Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Al, well taken I respect your thoughts.<br /><br />I would like to make clear I’m not saying soaking & trimming are complete equals. Nor am I advocating either. <br /><br />However the point of a NRMT card is that it has survived all these years without being trimmed, glued, soaked etc. At least it is to me, perhaps I’m in the minority wont be the first time. In fact if I bought and paid full price for a NRMT card to find out it was covered in glue at one time, and soaked off. I would be just as mad if I found out the card was trimmed. I would equally frown upon the person who sold it to me if they did not disclose such information upon purchase.<br /><br />To me working on a card in anyway is altering or repairing it. In the art world repairs happen all the time, and most are so perfect you would never know. But it almost always lowers the value of that work. I think the same should apply in our little world.<br />

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>This is all very interesting and I'm not getting anything done at work.<br /><br />-Al

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>I guess where I would part company with John is over the definition of alteration. Maybe it's just semantics, but I can see where removing extra material without degrading the surface could be considered something short of alteration. What, if fact, is "altered" in such a case? One can always posit absurd examples, but surely not even the most ardent anti restorationist would argue with blowing dust off a card before putting it into a holder. Now suppose it was something that you couldn't blow off but had to flick off with a fingernail. Alteration? To me paper removal with water is more on that spectrum than on the crease removal/spooning/trimming spectrum.

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>steve f</b><p>al·ter (ôltr) Pronunciation Key <br />v. al·tered, al·ter·ing, al·ters <br />v. tr.<br /><br />1. To change or make different; modify: altered my will. <br />2. To adjust (a garment) for a better fit. <br />3. To castrate or spay. <br />

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...that turns on the disclosure element. <br /><br />I think I've beaten this point into the ground, but why disclose something that isn't there -- is and will always be undetectable. The reason people want a disclosure, in my opinion, is not so they can decide if a card has been changed, but if it has been undetectably changed.<br /><br />More to the point, if the card has been graded by PSA, SGC or GAI, then I really do not think any disclosure is needed. That's the beauty of 3d party grading. I would rather have SGC's final word on a card than yours. Why? For a number of reasons, including, I suppose primarily, the liquidity of the card is not dependent on your opinion.<br /><br />Finally, I think Wonkaticket is right that there is a parallel or crossover here between high grade lovers and the SGC 40-60 and below crowd. I do not buy high grade T206 cards -- i.e., higher than SGC 80 -- because of a presumption of alteration I bestow on those cards. But when I say alteration, let me be clear -- I'm not talking about soaking and removing paper/glue, which I am sure is why some cards are quite high grade (that is, they were kept in albums all those years with sharp corners, white borders and no creases). I am, rather, talking about, almost exclusively, trimming, i.e., the taking away of cardboard from the card after it leaves the factory. This is universally disliked by collectors. <br /><br />But, perhaps those that want all of their cards to be PSA 7 and higher, may be a little bit more, say, uptight about former/hidden/undetectable flaws in their cardboard. Sort of a virgin fantasy, but applied to baseball cards.

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>“I would like to make clear I’m not saying soaking & trimming are complete equals. Nor am I advocating either.”<br /><br />I think I stated that above, certainly one is more obtrusive than the other. Removing glue is more than cleaning to me; the glue wasn’t there when it left the factory in 1909. When added later life the value of that card dropped IMO. Removed or not the card was not as found, and should be fully disclosed and should lower the value. <br /><br />I think a good example is the car-collecting world. Buyers pay big bucks for factory exact cars, in other words no changes all original parts, paint etc. If you bought a Duesenberg that was blue, and upon closer inspection you found the original color to be green, stripping and repainting it does not make it original again. <br /><br />Where does this stop? Why don’t we all clean our PB backs to get rid of those stains etc? I don’t collect coins, but is ok to polish out scratches in coins? Does it affect their value? <br /><br />Peter please clarify, are you saying if you bought a NRMT-EX card for market value on that type of card, only to find out a week ago it was GD at best. You would have no problem and be happy with the purchase? Would you disclose or pass on to the next buyer with no mention of your findings? <br /><br />Just curious?<br />

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>One more question, from what we know. The method for soaking to remove glue & paper etc. is virtually the same, in which you would go about removing a crease correct?<br /><br />So who’s to say by cleaning and or removing glue etc. that you are or could be altering the card in the process? Seems like a Pandora’s box that could be why most would not disclose. Seems hard to prove “I was just cleaning the back, had no intention of removing any creases and the card was crease free when I began the process”.<br /><br />Kind of like your wife finding you in bed with another women, “honey this isn’t what it looks like I can explain!”<br />

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>To bring in elements of another thread, I don't think you can really remove a crease or wrinkle without adding pressure. I don't apply any pressure if I'm soaking a card - it's purely soaking and perhaps some rubbing.<br /><br />Once I soaked a card for too long and ADDED wrinkles, which sucked. But I can't see how you can remove a wrinkle without doing something besides purely soaking it.<br /><br />-Al

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>If you soak without pressing the card will warp. You have to dry it between two pieces of paper and then beneath a stack of books (or something akin).

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Understood.<br /><br />I'm talking about the kind of pressure that would take out a wrinkle. My experience has been that sticking a wet card inside a thick book will not do that. Perhaps yours is different.<br /><br />-Al

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>John not sure I understand the question, what is the reason the card is GD as opposed to NM, is is because it started off with glue and therefore really was only GD to begin with, or that a crease came back, or simply that the seller overgraded it?

