Gone with the stain

[MGoBlue2007]

Hi everyone. New to the board. Did a little research but couldn't find a thread that's specifically talked about the company gone with the stain. Has anyone ever used them? Any thoughts on their services?

[irv]

Originally Posted by MGoBlue2007

Hi everyone. New to the board. Did a little research but couldn't find a thread that's specifically talked about the company gone with the stain. Has anyone ever used them? Any thoughts on their services?

IIRC, Leon banned them sometime ago?
Using a Google or duckduckgo search should give you everything you're after, however, like this one.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=273078

[raulus]

I'm sure many around here will have lots to say!

Particularly around the notion that it's appropriate to make changes to cards. Seems like we've had numberless debates over the range of acceptable activities, with a wide range of opinions. Most people seem to be sorta okay with soaking cards or using a nylon to take a gum stain off of a card. Maybe using a spoon to bend back a bent corner. But beyond that, it gets pretty contentious in a hurry. And many commentators also recommend disclosing any of these modifications to a potential buyer.

Having said that, from what I can tell, most people around here feel that the services provided by Gone with the Stain aren't appropriate for baseball cards. There have even been some posts casting a pox upon any cards subject to their services, hexing them to crumble into dust.

[cannonballsun]

The founder (Dick Towle) passed away a while back. I believe his family has continued the business. It should be easy to find with a Google search.
I have never used their service, so that's about all I have to add.

[Hxcmilkshake]

Thoughts? Sure. Don't alter cards.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[G1911]

The business is centered on altering cards for people to then sell as if they weren’t restored. Done with a wink of legitimacy of course, they aren’t doing the fraud part themselves directly, but they know damn well what their service is for.

Many will heavily frown on people altering cards. Gone with the Stain isn’t soaking in water to remove cards from a scrapbook.

[NiceDocter]

Don’t mess with guys like this. They are basically in the business of altering cards to try and pass off as better for more money. Don’t think that they don’t ruin their fair share of not only cards but others reputations along the way for what they do. Steer clear if you want to keep your good name intact. Clear water soaking out of a scrapbook is not what they are all about.

[jchcollins]

Say what you will about guys like Dick Towle, but unless he was just lying - my understanding is that the large majority of cards he worked on did wind up grading fine with PSA and SGC afterwards. If it's really that untraceable, you have to be a purist several degrees further along the spectrum than I am I guess to object...

It would definitely be something under the category of "Don't try this at home, kids..." for me.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Say what you will about guys like Dick Towle, but unless he was just lying - my understanding is that the large majority of cards he worked on did wind up grading fine with PSA and SGC afterwards. If it's really that untraceable, you have to be a purist several degrees further along the spectrum than I am I guess to object...

It would definitely be something under the category of "Don't try this at home, kids..." for me.

That PSA and SGC are grossly incompetent doesn’t justify fraud and undisclosed alteration (which is what happens with the vast, vast majority of cards they doctor).

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

That PSA and SGC are grossly incompetent doesn’t justify fraud and undisclosed alteration (which is what happens with the vast, vast majority of cards they doctor).

Apologies, guess I'm wearing my realist cap today. That they are grossly (or maybe at least somewhat) incompetent is also something that is unlikely to ever change. If folks 2 years ago or so could not get on the bandwagon to force change after all the alteration / trimming, Moser-gate - then I have little faith that it will ever happen.

I don't like cards that are obviously altered, no, but the truth of the matter is that with most cards like those that come out of GWTS, many of us cannot tell the difference. Maybe it isn't that we shouldn't care - it's just that I don't see much room for change.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Apologies, guess I'm wearing my realist cap today. That they are grossly (or maybe at least somewhat) incompetent is also something that is unlikely to ever change. If folks 2 years ago or so could not get on the bandwagon to force change after all the alteration / trimming, Moser-gate - then I have little faith that it will ever happen.

I don't like cards that are obviously altered, no, but the truth of the matter is that with most cards like those that come out of GWTS, many of us cannot tell the difference. Maybe it isn't that we shouldn't care - it's just that I don't see much room for change.

I agree that PSA is unlikely to become competent (or not corrupt, one can take their pick). Many people cannot tell the alterations.

But I don't think that is justification (very different from 'realistic'), and doesn't mean one shouldn't object to it. That the fraud goes undetected does not make it okay.

