Soaking a card? [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

08-29-2006, 09:29 AM

Posted By: DerekWhat is this used for exactly. And how do you go about doing it. Does it affect the card. I know its used for removing paper and tape. But what about creases. I have a really nice card that looks Ex but it has 2 1-2 milmeter creases on it and they dont even go through the entire card. Would it be wrong if I tried to press these out or should I leave it in Vg shape. I feel it should be at least a 4 and maybe a 5. This is also a 4,000.00 card so Im worried if I do use water and press out the creases that it wont even grade. What should I do? Will it show up at PSA or SGC. I dont think it will be that hard to press them out. Let me know Thanks guys. My main consern is if this is wrong. Ive read dis. about this and Ive heard about yall removing glue which seems worse than this.

Archive

08-29-2006, 09:33 AM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliI would not advise soaking a $4000 and trying to remove a crease. -Al

Archive

08-29-2006, 09:40 AM

Posted By: DerekBut for what reason. Will it not grade? What if I just put one drop of distiled water on the 2 creases and then put it in a case. The ard is 100 years old.

Archive

08-29-2006, 09:45 AM

Posted By: willSure, why not. Why not add a little spray starch to help firm it up. Easier to get into the toploader. Irons are also great with thoses creased reprints - helps add the proper toning. More altered cards to the market to fool the people at GSA/PGC/GAP/ACLU or whoever grades the stuff to jack up the "value". I guess pure sarcasm requires proper sign-off - William R. List Creasy and dirty in Baltimore

Archive

08-29-2006, 09:48 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackFor a heavy crease or wrinkle, I'm not certain your process would entirely remove it. I'm not an expert in conserving baseball cards, but if card is 90 years old, it's bone dry and I'm not sure that messing around with the surface texture is a great idea. I suspect that pressing a 90 year old wrinkle may simply produce a flat wrinkle, and may make it look worse.

Archive

08-29-2006, 09:50 AM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethWhy are you asking whether it is wrong? Some people are going to say it is and some are probably going to say it isn't. Your real concern is whether the graders can detect it, I presume. Suppose the consensus was that they couldn't but that it was still "wrong"? What then?

Archive

08-29-2006, 09:53 AM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliFor what reason? 1. Many collectors consider crease removal to be an alteration, and altered cards are frowned upon in the hobby. MOST collectors, even. 2. If it's a $4000 card, and you try and get out the wrinkle yourself, if you screw it up or if your alteration is detectable by the grading company, your card will not grade. Then you're out whatever you spent on the card. 3. If you successfully take out a crease, get the card graded, sell it, and then the crease comes back, you're going to have an unhappy buyer and word will get out. If it's a card you want to sell, and it's a $2000 card with the crease and a $4000 card without it, take the $2000 and be happy. -Al

Archive

08-29-2006, 09:58 AM

Posted By: Derekits a 3500 card in the shape its in. But I hear about people removing glue all the time. i have so many t cards still with glue on them and they all grade. and during the process Ive heard of creases coming out. Ive read sevearl post about people on here doing this. What makes it so wrong if its part of the hobby. There is a post right now about removing paper. How many of the PSA 7-8s used to be glued to paper. its only 2 mm long. A simple screw down might press it out without even trying to.

Archive

08-29-2006, 10:14 AM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliIt's deception, and I think you'd find you're hard-pressed to find a person here who admits to soaking a card to remove a crease and resell the card. Removing something like scrapbook paper and glue isn't frowned upon the way taking out creases and wrinkles is. If it's a VG card, it's a VG card. In my opinion, of course - I don't speak for anyone but myself. Either way, if it's not wrong to do, then you wouldn't mind giving us your ebay ID so that those of us who try and avoid altered cards will know not to bid? -Al

Archive

08-29-2006, 10:17 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI forgot to mention that adding a drop of water to a specific kind of card can visably alter the surface texture in the shape of the drop of water. I don't know what kind of card you have, so I don't know that it applies to you.

Archive

08-29-2006, 10:46 AM

Posted By: DerekIve never done it in my life. I just wanted to get yalls opinion on the subject. I thought this might not be that bad to do bc its only a 2 mm crease. And Ive heard about people doing it on here bf. Dont act like Im a criminal when I havent done anything wrong. I was asking what yall thought.

Archive

08-29-2006, 11:01 AM

Posted By: BobDerek- I am with Al on this one. The card is too expensive to go screwing around with trying to remove a crease. I am assuming that you are like me and couldn't afford to have a card go from being worth $3500 with the crease, as you mentioned, to being an ungradeable, altered card with a value much, much less. Some of the guys here would probably think 4k is a drop in the bucket, but I am guessing not you and not me either...Leave it be. tbob

Archive

08-29-2006, 11:07 AM

Posted By: DerekYeah, Its a gourgeous and extreamly rare card. Ill be happy with it in a 3. And it may grade a 4 sense the creases are so small. Thanks guys.

Archive

08-29-2006, 11:09 AM

Posted By: DerekBut why do people buy cards that have been soaked and removed from an album. And why do they grade if they have been soaked?

Archive

08-29-2006, 11:18 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackDerek, my guess is that if you've never done it before, you won't be able to remove the wrinkles so it appears they were never there.

Archive

08-29-2006, 11:27 AM

Posted By: DerekIm not going to. But I was just asking about the subject how this is wrong. What if while you were soaking a card to remove from an album a crease then was taken out not on purpose. Then would it not be acceptable.

Archive

08-29-2006, 11:45 AM

Posted By: T206CollectorI often soak T206 cards to remove glue and paper from the reverse. As I have mentioned many times on this Board, one of my best examples -- Pfeister Throwing -- is now in an SGC 70 holder, even though it once had 3/4 of the back covered in paper: <a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c322/T206Collector/T206%20Collection/PfeisterThrowingSGC70.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a> I don't have a scan of the back, but it is uninteresting. In water, the paper came right off and there was essentially no glue to be found. I love this card, and nobody has to worry about it being circulated any time soon. Contrary to some opinions expressed on this board, grading and soaking mix quite well. I have never used soaking and pressing to eliminate a crease in a card. I suppose the reason I haven't up to this point is because I have had the same ethical concerns that have been expressed here. I have, however, seen creases minimalized by soaking and then pressing cards from which I just wanted to reduce paper or glue on the reverse. I have not seen the phenomena of the creases reappearing -- and I am very very skeptical that they would. If you are going to do it, make sure to use water equally applied to the whole card -- not just a drop here and there -- and make sure to press the card very well while drying. The most common problem is that a card doesn't dry properly/evenly and then will warp. The way to get the warping out is to repeat the soaking and drying process until you get a card that is not warped. You should 100% try it on penny cards from the same set until you get a good idea about how to do it. It takes a bit of practice. For some reason T206 lithographs are not damaged in water. In addition, after the cards dry there is no evidence that they were ever in water. Indeed, given where and how many T206 cards have been stored since 1909, it will never be known which ones have been wet and which ones haven't. In fact, there is at least some chance that your $4,000 beauty was lying at the bottom of a water spill or flood circa 1936, but just dried out nicely after a good pressing beneath the 1937 Gimbels Catalog. That is why the grading companies can't find anything wrong with it. The water comes -- does its trick -- and then leaves without any evidence that it was ever there. (Here, this practice should be distinguished from using chemicals or paint, which adhere themselves to the card fibers and never let go -- though, as has been stated on this Board many times, art restoration is commonplace in the multi-million dollar world of art collecting.) For those that raise eyebrows about such tactics, I want to share an old Steven Wright joke with you: "While I was gone, someone stole everything in my apartment and replaced it with an exact replica." If this happened to many of you, I suppose you would call the police and complain that they had been robbed. The rest of us wouldn't really care, but for the fear that the thieves might return and take something without replacing it with a replica. When I get really rich one day, I am going to buy one of those machines that NASA uses on Mars that can detect the former presence of water in things. I will then, free of charge, offer this service to any Net54er with vintage baseball cards. If I can confirm the former presence of water in your card, I will be happy to purchase that card -- but for a nice discount, of course.

