something doesn't mean you should.

[vintagetoppsguy]

How has that been proven, David? We have no information one way or the other about what percentage of his doctored cards get through. Have you made an extensive study of his clients' PSA or SGC submissions?

I haven't heard of one person come forward and say that his process has been detected by TPGs. In this hobby, word of mouth would spread quickly.

Let me know when that happens.

[barrysloate]

David- I'll ask you a question:

Suppose you bought a baseball card in an 8 holder and paid $5000 for it. Then sometime afterwards you discovered it once resided in a 4 holder because of a light crease and a tiny stain. The card was worked on, and the work was so good that it was undectable and thus graded an 8. And you also discovered that when it sold in a 4 holder, it went for $500. Would you still feel that since the work was undetectable, you would be entirely comfortable with the transaction?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I haven't heard of one person come forward and say that his process has been detected by TPGs. In this hobby, word of mouth would spread quickly.

Let me know when that happens.

Oh please, the people who use his services are going to come on here and admit it? I tried to get an altered card by PSA, but that damn Towle let me down!! And no word of mouth does not spread quickly when people have incentive to cover up. The vast majority of the hobby has no idea the extent of fraud.

[vintagetoppsguy]

David- I'll ask you a question:

Suppose you bought a baseball card in an 8 holder and paid $5000 for it. Then sometime afterwards you discovered it once resided in a 4 holder because of a light crease and a tiny stain. The card was worked on, and the work was so good that it was undectable and thus graded an 8. And you also discovered that when it sold in a 4 holder, it went for $500. Would you still feel that since the work was undetectable, you would be entirely comfortable with the transaction?

Barry, the way your question is worded, yes, I would feel very uncomfortable with the transaction.

Now, take out the words 'light crease' with the rest of the question being the same, and I have absolutely no problem with it.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Oh please, the people who use his services are going to come on here and admit it? I tried to get an altered card by PSA, but that damn Towle let me down!! And no word of mouth does not spread quickly when people have incentive to cover up. The vast majority of the hobby has no idea the extent of fraud.

Sure, why not? I have never used his service, but I would have no problem admitting so if I did.

Let's put it to the test though, Peter. Let's give him a try and then submit the results to PSA and SGC and see what heppens. Want to give it a shot, or do you just want to complain about it?

[calvindog]

No one has addressed my original questions. I've seem enough scumbaggery within this hobby to not put it above somebody to drive down bidding with unfounded allegations. I have no dog in the fight and don't know anyone in the hobby. I find the timing of the post interesting; the auction has been open for weeks and the post occurs two days before it is due to end. Why wait if you have evidence or inside information? People have bid been tens of thousands of dollars on the cards that they may have not have bid on if this allegation was made earlier. Why does the title of the post have a ? at the end if he is sure? How could PSA miss a rebuilt corner on the Cobb? I think these are all legitimate questions.

Wait, I thought I was trying to keep the prices down with my first post and now you're saying that I could have kept them down even more by posting weeks ago? Where were you when I needed help?

PS -- I'm still refusing to put my full name on my posts and there's not a thing you can do to stop me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Sure, why not? I have never used his service, but I would have no problem admitting so if I did.

Let's put it to the test though, Peter. Let's give him a try and then submit the results to PSA and SGC and see what heppens. Want to give it a shot, or do you just want to complain about it?

I feel perfectly justified in complaining about the enabling of fraud, David. And I would not pay him a dime, for anything.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I feel perfectly justified in complaining about the enabling of fraud, David. And I would not pay him a dime, for anything.

It'll be on my dime. How about that? :cool:

[bnorth]

It'll be on my dime. How about that? :cool:

Please show before and after pictures along with a copy of the receipt. You do that and I will show my altered Blue Hank Aaron in a SGC slab with a # grade.

[darwinbulldog]

I can understand being opposed to soaking a card to remove a stain, and I can see being in favor of soaking a card to remove a stain, provided (and this is perhaps just a hypothetical) that it does not modify the composition of the cardboard itself. I've enjoyed the various thought experiments posted in this thread but have neither seen nor thought of a good reason to privilege the use of one substance over another if its effect on the card is the same.

