is this wrong

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Soaking a card.
Ive heard that soaking a card off an album is ok. But removing a crease is wrong. What if I removed a card off an album to remove the glue and paper. No the card that was being removed had a 2mm crease on the edge. During this process the crease was removed not on purpose. Is the card now altered because it once had a crease and now it has been removed. Or has it just been removed from a scrap book and acceptable to the hobby. Removing items from cards has been oked by collectors but where is the line. I feel removing paper from a card bumps the grade. And so does removing a crease with the same process. Which is wrong and Why? they are the same and if one is wrong they both are.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Copying my opinion from the other thread, in cased you missed it:

to Peterose, to answer the question you've asked a couple of times. I'd find it hard to envision a situation where a crease can be removed without any sort of pressure put on it. The process of soaking gunk off a card usually doesn't involve pressure - just soaking, maybe a little rubbing. However, if a crease mysteriously came out of a card I was soaking for the purpose of removing gunk, then I'd have to consider that an exception, and not the rule, and so I'd live with it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Seaborn

First off, this has been answered several times already.

Second, I agree with Al. I cannot imagine a situation where your hypothetical crease would just disappear after soaking (without willfull application of some kind of pressing).

Third, to answer your other question...there is a difference. The two are most definitely NOT the same. Soaking removes external material that is not part of the card. A crease is part of the card. You may not want it to be there, but it's still 100% card. Scrap paper attached to the back, for example, is not part of the card itself.

Hopefully this has answered this series of questions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Removing something from a card is altering a card. Puts it in the same boat. Same thing. You are changing its apearance!
They are the same

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Okay, then.

If you've got a bunch of paper and glue-laden prewar HOFers in your collection, I'm a buyer.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

What exactly is the point of this thread. It seems that you have your mind made up. This topic has already been hashed and rehashed in another thread and I believe everyone's position is quite clear.

For what its worth, I too do not believe you can remove a crease simply by drying a soaked card underneath a stack of books.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

My point is. If you remove cards that once had paper on them, then you are a card doctor. Its the same as removing a crease. One is not better than the other. They are both alterations.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

I have a lovely e107 wagner...but it has a large, hardened booger across his face. is it wrong to remove this?

pete ullman

[Archive]

Posted By: Seth B.

Pete, I hope that was a joke, but if not, I say, pick away!

[Archive]

Posted By: John S

Only if it is Honus's booger. But if you remove it Topps might be willing to purchase.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

I had a piece of the booger dna tested/carbon dated and it is a booger from pre-1920...it couldn't be confirmed if it was honus's booger or not though.

peter in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Was the booger rebacked? And if so which part was tested?

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

the booger was congealed, debunct, rebacked, fudgepacked and cracked!

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

peterosepsa - why not start another couple of threads to let us know exactly how you really feel. My point is you made your point once already - this thread was completely unnecessary.

now, since the subject was raised - what's your answer to the booger question? do you slab it with the booger or do you scrape it off?