Putting aside the question whether a chemical that does not change the look, feel or smell is an alteration, it none of those things are taking place, then why on earth is someone willing to pay somebody to apply to apply such a chemical?

No one has addressed my original questions. I've seem enough scumbaggery within this hobby to not put it above somebody to drive down bidding with unfounded allegations. I have no dog in the fight and don't know anyone in the hobby. I find the timing of the post interesting; the auction has been open for weeks and the post occurs two days before it is due to end. Why wait if you have evidence or inside information? People have bid been tens of thousands of dollars on the cards that they may have not have bid on if this allegation was made earlier. Why does the title of the post have a ? at the end if he is sure? How could PSA miss a rebuilt corner on the Cobb? I think these are all legitimate questions.

Jeff has made his opinion crystal clear. As to the (?) in the OP, I think that was his way of inviting conversation. I welcome such post before an auction ends rather than after.

In the art world it is perfectly acceptable to remove old varnish and layers of dirt and nicotine using solvents. Holding baseball cards to a higher standard than masterpiece paintings seems a bit much.

These pieces of art are 1 of a kind original masterpieces...so without preservation they would be gone...whilst most baseball cards were mass produced...kinda like artist lithographs...which would not be as acceptable to clean/preserve in my opinion.

A vintage bb card that is a one of a kind would likely receive less scrutiny if restored/cleaned...like the just so young.

Maybe it's just me, but ...

To be honest, I don't see soaking in water as any different than using another chemical. The ultimate intent is to remove something you don't want on the card for whatever the reason - for it to sit in your collection, for financial gain, etc. What does it matter if it's a chemical instead of water?

I'm willing to concede that some chemicals may cause harm to the card over the years, but that's another discussion. If we're talking about altering cards for deceitful purposes (assuming there's no disclosure), aren't soaking in water and chemicals pretty much the same thing?

Is soaking/chemical removal okay? That's up to each individual person to decide. But frankly, I just don't see the difference since the intent is exactly the same - to improve the quality of the card.

The intent of soaking in water can be just to get the cards out of a scrapbook in the first place.

It's all a question of what is considered acceptable in the community. Probably for the reasons Pete says, restoration that is undisclosed has never been considered acceptable, and originality is of paramount importance, in the card community.

That's true, but it's still altering the card from it's current state, isn't it?

Soaking a card in water with glued paper on the back is still altering the card from its current condition. The card was glued and has residue/paper now stuck to it. I am removing that residue/paper and that changes the card (in my mind). It wasn't intended to be there but neither were ink marks, stains, etc. that are removed by chemical.

I don't know, maybe I'm splitting hairs here. But I consider that pretty much the same thing.

I have no issue with being as purist, but at the same time I would point out that soaking out of a scrapbook is (I think) generally accepted by the community whereas most other things are not.

Oh yeah, I totally agree with you, Peter. It's definitely considered to be more acceptable. I just don't necessarily think it should be.

And as full disclosure here, I've soaked cards in water but haven't used any other chemicals, etc., so this definitely isn't a holier than thou kick against soakers. :) I just have a hard time separating the two as much as the majority.

I assume one rationale for the distinction is that water is not generally believed to adversely affect the integrity of the underlying card whereas chemical solvents (using the term in its common sense) generally are believed to do so. But it's probably hard to articulate a distinction that one couldn't find some fault with.

Peter, if there were a chemical solvent that could remove any stain, tape residue, ink, etc and research proved that it was totally undetctable and had no long term effects, would that be acceptable to you?

Peter?

(Anybody else can answer the question as well)

David- if it were totally undectable, how would anybody even know it was used?

Exactly, Barry! That's the same statement Dick Towell makes about his service - that the TPGs (or anybody else for that matter) can't detect it. So why is DT taking so much crap!?!

Obviously the idea that some kind of restoration can be done to improve a card without detection does not sit well with collectors who spend a lot of money on high grade cards. I can't speak for everyone, but that certainly bothers people.

Because he is enabling fraud. And i do not for a minute believe they could not detect it if they tried hard enough. Ask Steve B. and read his post from yesterday. Ask people who really know paper. Dick Towle does not have magic potions that defy the laws of nature. He and his clients are taking advantage of a flawed grading system and limited detection capabilities. David you are engaged in magical thinking.

Including YOU, I hope.

You said yesterday you did not approve of crease/wrinkle removal. Suppose someone could do it in a way that the TPGs could not detect. Happens all the time, actually. So do you now think that's fine?

