Peter, how many Cracker Jacks have you held under a black light to see if they fluoresce?

Back in the late 80s, when I got back into cards, blacklights and loupes weren't in wide use at all. Now I have both, and have examined all my pre-war. If any are indeed fake, they're so good I can't tell. Good enough for me.

At least 17 but I will have to check my notes.

Thanks again for the opinions and help with this - this card is for my PC and I happen to like the look better this way but understand it may not be the same view held by all… and that’s ok. 99% of the time, I’ll only be looking at Eddie from his front side anyway so this is largely moot.

(Now, where is that “turn off comments” button so I can help prevent this thread from deteriorating into a Net54 scrum?)

In my opinion, it does look better, sir!

the back wasn’t gonna look good no matter what - it’s either gonna have some paper loss or it’s gonna look like somebody wiped their butt with it

It's almost as if you believe your own bullshit

I don't think even you believe yours.

This Ohio Lawyer is another one of these guys who is going to argue anything, no matter. Just ignore him. They hate that.

Pot, meet Kettle

I admit I enjoy a debate. Unfortunately, you and snowball aren't very self-aware.

Purists don't like to hear this, but most prewar (tobacco/candy) cards were once glued into albums and this is the reason why they survived this long. In other words, keeping them in albums is what preserved them. And soaking them is the reason we all enjoy these cards today. So, I'm all for it. :)

I'm all for it, too. As long as we acknowledge that we are altering it by soaking it. Sometimes, altering something is necessary to preserve it. Doesn't make it less of an alteration, though.

Curious - does removing a card from the pack alter it?

Touching it with your fingers with no gloves on?

Seems like the bar could be really low when it comes to altering.

Is removing something that wasn't part of the original card as issued truly altering? Using chemicals to do so, then sure. But plain old water, cotton swabs and the like? Is polishing a wax stain off the glossy surface also altering?

The bar can be anywhere we want it to be. For me, the distinction is are the things done to the card intended to enhance the condition or appeal of the card or not. If I drop a card and ding a corner, I have altered the card by definition. That isn't the type of alteration I'm concerned with. It's those alterations that increase the perceived market value of a card but aren't disclosed to potential buyers that I have a problem with.

Brushing something off the surface of a card is fundamentally different from removing something from within the very fibers of the paper. Water penetrates the surface of paper and removes things that have become intertwined with those fibers.

But this has been discussed ad nauseum here lately. I see no need for us to have this debate again. No one is changing anyone's mind.

I guess for me, you're right that alterations could be just about anything, including simply breathing on the card.

But if we're going to use it in a pejorative fashion, then it seems like calling everything an alteration might cause the word to no longer be meaningful.

Just for the record, I'm not in favor of altering cards, and the only cards that I've altered have been those cards that people are okay with altering - trimming down a box cut card like a Bazooka, for example.

Which is why I said I draw the distinction at intentional acts designed to enhance the condition or appeal of the card.

But again, my problem isn't the alteration. It's doing that without disclosure. People can di whatever they want to their cards. Just don't sell an altered card without disclosing the alterations so the buyer can decide how to appropriately value the card.

Hey, guys.... gentlemen...


Not long ago someone told me that a relationship isn't about what all a couple has in common, or what the both of them like and agree upon. A relationship is built upon the two hating the same things. That's what an ex-wife told me not long ago... and it makes some sense.

OP Jeff texted me and sent me before and after pics before he posted them here. To me, the card looks better now. I had previously, and off the board, sent a bunch of info on drying a card after its soaked ("allowing a card to dry" is a more accurate phrase.)

Time out for a definition: Altered. A ball card becomes altered the moment it is taken out of its original packaging and the card then is exposed to sunlight or fingers or anything else-- it then has become altered, or so it seems according to some of us.

Ya know, there could have been something in that dirt that was, in the long run, more harmful to that card than water. Thank goodness that's now gone.

I'm about to get to what I want to say. But one more meandering thought. I wonder how one side of that Cracker Jack card got so dirty over the past 110 years, yet those corners seem so firm and free from dings or wear... HAD to be by spending a majority of its life with flour paste on its back while it was pasted in an old scrapbook.

The point>> I quickly noticed missing letters on the back. From the few comparisons I made between the presoak and post soak images it seemed that whatever was missing after the soak had not been there before the soak. But I did this comparison in a rush during lunch, squinting at the images with tired eyes. Can someone with better eyesight and an unbiased approach look to see how many letters got washed away in the process. The issue isn't how many letters are missing post soak, but rather how many existing presoak letters are now gone. I've seen where a soaked card seems to have been rubbed with undue vigor. I have an open mind about how hard Jeff rubbed, and if that did happen was it done immediately after immersion, or did the card set in the water a fair amount of time for the dirt to loosen and fall away.

