Informal Poll- Soaking and erasing of cards [Archive]

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:00 AM

Posted By: leonLet's make this a simple poll. All I would like to see is a 1. yes or no 2. yes or no... 1. Is soaking glue or paper off of a card ok to do? 2. Is erasing a pencil or pen mark ok to do? PLEASE only post a 1 and 2 and yes or no...we'll see what the prevailing thoughts are..... thanks moderator dude

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:02 AM

Posted By: leon1.yes 2.yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:06 AM

Posted By: Brian Weisner1. Yes 2. Yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:06 AM

Posted By: Sean1. yes 2. yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:07 AM

Posted By: John S1. no 2. yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:09 AM

Posted By: Scott1. no 2. yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:10 AM

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth1. A qualified yes, if it doesn't alter the surface of the card in any way. 2. No.

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:11 AM

Posted By: Al C.risafulli1. yes 2. no -Al

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:12 AM

Posted By: Joe Jones1. yes 2. no

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:13 AM

Posted By: David Vargha1. Yes 2. Yes DavidVargha@hotmail.com

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:13 AM

Posted By: JimCrandell1 No 2 No

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:13 AM

Posted By: Wesley1. no 2. no

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:15 AM

Posted By: Joe D.I'd love to elaborate on my answer... but since short and sweet is the request - 1) Yes 2) Yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:15 AM

Posted By: Anonymous1. NO NO NO 2. Yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:17 AM

Posted By: Steve M.1. YES 2. NO (I too would love to elaborate) edited ....to change answer 1 to yes. (moderator)

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:19 AM

Posted By: Chris Bland1. No 2. Yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:21 AM

Posted By: joe brennan1 yes 2 yes People said it was a million dollar wound. But the government must keep that money, cause I ain't never seen a penny of it.

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:22 AM

Posted By: Kenny Cole1. Yes 2. Yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:24 AM

Posted By: dstudeba1. I don't think so 2. no

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:25 AM

Posted By: Rob Fouch1. yes 2. yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:27 AM

Posted By: Todd Schultz1. no 2. no

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:31 AM

Posted By: andy becker1. no 2. no

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:33 AM

Posted By: T206Collector1. Yes 2. Yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:38 AM

Posted By: martindl 1. No 2. No

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:42 AM

Posted By: DJ1) YES 2) YES

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:00 AM

Posted By: Dean H1. No 2. No

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:05 AM

Posted By: Keith O'LearyYesYes

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:12 AM

Posted By: Troy1. Yes 2. No

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:17 AM

Posted By: Henry Eshelman1. Yes 2.Yes Thanks, Henry Eshelman Website:www.freewebs.com/vintagebaseball

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:18 AM

Posted By: Bob Pomilla1. Yes 2. No

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:23 AM

Posted By: Gary Nuchereno1. yes 2. yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:24 AM

Posted By: Tom Boblitt1.yes 2.yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:28 AM

Posted By: Richard1. no 2. pencil yes. if erasing pen means using chemicals, no.

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:29 AM

Posted By: Andrew1. Yes 2. No

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:34 AM

Posted By: Josh K.1. yes 2. yes both answers assume no chemicals are used.

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:37 AM

Posted By: Dave Seaborn1. yes 2. yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:41 AM

Posted By: Frank Wakefield1 yes 2 yes Good questions.

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:44 AM

Posted By: leonErasing of pen or pencil would only be done with an art type eraser...no chemicals or anything else....feel free to modify any responses as this wasn't clear.....erasing is only with an eraser...

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:49 AM

Posted By: Griffin's1. yes 2. yes (but I"d need to elaborate as well, as those are only 51% yes answers in each case)

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:49 AM

Posted By: Ray1. Yes 2. No

Archive

08-30-2006, 11:51 AM

Posted By: aro131. Yes 2. No

Archive

08-30-2006, 01:07 PM

Posted By: Rich W.1. Yes 2. Yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 01:09 PM

Posted By: Josh K.Totals thus far: 1. yes - 27 no - 13 2. yes - 24 no - 16

Archive

08-30-2006, 01:10 PM

Posted By: Dan Bretta1. Yes 2. Yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 01:59 PM

Posted By: Rick1-Yes 2-Yes ( No chemicals for 1 or 2)

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:10 PM

Posted By: Seth B.1 - yes 2 - yes (no chemicals, keep or sell with transparency about restoration).

