To Clean or not to Clean

[BeanTown]

I know this is, or has been industry standards for awhile now. However, some cards could really benefit from being cleaned up. It's refreshing to see the path of this high end card with the short history of two auctions.

Heritage sold it as a SGC 30 back in May 2016 for 5975.00

Then it we to the cleaners and then got submitted to PSA for grading.

PWCC sold it as a PSA 2 back in November 2016 for 5677.88.

Looks like good honest bidding in both auctions and a fair market price both times. It's a lot more difficult to be a flipper on rare cards with low population numbers than more main stream cards (52 Mantle, 55 Clemente, 63 Rose, etc...).

So, I guess what I'm saying is that some cards would greatly benefit from being cleaned (with water). The only bigthing that affects the card would be how skewed the population report is.

[GasHouseGang]

It's a shame they "cleaned" that card, as they totally washed out the original color.

[sterlingfox]

I agree, it looked way better in the SGC case :eek:

[rats60]

I know this is, or has been industry standards for awhile now. However, some cards could really benefit from being cleaned up. It's refreshing to see the path of this high end card with the short history of two auctions.

Heritage sold it as a SGC 30 back in May 2016 for 5975.00

Then it went under the water to get cleaned and got submitted to PSA for grading.

PWCC sold it as a PSA 2 back in November 2016 for 5677.88.

How do you know it was only cleaned by water? Were you the one who cleaned it or do you know who did it? How do you know chemicals weren't used, but can't be detected? Can you provide a link to where SGC and PSA have said it is OK to clean cards with water? If this is the industry standard, why was the cleaning not disclosed when the card was sold? Isn't the answer to the last question that it is not the industry standard and there are a lot of people opposed to any alteration of cards including soaking?

[BeanTown]

How do you know it was only cleaned by water? Were you the one who cleaned it or do you know who did it? How do you know chemicals weren't used, but can't be detected? Can you provide a link to where SGC and PSA have said it is OK to clean cards with water? If this is the industry standard, why was the cleaning not disclosed when the card was sold? Isn't the answer to the last question that it is not the industry standard and there are a lot of people opposed to any alteration of cards including soaking?

I've never owned this card. By knowing many collectors, it's my opinion that cleaning cards by water is more acceptable than in years past, and more along the lines of industry standards. Since, I rarely use TPGs I do not know what their stance is for using water.

It's above my pedigree to be able to look at a card that has been worked on with chemicals, trimmed down to size, creases pressed out that don't break the paper, etc... We will leave that to the experts with TPG and collectors can choose who to use for their expertise.

I completely agree with the post saying the gloss has been removed and doesn't look as good as it did in the SGC holder. Clarity and gloss are important ingredients many look for in a card. Since, we don't see this series come up forsale a lot, it's more difficult to compare to other M110s.

Looks like the bottom right corner got dinged along the breaking out (or putting) in the holder process or the cleaning process. Ultimately the grade was consistent with both TPGs.

[MW1]

Not a fan of this type of "restoration." In fact, I wouldn't call it restoration at all. It's degradation and an unfortunate alteration of an original piece of artwork...which happens to be published in the form of a Sporting Life cabinet. Submersing a card or sports item in water (or other solvent) isn't always an inert process. Even distilled water can damage a card or unnecessarily alter its original integrity by loosening the paper fibers or diminishing the color/gloss.

[gemmint77]

The original card looks much better.

[packs]

I like the original too and for the same grade I'd prefer the natural look.

[PhillipAbbott79]

To disclose or not to disclose, that is the question. :p

[1952boyntoncollector]

How do you know it was only cleaned by water? Were you the one who cleaned it or do you know who did it? How do you know chemicals weren't used, but can't be detected? Can you provide a link to where SGC and PSA have said it is OK to clean cards with water? If this is the industry standard, why was the cleaning not disclosed when the card was sold? Isn't the answer to the last question that it is not the industry standard and there are a lot of people opposed to any alteration of cards including soaking?

Its actually an industry standard not to disclose soaking a card and also not many other defects. You pretty much expect to be told about any paper loss, wrinkles or creases but thats about it when see a description at an AH. (most sellers have the card in hand and can disclose those things but may not know about a prior soaking)

I think you can buy a PSA 4.5 card for example and if they didnt disclose a wrinkle i think you would have a right to send it back even if it is 'no returns' but finding out a card was in a different holder and grade earlier and soaked i dont think there is as much of a right as the prior example...others may disagree

[KMayUSA6060]

Not a fan of this type of "restoration." In fact, I wouldn't call it restoration at all. It's degradation and an unfortunate alteration of an original piece of artwork...which happens to be published in the form of a Sporting Life cabinet. Submersing a card or sports item in water (or other solvent) isn't always an inert process. Even distilled water can damage a card or unnecessarily alter its original integrity by loosening the paper fibers or diminishing the color/gloss.