Originally Posted by jchcollins

...my understanding is that the large majority of cards he worked on did wind up grading fine with PSA and SGC afterwards. If it's really that untraceable, you have to be a purist several degrees further along the spectrum than I am I guess to object...

Your original argument here is not that it's realistic to acknowledge it will happen and the graders will certify them anyways. Your statement as written is that frauds (as not disclosing alterations is) that are not detected are unobjectionable. Getting away with the crime doesn't make it unobjectionable. Selling a knock off to someone they don't know isn't real and looks pretty close isn't alright. Many in the hobby clearly feel that any and everything is fine if it gets into a slab and PSA certifies the fraud, but I have a hard time seeing any ethical argument for the original statement.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by MGoBlue2007

Hi everyone. New to the board. Did a little research but couldn't find a thread that's specifically talked about the company gone with the stain. Has anyone ever used them? Any thoughts on their services?

My thoughts:

They're card doctors. Their "service" of altering cards is something I would never use.

[bnorth]

Without GWTS there would be WAY WAY WAY less medium and high grade vintage cards. They used to advertise how many 52 Topps Mantle cards they worked on and it was a LOT.

Pretty much if you own very many vintage cards you own card(s) that have been made nicer looking. Nothing like a nice soak and press to improve the looks of a card, maybe a little eraser to remove a mark, or a plethora of other things.

[Exhibitman]

I'd not use them. I had them try to clean some paper crud off a rare boxing ticket so I could see the front and they not only failed to clean it, the chemicals they use damaged the cardboard. IMO they are not legitimate conservators but hacks.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

I agree that PSA is unlikely to become competent (or not corrupt, one can take their pick). Many people cannot tell the alterations.

But I don't think that is justification (very different from 'realistic'), and doesn't mean one shouldn't object to it. That the fraud goes undetected does not make it okay.



Your original argument here is not that it's realistic to acknowledge it will happen and the graders will certify them anyways. Your statement as written is that frauds (as not disclosing alterations is) that are not detected are unobjectionable. Getting away with the crime doesn't make it unobjectionable. Selling a knock off to someone they don't know isn't real and looks pretty close isn't alright. Many in the hobby clearly feel that any and everything is fine if it gets into a slab and PSA certifies the fraud, but I have a hard time seeing any ethical argument for the original statement.

I insinuated that, yes. Whether or not I actually feel that was most of the time is another matter. So, regardless of how I feel as one collector - let's say it's not ok. What do you propose we do about it? I can hate doctors and trimmers and other alteration hacks all day long in theory.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I insinuated that, yes. Whether or not I actually feel that was most of the time is another matter. So, regardless of how I feel as one collector - let's say it's not ok. What do you propose we do about it? I can hate doctors and trimmers and other alteration hacks all day long in theory.

Of course, you might say things you do not believe, but as it is a text based message board people will reply to the actual statements made, not your unstated thoughts that cannot possibly be read.

Never have I insinuated, obviously, that people have the ability to stop other people from doing bad things. Where there is money there will be fraud. There are many, many far worse things than this in the world that A) I have no meaningful power to stop but B) am cognizant are wrong and am strongly against. One can only recognize a problem if they have the authority to stop it? That would be rather absurd. One can object to a plethora of wrong things while not having the power to stop it. Obviously I cannot snap my fingers and put an end to fraud. That is an absurdist setup. There isn't a crime in the world we could recognize as a crime if this was how it worked.

People, of course, could greatly reduce the fraud by declining to be a party to it and continuing to pay card alterers, fraudsters, and paying many multiples of a cards value for a slab form a firm that cannot tell a CJ Mack from a Dover Mack.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I met Dick and had many back and forths with him here He was very up front about his services, some of which were minor and some of which IMO were more objectionable. The problem was that his customers were in large part using his services to deceive. And he had to know this. I don't know anything about the business after Dick's passing.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

Of course, you might say things you do not believe, but as it is a text based message board people will reply to the actual statements made, not your unstated thoughts that cannot possibly be read.

Never have I insinuated, obviously, that people have the ability to stop other people from doing bad things. Where there is money there will be fraud. There are many, many far worse things than this in the world that A) I have no meaningful power to stop but B) am cognizant are wrong and am strongly against. One can only recognize a problem if they have the authority to stop it? That would be rather absurd. One can object to a plethora of wrong things while not having the power to stop it. Obviously I cannot snap my fingers and put an end to fraud. That is an absurdist setup. There isn't a crime in the world we could recognize as a crime if this was how it worked.