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:12 PM

Posted By: steve fyes yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:14 PM

Posted By: jackgoodman1. yes 2. yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:27 PM

Posted By: Brian E.1. No 2. No

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:47 PM

Posted By: Tim Newcomb1. Yes 2. No

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:50 PM

Posted By: Bill K1. yes 2. yes My personal collection - <a href="http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f176/fkm_bky/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f176/fkm_bky/</a>

Archive

08-30-2006, 02:52 PM

Posted By: Steve M.Yes I would like to modify my eraser NO. I have no problem with erasing light pencil marks on cards. Especially my Zeenuts and especially since I intend on keeping the cards in my personal collection and they are not being acquired for re-sale. I just find it more asthetically pleasing to have the pencil marks erased. I use an art-gum eraser. As for soaking my answer remains NO. Steve- your above answered has been modified.....need to start from scratch to get an accurate percentage.... (leon)

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:11 PM

Posted By: Richard Masson1. yes 2. yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:15 PM

Posted By: Josh K.New Tally: 1. Yes - 34 - 72% No - 13 2. Yes - 29 - 62% No - 18

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:23 PM

Posted By: Bob1. Yes (I'd like to make this for non-sale, collection only soaking but I've already heard the rebuttals on that). 2. Yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:29 PM

Posted By: RayB1. No 2. No RayB

Archive

08-30-2006, 03:31 PM

Posted By: Alan Elefson1. No 2. No

Archive

08-30-2006, 04:08 PM

Posted By: steve yawitz1. Y 2. Y

Archive

08-30-2006, 05:45 PM

Posted By: Gilbert Mainesyes yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 05:47 PM

Posted By: dennis1-yes 2-yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 07:11 PM

Posted By: Brian1. no 2. no

Archive

08-30-2006, 07:13 PM

Posted By: joe1-yes 2-yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 07:27 PM

Posted By: Brad Freeman1. Yes 2. Yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 07:28 PM

Posted By: Jeff Drum1. yes 2. yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 07:38 PM

Posted By: Martin Neal1. YES 2. YES

Archive

08-30-2006, 08:07 PM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)1. Yes 2. Yes

Archive

08-30-2006, 08:34 PM

Posted By: Eric B1. Yes 2. No

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:01 PM

Posted By: Frank Evanov1.Yes 2.Yes Frank

Archive

08-30-2006, 10:23 PM

Posted By: Joe Tocco1. No 2. No

Archive

08-31-2006, 12:18 AM

Posted By: barry arnoldyes yes barry

Archive

08-31-2006, 04:53 AM

Posted By: ChuckYes Yes

Archive

08-31-2006, 12:28 PM

Posted By: leonNo need to go much longer...here are the final results.... 1. Is soaking glue or paper off of a card ok to do? YES- 49..... 74.2% NO- 17..... 25.8% 2. Is erasing a pencil or pen mark ok to do? YES- 43..... 65.1% NO- 23..... 34.9% The numbers really speak for themselves.... I am surprised that the Yes's were that low....but I guess this is what it is.....Thanks to all who participated...

Archive

08-31-2006, 12:34 PM

Posted By: WesleyI think the numbers would be dramatically different if the entire card collecting hobby were polled. My guess is that if another forum such as the PSA forum took the same poll that it would be overwhelmingly against card soaking and erasing.

Archive

08-31-2006, 12:37 PM

Posted By: leonWe aren't the CU boards....After looking at those boards a few times I would kindly place my bets on this board for experience knowledge...though I am sure they are some nice people over there too....And you know the old saying.....if cows pooped butter you wouldn't have to churn <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

08-31-2006, 12:40 PM

Posted By: WesleyMaybe then card soaking and erasing is acceptable for this vintage forum and not the overall hobby?

Archive

08-31-2006, 12:41 PM

Posted By: Wesleybtw I have never heard of that old saying.

Archive

08-31-2006, 12:41 PM

Posted By: leonI guess if you did a poll on the other board we would know. Less than that and I don't think we should make that assumption....Like I say those are good folk over there and I would let them speak for themselves. This board has spoken in the survey given....

Archive

08-31-2006, 12:58 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackOne thing to note is that conservation exprets will tell you that it is not good to keep antique prints incontact with wood, glue and old paper. Even when the print is in an antique wooden frame and matte, the conservator will recommend you remove the print and rematte it in proper paper, for preservation of the print. My guess is that many conservators would recommend that an expensive baseball card be removed from old paper scrap and glue to help preserve the card. My question is if a conservator said that, while the card may look fine for the five years you've owned it, that leaving glue and acidic paper affixed will likely damage the card over the next 10,20,50 years-- would people then be more willing to have the paper and glue removed?

Archive

08-31-2006, 01:02 PM

Posted By: WesleyI am not disagreeing with you. The results would be interesting to see. I also agree that the participants in the forum are different than the participants in the Beckett and CU forums, just like prewar card might be different than modern cards. Frankly, I am shocked that the results show that soaking and erasing cards are acceptable. I believe in certain states, alterations of this kind must be disclosed and there may be civil penalties or criminal penalties or both if the alterations are not disclosed. I have been buying cards for a long time and I cannot remember reading a description disclosing this type of alteration. If alterations were so acceptable by the hobby at large, then I do not believe it would be a big deal to list the work done in the auction descriptions. If alterations were so acceptable, I do not believe there would be statutes mandating disclosure.