I don't know if the effect on the card is the same in practice, but if it is then what logical reason could there be to care if the soaking chemical is formaldehyde, cough syrup, water, gasoline, liquid nitrogen, or monkey semen? Either soaking is inherently okay or it is not. In theory, you are just removing molecules that were not previously there, and if that's the case then it's ethically equivalent to brushing off the molecules of a bread crumb that fell on the card; it's just harder to do.

My understanding, however, is that if the card has a stain, the staining itself is the result of an earlier chemical reaction with the cardboard, and so, whether you're removing it with distilled water in your living room or paying a restoration expert to use some other chemical to accomplish the same thing in a laboratory, either way you are necessarily altering the chemical structure of the stained card to return it to its clean state. That said, there are people on the board here with far more education in chemistry than I have, and I'll defer to them if any of my assumptions here are incorrect.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Please show before and after pictures along with a copy of the receipt. You do that and I will show my altered Blue Hank Aaron in a SGC slab with a # grade.

You're on, dude. How about this:

I purchase this card on eBay http://www.ebay.com/itm/1974-TOPPS-55-FRANK-ROBINSON-PSA-8-ST-/141395790274?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20ebd889c2

See the big stain on the back?

Once I get it, I crack it out. I'll take better pics once it's cracked out.

I'll send if off to GWTS

Once I receive it back, I'll submit it to PSA. Once it comes back from PSA, I'll take pics again. Then I'll crack it out and send it to SGC. Once it comes back from SGC, I'll take pics again.

Fair enough? Any better/different suggestions?

[Peter_Spaeth]

In Glenn's terms I guess the way I had been thinking of it was that if just water could get a stain off, then the stain really hadn't interacted with the paper so much as it was just sitting on top of it, and that if it had interacted you would need a chemical to undo it, but the recent discussions suggest that may be too simplistic or just flat out stupid and wrong.

[benjulmag]

Let me turn the question around on you. So, let's say you're buying a card that had a stain removed, but there was absolutely no detectable trace. What difference does it make in your purchasing decision if you (or anyone else) can't tell?

IF there was no physical change in the card compared to when first issued, I would not care. But if (i) the chemical makeup of the card had been changed, detectable or not, OR (ii) color had been added to disguise the stain using period dyes (and let's say therefore not detectable), I sure would care.

You are going down a slippery slope here. Once we start condoning undetectable stain removal that changes the physical/chemical properties of the card, what's wrong then with repainting the entire card with a period dye, the result being to make the card forensically indistinguishable to a card that had the same dye applied when the card was first issued?

[bnorth]

You're on, dude. How about this:

I purchase this card on eBay http://www.ebay.com/itm/1974-TOPPS-55-FRANK-ROBINSON-PSA-8-ST-/141395790274?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20ebd889c2

See the big stain on the back?

Once I get it, I crack it out. I'll take better pics once it's cracked out.

I'll send if off to GWTS

Once I receive it back, I'll submit it to PSA. Once it comes back from PSA, I'll take pics again. Then I'll crack it out and send it to SGC. Once it comes back from SGC, I'll take pics again.

Fair enough? Any better/different suggestions?

That is awesome and can't wait for the results.Thank you very much for dong this.

I really have no faith in the grading companies spotting anything but would like to see DT's work.

EDITED to add you should also add a crease to the card because removing that stain is childs play.

[poorlydrawncat]

I think there’s a really interesting angle to this that no one has really mentioned yet.

Sure, right now there might not be a reliable method of detecting the use of these chemical solvents (including water). But the fact of the matter is that by using chemicals on the card you are unquestionably changing the card and its chemical composition. Now that change may not be detectable through smell or blacklight or other existing means, but someday there will likely be invented a method that CAN detect the exposure to chemicals.

And at that time, assuming baseball cards are still a thing and the grading card companies are still around, you could imagine a world in which they might start labeling these cards as “chemically altered”. In such a circumstance, I could see there being far more demand for cards that had not been exposed to chemicals (and still retained caramel stains) rather than those that have evidence of them being removed. Much in the way unmolested classic cars are often worth more than their shiny, restored counterparts. But again, I only see this happening once methods are developed to detect the chemical exposure.