Archive

08-29-2006, 12:00 PM

Posted By: DerekInteresting read. Im not going to do it bc I dont even know how. I just wanted to hear yalls thoughts about this. Its to valueable to even try and I like it how it is. And the perpose was to keep for my own and not resell. I ve had the card for about 2 years now and I just wanted to know if I could take out the 2 creases without damaging the card. Thanks guys

Archive

08-29-2006, 01:03 PM

Posted By: BobDerek- You mentioned that the card is 100 years old and I was wondering what kind of card it was. If it is a T206 we are probably talking about Magie, Demmitt or OHara, based on your price range. Those cards appear to suffer water "baths" much better than others for some reason. I have never heard of some of the other century old cards being soaked so perhaps that might be more dangerous. Although it might have occurred, for instance, I have never heard of an E card from that period being soaked to remove paper or to press out a crease, only some tobacco cards. I noticed that my year old post is the beginning of the thread and since then I have gone ahead and had several cards slabbed with paper on the back. It's just too much of a risk, in my opinion, if you don't have a card that you are 100% sure will be able to bear up to that kind of treatment. I've never seen a crease disappear in a card, although I have heard of collectors who have wet their cards and then dried and pressed them with wrinkles or small paper creases disappearing. I assume the stories are true. tbob

Archive

08-29-2006, 01:08 PM

Posted By: DerekYes it is a t206, Ive heard of it done. I just dont want to lose the intregrity of my card. Its for myself. But I would just love to presnt it in a PSA 4 or 5. It may grade a 4 but I think it will stay at a 3 bc of the 2 tiny creases. Its such a nice card I dont think Id be willing to try. But they are just so damn small.

Archive

08-29-2006, 02:52 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackRemoving a 2mm wrinkle is not a crime against humanity or anything close. However, it is unethical for a seller to intentionally withold information about a card that he knows would lower the sales price. This is particularly true when the seller himself would pay less for a card with removed wrinkles. Telling a potential buyer that wrinkles were removed with distilled water and a spoon is okay, but I assume informing potential buyers is not the common intention for someone removing wrinkles.

Archive

08-29-2006, 04:33 PM

Posted By: T206Collector"However, it is unethical for a seller to intentionally withold information about a card that he knows would lower the sales price." I respectfully disagree. Buying a baseball card is like buying a used car. Caveat emptor -- let the buyer beware. However, I'm glad to hear there is a Code of Ethics governing baseball card transactions. When someone gets a chance, could they please e-mail me a copy? If ethics had any impact on this hobby, we would not desperately need third party grading.

Archive

08-29-2006, 05:33 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellIn response to your main question--"My main concern is if this (removing creases) is wrong". It sure is. Card restoration is the biggest problem facing the industry today. People who restore cards should be outed and ostrasized. One semi-frequent poster on Network 54 tried to make a big issue of it a while back and he said he and his business suffered quite a bit because he was not afraid to mention names. Lets hope that SGC and PSA can stay one step ahead of the crooks.

Archive

08-29-2006, 05:56 PM

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth David Rudd wrote, "However, it is unethical for a seller to intentionally withold information about a card that he knows would lower the sales price.", and you responded, "I respectfully disagree. Buying a baseball card is like buying a used car. Caveat emptor -- let the buyer beware." I am really shocked to hear you say this after your very cogent post about where you drew the line in terms of soaking, namely at removing creases, which you yourself characterized as an ethics-based position. Are you really saying it's OK to commit fraud (because the intentional withholding of material information is fraud) just because a baseball card is involved?

Archive

08-29-2006, 06:07 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellPeter, I always wondered who all these people were who soaked and pressed cards. I thought they were some mysterious figures who operated in the shadows of the hobby. I was wrong--they were right in front of my eyes on the premier vintage message board in the hobby. Jim

Archive

08-29-2006, 07:13 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldI know a collector who bought scrapbooks in the early 60s, tore the pages apart, and pitched them in the bathtub to soak off E and T cards. I bet it was going on before then, at least a couple of generations. So it is almost certain that many of the folks who protest the soaking of a card actually own cards that have been soaked. And if that upsets you perfectionists, mail your soaked cards to me, and I'll refund you postage. Frank.

Archive

08-29-2006, 07:56 PM

Posted By: AnonymousI have never altered or restored a card, but I would have no problem purchasing a restored card as long as it is permenantly restored with no foreign materials added or original materials removed or altered from their original state.

Archive

08-29-2006, 08:22 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI owned a restored item. Several years back when I was moving, I stored some stuff at my parents house. This included an 1800s die cut cardboard Sweet Caporal sign from a Mastro auction. When I stopped by to pick up my stuff, my mom told me she accidentally broke off the top of the sign. "But don't worry," she said, "I glued it back on." Using Elmer's glue, she did a good enough job that if she hadn't told me, I probably wouldn't have noticed. I told her she should go into business.

Archive

08-29-2006, 08:45 PM

Posted By: T206CollectorWhen I said that "I have had the same ethical concerns that have been expressed here," I certainly did not mean to suggest that it was wrong for someone to soak a T206 and press out a crease, if that is possible. I was saying that I personally did not like the idea, but I am well aware that it goes on, is undetectable and that I probably have scores of T206 cards in my collection to which it has been done. I can still sleep well tonight. Again, why are you so concerned about whether undetectable things happened to your card over the 100 years prior to your ownership? What does it matter if the pressing was intentionally done to remove a crease as opposed to pressed in a photo album, with unintentional crease removing results? Why does water when applied to a card which is then dried with no ill after effects bother you so much? What is it about the sanctity of dryness that moves your collecting habits? Why should a pencil mark on a card -- the worst kind of alteration -- trump a perfect erasure of that same pencil mark without disturbing the fibers of the card? Now, distinguish these alterations from chemical additives, restoring cardboard, adding white paint to borders, trimming down corners, etc -- all of which modify the card from its factory and worn condition by addition or taking away pieces of cardboard. I understand the concern about these -- as do the grading companies, by the way. But, I'll side with PSA, SGC and GAI on this one -- if its water, and the card is dry so you can't tell there was ever water there, then there is no harm, no foul, and no applicable ethical dilemma. Finally, on fraud, without breaking out my Black's Law Dictionary, or looking to the state law definition of civil fraud, I do not believe that fraud attaches until you make a material misstatement of fact or otherwise attempt to sell a card that has been altered in a detectable sense. According to you, if I soak a card to press a crease, then have the card triple graded by PSA, SGC and GAI as an EX 5, that when I go to sell the EX 5, I also have to disclose that I once soaked the card. Not only that, but I must also disclose whether I kept the card in a smoke free environment, what the humidity was like on the day I shipped the card and how many times I had exposed the card to UV light. That is just outrageous. I usually understand the puritanical limits of baseball card collecting -- I understand why we do not permit the restoration that Picasso and Klimt have succumb to (even with prices far greater than the fabled Wagner) -- but to those of you that dream of cards that have never been soaked and dried under a stack of phone books or what have you, y'all need to get over it because it has happened to your cards and you'll never know and you and your cards will never be the worse for it. Paul

Archive

08-29-2006, 08:57 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethAs someone who doesn't need to consult a dictionary, I can tell you that fraud is the misrepresentation OR OMISSION of a material fact, with intent to induce reliance thereon, etc. I think what we disagree on, Paul, is whether pressing out a crease is material. And I don't think you can really define that by whether or not it is detectable or not, because that is a slippery slope, one can posit technology that could do things to cards that I believe you would consider unacceptable yet they might not be "detectable." Sort of like the crooks being ahead of the detectives. Interesting discussion though, especially when one attempts to draw the lines.