If DT says that it can't be detected by a TPG, I take him at his word. Do you know of any cards a TPG has rejected as a result of DT's process? The cards seem to make it past PSA and SGC. If his process was being detected by TPGs, don't you think the word would get around and those that send him cards in hopes of better grades would stop doing so?

I'll answer your question as ridiculously as you answered mine: Peter, you are engaged in magical thinking. :D

Are you serious? This is not an all or nothing endeavor. Suppose half the cards, or a quarter, make it through. Do you have any idea how much money is involved? David in your zeal to be contrarian you are not making good arguments here.

Only because you keep pushing this silly discussion. :D

If I'm pushing it, it's because you won't answer my question as it was worded. I asked "Peter, if there were a chemical solvent that could remove any stain, tape residue, ink, etc and research proved that it was totally undetctable and had no long term effects, would that be acceptable to you?"

Instead of giving me a yes or no answer, you just say that you "not for a minute believe they could not detect it if they tried hard enough."

How about answering the question as asked - with a yes or a no?

David, I think the hypothetical is magical thinking, but no, I would not consider it acceptable just because it couldn't be detected. That to me suggests that the better the fraud is, the more acceptable it is. Not going there.

So you're saying then that if such work is undetectable, it is okay to do so without disclosure, even though a prospective buyer would regard such information to be material to his/her decision whether or not to purchase the card?

If the answer is yes, then I repeat what I said yesterday; the logical extension of this argument is that it is okay to create cards. I don't agree with you that that is something different. Both instances -- new creation and alteration of an existing card without disclosure -- involve withholding material information that a prospective buyer would reasonably want to know in deciding whether to purchase the item and how much to pay.

And, as to Peter's point that such an argument is analogous to saying what's wrong with robbing a bank if the crime is never detected, I agree.

Fine, Peter. I respect your opinion. I feel otherwise and my position is based on the premises that his work is undetectable as has been proven so far. If at some point it is proven that it is detectable, I would feel different. Until then, that’s where I stand. Thanks for the discussion.

How has that been proven, David? We have no information one way or the other about what percentage of his doctored cards get through. Have you made an extensive study of his clients' PSA or SGC submissions?

Your question is based on the assumption that the buyer would want to know as if might influence his/her purchasing decision. If it were me, and I was buying a card that had had a stain removed and there was absolutely no trace, I couldn't care less and it wouldn't make a difference in my buying decision one way or another.

Let me turn the question around on you. So, let's say you're buying a card that had a stain removed, but there was absolutely no detectable trace. What difference does it make in your purchasing decision if you (or anyone else) can't tell?

Whether or not the work itself is ethical is a fine line. It sounds like the problem many have is that people are then submitting these cards for grading without disclosing the alteration. Since they pass grading they are then sold as authentic and unaltered for large sums of money. This is where the problem lies.

Just because you can get away with something doesn't mean you should.

I haven't heard of one person come forward and say that his process has been detected by TPGs. In this hobby, word of mouth would spread quickly.

Let me know when that happens.

David- I'll ask you a question:

Suppose you bought a baseball card in an 8 holder and paid $5000 for it. Then sometime afterwards you discovered it once resided in a 4 holder because of a light crease and a tiny stain. The card was worked on, and the work was so good that it was undectable and thus graded an 8. And you also discovered that when it sold in a 4 holder, it went for $500. Would you still feel that since the work was undetectable, you would be entirely comfortable with the transaction?

Oh please, the people who use his services are going to come on here and admit it? I tried to get an altered card by PSA, but that damn Towle let me down!! And no word of mouth does not spread quickly when people have incentive to cover up. The vast majority of the hobby has no idea the extent of fraud.

Barry, the way your question is worded, yes, I would feel very uncomfortable with the transaction.

Now, take out the words 'light crease' with the rest of the question being the same, and I have absolutely no problem with it.

Sure, why not? I have never used his service, but I would have no problem admitting so if I did.

Let's put it to the test though, Peter. Let's give him a try and then submit the results to PSA and SGC and see what heppens. Want to give it a shot, or do you just want to complain about it?

Wait, I thought I was trying to keep the prices down with my first post and now you're saying that I could have kept them down even more by posting weeks ago? Where were you when I needed help?

PS -- I'm still refusing to put my full name on my posts and there's not a thing you can do to stop me.

I feel perfectly justified in complaining about the enabling of fraud, David. And I would not pay him a dime, for anything.