And all that being said, I just want to add that I think people would probably be more lenient to water exposure because (a.) people are used to water being in everything already and aren’t bothered by it and (b) water exposure could theoretically be due to humidity or natural causes and would be hard to directly attribute to soaking (potentially). That being said I'm sure for some it would be a deal-breaker too.

TL;DR: If you're okay with exposing your cards to chemicals that can't be detected now, would you regret exposing them if the technology becomes available to detect the difference? Because at that point there's no going back.

[darwinbulldog]

In Glenn's terms I guess the way I had been thinking of it was that if just water could get a stain off, then the stain really hadn't interacted with the paper so much as it was just sitting on top of it, and that if it had interacted you would need a chemical to undo it, but the recent discussions suggest that may be too simplistic or just flat out stupid and wrong.

In this case there must have been some chemical reaction, no?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1914-CRACKER-JACK-66-NAP-LAJOIE-HOF-CLEVELAND-AMERICANS-VG-3-/161742311640?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item25a897d0d8

Maybe not with the '74 Topps Frank Robinson.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I would guess the technology exists now, but it would be anything but cost-effective for the TPGs to employ it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

In this case there must have been some chemical reaction, no?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1914-CRACKER-JACK-66-NAP-LAJOIE-HOF-CLEVELAND-AMERICANS-VG-3-/161742311640?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item25a897d0d8

Maybe not with the '74 Topps Frank Robinson.

Probably why bleach is so commonly used on CJs? But I would have to defer to people who know paper.

[vintagetoppsguy]

That is awesome and can't wait for the results.Thank you very much for dong this.

I really have no faith in the grading companies spotting anything but would like to see DT's work.

EDITED to add you should also add a crease to the card because removing that stain is childs play.

Card just purchased and paid for.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You should choose a card that actually might get some scrutiny. Nobody is going to look at a 74 Frank Robinson for more than a second, it won't prove anything.

[pokerplyr80]

You should choose a card that actually might get some scrutiny. Nobody is going to look at a 74 Frank Robinson for more than a second, it won't prove anything.

Unless someone is willing to put up a few hundred bucks or more to test out a high profile card I think this is a good place to start. I am curious to see the results.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Unless someone is willing to put up a few hundred bucks or more to test out a high profile card I think this is a good place to start.

Exactly.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Exactly.

It will show you Dick's work but will say nothing about detection IMO. Spend some real money if you are so interested, buy a CJ or some other stained E card, you can always resell it (for a profit if it works out). Not that that would be right.

[bnorth]

It will show you Dick's work but will say nothing about detection IMO. Spend some real money if you are so interested, buy a CJ, you can always resell it (for a profit if it works out).

It will say nothing about detection by the for profit card graders but David will get to see the card in hand before and after DT's work. That means much more to me than some underpaid grader who looks at 100's if not 1000's of cards a day as fast as possible hopefully trying their best.

I would like to see more than a super easy stain removal done to a card but am happy with what we will get on David's dime.

[vintagetoppsguy]

It will show you Dick's work but will say nothing about detection IMO. Spend some real money if you are so interested, buy a CJ or some other stained E card, you can always resell it (for a profit if it works out).

What difference does it matter, Peter? By PSA's own admission (and it's on their webiste), every card gets scrutinized the same way.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ben, I definitely agree he should at least put a wrinkle into it. Not that the outcome matters to me, what Dick does is to enable fraud whether it's detectable or not. But for the purposes posed by David, his example is too easy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What difference does it matter, Peter? By PSA's own admission (and it's on their webiste), every card gets scrutinized the same way.

And neither of us believe that for an instant. Nor should they spend as much time on a 74 Frank Robinson as on an E93 Cobb.

[chaddurbin]

discussions are fun (not really in this case), but i'm against spending any more hobby money toward dick towle business.

[Peter_Spaeth]

discussions are fun (not really in this case), but i'm against spending any more hobby money toward dick towle business.