Archive

08-29-2006, 09:19 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethTo further clarify, I think the problem I have with taking out a crease as opposed to scrapbook removal, leaving aside the question of whether it might come back, is that a crease is part of the natural wear a card has encountered during its use, so there seems something improper about deceptively undoing that wear. Whereas storing something in a scrapbook and then soaking it out doesn't involve removing wear that has naturally occurred to the card, just removing it from a storage medium and some extra material in the process. Maybe it's not a perfect distinction, but it's one that makes sense to me -- ESPECIALLY when I would guess a substantial amount of intentional crease removal is for the purpose of improving a card's condition in order to sell it for more money than it otherwise would sell for. To me, that is disclosable.

Archive

08-29-2006, 09:28 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldAmen, Paul... I am against soaking a card to stretch it so that it can be trimmed down to size, and then get a good grade. But I don't worry about it, because I'm not following along this mindless trend of pursuing "graded" cards. I'm all for soaking an old T card to remove tobacco bits or paste or scrapbook paper. And selling a raw card that has had glue or paper washed off of it isn't criminal, it isn't fraudulent... I lack the ability to comprehend the thought process that gets anone to the point to think that water on a T206 is a crime or a tort. If you guys are serious about that stuff, you need to collect Goudeys or Old Judges, they don't soak. Then you'll be safe.

Archive

08-29-2006, 09:38 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethFrank's post leads us back into the same confusion we got into last time this subject was discussed. I think we are conflating washing off extra material with crease removal, and I was at least trying to draw a distinction. This thread is about crease removal, read the first post from the guy asking was it wrong to remove a crease. Who here said anything about the sanctity of dryness or anything against soaking off extra material? Seems to me "you guys" are setting up a straw man. Frank, your views on taking out creases (yes, with water) would be interesting.

Archive

08-29-2006, 09:44 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackThe general concensus is that removing something that wasn't an original part of the card is okay: scrapbook paper, glue, etc. Altering the card itself is considered different: trimming, coloring, etc. In my opinion, of the alterations, pressing out a small wrinkle pales in comparison to, say, trimming. It should be noted that there is a big difference between altering and detailing the alteration at sale, and altering and not detailing the alteration at sale. I'm not about to argue that all alteration is bad, because I don't think all alteration is bad. However, I would argue that, good or bad, alteration that will potentially effect sales price has to be disclosed at sale. A rule of mine for selling is that if in the auction description you omit information about the item because you know the information will lower the sales price, that's something you're supposed to include in the description.

Archive

08-29-2006, 09:52 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldSince you're interested... Soaking to remove a crease is beyond soaking to get flour paste and scrapbook paper off of a card. Soaking to remove a crease so you can get the card graded higher so it will sell better, that bothers me. Soaking to remove a crease so the card presents better in your own collection, that is tollerable, at least to me. I know others will frown or rant about that, some will think it is ok, too. If I bought an E102 Cobb (one of the ones I lack) and the top left corner was folded over like a dog's ear, would I be wrong to straighten it? It seems that some folks here would think so. I'm ok with unfolding it. I'd probably put Ty in water for a while, then after a few hours I'd lay him out on paper towels, straighten that dog ear, dry him off, then press him between blotting paper and encyclopedias (others use phone books, but here in the Kentucky hills the phone books are quite thin). I have 2 really nice Delehanty T206s, Washington and Louisville. I just bought a duplicate Washington card. I'm going to get my good one slabbed and auction it. And I have not soaked it!!! Oddly enough, the replacement was in a PSA 2 holder, but Jim was "busted" out. Now if I can find an affordable and ok Frank Delehanty, I'll be ready to send them off. He has not been soaked by me, either. These were 2 really nice T206s. Back here when other "novice" collectors would talk about qualifying near mint by mentioning the age of the card, I'd show them one of these and hush them up. So that is a long answer... I'd straighten a wrinkle a bit if it straightened in the drying and blotting process a bit, on a card I was keeping. I'd not tinker with the wrinkle of a card I was about to sell. I'd have no problem at all soaking off scrapbook paper from a T206 I was about to sell. If a buyer asked I'd truthfully answer him, and if soaking bothers him then he won't have enough money to buy a card from me.

Archive

08-29-2006, 09:55 PM

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth"Soaking to remove a crease so you can get the card graded higher so it will sell better, that bothers me." I think then, as I suspected, that we in fact are in agreement on the fundamental subject of this thread which is a guy who wanted to do precisely this. This is precisely what bothers me.

Archive

08-29-2006, 10:45 PM

Posted By: Josh K."Soaking to remove a crease so the card presents better in your own collection, that is tollerable, at least to me." And what about when that card "for the collection" inevitably comes back to the market? T206 - I tend to agree that we cant worry about what may have happened to our cards before we obtained them. What I do have a problem with is cards that have wrinkles but are graded as though they should not (for exmaple, psa 4s or sgc 50s) - I always wonder whether these cards were misgraded or soaked to remove a wrinkle, graded properly, and then, after being graded, the wrinkle came back. (I know sgc's standards would permit a small wrinkle on an sgc 50 - nevertheless, you rarely see them follow that standard. Ive found that cards with small wrinkles almost never do better than a 40. I suspect psa's standards are similar).

Archive

08-30-2006, 06:33 AM

Posted By: JimCrandellPeter, But the card will ultimately come back to market. In my opinion, not only is taking a crease out of a card wrong under any circumstances, it should be something that any vintage collector does not tolerate. I suspect you feel this way too--it just did not come out that way in your post. Jim

Archive

08-30-2006, 07:18 AM

Posted By: T206Collector"In my opinion, not only is taking a crease out of a card wrong under any circumstances, it should be something that any vintage collector does not tolerate." At least Peter was able to offer a rationale behind his opinion. Jim, In your opinion, why is it "wrong" and "intolerable" to press a card between two heavy books, or even a lucite screwdown, in order to permanently reduce or remove the appearance of creases or wrinkles on a vintage baseball card? Do we all need to take our cards out of hard cases? And if not, what is an acceptable amount of hard plastic to keep our baseball cards in? Thanks, Paul

Archive

08-30-2006, 07:39 AM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethJim, I thought I was clear that I was distinguishing between taking out creases, which I think is definitely wrong because it is removing wear that occurred during the life of a card, and simply removing scrapbook material. If not, let me reiterate that I am certainly opposed to taking out creases and wrinkles for that reason; also I suppose it is altering the surface of a card as one finds it although that rationale gets a bit tricky.

Archive

08-30-2006, 07:40 AM

Posted By: andy beckeri don't think it is ever ok to alter a card. removing scrapbook remains is taboo by me. soaking a card is taboo. i have collected cards for 31 years. i have never ever altered a card. perhaps i have higher standards than most, but i'm really surprised by some of the responses in this thread. and, as to pressing out a crease....are you kidding???? that is doctoring a card. plain and simple. i may own a card that has been soaked, maybe....but i would never do that myself. never.

Archive

08-30-2006, 07:45 AM

Posted By: T206CollectorPeter, I believe Andy is your "strawman". Paul

Archive

08-30-2006, 07:49 AM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethTo take the discussion one step further, Paul (and others), if it's OK to use pressure to remove a wrinkle, is it also OK to spoon a corner? If not what's the difference, one isn't using chemicals or adding material?