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>"My experience has been that sticking a wet card inside a thick book will not [take out a wrinkle."<br /><br />I actually think that may be true, but I believe I have seen instances were the wrinkle or crease was ameliorated some, if not wholly removed. As much as this is obviously a taboo on this Board, I do think that research may be warranted. Of course, anyone that conducts such research and reports on the results runs the risk of being labeled a card doctor, from whom people won't want to buy or trade cards from. Perhaps if the results were fully disclosed the results would be different.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Suppose I took an identical card, graded for the sake of example 7 by any one of the major grading companies. I auction it on four different occasions. Hypo 1, I just give the grade and a scan. Hypo 2, I give the grade, a scan, and a glowing description. Hypo 3, I give the grade, the scan, the description, but add that I removed scrapbook material before submitting but it is now undetectable, as shown by the grade. Hypo 4, same as 3 except I add that I soaked and pressed out a small wrinkle before submitting but it is now undetectable, as shown by the grade. I would bet that especially if it was a desirable card, the prices in all four scenarios would not differ significantly.

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I agree and I would pay the same... which may not be the prevailing sentiment...but it's mine. To each their own.....heck, I've got better stuff to worry about than if my vintage card had something done to it that is totally unnoticeable....

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>But were talking every day baseball cards, hell even the most elusive T206’s there are certainly more than one of. I would have to say you would see some price differences in those auction listings especially upon full discloser. I’m hoping that people would bid accordingly knowing that the only reason it’s a 7 is because someone worked it. I would also hope that it wouldn’t even obtain that 7 because the card does not deserve the grade after being worked. Hell isn’t that the whole point these plastic slabbing Sob’s are here in the hobby now? To weed this stuff out, not decide what level of working it is ok and what’s not?? That’s why your scenario makes no sense to me.<br /><br />Do you think after being soaked and worked it deserves the grade Peter?<br /><br />I guess where you and I differ Peter is I am pretty much a black & white guy. Doing anything to improve the quality and value of an item to me is doctoring, no matter how innocent the terms. <br /><br />If the card due to you efforts is more valuable. Congrats you have doctored a card period. You can spin it to say it wasn’t meant to be there. It was to increase my viewing pleasure and make the card more attractive in my collection etc. The guy who trims them is also looking to make them more attractive, as is the guy with black marker on the N300’s. He’s making them more attractive to buyers for more $. <br /><br />Changing anything on that card that was different than from the day you found it, is doctoring a card and in some small way makes you a card doctor. Now replace the glue and or wrinkle when you sell and I’ll eat my own words, and type a formal apology. <br /><br />I respect your views Peter I do, just having a hard time wrapping my mind around them. Nothing personal, and this isn’t just addressed to you. You and I just seem to be typing to each other. <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/smileys/143.gif"><br />

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Jim Crandell</b><p>Peter,<br /><br />I disagree.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Jim

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Leon, <br /><br />So your of the hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil Monkeys huh? <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/smileys/143.gif"><br /><br />I respect that and if it works for you great. I just don’t buy it though it sounds as if your saying as long as I cant tell, its ok. So if I were to devise a new method of trimming cards today that was undetectable and told you later after you got and paid for your expensive type card. You would be ok with that? It only matters if someone else can tell? <br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />John<br />

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>I do not mean to lend my approval to any of this by my hypothetical. Personally, as I have stated, soaking does not really bother me for the reasons many have stated, but crease removal does and I PERSONALLY would avoid scenario 4 totally. I am just stating my admittedly cynical views as to what I think would happen in the market, because I think there are enough people buying cards, UNLIKE Jim and yourself and others to be sure, who care more about the label than anything else and they would bid the card up to the same levels. Just my opinion and I hope I am wrong.

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>John as to your point about the scenario making no sense, I firmly believe many many cards that have had wrinkles taken out of them and worse are making their way into high number holders. It's debatable what percentage, but I don't think the grading companies have the time or the technology to detect very expert work.

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>I disagree also. Moreover, since it seems the prevailing view is that soaking etc. is both OK and widely done, then why is it rarely, i.e. never disclosed? Hell, if the price realized is going to be the same with or without disclosure, then why not tell it like it is? Methinks it's because it does affect the price and the number of bidders, and as Jim pointed out, a healthy percentage of people here would not buy it.

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Well said Todd. <br /><br />Hey I was number 100, where the heck is the confetti??

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>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.

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>John,<br /><br />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?

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>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!<br /><br />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.<br />

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>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).

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>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.

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>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."<br />

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Jim Crandell</b><p>Paul,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Jim

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>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.

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Josh, <br /><br />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. <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/smileys/86.gif"><br /><br />Card was raw and card was sold raw years ago. From there on out I didn’t screw with stuff. <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/collection/t206settrial/websize/mathewson%202.jpg"><br /><br />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. <br /><br />I just think major card work isn’t Kosher. (Can I say that as a Goy/Goyim?)<img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn3/smileys/77.gif">

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>steve f</b><p>err, John?.. Those weren't ladies.

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Ahhh man really! Ouch thats the last time I take internet links from Jay B!

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>"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"<br /><br />...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.

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>There are naked ladies on the web?!<br /><br />What am I doing HERE?<br /><br />-Al

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>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.<br /><br />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.<br />Well friend, then there is none.<br /><br />But I am not the doctor.

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>"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."<br /><br />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.

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>martindl</b><p>Paul,<br />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."<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>No, a valid analogy would be a robbery that no one could tell that something was taken. <br /><br />Therefore, no crime was committed.

Soaking a card?
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Suppose you had to shake the coin in a jar containing non hazardous chemicals, would that be all right?<br /><br />Nobody will ever be able to distinguish natural toning from that induced by artificial means. Where do you draw the line?<br /><br />Nobody can tell + you don't even care about coins + you can double your money in an hour or less.