People, of course, could greatly reduce the fraud by declining to be a party to it and continuing to pay card alterers, fraudsters, and paying many multiples of a cards value for a slab form a firm that cannot tell a CJ Mack from a Dover Mack.

I'm not a party to, nor a proponent of - alteration or fraud upon baseball cards. Please consider any of my earlier insinuations clarified. Excuse me now while I go flip through some of my favorite slabs, whether they be altered and unidentified - or clean.

Greg - My point here was more simply to the fact that if you can't tell, you can't tell. And that will continue to be problematic for many of us, no matter the stance of our piety on alteration and doctoring issues.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I insinuated that, yes. Whether or not I actually feel that was most of the time is another matter. So, regardless of how I feel as one collector - let's say it's not ok. What do you propose we do about it? I can hate doctors and trimmers and other alteration hacks all day long in theory.

I think to start, let's not promote companies that alter cards.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

I think to start, let's not promote companies that alter cards.

I can agree with that, Al.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I can agree with that, Al.

John, I know you were just sharing your frustration, that many of us have, with the bad actors that are putting fake and altered cards in circulation. It doesn't seem like we can get rid of them.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

John, I know you were just sharing your frustration, that many of us have, with the bad actors that are putting fake and altered cards in circulation. It doesn't seem like we can get rid of them.

I understand how my first comment here in this thread might have come off. I'm just more apt to point out the realistic problems with doing something sometimes than starting with what is right theoretically.

For example: Last weekend at one of my LCS's - I bought an absolutely gorgeous, raw 1968 Topps Steve Carlton. If this card is not technically mint, it's close: Razor corners, clean edges, perfect centering, rich color and gloss, focused sharp image - even the back is perfectly centered and vibrant. Now - say that somewhere on the back there once had been an errant ink stain, or some kid's initials or something. I doubt it given a very close review of this card, but as we know with the best doctors lately unfortunately - it's probably possible. Say that Dick T. had gotten ahold of this card, altered the hell out of it with some type of magic solvent - and now there is no trace whatsoever of something that would have rendered a card otherwise an 8 or a 9 down to a 1 or an A.

It's like my mind just cannot get there from here. What can we do when even through modern science - you just can't tell? Undoubtedly - there are countless Ruths and Cobbs and Mantle RC's like this that someone like Dick messed with - residing in numbered and high numbered PSA and other slabs today - and people treasure them.

I guess for me it's just more glaring like with the work the BODA has done over on Blowout - where you can see cards that were obviously - if only slightly and very professionally - trimmed. You can point a finger at that and scream. Much like you could the "autographed" Goudey cards of deceased HOF'ers that JSA and SGC signed off on, only to have glaring proof via photographs come out later of the same cards with identifying marks - unsigned long after the players pictured had passed.

I see that the argument has to start theoretically - it just bothers me that logically it seems so doomed to fail.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I met Dick and had many back and forths with him here He was very up front about his services, some of which were minor and some of which IMO were more objectionable. The problem was that his customers were in large part using his services to deceive. And he had to know this. I don't know anything about the business after Dick's passing.

I was kind of expecting a bit more of a rant about card doctoring from you, Peter. But maybe you're just tired of repeating yourself!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

The business is centered on altering cards for people to then sell as if they weren’t restored. Done with a wink of legitimacy of course, they aren’t doing the fraud part themselves directly, but they know damn well what their service is for.

Many will heavily frown on people altering cards. Gone with the Stain isn’t soaking in water to remove cards from a scrapbook.

I don't see any difference. Soaking cards is altering and those that do it don't disclose their alterations. They are no different than GWTS and those that use them. I wouldn't want a card that I knew was soaked, but I suspect that is why it is never revealed. That and they wouldn't want to have their cards graded Authentic by PSA or SGC.

[butchie_t]

Hmmm, sure seems like this was a drive by post just to shake the nest.

Butch Turner

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't see any difference. Soaking cards is altering and those that do it don't disclose their alterations. They are no different than GWTS and those that use them. I wouldn't want a card that I knew was soaked, but I suspect that is why it is never revealed. That and they wouldn't want to have their cards graded Authentic by PSA or SGC.

I don’t necessarily disagree in principle on soaking and don’t soak myself, but it’s certainly not the same thing as what Towle and his heirs do. There are clear differences, soaking is openly seen as acceptable by a majority of hobbyists. Towle’s operation is undeniable alteration and even most who do these things won’t deny it is.