Archive

08-30-2006, 07:57 AM

Posted By: T206CollectorI think you and I agree a lot more than not. You and I share a strong interest in finding that line that collectors are willing to cross over, though we may end up on different sides of those lines. It seems to me it is a very personal decision based on gut feelings and emotions. It is almost a religion, with people referencing "taboos" and "sins." I find the discussion very enlightening and interesting -- ultimately, just entertaining. As I mentioned earlier in this post, the thought of pressing out a wrinkle seemed a bit shady to me, too. But after giving the topic some time to digest, now I'm not so sure. Spooning, to me, could damage the card and scuff the face. But if the net effect is the same as a good pressing between the slabs of a lucite screwdown, I'm not sure it matters one way or the other. I would propose a new forum poll -- what measure of card doctoring is acceptable to you -- you may answer with regard to more than one: a) None - don't you go anywhere near my card! b) Water soaking to remove glue/scrapbook c) Water sooaking, Drying, Pressing to reduce/remove wrinkles/creases d) Chemicals to remove glue/scrapbook e) Chemicals to remove wrinkles f) Spooning to remove wrinkles/straighten corners g) Erasing pencil/pen marks h) Anything that makes the card look more mint -- Trim, Bleach, Etc. But, I am more fascinated by people's rationales than their answers to these questions.

Archive

08-30-2006, 08:09 AM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethI am ok with b. While I don't have a strong gut reaction against erasing a light pencil mark providing it doesn't alter the surface, I think to be consistent I would have to say no to that because it involves changing wear a card acquired during its natural life. I am opposed to the rest of the items on the list.

Archive

08-30-2006, 08:21 AM

Posted By: JimCrandellPaul, All of the examples are unacceptable. Unlike Peter, I am also against the soaking of cards to remove glue. I think it is a slippery slope once you start to think that certain forms of card doctoring are acceptable. The hobby should take a stand(or at least the premeir message board in the hobby should take a stand) that all forms of card doctoring and alteration are unacceptable . Jim

Archive

08-30-2006, 08:28 AM

Posted By: JimCrandellAndy, You are surprised--I am shocked. There are 5 topics in the last two days --all having to do with card doctoring and alteration--many of the posts a "how to do it without anyone knowing" post. Honestly, I think this is a huge issue and the fact that serious collectors such as Paul think its fine to take creases out under certain circumstances is shocking. Previously, I thought this was going on but in the shadows of the industry by characters you would not want to associate with. I was wrong. Jim

Archive

08-30-2006, 08:38 AM

Posted By: T206CollectorJim, You talk about a slipperly slope, but you do not explain why it is slippery or what the harm is. You have zero tolerance, but you do not explain the harm in pressing a card between two heavy books, or even a lucite screwdown, in order to permanently reduce or remove the appearance of creases or wrinkles on a vintage baseball card. Again, do we all need to take our cards out of hard cases? And if not, what is an acceptable amount of hard plastic to keep our baseball cards in? Thanks, Paul

Archive

08-30-2006, 08:39 AM

Posted By: steve fb, d; In a nutshell, If the change is made to up the grade then I'm against it... HOWEVER <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>, Ive removed scrapbook paper and paper tape from my m101-2 Jackson after moistening then pulling most of the scrap paper and avoiding, as much as possible, paper-loss. This did leave residue and very small amt of staining. I've also pulled very yellow Scotch tape from a raw T206 back, again, leaving old adhesive. So long as the desired effect isn't a "bump in grade"... I feel removing paper that was a distraction is a non-issue when there is still adhesive or glue blob still attached to the card back. Of Course, the Jackson didn't receive a number grade anyhow, just Auth. The T206 did grade, but I highly doubt it was a bump since the entire, previously-taped area remained stained. If selling, I would divulge to the buyer that I had made these changes. I don't consider this and erasing writing(That would cause paper-loss and AUTH grade I believe) an alteration, but I'm not as certain of the other choices up there. Steve F

Archive

08-30-2006, 08:43 AM

Posted By: JimCrandellPaul, I was not aware that keeping a card in a hard case can reduce or get rid of creases. My position is that nothing should be done by anyone that intentionally improves the condition of the card.....period. If putting cards between books or in a hard case does that then I am against it.

Archive

08-30-2006, 08:45 AM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliFrank wrote: "you need to collect Goudeys or Old Judges, they don't soak." I can't speak for Old Judges, but Goudeys ABSOLUTELY "soak". I've soaked glue off the back of '33 Goudeys and I've seen and owned '38 Goudeys that have been soaked. I've also seen Bowmans, Topps, Diamond Stars, E cards, T cards, and N cards that have been soaked. Furthermore, I think your comment about the "mindless pursuit of collecting graded cards" is irrelevant to the discussion. I know you like to take pokes at people who collect cards in slabs, but, at least in my mind, this has nothing to do with the issue. The issue, in my mind, has to do with the intent to deceive - whether you're deceiving a grader, a buyer, or just someone viewing your collection has little relevance to me. I have a '33 Goudey Billy Herman - gorgeous card. Perfect centering, decent corners, vivid color, wrinkle right across the middle. Without the wrinkle, it's a 6. With the wrinkle, it's a 3. I guess I could have tried to take the wrinkle out, but I elected not to - it's still a beautiful card, and I'm not that concerned with the number on the holder. So I had it graded, and I enjoy it every time I view my collection. <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1156862733.JPG"> -Al

Archive

08-30-2006, 08:58 AM

Posted By: andy beckeri guess i am the strawman, or to quote reggie....perhaps i'm the straw that stirs the drink <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> i agree with jim 100%. don't alter cards. love them the way they are or upgrade..... this is a very slippery slope......any alterations, whether dectactable or not, are unacceptable. i cannot believe we are discussing "acceptable" alterations.

Archive

08-30-2006, 09:27 AM

Posted By: AnonymousHow is removing glue,paper, or tobacco any different from removing a crease! Natural state of wear. WHat about all that glue and paper that was once on the card. That feels far worse than this. The card once had a huge chunk of glue and paper on the back and now it doesnt. A card once had a crease and now it doesnt. How is this right but the other is wrong. Doesnt feel right to me. If you say altering a card from its natural state is wrong. Then all of it is wrong!

Archive

08-30-2006, 09:35 AM

Posted By: AnonymousBump in a grade? What do you think removing paper or glue does to the grade!!! If you think removing glue or tape from a card is ok, then you must accept removing a crease. Its the same thing!

Archive

08-30-2006, 09:38 AM

Posted By: leonThe common thinking, by most but not all, is that if you take something off of a card that wasn't supposed to be there, and there are no remnants left behind, then it's ok. I agree and that is all I have ever done. Soaking and regular erasing of pencil marks are ok by me and I don't care if someone does it to a card I am buying. If I can't tell anything was done I don't care.....Not a purist attitude but a collector one.....imo.. edited to say I still think it's wrong to soak wrinkles/creases out.....

Archive

08-30-2006, 09:41 AM

Posted By: T206Collector"If putting cards between books or in a hard case does that then I am against it." When you have a card with a crease, then by definition some amount of force was applied to the card which caused it to be bent in two or more different directions. Thus, the card, when creased, was not flat. By flattening the card in a toploader or screw down -- or even just in your fingers after the bend -- you are reducing the effect and appearance of the crease, even if the crease is still visible under proper lighting. Over time, this flatness would only improve the appearance of the crease, but I am unaware of any studies done on this point. But I really appreciate all of the input here. The only way we're ever going to identify a unified set of principles about baseball cards is to explore the minds of the collectors beyond the initial trigger response, which is "alterations are taboo." Well, why? And how far are you willing to go before you think you've crossed that line? And, what is that line? Why is it different from one sophisticated collector to the next? This would make a great article, but I suspect many collectors that favor water soaking and pressing would fear retaliation by the collectors that view such practices, though clearly accepted by many sophisticated collectors, as taboo.

