Card doctoring...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Some of what he does I guess you could argue about, but he admits he takes out wrinkles.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Some of what he does I guess you could argue about, but he admits he takes out wrinkles.

Some people, myself included, don't feel that removing creases is considered doctoring a card. If you read Julie's response in the article that Leon posted from the Old Judge, Spring1986, she says, "If ironing out creases is successful, fine." I was collecting in 1986, that was nearly 32 years ago. I felt that way then, I still feel that way today. Lipset himslef even goes on to say, "It is our assumption that Julie's feelings would mirror the great majority of the card collecting hobby." I think he was right.

Flash forward 31 years later, Andy Broome wrote a nice article in the June 2017 issue of Beckett's Vintage Collector titled "Altered States." It's about card doctoring - everything from trimming, soaking, re-coloring, power erasing, pressing, rebuilding, etc and leaves it to the reader to determine what is acceptable and what is not. He does say, "My personal belief is if nothing is added or taken away from the physical card and there is nothing left behind, then it it more likely acceptable."

As collectors, we each have to determine what is acceptable and what is not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Some people, myself included, don't feel that removing creases is considered doctoring a card. If you read Julie's response in the article that Leon posted from the Old Judge, Spring1986, she says, "If ironing out creases is successful, fine." I was collecting in 1986, that was nearly 32 years ago. I felt that way then, I still feel that way today. Lipset himslef even goes on to say, "It is our assumption that Julie's feelings would mirror the great majority of the card collecting hobby." I think he was right.

Flash forward 31 years later, Andy Brooke wrote a nice article in the June 2017 issue of Beckett's Vintage Collector titled "Altered States." It's about card doctoring - everything from trimming, soaking, re-coloring, power erasing, pressing, rebuilding, etc and leaves it to the reader to determine what is acceptable and what is not. He does say, "My personal belief is if nothing is added or taken away from the physical card and there is nothing left behind, then it it more likely acceptable."

As collectors, we each have to determine what is acceptable and what is not.

I don't know how to do a poll, but I will make you a gentleman's bet that if someone starts one with the question, is it acceptable to take creases out of cards, a strong majority will say no.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know how to do a poll, but I will make you a gentleman's bet that if someone starts one with the question, is it acceptable to take creases out of cards, a strong majority will say no.

It would depend on if they are selling or buying.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know how to do a poll, but I will make you a gentleman's bet that if someone starts one with the question, is it acceptable to take creases out of cards, a strong majority will say no.

I think someone should start a poll of what is acceptable and what is not, but include the following:

Soaking in water
Soaking in chemicals
Card stretching
Re-coloring
Removing creases
Power erasing
Trimming
Rebuilding
Removing wax stains
Anything else you can think of

I think you would have to qualify it by stating that for the sake of argument that the restoration/alteration would never be detectable, which would a buyer find acceptable and which would a buyer find not acceptable.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I think someone should start a poll of what is acceptable and what is not, but include the following:

Soaking in water
Soaking in chemicals
Card stretching
Re-coloring
Removing creases
Power erasing
Trimming
Rebuilding
Removing wax stains
Anything else you can think of

I think you would have to qualify it by stating that for the sake of argument that the restoration/alteration would never be detectable, which would a buyer find acceptable and which would a buyer find not acceptable.

Define never be detectable. By any means whatsoever? Then I will fight the question, because there is very little if anything that couldn't be detected with sophisticated enough equipment. I would prefer that the qualification be assume the card nonetheless gets slabbed by ordinary review, or something like that.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then I will fight the question, because there is very little if anything that couldn't be detected with sophisticated enough equipment.

I agree with this statement. I was thinking more about the creases and the argument I hear is that a crease could come back later. I can certainly understand that concern. But my reply to that is, if you can remove the crease the first time, just do it again.

But we could word the poll as you suggested. I just don't think the poll would be answered honestly. Julie wrote 32 years ago she's fine with a crease being removed. Lew even said that he thought most of the card community would agree. Where did he get this assumption? By talking to / surveying collectors. So, what's changed in the last 32 years that it was acceptable then, but not now?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I agree with this statement. I was thinking more about the creases and the argument I hear is that a crease could come back later. I can certainly understand that concern. But my reply to that is, if you can remove the crease the first time, just do it again.

But we could word the poll as you suggested. I just don't think the poll would be answered honestly. Julie wrote 32 years ago she's fine with a crease being removed. Lew even said that he thought most of the card community would agree. Where did he get this assumption? By talking to / surveying collectors. So, what's changed in the last 32 years that it was acceptable then, but not now?

I can't speak for Julie or Lew, but I have been collecting as an adult for nearly that long and have always felt that taking out creases was unacceptable and I believe most of the people I have known feel the same way.

[Beastmode]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Define never be detectable. By any means whatsoever? Then I will fight the question, because there is very little if anything that couldn't be detected with sophisticated enough equipment. I would prefer that the qualification be assume the card nonetheless gets slabbed by ordinary review, or something like that.

++This. Where there is a will....

Cardstock is made from pulp, which comes from trees. If, for example, you examined two 1939 Dimaggio cards, one altered and one unaltered, under intense magnification, I can only assume that the DNA of the chemically altered card would leave some sort of fingerprint. You wouldn't even have to take the cards out of the slab.

The day of reckoning is coming for slabbed altered cards. When a credible Forth Party Grader comes along to "out" these slabed altered cards, the game is over. The real question is will anyone care.

I think the poll question should be this: If there were a foresnic cardstock lab that could determine if your slabbed vintage card was altered, would you pay to have it re-certified?

[glynparson]

David actually has been trained in this area. Arguing with someone who is actually an expert in this field shows how little you know on the subject. Coming on here and arguing with false information against someone who actually knows what they are doing shows you to be a fool. David may be to nice to point this out I am not.

The Mastro statement about every prewar 7 or better being altered is complete BS. He was trying to justify his greed. Are many, hell yeah, is everyone of them? Absolutely not.

Every company has made errors saying I use a or b company so i know all my cards aren't altered is also a statement that makes one look the fool. Are some better than others? Absolutely they are, but they are all run by humans therefore they are all going to make mistakes sometimes.

My suggestion is go out to shows and hang on boards talk to people get educated about the hobby. There are a lot of honest good hard working people in this hobby. There is also a lot of scum. It really isn't hidden as well as some make it out to be.

[steve B]

Not all cardstock is made from wood pulp. T206s and many other sets of that era are on cardstock that's probably cotton and linen fibers. It's also pretty close to modern acid free cardstock, magazine backing boards are very close. (But not the same thickness, so don't even think about it...)

DNA can be seen, but the process isn't simply sticking it in a microscope.


And it can't be seen all that well.
Plus, the pulp could have bits of multiple trees, or other plants. An old papermakers trick if the pulp was too watery was to throw in a bale of straw. That would absorb water as it got ground up in the pulp mixer.

Originally Posted by Beastmode

++This. Where there is a will....

Cardstock is made from pulp, which comes from trees. If, for example, you examined two 1939 Dimaggio cards, one altered and one unaltered, under intense magnification, I can only assume that the DNA of the chemically altered card would leave some sort of fingerprint. You wouldn't even have to take the cards out of the slab.

The day of reckoning is coming for slabbed altered cards. When a credible https://www.newscientist.com/article...rst-time/Forth Party Grader comes along to "out" these slabed altered cards, the game is over. The real question is will anyone care.

I think the poll question should be this: If there were a foresnic cardstock lab that could determine if your slabbed vintage card was altered, would you pay to have it re-certified?