Smoking a joint and selling 50 pounds of cocaine are both drug crimes, but they sure ain’t the same thing. Being able to bucket in the same category doesn’t make them “no different”.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don’t necessarily disagree in principle on soaking and don’t soak myself, but it’s certainly not the same thing as what Towle and his heirs do. There are clear differences, soaking is openly seen as acceptable by a majority of hobbyists. Towle’s operation is undeniable alteration and even most who do these things won’t deny it is.

Smoking a joint and selling 50 pounds of cocaine are both drug crimes, but they sure ain’t the same thing. Being able to bucket in the same category doesn’t make them “no different”.

I do not think that soaking is accepted by the majority of the hobby. Otherwise, those that do it would reveal that their cards were soaked. They keep it secret because they know it is wrong, while trying to convince others it isn't. Does the majority of the hobby accept "conserving" or is it just PWCC's customers?

You can say there are different degrees of altering cards, but they are still all altering cards. It is more like the difference between being a heroin dealer and selling prescription opiates. We can agree that what GWTS is doing is wrong, but that doesn't make other forms of card doctoring ok. GWTS started out as removing wax stains from the back of cards and many accepted it and tried to convince the hobby it was ok too.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by rats60

I do not think that soaking is accepted by the majority of the hobby...

I concur. Personally, I view soaking as alteration; it's a form of cleaning the card.

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by Eric72

I concur. Personally, I view soaking as alteration; it's a form of cleaning the card.

I agree, but I think we are actually in the minority. When the topic was discussed in the prewar section of the board it was obvious that it's done all the time, and an accepted part of the hobby. Many of the high-grade prewar cards have been soaked out of scrapbooks that they were glued into back in the early years.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rats60

I do not think that soaking is accepted by the majority of the hobby. Otherwise, those that do it would reveal that their cards were soaked. They keep it secret because they know it is wrong, while trying to convince others it isn't. Does the majority of the hobby accept "conserving" or is it just PWCC's customers?

You can say there are different degrees of altering cards, but they are still all altering cards. It is more like the difference between being a heroin dealer and selling prescription opiates. We can agree that what GWTS is doing is wrong, but that doesn't make other forms of card doctoring ok. GWTS started out as removing wax stains from the back of cards and many accepted it and tried to convince the hobby it was ok too.

I don't think this is true. People openly post about soaking all the time; there are threads here detailing how to do it (you won't find that for alterations that unanimously considered as such). It is not "kept secret" precisely because few seriously object to it.

PWCC's "conservation" arguments are a separate issue; they are trying to make altering okay, that's not an argument that X isn't really altering.

Yes, I can say there are different degrees of alteration because that is obviously true. Soaking as alteration is not a consensus opinion.

I said I don't really disagree that soaking is an alteration, and said already I am not for it and do not it. When did I argue some forms of altering are okay? Can you point me to this?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Eric72

I concur. Personally, I view soaking as alteration; it's a form of cleaning the card.

It's fine to have an opinion, but in popular opinion dictates that is isnt cleaning a card. Nor is removing pencil with an eraser.


I guess anything can be used for evil instead of good. Dont hate the conservator hate the game

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by rats60

I do not think that soaking is accepted by the majority of the hobby. Otherwise, those that do it would reveal that their cards were soaked. They keep it secret because they know it is wrong,

No, it's because it doesn't matter. Its water

[71buc]

A few years ago I acquired a number of common low number 52 Topps. The original owner had written his name on them in ballpoint. I sent three to GWTS to see what their work was like. I figured I had nothing to lose. The results were mixed and honestly far from impressive. One card was mutilated and the others had loss of gloss and discoloration of the borders. Dick was very friendly and proud of his process. He offered to do some more for me without charge because of the destroyed card. If I recall it was a Luke Easter. I declined. I gave or sold the cards to another board member who wanted examples of GWTS’s work so he could use them to identify cards that had been altered when searching for 52 Topps. I am honestly surprised they get through TPGs. I’m a neophyte when it comes to grading. Nonetheless it was pretty easy to look at the cards I sent them and identify that they were obviously altered.

[JollyElm]

837. High Horseshit
Someone who feels his views on any subject falling within the parameters of the card collecting world are the only ‘rightful’ sentiments regarding the matter.


Come on now, soaking is fine. It's only water, not a chemical alteration (here's where some know-it-all is probably going to say, "Actually, water is a chemical.").