Archive

08-30-2006, 09:42 AM

Posted By: AnonymousBut like they said, if you press out a crease and you cant tell it has been done. then is it ok? Removing something that wasnt suposed to be there. It was part of its journey to be placed in a scrap book. Like a crease. They both can be removed. No wear or glue was ever suposed to be there but they are. Natural state should stay. Even if in a book. All is wrong. I feel removing a card from paper is just as bad as anything

Archive

08-30-2006, 09:50 AM

Posted By: AnonymousWhat if the card in question was once glued to an album. Then I soaked it and removed the glue. Which has been quoted as being acceptable. now while I did this the once crease that was 2 mm long vanished. What do you do now. Is the card now altered or just part of removing it from the album and restoring it to how it was suposed to be? Glue and paper free. What do you do now, Re crease the card?

Archive

08-30-2006, 09:51 AM

Posted By: JimCrandellLeon, I find that awful hard to believe. Sorry but I would have to have that proven to me before I accept that. We have not known each other until recently but I have been involved in the hobby for over 20 yeras and certainly my experience has been that most think that ANY form of card alteration and doctoring is wrong. Jim

Archive

08-30-2006, 09:52 AM

Posted By: steve fPeterose, You made your point several times. Your frequent responses may skew an honest tally. I'm interested in others posts. Please wait for other opinions to come in then criticize. Thanks. Steve F

Archive

08-30-2006, 09:56 AM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliMost collectors I know - and I say most, not all - feel the way Leon does about soaking off paper and gunk. Most collectors I know also feel that taking out creases and wrinkles is wrong. Why the difference? I don't know. I can't articulate it myself. That being said, one thing I DO know is that the altered cards are out there - whether soaked, pressed, trimmed, or otherwise - and most of us probably have a few in our collections. I think there's a direct correlation between the age and condition of the card, and the probability that it has been altered - meaning the older and higher grade the card, the more likely there's been an alteration. Just my opinion. -Al

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:02 AM

Posted By: leonWe'll see......see new thread poll....I think you are going to find it hard to believe....but maybe I have it all wrong....best regards...your friendly pot stirrer....

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:14 AM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethI think I can articulate the basis for Al's position which seems similar to my own. Scrapbook material is EXTRA material, not part of the card, so if you can remove it without altering the surface of the card, then you are not really tampering with the card itself. However, a crease is something that affects the surface of a card and is presumably something acquired in its natural life, so removing a crease truly is altering a card to improve its condition by removing wear it has incurred. Does that make sense? Jim, I certainly respect yours and Andy's absolutist position, although I think I can draw the line where I draw it without getting onto that old slippery slope. I think as a practical matter too one must recognize that a whole lot of T cards were stored in scrapbooks.

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:15 AM

Posted By: JimCrandellLeon, Perhaps so but I am on this board mainly to learn so it is what it is. I would truly be disappointed however if it turned out you were right. Jim

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:16 AM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliI wanted to make a comment on Leon's poll, specifically with respect to the removal of ink. In general, I don't do it. I stay away with cards with writing on them - I only have two: A T206 Matty and an Abner Doubleday CDV. However, I also feel that if a card was marked and the mark was removed in such a way that it was ABSOLUTELY IMPERCEPTIBLE, and left no erasure marks or scrubs, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'm sure I own more than a few. However, I think there are some important caveats: 1) E121 Herpolsheimers. ALL of these cards had pencil marks on them. When I see one without pencil marks, it makes me insane. 2) Any prewar card with a rubber stamp. I don't want these stamps removed, no matter where they came from. I feel like these stamps are part of the card - whether they're an ad stamp or the stamp of someone's name. How's THAT for wishy-washy? -Al

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:18 AM

Posted By: AnonymousYes I have, but I still havent heard anything about them. I would just like to hear the thoughts on soaking a card off an album and then it somehow removed a crease. Then is it wrong

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:19 AM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliPeter: Your articulation of the point is about as close to what I feel as you're going to get. You and I have discussed this issue at length many times, and I agree we're on the same page. EDIT - to Peterose, to answer the question you've asked a couple of times. I'd find it hard to envision a situation where a crease can be removed without any sort of pressure put on it. The process of soaking gunk off a card usually doesn't involve pressure - just soaking, maybe a little rubbing. However, if a crease mysteriously came out of a card I was soaking for the purpose of removing gunk, then I'd have to consider that an exception, and not the rule, and so I'd live with it. -Al

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:25 AM

Posted By: Todd SchultzCount me as one who is against all alterations. IMHO, is soaking tolerable--no. Is pressing tolerable--absolutely not. I can envision a few alterations that might be tolerated, but they would all involve very low end cards, and any sale would require disclosure, unless the alteration were obvious. I could see applying a good old fashioned eraser to a card with offensive writing, so long as a sign of the erasure remained. I doubt I would ever own such a card, unless it was a filler or extremely scarce, but if so, I would make sure you could see signs of erasure with the naked eye. I also could see filling in a pin hole with the card's surrounding fibers--again, this would be making an already low end card less ugly. Finally, and I know this is slippery, but if I ding a corner taking a card out of its holder, I have no problem with using my thumb and forefinger to try and "press" it back to the way it was. Some other steps to improve corners are tougher calls for me. On a somewhat related topic, I do believe that the thinking of this board has changed over time, as has the thinking of some long-time members of this board and its predecessor. I have watched this with interest over the years. Maybe it's evolution, maybe just coming out of the closet, maybe keepin up with the Jones', maybe just my imagination. Still, I swear if one were to take the time to study all the old threads from this and the Full Count Board, one would see how the thinking about alterations (and grading companies, too, for that matter) has changed here.

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:32 AM

Posted By: martindl Always an interesting topic and always one that elicits differing arguments as to the validity or not. I have an opinion but it applies to me only - and without trying to sound self righteous, though it likely will, I don't think its about cards and creases and paper, its about personal integrity. I won't call it ethics, because its obvious from this thread that there can be no standard - what some people think is ethical, others do not. I don't belive anyone can be judge and jury on this one. Personal integrity is just that - personal. There is no standard, its not a measure to judge others, its what applies to each of us based on our beliefs, upbringing, etc. I live my life to my standard of integrity (i didn't say higher than anyone elses) - whether thats a resume, selling a car, selling a card, someone ringing something up wrong in a grocery store, etc. I don't think there are times when my personal standards apply and others where they don't - for me its an all the time thing regardless of the situation. As to soaking, pressing, altering, etc. its not for me, based on the above. I do feel quite sure that I have cards that others have alterered but if they didn't tell me about it, and the graders can't detect it, then I can't do much about it.

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:37 AM

Posted By: JimCrandellTodd, How would you say it has changed over the years? Jim

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:53 AM

Posted By: Todd SchultzI would say that there is a much more stated tolerance for doing things to a card now than previously. When I looked at the informal poll, it was running about 50-50 on whether soaking and removing marks was acceptable, maybe a little more toward acceptable. A couple of years or so ago, I believe it would have been about 20% in favor, 80% against, give or take. Maybe it was just that the stated opposition was more vocal back then, but I don't think so--I think if you studied the posts carefully, you'd see that some frequent posters then and now have changed positions. I know of one off the top of my head, but will not divulge his name either here or privately. It's not that big a deal, people of course can change their views over time, and who knows, maybe I remain the unenlightened one. I pass no judgments, I merely believe this board has become far more accepting of changes made to cards than it was a couple or few years back.

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:58 AM

Posted By: JimCrandellThanks Todd--puzzling to me why but thats what it is.

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:08 AM

Posted By: leonI have to say that so far I am surprised at the poll. I thought it was heavily weighted towards my way of thinking...not that I will ever go with the flow just to go with it.....so, so far I am surprised....Maybe I was wrong? First time for everything....and btw, I don't see me changing my view on the subject.....as I did on the F vs E card thread.....best regards.....your servant...