+1

I'm 100% against card doctoring. However, restoration is different; I'm a fan of restoring cards to their former glory, purely for the purpose of honoring the card and the hobby. I am NOT a fan, however, of restoring a card for the purpose of profit. This seems to be a situation where someone thought they could turn a profit by "cleaning" the card. They ended up washing out the original color, and took away the staining that I personally like with Pre-War cards.

[rats60]

Its actually an industry standard not to disclose soaking a card and also not many other defects. You pretty much expect to be told about any paper loss, wrinkles or creases but thats about it when see a description at an AH. (most sellers have the card in hand and can disclose those things but may not know about a prior soaking)

I think you can buy a PSA 4.5 card for example and if they didnt disclose a wrinkle i think you would have a right to send it back even if it is 'no returns' but finding out a card was in a different holder and grade earlier and soaked i dont think there is as much of a right as the prior example...others may disagree

What about if they pressed the wrinkle out and don't disclose. Then it comes back later. What is the buyers recourse? Doesn't lack of disclosure mean the seller doesn't think it is a generally an accepted practice?

[1952boyntoncollector]

What about if they pressed the wrinkle out and don't disclose. Then it comes back later. What is the buyers recourse? Doesn't lack of disclosure mean the seller doesn't think it is a generally an accepted practice?

right can go round and round on this but there is a gray area thats accepted and is buyer beware and reputation of seller is impacted.

net54 forums are good to 'out' the bad sellers and to make inform buyers.

I would think if there is a wrinkle on the card you can send it back if it happens within a 'reasonable amount of time' Seller can say didnt know there was a wrinkle (if not showing at time of sale) there just like saying didnt know card was soaked.

I just have never seen an auction house in the last 4000 listings disclose a card was soaked, but i have seen many that disclose wrinkles even though you cant tell from the scan....thats the business practice i see...other can disagree

[Exhibitman]

Not a fan of this type of "restoration." In fact, I wouldn't call it restoration at all. It's degradation and an unfortunate alteration of an original piece of artwork...which happens to be published in the form of a Sporting Life cabinet. Submersing a card or sports item in water (or other solvent) isn't always an inert process. Even distilled water can damage a card or unnecessarily alter its original integrity by loosening the paper fibers or diminishing the color/gloss.

If it was a piece of artwork there would be no debate: proper cleaning and restoration is an accepted activity in the art world. It is in fact a mandate to cultural institutions across the world to preserve and conserve their holdings. Even the Sistine Chapel underwent significant cleaning and restoration efforts in the 1970s-1990s.

[MW1]

If it was a piece of artwork there would be no debate: proper cleaning and restoration is an accepted activity in the art world. It is in fact a mandate to cultural institutions across the world to preserve and conserve their holdings. Even the Sistine Chapel underwent significant cleaning and restoration efforts in the 1970s-1990s.The word "proper" is key. I see nothing proper about what was done here. And certainly, in the world of art, restoration is also a very controversial subject.

The color and pigmentation you see on the ceiling and walls of the Sistine Chapel, for instance, are not original. They have been altered (some intentionally, some not) and are only a pale approximation of what they once looked like when Michelangelo finished his masterpiece. The same is true of other famous works of art. Consider da Vinci's "Last Supper". Once "restoration" was done on it, much of the original color had been removed and the work appeared so faded that it was nothing like what you commonly see in prints, pictures, and reproductions.

If anything, I would maintain that the problems with the clumsy "restoration" of various sports cards and the difficulties produced by some of the controversial restoration work performed on famous works of art have many similarities.

[packs]

If restoration like this should be accepted, then why don't descriptions include the restoration? What would someone have to hide if something is accepted? Unless of course it isn't accepted.

[1952boyntoncollector]

If restoration like this should be accepted, then why don't descriptions include the restoration? What would someone have to hide if something is accepted? Unless of course it isn't accepted.

I think they are hiding that info because they want to get a better bid price on the card. I am sure on most auctions there is extra things that can said about a card's condition that can lower what an item's maximum bid is

[packs]

Then it sounds like this type of restoration may not be accepted by the collecting community. People disclose other things like unseen creases in an effort to give an appropriate depiction of the card.

[drcy]

One thing to keep in mind about painting restoration is that the restoration has to be disclosed.

