Is there a way to remove a JSA sticker?

[packs]

I got this magazine authenticated years ago and made the fateful decision to have the sticker placed on the item. At the time it seemed like a great idea. Now, I hate it. Is there any way to get a JSA sticker off of an item like this?

[mcgwirecom]

I have used "Goof off" on different items to remove tape. Seems to do pretty well without a stain. Never tried one of those stickers but I bet it would work. Just get that corner wet on both sides first.

Strange they put that on the front when they could just as easily put it on the back of that page???

[packs]

At the time it seemed like a good idea. I can't tell you why.

[steve B]

I'd leave it there. It's not in a really bad place and at least to me isn't distracting. Most stuff that's good at removing stickers will probably strip off a good deal of ink as well.

Steve B

[Lordstan]

First off...Great book and very nice signature. It really displays well.

Whatever you do do NOT try and take that sticker off unless you can be happy with a chunk of ink missing. I have almost a complete run of Sport Mag from 1946-1986 and can personally vouch for how frail the paper is, especially the 1940s and 50s books.
I sent one off to an autograph singing and the promoter put post-it notes on the back and on a page to mark where the player would sign. Both post it notes, not only removed ink, but also tore the paper slightly.
If post it notes, which are supposed to be removable, damage the paper and ink, I can only imagine worse from a sticker that is not meant to be removed.

FYI I never tried to remove a PSA or JSA sticker, so I guess I could be wrong, but I would be very cautious about something that nice/valuable.

Just my 2c.
Good Luck,
Mark

Added: FWIW, much to my chagrin, with the sticker, it will probably be more saleable and for a higher price in the near future, should you ever need to sell it. With all the recent scandals, who knows what'll happen in the future, but for now seemingly the majority of buyers love to see those 3 little initials.

[mr2686]

I'm with Mark 100%. If you think a sticker is distracting, imagine how bad a spot the size of a nickel or quarter might be from paper loss. An analogy would be, would you rather have a signed magazine with a nice mailing label, or the same magazine with the label removed but with paper loss or residue. I think your magazine (one of my favorite Mantle's by the way) looks fantastic the way it is.

[travrosty]

damage has been done, probably dont want to do further damage. in the future there are thousands upon thousands of signed photos, etc that have these stickers and people wont want them on there anymore, and then what will they do? i dont know.

some people cover dirt, an inscription or other signatures on a ball by having a painted portrait put over the offending spot.

maybe something similar can cover the sticker, something not permanent but makes the magazine look nicer. i am not a fan of stickers either.

professional art and paper restorers could probably take the sticker off without any damage, but they charge 100 minimum and up from there depending on what type of work it is, the difficulty and how long it takes. I had a badly dried out, warped and wrinkled vintage muhammad ali cut on a piece of paper from 1966 totally flattened and creases taken out, with a good result, by a paper restoration outfit, it did cost me about 100 bucks though. it's a tradeoff taking money spent versus results versus worth of the item.

[baseballart]

I have a couple of books which have JSA sticker on the page with the autograph. Nothing could ruin a book more. Over the holidays, I will try and remove a sticker from a Phil Esposito book, and let you knwo the results.

Max

[Tom Hufford]

Any company that would put a permanent adhesive sticker anywhere on an object - especially on the front - has no respect whatsoever for the history, value, or integrity of the object. All they are really trying to do is to place an ad for themselves where it is sure to be seen.

And, an ad for what? The logo (signature?) on the pictured sticker really can't even be read - some other companies do use a logo or block lettering that can be read. But, 25 or 50 years from now, if someone were to run across an item with one of these stickere on it, what would they think? Who was stupid enough back then to do this? And will the company still be in business, or the computer database maintained anywhere, so that the numbers on the stickers will even have any meaning.

Do they need something to show that it has been authenticated? Since supposedly the authenticators have already left a bit of their DNA or whatever somewhere on the item, a Certificate of Authenticity that includes a photo of the item would do just fine.

I'm absolutely certain that if anyone submitted the Mona Lisa to one of these companies for authentication, it would probably come back with one of the stupid stickers right beside her smile.

Just my (less than) 2 cents worth.

[drc]

I woiuld imagine the sticker is sturdier than the paper underneath, so you will have paper loss if you try and remove it. I'd just leave it on.

[Vintagedegu]

-

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Tom Hufford

Any company that would put a permanent adhesive sticker anywhere on an object - especially on the front - has no respect whatsoever for the history, value, or integrity of the object. All they are really trying to do is to place an ad for themselves where it is sure to be seen.