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:47 AM

Posted By: JimCrandellLeon, I am surprised too--perhaps more than you. I can't see me changing my point of view either. My experience comes from the graded card world where people got their cards graded to avoid cards that had been altered or restored in some way. My sense is that they would be heavily against both of these. I had thought that true vintage collectors would be as well. At least I feel good that the view on taking out creases is unanimous although maybe someone would be afraid to say it is okay at this point? Jim

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:52 AM

Posted By: JohnI’m a little tossed up on this issue. I do find it funny though, or at least a little odd. I have a few of the Harris Collection Cards, which I won in 2000, as well as a handful of high-grade T206’s. While not the amount or extent of high-grade material that other collectors have. A lot of collectors here if I remember correctly don’t collect high-grade cards for the below reasons. Including you Paul (T206collector) 1.They don’t look real, compared to well loved cards. 2.They have most likely been altered in a way, which allowed them to become high end. 3.Price bubble will burst soon, on the overpaying and number chasing game. 4.They can’t afford to keep up with the Jones’s. While I agree with #3 to a point, and unfortunately for the time being I am held in a holding pattern around #4. I find it hypocritical of some of the views expressed in this topic. So removing paper, pencil, glue and creases,is ok for some. If you end up with that EX+ butterfly from its G-VG cocoon. However how many Harris type Cards and other high-end cards have been altered in your own words? What’s the difference? How many PSA 7,8,9’s had glue or paper on them at one time, hence they were altered to obtain that high-end grade, in your own words your against that, so you shy away from those pre-war blazers,even criticize those who do collect them to a degree. But altering a card to EX in your own collection is ok? The only difference in my mind was the quality of the material pre-altering. The situation and methods are the same, the outcome different. It’s ok to steal a pack of gum, just not rob a bank? Where do you draw the line, and who foots the bill for you decisions in the end? Not a goodie goodie, just I have to agree with Jim where does it stop, a little soak, a little press, why not a little trim? After all, the card is oversized the factory didn’t want them this size. I will say that I have less a problem with erasing pencil, as long it’s disclosed to me. However my gut says I’ll be the last to know, and thousands of dollars later on a card that’s not cool. IMO Just my thoughts.

Archive

08-30-2006, 12:01 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethJohn I am not sure I see any inconsistency. My fear of high grade prewar cards is not that they have been soaked out of scrapbooks but that they have had wrinkles removed, or have had corners spooned out, or worse. When I was collecting high grade prewar I just saw too many cards that even to my eye (which is far less well-trained than most of the guys here) looked odd in one way or another (they were significantly short, the thickness disappeared at the corners when you looked at them sideways, etc. etc.). But for reasons stated I don't have a problem with soaking if its purpose and effect is just to remove extra material without degrading the surface of the card in any way. Although again, I have the highest respect for people with a more absolutist point of view, and as in anything in life once one moves away from an absolutist position it is hard to be perfectly consistent.

Archive

08-30-2006, 12:09 PM

Posted By: JohnPeter well taken I understand. For the record I don’t collect ultra-high end either. But mostly because of that damn Powerball, how many tickets does a guy have to buy! I hear you loud and clear, however wouldn’t a PSA 8 that was covered in glue at one time, be almost as deceptive as a guy trimming and soaking? Good points Peter, noted. John

Archive

08-30-2006, 12:19 PM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliJohn, I definitely don't think so. If I found a discount-priced bunch of oversized Goudeys that could be trimmed down to sharpen their corners, or that had wrinkles that could be pressed out, I probably wouldn't buy them. If I found a discount-priced scrapbook from 1933 that had a bunch of brand-new Goudeys glued to the pages that could be soaked off, I'd jump all over them. Why? I don't know. I will refer you back to Peter's posts, as I've elected to make him my official spokesperson on topics relating to card alteration. -Al

Archive

08-30-2006, 12:26 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethJohn, I would guess that any card that was handled enough to have been stuck in a scrapbook with glue or whatever substance would no longer have been NM/NT anyway even aside from the glue. I could very well be wrong on that, but my guess is the cards that have genuinely survived in that condition were more or less unhandled or stored in some other way. How's that for fighting the hypothetical? But that said, if a pristine or nearly pristine card was glued into a scrapbook, and retained its NM MT qualities otherwise, and you could get it out of the scrapbook and get the glue off just with water and leave the surface just as it was before, then I don't think that would trouble me really.

Archive

08-30-2006, 12:30 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzI think your Goudey example brings things into sharp focus. I wonder the various boardmembers' views if they each found a scrapbook page of beautiful goudeys, T-206s or whatever. 1. What a cryin shame these are glued into a book. I think I'll pass. 2. What a cryin shame these are glued into a book. Still, I'll buy it and keep the cards on the page. 3. What a cryin shame these are glued into a book. Still, I'll take 'em out of the book and keep 'em, glue and paper on the back as is. 4. Hey, I can soak these puppies and have some primo cards, of course, for my own enjoyment only. 5. Hey, I can soak these puppies and have some primo cards, which I can submit or sell as high grade. If number 5, would you disclose the soaking--why or why not?

Archive

08-30-2006, 12:30 PM

Posted By: JohnAl, well taken I respect your thoughts. I would like to make clear I’m not saying soaking & trimming are complete equals. Nor am I advocating either. However the point of a NRMT card is that it has survived all these years without being trimmed, glued, soaked etc. At least it is to me, perhaps I’m in the minority wont be the first time. In fact if I bought and paid full price for a NRMT card to find out it was covered in glue at one time, and soaked off. I would be just as mad if I found out the card was trimmed. I would equally frown upon the person who sold it to me if they did not disclose such information upon purchase. To me working on a card in anyway is altering or repairing it. In the art world repairs happen all the time, and most are so perfect you would never know. But it almost always lowers the value of that work. I think the same should apply in our little world.

Archive

08-30-2006, 12:33 PM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliThis is all very interesting and I'm not getting anything done at work. -Al

Archive

08-30-2006, 12:39 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethI guess where I would part company with John is over the definition of alteration. Maybe it's just semantics, but I can see where removing extra material without degrading the surface could be considered something short of alteration. What, if fact, is "altered" in such a case? One can always posit absurd examples, but surely not even the most ardent anti restorationist would argue with blowing dust off a card before putting it into a holder. Now suppose it was something that you couldn't blow off but had to flick off with a fingernail. Alteration? To me paper removal with water is more on that spectrum than on the crease removal/spooning/trimming spectrum.

Archive

08-30-2006, 12:50 PM

Posted By: steve fal·ter (ôltr) Pronunciation Key v. al·tered, al·ter·ing, al·ters v. tr. 1. To change or make different; modify: altered my will. 2. To adjust (a garment) for a better fit. 3. To castrate or spay.

Archive

08-30-2006, 12:53 PM

Posted By: T206Collector...that turns on the disclosure element. I think I've beaten this point into the ground, but why disclose something that isn't there -- is and will always be undetectable. The reason people want a disclosure, in my opinion, is not so they can decide if a card has been changed, but if it has been undetectably changed. More to the point, if the card has been graded by PSA, SGC or GAI, then I really do not think any disclosure is needed. That's the beauty of 3d party grading. I would rather have SGC's final word on a card than yours. Why? For a number of reasons, including, I suppose primarily, the liquidity of the card is not dependent on your opinion. Finally, I think Wonkaticket is right that there is a parallel or crossover here between high grade lovers and the SGC 40-60 and below crowd. I do not buy high grade T206 cards -- i.e., higher than SGC 80 -- because of a presumption of alteration I bestow on those cards. But when I say alteration, let me be clear -- I'm not talking about soaking and removing paper/glue, which I am sure is why some cards are quite high grade (that is, they were kept in albums all those years with sharp corners, white borders and no creases). I am, rather, talking about, almost exclusively, trimming, i.e., the taking away of cardboard from the card after it leaves the factory. This is universally disliked by collectors. But, perhaps those that want all of their cards to be PSA 7 and higher, may be a little bit more, say, uptight about former/hidden/undetectable flaws in their cardboard. Sort of a virgin fantasy, but applied to baseball cards.