It'll be on my dime. How about that? :cool:

Please show before and after pictures along with a copy of the receipt. You do that and I will show my altered Blue Hank Aaron in a SGC slab with a # grade.

I can understand being opposed to soaking a card to remove a stain, and I can see being in favor of soaking a card to remove a stain, provided (and this is perhaps just a hypothetical) that it does not modify the composition of the cardboard itself. I've enjoyed the various thought experiments posted in this thread but have neither seen nor thought of a good reason to privilege the use of one substance over another if its effect on the card is the same.

I don't know if the effect on the card is the same in practice, but if it is then what logical reason could there be to care if the soaking chemical is formaldehyde, cough syrup, water, gasoline, liquid nitrogen, or monkey semen? Either soaking is inherently okay or it is not. In theory, you are just removing molecules that were not previously there, and if that's the case then it's ethically equivalent to brushing off the molecules of a bread crumb that fell on the card; it's just harder to do.

My understanding, however, is that if the card has a stain, the staining itself is the result of an earlier chemical reaction with the cardboard, and so, whether you're removing it with distilled water in your living room or paying a restoration expert to use some other chemical to accomplish the same thing in a laboratory, either way you are necessarily altering the chemical structure of the stained card to return it to its clean state. That said, there are people on the board here with far more education in chemistry than I have, and I'll defer to them if any of my assumptions here are incorrect.

You're on, dude. How about this:

I purchase this card on eBay http://www.ebay.com/itm/1974-TOPPS-5...item20ebd889c2

See the big stain on the back?

Once I get it, I crack it out. I'll take better pics once it's cracked out.

I'll send if off to GWTS

Once I receive it back, I'll submit it to PSA. Once it comes back from PSA, I'll take pics again. Then I'll crack it out and send it to SGC. Once it comes back from SGC, I'll take pics again.

Fair enough? Any better/different suggestions?

In Glenn's terms I guess the way I had been thinking of it was that if just water could get a stain off, then the stain really hadn't interacted with the paper so much as it was just sitting on top of it, and that if it had interacted you would need a chemical to undo it, but the recent discussions suggest that may be too simplistic or just flat out stupid and wrong.

IF there was no physical change in the card compared to when first issued, I would not care. But if (i) the chemical makeup of the card had been changed, detectable or not, OR (ii) color had been added to disguise the stain using period dyes (and let's say therefore not detectable), I sure would care.

You are going down a slippery slope here. Once we start condoning undetectable stain removal that changes the physical/chemical properties of the card, what's wrong then with repainting the entire card with a period dye, the result being to make the card forensically indistinguishable to a card that had the same dye applied when the card was first issued?

That is awesome and can't wait for the results.Thank you very much for dong this.

I really have no faith in the grading companies spotting anything but would like to see DT's work.

EDITED to add you should also add a crease to the card because removing that stain is childs play.

I think there’s a really interesting angle to this that no one has really mentioned yet.

Sure, right now there might not be a reliable method of detecting the use of these chemical solvents (including water). But the fact of the matter is that by using chemicals on the card you are unquestionably changing the card and its chemical composition. Now that change may not be detectable through smell or blacklight or other existing means, but someday there will likely be invented a method that CAN detect the exposure to chemicals.

And at that time, assuming baseball cards are still a thing and the grading card companies are still around, you could imagine a world in which they might start labeling these cards as “chemically altered”. In such a circumstance, I could see there being far more demand for cards that had not been exposed to chemicals (and still retained caramel stains) rather than those that have evidence of them being removed. Much in the way unmolested classic cars are often worth more than their shiny, restored counterparts. But again, I only see this happening once methods are developed to detect the chemical exposure.

And all that being said, I just want to add that I think people would probably be more lenient to water exposure because (a.) people are used to water being in everything already and aren’t bothered by it and (b) water exposure could theoretically be due to humidity or natural causes and would be hard to directly attribute to soaking (potentially). That being said I'm sure for some it would be a deal-breaker too.

TL;DR: If you're okay with exposing your cards to chemicals that can't be detected now, would you regret exposing them if the technology becomes available to detect the difference? Because at that point there's no going back.

In this case there must have been some chemical reaction, no?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1914-CRACKER...item25a897d0d8

Maybe not with the '74 Topps Frank Robinson.

I would guess the technology exists now, but it would be anything but cost-effective for the TPGs to employ it.