And, an ad for what? The logo (signature?) on the pictured sticker really can't even be read - some other companies do use a logo or block lettering that can be read. But, 25 or 50 years from now, if someone were to run across an item with one of these stickere on it, what would they think? Who was stupid enough back then to do this? And will the company still be in business, or the computer database maintained anywhere, so that the numbers on the stickers will even have any meaning.

Do they need something to show that it has been authenticated? Since supposedly the authenticators have already left a bit of their DNA or whatever somewhere on the item, a Certificate of Authenticity that includes a photo of the item would do just fine.

I'm absolutely certain that if anyone submitted the Mona Lisa to one of these companies for authentication, it would probably come back with one of the stupid stickers right beside her smile.

Just my (less than) 2 cents worth.

This could not have been stated any better. The sticker represents a lack of reverance and respect for the item itself. And it shows how the Authentication Companies care most about promoting their own product.

I realize that the owner of the item is given this option upon submission... but perhaps it should no longer be an option! And how can JSA/PSA possibly justify stickering the front side??? I saw this recently on an Index Card as well. Just neglectful and mindless, IMO...

With that said, don't try to remove the damn thing... The tearing/smudging/discoloration it would create would look even worse. You still have a great piece, and I love how Mantle slapped a gorgeous "king sized" autograph in the perfect spot

[David Atkatz]

The placing of these stickers just shows how unprofessional and ignorant these companies are. The first thing a museum or archive curator will tell you is "do NOTHING to an artifact that cannot be undone without damage."

[packs]

Thanks everyone for chiming in. It sounds like I'm stuck with it. I wouldn't mind paying a restorer a hundred bucks if they could definitely remove it. If anyone tries to remove a sticker from an inexpenseive item I'd love to hear about the results.

By the way, does anyone know a good restorer in the Bay Area?

[Shoeless Moe]

[mr2686]

Damn Paul, you made me shoot soda out of my nose

[John V]

Have you contacted the knuckleheads to ask if their stickers are easy to remove? It could be simpler and less risky than you think.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by John V

Have you contacted the knuckleheads to ask if their stickers are easy to remove? It could be simpler and less risky than you think.

I believe that is not the case and that they are very difficult or near impossible to remove.
--
Hey, it is great advertising for them, they spend so much money on ads, here they get it for free.

[Tigerden]

Packs BTW-that is a beautiful signature of the Mick. Yes, it is ashame they decided to slap that sticker on the front cover as opposed to a more discreet location like the back of the magazine. I have a few signed Sports Illustrated magazines that have the original mailing stamp on the front which are alot larger then the Spence sticker, but they don't bother me at all. Hell, maybe just for spite you could slap one of those Chiquita Bananna stickers over it. Richard is correct, probably just another way of getting free advertising.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Tigerden

Packs BTW-that is a beautiful signature of the Mick.

I thought one of the easiest things to look for on a fake is the lack of the flick-up on the second M.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by packs

Thanks everyone for chiming in. It sounds like I'm stuck with it. I wouldn't mind paying a restorer a hundred bucks if they could definitely remove it. If anyone tries to remove a sticker from an inexpenseive item I'd love to hear about the results.

By the way, does anyone know a good restorer in the Bay Area?

PM sent.

[travrosty]

What really gets me is when they do this to rare photos, and baseballs.

one "authenticator" graded a ball that already had the sticker of another company on it, and did not take anything off of the grade even though the ball had a foregin object on it (sticker). Now if that sticker would have been a chiquita banana sticker, the grade of the ball would have dropped substantially, but because it was an ABC sticker, they didnt take anything off of the grade.

My question is why?

both ABC and a chiquita banana sticker are foreign objects attached the ball, detracting from it. but one is okay and the other is not.

its a crazy world, who can understand the craziness anymore?

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

I thought one of the easiest things to look for on a fake is the lack of the flick-up on the second M.

IMHO, 95% of the time you'll see the flick, 10% you won't. You might even see a slight blot of ink where his pen pressure changes. This one actually does has a slight flick which is good enough for me along with other portions of the autograph. This one is a BLAZER!

Some forgeries actually have no flick, and some are down right buffoonish in their attempt to slowly move from M to a. Almost like a fourth grader.

[packs]

There is a slight flick but its hard to see in my photo. You can see it better in this close up of the signature. Aside from my knowing that it's unquestionably authentic (signed at a show), another thing I look for in Mantle signatures is that the signature is on one even plane.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

IMHO, 95% of the time you'll see the flick, 10% you won't.

Chuck,
I love your math.
Any chance you're related to Yogi?

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Chuck,
I love your math.
Any chance you're related to Yogi?

Classic!