Like other people, I use it to get the occasional schmutz off of a card here and there, and said card is in the same shape as it was before it took a dip. Nothing changed except the grime sitting on top of the gloss has been removed.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

It's fine to have an opinion, but in popular opinion dictates that is isnt cleaning a card. Nor is removing pencil with an eraser.


I guess anything can be used for evil instead of good. Dont hate the conservator hate the game

If removing a pencil mark isn't cleaning a card, what would it be?

[G1911]

I brush detritus off a card with my finger, and if the corner is bent over, I bend it back so it fits into a stack of cards better. I will also scratch dirt off with my finger. Am I a card doctor?

[butchie_t]

Rubbing wax off the front of a card with a nylon, card doctor too?

Because I am guilty as hell of doing that and I STILL sleep at night.

This certainly be taken to an extreme. I just added more. Carry on..

Butch

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by G1911

I brush detritus off a card with my finger, and if the corner is bent over, I bend it back so it fits into a stack of cards better. I will also scratch dirt off with my finger. Am I a card doctor?

You may be, but not because of that.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Jim65]

I always found it strange that some damaged antiques/collectibles gain value by being restored but restoring a baseball card is considered fraud.

I wouldn't want a restored card but I can see how others might not care, if the restoration is not detectable.

[ALR-bishop]

Butch— I never brush off wax residue. Not because someone might consider it an alteration but because a wax residue gives a card character. Same with gum stains. . Wax wrappers and gum. Great combo.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Butch— I never brush off wax residue. Not because someone might consider it an alteration but because a wax residue gives a card character. Same with gum stains. . Wax wrappers and gum. Great combo.

Understood. Well, I do and I don’t give it a second thought. Heck, I even did it when I bought cards way back in the 60s-70s. Mind you, I used a washcloth back then, not knowing about nylons at the time. But, I still did it. As for wax on the back of a card, I don’t care about them and it stays.

Edit: I miss the smell of the gum. Call me a card romantic.

:shrug:

Butch

[irv]

In my opinion, a "Doctored" card is one that has been trimmed, had corners repaired, had color added and creases and wrinkles pressed out.
Removing wax with nylons, removing cardboard/paper (due to being stuck in a scrap book) via soaking in water is not.

Read a gazillion of these backs and forths over the years and it will never be settled, never have an agreeable set of rules/guidelines.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I always found it strange that some damaged antiques/collectibles gain value by being restored but restoring a baseball card is considered fraud.

I wouldn't want a restored card but I can see how others might not care, if the restoration is not detectable.

The fraud is when the ‘restoration’ is not disclosed, as happens 99% of the time. The trimming and altering in and of itself isn’t.

[ALR-bishop]

If the listing says "For Sale As Is", is that disclosure ?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

I was kind of expecting a bit more of a rant about card doctoring from you, Peter. But maybe you're just tired of repeating yourself!

What is left to say, my friend? The broader hobby doesn't care, the government isn't taking action it seems, I'm back to just avoiding bad cards as best I can.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What is left to say, my friend? The broader hobby doesn't care, the government isn't taking action it seems, I'm back to just avoiding bad cards as best I can.

Fair enough. I guess you always seemed so full of piss and vinegar when it comes to card doctoring that you could chew nails and spit rust. But I guess at some point it probably starts to seem like a Sisyphean battle.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

If the listing says "For Sale As Is", is that disclosure ?

I recent one by a short time member. "It wasn't sold as unaltered".

[raulus]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I recent one by a short time member. "It wasn't sold as unaltered".

It was a brilliant defense. Too bad he scarpered before giving us more in the way of explanation of his motives and the extent of his chicanery.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

It was a brilliant defense. Too bad he scarpered before giving us more in the way of explanation of his motives and the extent of his chicanery.

What chicanery? He didn't say they weren't altered

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by irv

In my opinion, a "Doctored" card is one that has been trimmed, had corners repaired, had color added and creases and wrinkles pressed out.
Removing wax with nylons, removing cardboard/paper (due to being stuck in a scrap book) via soaking in water is not.

Read a gazillion of these backs and forths over the years and it will never be settled, never have an agreeable set of rules/guidelines.

That's about where I land on this subject. There's a thousand "Well, what about....?" scenarios, but removing surface material that is not supposed to be on a card does not qualify as 'doctoring' IMO. Sort of like washing your car.

Just one collector's opinion.