Probably why bleach is so commonly used on CJs? But I would have to defer to people who know paper.

Card just purchased and paid for.

You should choose a card that actually might get some scrutiny. Nobody is going to look at a 74 Frank Robinson for more than a second, it won't prove anything.

Unless someone is willing to put up a few hundred bucks or more to test out a high profile card I think this is a good place to start. I am curious to see the results.

Exactly.

It will show you Dick's work but will say nothing about detection IMO. Spend some real money if you are so interested, buy a CJ or some other stained E card, you can always resell it (for a profit if it works out). Not that that would be right.

It will say nothing about detection by the for profit card graders but David will get to see the card in hand before and after DT's work. That means much more to me than some underpaid grader who looks at 100's if not 1000's of cards a day as fast as possible hopefully trying their best.

I would like to see more than a super easy stain removal done to a card but am happy with what we will get on David's dime.

What difference does it matter, Peter? By PSA's own admission (and it's on their webiste), every card gets scrutinized the same way.

Ben, I definitely agree he should at least put a wrinkle into it. Not that the outcome matters to me, what Dick does is to enable fraud whether it's detectable or not. But for the purposes posed by David, his example is too easy.

And neither of us believe that for an instant. Nor should they spend as much time on a 74 Frank Robinson as on an E93 Cobb.

discussions are fun (not really in this case), but i'm against spending any more hobby money toward dick towle business.

Quan, Dick is probably reading the thread and will do it as a promotion. After all David is going to give him free publicity if it works out. And he is already an unpaid advertiser.

I'm going to give him free publicity either way. While I say I have never used his service, I have purchased several high grade '56 Topps from him.

Were they cleaned using his process? Who knows and I really don't care - they all graded numerically through SGC and now reside in my registry.

Before someone takes that out of context and asks me the stupid question, “Do you only care that it grades numerically?” the answer is NO. I wouldn’t want a trimmed or restored card whether it graded numerically or not. But since I couldn’t detect anything on the ‘56s, they were sent in for grading and all came back good.

^^^^^ This is exactly right.
The technology exists to determine what chemicals a substance has been exposed to and it can be done without destroying or damaging the object.

Even simple exposure to water should leave some trace, not in what it leaves behind, but in what it removes and how it affects the paper itself. Some papers are more likely to be affected than others.

Papers are basically fibers mixed with water then drained on a screen and pressed to thickness. Some have things added at different points in the process depending on what you want the paper to be like. The paper for our money has red and blue fibers added, and recently they also add a plastic strip. Other papers get whiteners, sizing, coatings etc.

Soaking would typically remove a bit of sizing, as a lot of it is just starch usually from rice. It can also loosen the fibers near the surface. Something that isn't usually visible by eye but would be with decent magnification.

Many stains are just "stuff" that's settled in the tiny pockets between fibers. Others are stuff that's gotten into the fibers themselves. The first are fairly easy to remove and I believe should be removed. The second are more of a gray area since removing them would require more than just water.

Here's a little before and after to ponder.
Before - As found, nice, but lots of surface dirt from laying in a loose stack in a dusty attic for .........a long time.
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=12668

After -
Cleaned with water and a q-tip. Just a light surface cleaning to remove the easiest of the dirt and grime. Sent in expecting a 40 since it was still a bit grubby, hoping not to get an A from the spot I overcleaned. Surprise!
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...pictureid=9887

It's not going anywhere anytime soon, and I have a post-it on the back of the slab so if I check out suddenly the wife or kids can disclose the cleaning.

Altered? Preserved? The dirt would have done damage eventually, and the little bit left will, just not as soon.

I'll have to take a high res scan of the after, a network of tiny cracks is visible in the clay coating (Typical, nearly all T206s have that) and much of the remaining dirt is in the cracks.

Very soon I'll have access to a bit of equipment that I believe has enough magnification to show the loosening of surface fibers from water. I even have a soaked candidate to test. (A desktop scanning electron microscope, Supposedly not enough to see the very tiny stuff like viruses, but enough for nearly anything else. )

But that costs 50K and the devices to detect chemical composition start around 30K if I'm not mistaken. Plus some training...........I can't see TPGs using them under the current business models. The ROI just wouldn't be there.

Steve Birmingham

Great information, Steve. It seems there is a world of difference between what a TPG can detect with minimal equipment on a one minute review and what COULD be detected with sufficient time, money and training. And I would even question whether TPGs could detect a lot more than they do if they really cared to, even under present review conditions. Unless Steve corrects me, I stand by my thesis that when solvents are used to remove stains from cards, there will be detectable changes in the paper.