So will some eagle eye sighted and fair-minded person count how many additional letters are missing, and report back to us, please?

Dr. Geisel's story about those Star Bellied Sneeches comes to mind.
Haters gonna hate.

What truly matters is whether Jeff is satisfied with his result. He likes the postsoak card better, I think. He learned A LOT. I think he'll cautiously do it again one day, just in the right (his definition) situations.

Just for clarification, are you saying you can just breathe on a card and improve its condition? Can you do that with any card or only certain ones?

I paid $40 for Kurt's Card Care Kit. Your breathing technique sounds way more impressive. Hopefully, you can figure out how to bottle it.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

It only works on CJs. Not 14s though, breathe too hard they will fall apart.

If one consumes sufficient quantities of alcohol before the breathing exercise, I’m pretty sure it alters the chemical structure of the card.

Whether the hooch costs more or less than $40 probably depends on your tastes in booze.

Good take, Frank… and for me, trading a few extra letters (since several were scuffed away already) is worth the trade to have lost the big ol’ dirt stain.

I doubt I’ll do too many washes but in this case, I prefer the “after” results.

All jokes aside, yes, you can absolutely improve a card's condition by using your breath. In fact, that's precisely what the little black straw is for in that kit you bought from Kurt's Card Care.

well
 

having soaked hundreds of N, T, and trade cards - rubbing even to the slightest degree can remove some of the surface AND if there already was an abrasion - the loss would likely be worse. Different issues used different paper stock and so the quality and densities reflect those differences as do the fronts and backs of many cards.
Full disclosure - I have never soaked a Cracker Jack (or a watermelon for that matter).
I believe there are a couple of archived threads about soaking and another thousand about what is an alteration. Similar information on the non-sport side.
I would only add to the DRYING admonitions. I always used a few sheets top and bottom of simple computer paper - pressed under of 5/6 weighty books (not the cerebral kind). I changed the paper after about 15/20 minutes and every hour or so until it seemed that the cards were mostly dry to the touch. I then changed the paper again and left them overnight. I changed the paper again the following day and left them about a week - looking in after a few days. That was to insure they were all the way DRY and wouldn't subsequently warp. I always kept the books on them.
Don't soak too long, warm water, don't rub, handle wet paper VERY carefully, dry completely.....and if possible test prior or listen to someone who's done it.

Jeff, here are before and after pictures of your card, side by side.

How did Collins get a mole next to his eye? I also see what looks like wrinkling or scuffing on the right side of the after pic, under the lettering and to the side of his face. Is that from the card saver?

Ditto all of this...tons of archive on the topic.

I attempted to soak a 19th c non sports card that had back residue from removal...the colors were incredibly vivid and brilliant. After soaking the whole shine was removed...card is now faded and ugly...oops!!!

Also as far as drying goes...I initially would place a few layers of paper towel on both sides of the card...then a few pieces of printer paper and i'd stack books. After maybe 1 day i'd change the paper towel and repeat until dry.

Frank was kind enough to send me some plastic slabs he used for pressing and this was much easier.

But ultimately I found a bookbinding press...and this is the ultimate!!!!

Well, when you put it this way... the front before image here DOES look better but am guessing the mole and wrinkle are penny sleeve related. I sent him in to SGC for his tux fitting so I can't pull it out to see what gives here.

'twas an interesting experience for me, still glad to have tried it. Like they say, you either win, or you learn.

I'll post Eddie again when he's done with his Tux fitting in Boca Raton -

Jeff

I'm assuming the "before" image was saved from the listing and was created using a quality scanner. The "after" appears to be a phone pic, which will never do anything similar justice.

Are you sure you sent it to SGC?

I see what you did there…. Nicely done. Clever humor 💪

Exactly right…

And to put a final bow tie on my experience here with this CJ Collins… I present my lovely new SGC 1.5 Collins

I think he looks very handsome in his new Tux and I look forward to finding just the right place in my card cave for him.

My lesson learned?

If soaking, go EASY on any gentle scrubbing (lost a few letters in this process…). But also, I very much prefer the final “after” results over the “before” dirt/scuff version.

I also am reminded that, once my cards are in my collection and on display, I spend 98% of the time enjoying the front of the card - and Eddie looks great to me