Archive

08-30-2006, 12:58 PM

Posted By: John“I would like to make clear I’m not saying soaking & trimming are complete equals. Nor am I advocating either.” I think I stated that above, certainly one is more obtrusive than the other. Removing glue is more than cleaning to me; the glue wasn’t there when it left the factory in 1909. When added later life the value of that card dropped IMO. Removed or not the card was not as found, and should be fully disclosed and should lower the value. I think a good example is the car-collecting world. Buyers pay big bucks for factory exact cars, in other words no changes all original parts, paint etc. If you bought a Duesenberg that was blue, and upon closer inspection you found the original color to be green, stripping and repainting it does not make it original again. Where does this stop? Why don’t we all clean our PB backs to get rid of those stains etc? I don’t collect coins, but is ok to polish out scratches in coins? Does it affect their value? Peter please clarify, are you saying if you bought a NRMT-EX card for market value on that type of card, only to find out a week ago it was GD at best. You would have no problem and be happy with the purchase? Would you disclose or pass on to the next buyer with no mention of your findings? Just curious?

Archive

08-30-2006, 01:16 PM

Posted By: JohnOne more question, from what we know. The method for soaking to remove glue & paper etc. is virtually the same, in which you would go about removing a crease correct? So who’s to say by cleaning and or removing glue etc. that you are or could be altering the card in the process? Seems like a Pandora’s box that could be why most would not disclose. Seems hard to prove “I was just cleaning the back, had no intention of removing any creases and the card was crease free when I began the process”. Kind of like your wife finding you in bed with another women, “honey this isn’t what it looks like I can explain!”

Archive

08-30-2006, 01:22 PM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliTo bring in elements of another thread, I don't think you can really remove a crease or wrinkle without adding pressure. I don't apply any pressure if I'm soaking a card - it's purely soaking and perhaps some rubbing. Once I soaked a card for too long and ADDED wrinkles, which sucked. But I can't see how you can remove a wrinkle without doing something besides purely soaking it. -Al

Archive

08-30-2006, 01:46 PM

Posted By: T206CollectorIf you soak without pressing the card will warp. You have to dry it between two pieces of paper and then beneath a stack of books (or something akin).

Archive

08-30-2006, 01:49 PM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliUnderstood. I'm talking about the kind of pressure that would take out a wrinkle. My experience has been that sticking a wet card inside a thick book will not do that. Perhaps yours is different. -Al

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:03 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethJohn not sure I understand the question, what is the reason the card is GD as opposed to NM, is is because it started off with glue and therefore really was only GD to begin with, or that a crease came back, or simply that the seller overgraded it?

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:06 PM

Posted By: T206Collector"My experience has been that sticking a wet card inside a thick book will not [take out a wrinkle." I actually think that may be true, but I believe I have seen instances were the wrinkle or crease was ameliorated some, if not wholly removed. As much as this is obviously a taboo on this Board, I do think that research may be warranted. Of course, anyone that conducts such research and reports on the results runs the risk of being labeled a card doctor, from whom people won't want to buy or trade cards from. Perhaps if the results were fully disclosed the results would be different.

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:13 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethSuppose I took an identical card, graded for the sake of example 7 by any one of the major grading companies. I auction it on four different occasions. Hypo 1, I just give the grade and a scan. Hypo 2, I give the grade, a scan, and a glowing description. Hypo 3, I give the grade, the scan, the description, but add that I removed scrapbook material before submitting but it is now undetectable, as shown by the grade. Hypo 4, same as 3 except I add that I soaked and pressed out a small wrinkle before submitting but it is now undetectable, as shown by the grade. I would bet that especially if it was a desirable card, the prices in all four scenarios would not differ significantly.

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:40 PM

Posted By: leonI agree and I would pay the same... which may not be the prevailing sentiment...but it's mine. To each their own.....heck, I've got better stuff to worry about than if my vintage card had something done to it that is totally unnoticeable....

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:47 PM

Posted By: JohnBut were talking every day baseball cards, hell even the most elusive T206’s there are certainly more than one of. I would have to say you would see some price differences in those auction listings especially upon full discloser. I’m hoping that people would bid accordingly knowing that the only reason it’s a 7 is because someone worked it. I would also hope that it wouldn’t even obtain that 7 because the card does not deserve the grade after being worked. Hell isn’t that the whole point these plastic slabbing Sob’s are here in the hobby now? To weed this stuff out, not decide what level of working it is ok and what’s not?? That’s why your scenario makes no sense to me. Do you think after being soaked and worked it deserves the grade Peter? I guess where you and I differ Peter is I am pretty much a black & white guy. Doing anything to improve the quality and value of an item to me is doctoring, no matter how innocent the terms. If the card due to you efforts is more valuable. Congrats you have doctored a card period. You can spin it to say it wasn’t meant to be there. It was to increase my viewing pleasure and make the card more attractive in my collection etc. The guy who trims them is also looking to make them more attractive, as is the guy with black marker on the N300’s. He’s making them more attractive to buyers for more $. Changing anything on that card that was different than from the day you found it, is doctoring a card and in some small way makes you a card doctor. Now replace the glue and or wrinkle when you sell and I’ll eat my own words, and type a formal apology. I respect your views Peter I do, just having a hard time wrapping my mind around them. Nothing personal, and this isn’t just addressed to you. You and I just seem to be typing to each other. <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/smileys/143.gif">

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:47 PM

Posted By: Jim CrandellPeter, I disagree. I would not bid on it in cases 3 and 4 and it sounds like at least 30-40% would not either. Even those who think that card doctoring is fine I bet most would not bid as much. Jim

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:53 PM

Posted By: JohnLeon, So your of the hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil Monkeys huh? <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/smileys/143.gif"> I respect that and if it works for you great. I just don’t buy it though it sounds as if your saying as long as I cant tell, its ok. So if I were to devise a new method of trimming cards today that was undetectable and told you later after you got and paid for your expensive type card. You would be ok with that? It only matters if someone else can tell? Regards, John

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:54 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethI do not mean to lend my approval to any of this by my hypothetical. Personally, as I have stated, soaking does not really bother me for the reasons many have stated, but crease removal does and I PERSONALLY would avoid scenario 4 totally. I am just stating my admittedly cynical views as to what I think would happen in the market, because I think there are enough people buying cards, UNLIKE Jim and yourself and others to be sure, who care more about the label than anything else and they would bid the card up to the same levels. Just my opinion and I hope I am wrong.

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:57 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethJohn as to your point about the scenario making no sense, I firmly believe many many cards that have had wrinkles taken out of them and worse are making their way into high number holders. It's debatable what percentage, but I don't think the grading companies have the time or the technology to detect very expert work.

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:57 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzI disagree also. Moreover, since it seems the prevailing view is that soaking etc. is both OK and widely done, then why is it rarely, i.e. never disclosed? Hell, if the price realized is going to be the same with or without disclosure, then why not tell it like it is? Methinks it's because it does affect the price and the number of bidders, and as Jim pointed out, a healthy percentage of people here would not buy it.

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:00 PM

Posted By: JohnWell said Todd. Hey I was number 100, where the heck is the confetti??

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:01 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethWhat would someone have to GAIN by disclosing it? Nothing. Plus if someone disclosed they had done something like soaking, even if the market generally considered it acceptable, then people probably would conclude that seller was doing everything else under the sun too. So the mere fact that it isn't disclosed doesn't prove to me it would result in a lower price.