Let's assume that Steve is right when he says "Even simple exposure to water should leave some trace". How would a grading company detect the differecne between a card that had been soaked in water to remove a stain as opposed to a card that absorbed moisture/water from humidity? Should the card that absorbed moisture/water from humidity be labeled as the card that was soaked?

One reason, besides cost, that TPGs don't break out the electron microscopes or mass spectrometers is that most people don't care to find out if there are subatomic changes to a card or that in 1950 my Mantle card was placed on a counter freshly cleaned with Bon Ami. I know I don't. I know that's being facetious, but do you really want to detect all this. Air and time destroy cards. Let's at least leave those 2 things alone.

Dave, respectfully, air and time are not alterations with the intent to deceive. I personally would like to know if alterations with the intent to deceive have been made.

Uhhhh make that my 51 Mantle:rolleyes:

This was exactly my point earlier, when I was saying people will likely always be more lenient towards cards that show evidence of soaking because it's so difficult to determine whether or not humidity was the true cause (although things like bleeding would be an obvious sign of a soak...). Not only that, people already consider water moisture as a part of the card already, given that nearly everything on the planet is composed of some amount of water.

That being said, I think someday we're going to see people start caring about other chemicals/solvents (much in the way car restoration used to be pervasive, now it's starting to be considered "molestation"). Maybe when the tests become easier and cheaper to carry out. At that point it will be interesting to see if anyone regrets having cards chemically altered.

Intent to deceive. I agree 100%.

Back to topic , is there sufficient evidence to conclude the E93s have been altered? Pretty bold statement by an experienced and respected board member.
I would like to see some veteran members chime in with a " yes" or " no"

Ritter was chemically cleaned 6 years ago.

Seller never mentioned that fact in their auction.

I have found this aspect of the thread recurringly hilarious, all the way back to initial replies to your original post, Mr. Mystery Man. This is a very revealing look into the current state of reading comprehension.

Best regards,

Mr. Anonymous

:)

Same here - my first name is kind of weird

To me, the thread is not funny at all but a very revealing look into the current state of apathy (or worse) about card doctoring. Lichtman presents compelling evidence that high 5 figure (I assume) cards have been altered and bumped by 3 or 4 grades, Dick Towle hawks his services using chemicals to take out stains (and I also pointed out that he takes out wrinkles), and most of the discussion here outside of people questioning if the E93s are really altered and an academic debate about water has been David trying essentially to defend what Towle does or at least part of what he does.


So it goes, I guess.

Peter- these cards are already at a figure that is incredible. This subject is something that collectors should know about....

Kevin, nah, they look prettier than they did as 5s or 6s and that's all that counts -- oh, that and the holy flip.

Peter, the 'problem' is that this is a discussion forum, not a note-gathering space for a dissertation. I'm not being sarcastic - I would prefer that it were the latter;however, finding an internet discussion forum that equates to a discussion group built in real life (where you would eject undesirables or never invite them) is never going to happen.

And you can't get rid of most of the morons who infiltrate your discussions, because every post adds money to the forum - unless their participation results in other posters posting less, but that's a tough call for forum owners.

Also, if I were buying more than my fair share of rounds during our discussion group meeting at the local pub (which I can't do here on the internet), you would have no problem listening to my tripe. Thus, the 'ignore' feature.

Scott it's not an ideal format to be sure, and maybe a post about altered cards can't compete with one about Leon's auction or shipping charges or a fake T206 on ebay, but I still would have expected more outrage.

We should discuss a global restitution plan at this point.

Where is the outrage? I am somewhat outraged...but what can be done?

This whole situation reminds me of the PED's in baseball. For many years this was ignored...accolades were celebrated. Seemingly when certain hallowed records became in reach and or broken people started to take notice. And changes were made. But in that time PED's became harder and harder to detect...when one became detectable a new one came around that was not. I imagine tons and tons of money was poured into this by major-league baseball to control the situation better.

If this problem with in the hobby were to be remedied it would also require lots and lots of financial investment and technology...and for what? A handful of us on a vintage baseball card message board feeling better about the hobby that we love?

Most registry heads and casual collectors could not care less if their cards have been altered. How many trimmed/altered/overgraded cards do we see in high-grade holders selling for huge sums of money.

I just don't think enough people really care and there is enough money to invest to remedy the problem.