Quan, Dick is probably reading the thread and will do it as a promotion. After all David is going to give him free publicity if it works out. And he is already an unpaid advertiser.

[vintagetoppsguy]

After all David is going to give him free publicity if it works out.

I'm going to give him free publicity either way. While I say I have never used his service, I have purchased several high grade '56 Topps from him.

Were they cleaned using his process? Who knows and I really don't care - they all graded numerically through SGC and now reside in my registry.

Before someone takes that out of context and asks me the stupid question, “Do you only care that it grades numerically?” the answer is NO. I wouldn’t want a trimmed or restored card whether it graded numerically or not. But since I couldn’t detect anything on the ‘56s, they were sent in for grading and all came back good.

[steve B]

I would guess the technology exists now, but it would be anything but cost-effective for the TPGs to employ it.


^^^^^ This is exactly right.
The technology exists to determine what chemicals a substance has been exposed to and it can be done without destroying or damaging the object.

Even simple exposure to water should leave some trace, not in what it leaves behind, but in what it removes and how it affects the paper itself. Some papers are more likely to be affected than others.

Papers are basically fibers mixed with water then drained on a screen and pressed to thickness. Some have things added at different points in the process depending on what you want the paper to be like. The paper for our money has red and blue fibers added, and recently they also add a plastic strip. Other papers get whiteners, sizing, coatings etc.

Soaking would typically remove a bit of sizing, as a lot of it is just starch usually from rice. It can also loosen the fibers near the surface. Something that isn't usually visible by eye but would be with decent magnification.

Many stains are just "stuff" that's settled in the tiny pockets between fibers. Others are stuff that's gotten into the fibers themselves. The first are fairly easy to remove and I believe should be removed. The second are more of a gray area since removing them would require more than just water.

Here's a little before and after to ponder.
Before - As found, nice, but lots of surface dirt from laying in a loose stack in a dusty attic for .........a long time.
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=12668

After -
Cleaned with water and a q-tip. Just a light surface cleaning to remove the easiest of the dirt and grime. Sent in expecting a 40 since it was still a bit grubby, hoping not to get an A from the spot I overcleaned. Surprise!
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=9887

It's not going anywhere anytime soon, and I have a post-it on the back of the slab so if I check out suddenly the wife or kids can disclose the cleaning.

Altered? Preserved? The dirt would have done damage eventually, and the little bit left will, just not as soon.

I'll have to take a high res scan of the after, a network of tiny cracks is visible in the clay coating (Typical, nearly all T206s have that) and much of the remaining dirt is in the cracks.

Very soon I'll have access to a bit of equipment that I believe has enough magnification to show the loosening of surface fibers from water. I even have a soaked candidate to test. (A desktop scanning electron microscope, Supposedly not enough to see the very tiny stuff like viruses, but enough for nearly anything else. )

But that costs 50K and the devices to detect chemical composition start around 30K if I'm not mistaken. Plus some training...........I can't see TPGs using them under the current business models. The ROI just wouldn't be there.

Steve Birmingham

[Peter_Spaeth]

Great information, Steve. It seems there is a world of difference between what a TPG can detect with minimal equipment on a one minute review and what COULD be detected with sufficient time, money and training. And I would even question whether TPGs could detect a lot more than they do if they really cared to, even under present review conditions. Unless Steve corrects me, I stand by my thesis that when solvents are used to remove stains from cards, there will be detectable changes in the paper.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Great information, Steve.

Let's assume that Steve is right when he says "Even simple exposure to water should leave some trace". How would a grading company detect the differecne between a card that had been soaked in water to remove a stain as opposed to a card that absorbed moisture/water from humidity? Should the card that absorbed moisture/water from humidity be labeled as the card that was soaked?

[Stonepony]

One reason, besides cost, that TPGs don't break out the electron microscopes or mass spectrometers is that most people don't care to find out if there are subatomic changes to a card or that in 1950 my Mantle card was placed on a counter freshly cleaned with Bon Ami. I know I don't. I know that's being facetious, but do you really want to detect all this. Air and time destroy cards. Let's at least leave those 2 things alone.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Dave, respectfully, air and time are not alterations with the intent to deceive. I personally would like to know if alterations with the intent to deceive have been made.

