Soaking a card?

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Well said Todd.

Hey I was number 100, where the heck is the confetti??

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

What 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]

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]

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]

Posted By: John

Makes 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]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Suppose 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]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

John 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]

Posted By: Bob

Speaking 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]

Posted By: Jim Crandell

Paul,

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]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

I 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]

Posted By: John

Josh,

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.

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.



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?)

[Archive]

Posted By: steve f

err, John?.. Those weren't ladies.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Ahhh man really! Ouch thats the last time I take internet links from Jay B!

[Archive]

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]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

There are naked ladies on the web?!

What am I doing HERE?

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

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.

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]

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]

Posted By: martindl

Paul,
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]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

No, a valid analogy would be a robbery that no one could tell that something was taken.

Therefore, no crime was committed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

A 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.