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.

This argument is older than I thought...


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...esives-removal

That would be about as productive as the back and forth in this thread.

Pete my guess is that if law enforcement put its mind to it, some perpetrators could be taken down. Maybe it's even happening as we speak. As we have seen on this very thread, people keep documents that could assist such an endeavor.

absolutely... and I hope you are correct and I hope this is happening. Our discussions on this board do make a difference.

But I will not huff and puff I will not jump up-and-down in outrage.

My reaction to all of this is to do my due diligence...by examining cards with a high magnification loupe, a black light...Learning as much as I can about card alterations and such, occasionally getting help from my friends... and by not paying large sums of money for highly graded cards...I hope to avoid this shady side of the hobby.

Doctoring was rampant in the late 80s. Indeed, and some would say ironically, it spurred PSA's start in 1991.

nevermind

Scott, on every thread involving controversy, it seems, there will be at least one person who fancies himself above the fray and too cool for school, and who will look down on the participants with a mixture of boredom and condescension.:D

I would much rather them focus such efforts in this industry towards finding people who rebuild corners, reback, recolor, reprint, stamp new backs, reseal packs, falsify slabs, etc. I spend a decent sum of money on cards and those things bother me. If I bought a card for $200,000 and someone had removed a stain from it that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, I don't give a damn. This particular issue is and always has been a gray area in the hobby. I would imagine it'd be tough to make it black and white in the legal system not to mention having to find substantial evidence. As this thread has shown, people will have their opinions and more than likely stick to them. There's not a chemical to remove those.

I would certainly like to see those people nailed as well. No disagreement here. It was however, until now, beyond our subject matter. But now that you have raised it, I suspect there is an overlap in part between folks who do some of those things you despise and folks who do the things that don't bother you but do bother some of us. I think some of our card doctors are multi talented.

As for legality, where PSA clearly says it won't slab cards with stains removed (you may disagree, I get that), and people remove stains with the intent of getting them past PSA, and then they are sold without disclosure and people buy them expecting they have not been altered under PSA's standards, that's black and white enough for me. And if people are keeping invoices of the work they did, it shouldn't be that hard to prove.

Can we please talk about the 2 PSA 7 Uzits?? Why hasn't anyone talked about the backs of these cards? I'm baffled....