That it is is the "hobby standard" that certain types alterations are not disclosed neither automatically makes it ethical or legal. It could be reasonably argued that shilling is a hobby standard.

As was well said, if a there is nothing wrong or value-changing with a certain type of cleaning, then why is it not disclosed? The answer is because it will change the perceived value in some bidders and buyers minds? Of course an exact same looking card that has not been 'cleaned' will sell for more than one that has-- which is why the cleaning is not disclosed. Whether or not the cleaning or conservation itself is good, prudent and ethical (and in many cases it may be-- I find nothing unethical about removing foreign substances such as glue and scrap paper from a card), that its disclosure will effect sales prices is a reason (including legal) why it has to be disclosed. The ethics and law is alterations and conservation must be disclosed and the buyers and bidders get to decide if and how it effects the value.

[GasHouseGang]

Sometimes even art shouldn't be restored; at least not like this. The first photo is how it looked before, the second is of the painting needing restoration, and the last is after "restoration". :eek:

[packs]

There is literally hardly any original paint or brush strokes from Leonardo on the Last Supper. You might think you're looking at a da Vinci but you are not. It is just a compilation of other people's work at this point. But if they told you that, you might not go.

[drcy]

I would label that one as cartoonization not restoration. Luckily for restorers, it looks as if she used crayon.

[1952boyntoncollector]

One thing to keep in mind about painting restoration is that the restoration has to be disclosed.

That it is is the "hobby standard" that certain types alterations are not disclosed neither automatically makes it ethical or legal. It could be reasonably argued that shilling is a hobby standard.

As was well said, if a there is nothing wrong or value-changing with a certain type of cleaning, then why is it not disclosed? The answer is because it will change the perceived value in some bidders and buyers minds? Of course an exact same looking card that has not been 'cleaned' will sell for more than one that has-- which is why the cleaning is not disclosed. Whether or not the cleaning or conservation itself is good, prudent and ethical (and in many cases it may be-- I find nothing unethical about removing foreign substances such as glue and scrap paper from a card), that its disclosure will effect sales prices is a reason (including legal) why it has to be disclosed. The ethics and law is alterations and conservation must be disclosed and the buyers and bidders get to decide if and how it effects the value.


Noone said disclosing something like soaking is not value changing. There are many things on many listings that if disclosed would lower the value of the card. People sell their house and dont disclose lots of things that we all know could change the value, (after all if its not a big deal, why not disclose it)

back to the hobby standard argument....wrinkles/crease/paper loss are disclosed, soaking is not.. partly because tough to prove knowledge on the seller that it was soaked versus having a card in hand and seeing paper loss etc.


The 'why not disclose if not a big deal' argument means you need to list EVERYTHING, because as we know..just little little things can talk you out of wanting a card. That spec that we thought is on the holder, well its actually on the card, how come they didnt tell us that? The card has a smoke smell, ..why didnt they tell us that. card is soaked....etc etc.. Many things can impact a final sale, but its standard not to disclose everything in a sale of a card...just like houses..

[Bigdaddy]

Frequently I will take my shirt tail and rub the wax off of a post-war card. Most of the time it comes off clean if the wax was on the front of the card. Sometimes it does not.

Soo, is this considered 'doctoring' the card? To me, if you are taking away something that is not supposed to be on the card in the first place, I find it hard to call it a doctored card. With that logic though, I guess pressing out a wrinkle (never tried that) would also not count.

Thoughts?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Frequently I will take my shirt tail and rub the wax off of a post-war card. Most of the time it comes off clean if the wax was on the front of the card. Sometimes it does not.

Soo, is this considered 'doctoring' the card? To me, if you are taking away something that is not supposed to be on the card in the first place, I find it hard to call it a doctored card. With that logic though, I guess pressing out a wrinkle (never tried that) would also not count.

Thoughts?

right so if there were pen marks on the card and you could take it off , the pen marks shouldnt be on the card as well which according to your statement would be ok. Most will disagree

I think wrinkles will come back so they should be disclosed. Fine me one current auction listing on any card graded higher than authentic where its disclosed that the card was soaked with water. I not sure there are actually any listings authentic or not. Apparently its not a big deal since its never disclosed.

[Bigdaddy]

right so if there were pen marks on the card and you could take it off , the pen marks shouldnt be on the card as well which according to your statement would be ok. Most will disagree


I'm good with that, no problem. Then again, I don't deal in high $$ cards where 10's of thousands of dollars are riding on something like that. Don't know what my answer would be if I did.