[Stonepony]

Uhhhh make that my 51 Mantle:rolleyes:

[poorlydrawncat]

Let's assume that Steve is right when he says "Even simple exposure to water should leave some trace". How would a grading company detect the differecne between a card that had been soaked in water to remove a stain as opposed to a card that absorbed moisture/water from humidity? Should the card that absorbed moisture/water from humidity be labeled as the card that was soaked?

This was exactly my point earlier, when I was saying people will likely always be more lenient towards cards that show evidence of soaking because it's so difficult to determine whether or not humidity was the true cause (although things like bleeding would be an obvious sign of a soak...). Not only that, people already consider water moisture as a part of the card already, given that nearly everything on the planet is composed of some amount of water.

That being said, I think someday we're going to see people start caring about other chemicals/solvents (much in the way car restoration used to be pervasive, now it's starting to be considered "molestation"). Maybe when the tests become easier and cheaper to carry out. At that point it will be interesting to see if anyone regrets having cards chemically altered.

[Stonepony]

Dave, respectfully, air and time are not alterations with the intent to deceive. I personally would like to know if alterations with the intent to deceive have been made.

Intent to deceive. I agree 100%.

[Stonepony]

Back to topic , is there sufficient evidence to conclude the E93s have been altered? Pretty bold statement by an experienced and respected board member.
I would like to see some veteran members chime in with a " yes" or " no"

[Jantz]

Ritter was chemically cleaned 6 years ago.

Seller never mentioned that fact in their auction.

[Eric72]

...I'm still refusing to put my full name on my posts and there's not a thing you can do to stop me.

I have found this aspect of the thread recurringly hilarious, all the way back to initial replies to your original post, Mr. Mystery Man. This is a very revealing look into the current state of reading comprehension.

Best regards,

Mr. Anonymous

[Runscott]

I'd rather not put my full name under my post.

:)

Same here - my first name is kind of weird

[Peter_Spaeth]

I have found this aspect of the thread recurringly hilarious, all the way back to initial replies to your original post, Mr. Mystery Man. This is a very revealing look into the current state of reading comprehension.

Best regards,

Mr. Anonymous

To me, the thread is not funny at all but a very revealing look into the current state of apathy (or worse) about card doctoring. Lichtman presents compelling evidence that high 5 figure (I assume) cards have been altered and bumped by 3 or 4 grades, Dick Towle hawks his services using chemicals to take out stains (and I also pointed out that he takes out wrinkles), and most of the discussion here outside of people questioning if the E93s are really altered and an academic debate about water has been David trying essentially to defend what Towle does or at least part of what he does.


So it goes, I guess.

[CMIZ5290]

Peter- these cards are already at a figure that is incredible. This subject is something that collectors should know about....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Peter- these cards are already at a figure that is incredible. This subject is something that collectors should know about....

Kevin, nah, they look prettier than they did as 5s or 6s and that's all that counts -- oh, that and the holy flip.

[Runscott]

To me, the thread is not funny at all but a very revealing look into the current state of apathy (or worse) about card doctoring. Lichtman presents compelling evidence that high 5 figure (I assume) cards have been altered and bumped by 3 or 4 grades, Dick Towle hawks his services using chemicals to take out stains (and I also pointed out that he takes out wrinkles), and most of the discussion here outside of people questioning if the E93s are really altered and an academic debate about water has been David trying essentially to defend what Towle does or at least part of what he does.


So it goes, I guess.

Peter, the 'problem' is that this is a discussion forum, not a note-gathering space for a dissertation. I'm not being sarcastic - I would prefer that it were the latter;however, finding an internet discussion forum that equates to a discussion group built in real life (where you would eject undesirables or never invite them) is never going to happen.

And you can't get rid of most of the morons who infiltrate your discussions, because every post adds money to the forum - unless their participation results in other posters posting less, but that's a tough call for forum owners.