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:08 PM

Posted By: T206Collector"I would not bid on it in cases 3 and 4 and it sounds like at least 30-40% would not either. Even those who think that card doctoring is fine I bet most would not bid as much." But it would only take one or two transactions involving that card before the history of the alteration was lost, even with perfect disclosure by the original doctor. FACT -- if the card has been slabbed a PSA 7, it will sell like any 7 eventually, no matter what the history of the doctoring is. The frustrating aspect of this link for me is that some people are so concerned with undetectable historical alterations. It does not compute to me -- and the only answers you get are basically fanatic responses like "TABOO!" with nary an explanation for why an undetectable alteration matters to them. "But Paul, just because its undetectable doesn't mean it didn't happen." Yeah, but so what. Seriously, so what.

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:11 PM

Posted By: Josh K.John, Just curious what you would do with a card that had a tiny piece of dried food stuck to the back - would you scrap it off before sending it to be graded or leave it on if it didnt fall off naturally?

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:14 PM

Posted By: JohnMakes sense Peter, but why wouldn’t they conclude that can you blame them? If the seller is adept enough at taking glued cards and passing them as high graded examples for monetary gain. Why am I to believe that the doctoring stops there, why not remove a crease, trim a border etc? They all have the same end result. A card that was worth much less being worth much, much more! Paul exactly my point, I’m not naive enough to think that the history on that 7 wouldn’t be lost either be a re-submit. I’m also not naïve enough to think that any seller/collector, who is soaking cards to increase value/appeal, isn’t dabbling maliciously or unintentionally in the other baseball card black arts either.

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:15 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethSuppose I had a card (maybe this would only happen on a new shiny one, dunno) that was really stuck to the surface of a screwdown and it would take some significant intervention to separate it, although it could be done without damage. John under one interpretation of your "you have to take it as you find it" position I could not even do that. And if you are OK with removing it from the screwdown (I am just making this up, but hypothetically by using steam or something), why analytically is that different from removing a card from a scrapbook while retaining the integrity of the surface. (Yeah, it must be get a life day lol).

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:20 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethJohn I think we are in agreement here except as to the issue of scrapbook removal, and also perhaps our views on how the market as a whole would react to certain disclosures. But I agree with you that taking out creases, erasing pencil and ink marks, and anything more serious should not be done, whether or not it is detectable.

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:20 PM

Posted By: BobSpeaking of dried food, I have a gorgeous E90-1 Young Boston with brilliant red front which had a tiny bit of candy (caramel) stuck on the front near the bottom. 10 years ago not knowing any better, I picked at it with my thumbnail and away came part of it with a tiny bit of red background. GRRRRRR.I sent it in to SGC and my 80 looking (otherwise) card came back a 30 with a tiny fragment of caramel still stuck to it. Nicest Young I have ever seen other than "the food."

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:21 PM

Posted By: Jim CrandellPaul, Its the principal of it. I don't want cards that have been altered period. Do I have cards in my collection that have been altered--unquestionably--if you or another expert could come in and say this had a crease pressed out or this other one was soaked and trimmed and this was soaked to get rid of the glue, I would gladly get rid of those cards. After a few transactions would collectors lose track of which cards had been doctored--yes--but in the initial transaction or transactions the ones where card doctoring is disclosed even if it is benign in your judgment would sell for less. Jim

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:31 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethI agree with Jim that detectable or not should not and really cannot be the test, because that leads you down a real slippery slope ending (maybe) at trimming and regraining which might be undetectable at least without an FBI investigation. It comes down, to me anyhow, to what you think is acceptable in the first place.

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:37 PM

Posted By: JohnJosh, Good question, I have only once picked at a T206 of mine. It was a little speck of something, when flicked it left a nice tiny missing piece of paper. <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/smileys/86.gif"> Card was raw and card was sold raw years ago. From there on out I didn’t screw with stuff. In fact I have a nice Matty now with a tiny dot of crud on the rim of the cap, should I crack it out and soak it to remove? I’m fine with it, and by doing so if in fact I raised the grade on the card and its value. I would have doctored the Matty, no matter how innocent the terms. <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/collection/t206settrial/websize/mathewson%202.jpg"> Lets also not split hairs here guys. Were not talking about a tiny speck and an innocent scratch of a finger! Were talking about a multi step process of removing major amounts of damage to a card, which can’t be done by a hundred scratches of a finger. Huge difference, I’m also not playing the holier than thou card either. I’ve copied software, I’ve downloaded a few tunes without paying the artist (Sorry Bono),I've even dare I say it looked at naked ladies on the web! So I’m no angel by any means. I just think major card work isn’t Kosher. (Can I say that as a Goy/Goyim?)<img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/smileys/77.gif">

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:40 PM

Posted By: steve ferr, John?.. Those weren't ladies.

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:42 PM

Posted By: JohnAhhh man really! Ouch thats the last time I take internet links from Jay B!

Archive

08-30-2006, 04:31 PM

Posted By: T206Collector"if you or another expert could come in and say this had a crease pressed out or this other one was soaked and trimmed and this was soaked to get rid of the glue" ...then it would not qualify as a card with an undetectable alteration. My arguments are all based on no one ever being able to determine that your card was altered. But I appreciate your efforts in attaching a rationale to your opinion.

Archive

08-30-2006, 04:31 PM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliThere are naked ladies on the web?! What am I doing HERE? -Al

Archive

08-30-2006, 05:16 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesThere are naked ladies everywhere and when appropriate, I prefer viewing them with their creases removed, other recoloring and doctoring - so long as the alteration is undetectable. The same with my cards. Any undetectable alteration is fine. After all = you can not detect it - so is it there? No, Gil, I can not detect any alteration. Well friend, then there is none. But I am not the doctor.

Archive

08-30-2006, 06:18 PM

Posted By: Todd Schultz"There are naked ladies everywhere and when appropriate, I prefer viewing them with their creases removed, other recoloring and doctoring - so long as the alteration is undetectable." Agreed, sometimes the crease can be attractive, and I have no objection to a nice looking trim job. Don't know about filling any holes with other fibers though.

Archive

08-30-2006, 08:23 PM

Posted By: martindlPaul, You said "The frustrating aspect of this link for me is that some people are so concerned with undetectable historical alterations. It does not compute to me -- and the only answers you get are basically fanatic responses like "TABOO!" with nary an explanation for why an undetectable alteration matters to them. "But Paul, just because its undetectable doesn't mean it didn't happen." Yeah, but so what. Seriously, so what." Not sure why a response that doesn't agree with your view is labelled as 'fanatic' nor am I sure why you need to throw condescending comments like "But I appreciate your efforts in attaching a rationale to your opinion". You're trying to play dumb but you're not. You're clearly intelligent and articulate. If you read what some people are saying you'll see that the answer to your question of "so what?" is "because its wrong". Its not wrong in the eyes of the law, actually maybe it is, but for sakes of argument i'll assume it isn't ( I think Adam posted something a long while back about it being unlawful in California to alter a card and resell it). Just because you can do something and no one can tell and you can get away with it still doesn't make it right. Take that sentence and apply it to something much more sinister and maybe you'll better understand the "because its wrong" camp. Try robbery or burglary or murder for example. I'm trying to provide rationale, so lets not have a bunch of folks claiming i'm trying to equate card alteration with murder please.

Archive

08-30-2006, 08:46 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesNo, a valid analogy would be a robbery that no one could tell that something was taken. Therefore, no crime was committed.

Archive

08-30-2006, 09:09 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesA shiny silver coin sometimes takes on a very attractive patina when exposed to the right envoronmental conditions. If you found out that the conditions were just right to accomplish this, and thereby double the coins value by leaving it on the old willow stump out past the shed for a day, would you do it? How about if you found out that if you put the coin in a potato and baked it at 350 degrees for 11 minutes, you would get the desired patina; would you do it? Suppose you had to shake the coin in a jar containing non hazardous chemicals, would that be all right? Nobody will ever be able to distinguish natural toning from that induced by artificial means. Where do you draw the line? Nobody can tell + you don't even care about coins + you can double your money in an hour or less.