Archive

08-31-2006, 01:06 PM

Posted By: MikeUA little late, but I am in Korea: 1. Yes 2. Yes Both based on Leon's no chemicals statement.

Archive

08-31-2006, 01:11 PM

Posted By: MikeU"If alterations were so acceptable by the hobby at large, then I do not believe it would be a big deal to list the work done in the auction descriptions. If alterations were so acceptable, I do not believe there would be statutes mandating disclosure" Wesley, I think the general thought of vintage collectors is soaking cards to remove scrapbook pieces and erasing lead/pen is not altering a card. I think the same people that do not have a problem with soaking and erasing (myself included) will have significant issues with true alterations e.g. adding material, coloring and trimming. The one item that I would like to see a poll on is soaking and pressing out creases acceptable. This falls between the soaking/erasing and the outright trimming, coloring and adding material.

Archive

08-31-2006, 01:26 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackWes, there's no question that alterations do change the value of the card, and alteration that changes the value should be disclosed at sale and, in most cases, legally must. Almost all cards I've seen first hand in albums were low grade, and it's unlikely a bidder would raise or lower their bid when finding out that the stained, creased grade poor trade card was removed from an album. Whenever a collector sees for sale a low grade card with "glue and scrap paper remnants on back," he should be able to figure out the card came from an album. I haven't done a survey, but my guess is that the vast majority of trading cards removed from old albums grade Good to Poor, with probably more closer to Poor than Good. If you've ever seen an album with T206s or Allen & Ginters good enough to be auctioned by Mastro, you will see that many to most of the cards are in rough shape. And it wasn't uncommon for a Victorian kid to trim the cards, either to fit on the album page or for aesthetic reasons.

Archive

08-31-2006, 05:26 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackMy opinion is that it's downright silly to say if in 1955 a kid pasted a T206 into the pages of his book, it's wrong to remove the card. The book and the T206 aren't original together-- they have nothing to do with each other than a stupid kid glue them together. The crime, if there is one, is the kid pasting the card into the book not removing the card from the book. Removing the card is bringing the card back, or closer, to its original state. The Darby boxes were found nailed to the walls of a barn. I suppose some would have us pray for the soul of he who dared remove those nails and take down those cards. Apparently he should have only sold a Darby box while still affixed to a barn wall. In my opinion, the idea that a kid's paste slopped on the back of a card is an original part of the card is strange.

Archive

08-31-2006, 05:33 PM

Posted By: Brian Weisner Hi David, I think most of the Darby's were nailed to a garage here in NC, Durham to be exact, but I agree with your meaning. Be well Brian PS I bet it's raining more here in NC than in Seattle

Archive

08-31-2006, 05:50 PM

Posted By: davidcycleback"The Darby box is in it's natural habitat, nailed to a garage in North Carolina" or "The rare Darby box is shown here in pristine condition, with the original garage still attached" sound like lines from a Monty Python skit. Sunny in Seattle.

Archive

08-31-2006, 06:15 PM

Posted By: James Gallo1. Yes 2. Haven't decided yet <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> James Gallo Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

Archive

08-31-2006, 06:26 PM

Posted By: JoannI think the most interesting thing about this poll was how few people split their votes with yes to one but no to the other. Rather than depending on the actual action taken, it seems that overall the whole topic is a matter of philosophical viewpoint. Joann

Archive

08-31-2006, 08:24 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldWesley, The PSA folks might be overwhelmingly against soaking. But I think that it is likely that at least a third (or maybe more) of the PSA T206s have been soaked, maybe not by the guy who sent them in to grade, but at some point in time. Those cards have been through at least 3 or 4 collectors, and most likely dozens... Those collectors wouldn't have nearly as much to collect if it were not for soaking. They might be against it, but tens of thousands of cards would still be on album pages without it.

Archive

08-31-2006, 08:32 PM

Posted By: JohnIt’s the discloser more than anything that bothers me not the soaking. I think they should be removed, and not wasted, as long as its disclosed, and their values reflected that they were removed, pressed, soaked what ever. But the sad thing is you I and the lamp post know that very very few people are going to bring any action such as soaking up. In fact several collectors here already said they would not mention it at time of sale. Sort of a hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil mindset.

Archive

08-31-2006, 11:09 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI think I've come up with a fair compromise. The new hobby rule is: You are allowed to remove stuff from cards, but anything you remove you have to eat. For example, if you are willing to eat an entire Victorian scrap album, soak away.