Also, if I were buying more than my fair share of rounds during our discussion group meeting at the local pub (which I can't do here on the internet), you would have no problem listening to my tripe. Thus, the 'ignore' feature.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Scott it's not an ideal format to be sure, and maybe a post about altered cards can't compete with one about Leon's auction or shipping charges or a fake T206 on ebay, but I still would have expected more outrage.

[calvindog]

We should discuss a global restitution plan at this point.

[ullmandds]

Where is the outrage? I am somewhat outraged...but what can be done?

This whole situation reminds me of the PED's in baseball. For many years this was ignored...accolades were celebrated. Seemingly when certain hallowed records became in reach and or broken people started to take notice. And changes were made. But in that time PED's became harder and harder to detect...when one became detectable a new one came around that was not. I imagine tons and tons of money was poured into this by major-league baseball to control the situation better.

If this problem with in the hobby were to be remedied it would also require lots and lots of financial investment and technology...and for what? A handful of us on a vintage baseball card message board feeling better about the hobby that we love?

Most registry heads and casual collectors could not care less if their cards have been altered. How many trimmed/altered/overgraded cards do we see in high-grade holders selling for huge sums of money.

I just don't think enough people really care and there is enough money to invest to remedy the problem.

[Econteachert205]

This argument is older than I thought...


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-12-04/sports/8903150518_1_kits-adhesives-removal

[ergoism]

We should discuss a global restitution plan at this point.

That would be about as productive as the back and forth in this thread.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Pete my guess is that if law enforcement put its mind to it, some perpetrators could be taken down. Maybe it's even happening as we speak. As we have seen on this very thread, people keep documents that could assist such an endeavor.

[ullmandds]

Pete my guess is that if law enforcement put its mind to it, some perpetrators could be taken down. Maybe it's even happening as we speak. As we have seen on this very thread, people keep documents that could assist such an endeavor.

absolutely... and I hope you are correct and I hope this is happening. Our discussions on this board do make a difference.

But I will not huff and puff I will not jump up-and-down in outrage.

My reaction to all of this is to do my due diligence...by examining cards with a high magnification loupe, a black light...Learning as much as I can about card alterations and such, occasionally getting help from my friends... and by not paying large sums of money for highly graded cards...I hope to avoid this shady side of the hobby.

[Peter_Spaeth]

This argument is older than I thought...


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-12-04/sports/8903150518_1_kits-adhesives-removal

Doctoring was rampant in the late 80s. Indeed, and some would say ironically, it spurred PSA's start in 1991.

[Runscott]

nevermind

[Peter_Spaeth]

Scott, on every thread involving controversy, it seems, there will be at least one person who fancies himself above the fray and too cool for school, and who will look down on the participants with a mixture of boredom and condescension.:D

[ergoism]

Pete my guess is that if law enforcement put its mind to it, some perpetrators could be taken down. Maybe it's even happening as we speak. As we have seen on this very thread, people keep documents that could assist such an endeavor.

I would much rather them focus such efforts in this industry towards finding people who rebuild corners, reback, recolor, reprint, stamp new backs, reseal packs, falsify slabs, etc. I spend a decent sum of money on cards and those things bother me. If I bought a card for $200,000 and someone had removed a stain from it that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, I don't give a damn. This particular issue is and always has been a gray area in the hobby. I would imagine it'd be tough to make it black and white in the legal system not to mention having to find substantial evidence. As this thread has shown, people will have their opinions and more than likely stick to them. There's not a chemical to remove those.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I would certainly like to see those people nailed as well. No disagreement here. It was however, until now, beyond our subject matter. But now that you have raised it, I suspect there is an overlap in part between folks who do some of those things you despise and folks who do the things that don't bother you but do bother some of us. I think some of our card doctors are multi talented.

As for legality, where PSA clearly says it won't slab cards with stains removed (you may disagree, I get that), and people remove stains with the intent of getting them past PSA, and then they are sold without disclosure and people buy them expecting they have not been altered under PSA's standards, that's black and white enough for me. And if people are keeping invoices of the work they did, it shouldn't be that hard to prove.

[CMIZ5290]

Can we please talk about the 2 PSA 7 Uzits?? Why hasn't anyone talked about the backs of these cards? I'm baffled....