Poll for Buying Cards with Chemically Removed Stains
 

As a follow-up to the Gone With the Stain thread, I'd like to take a poll regarding you STRICTLY AS A BUYER and NOT YOUR BELIEFS AS A SELLER regarding the purchase of a sports card with chemically removed stains.

I went with "would', but for me it's more complicated.

If it was done professionally or in a way that I felt was proper then it would not affect my decision much.

If it was done poorly or in a way that I thought would do more damage over time Then it would.

Steve B

What chemical?

I kind of agree with Steve here...additionally it really depends on the card itself.

If it's a card that never comes up...and I "need" it...it wouldn't matter as much to me...as opposed to a card that commonly appears...I'd be more inclined to pass.

I did not respond to the poll as the answers are too general for my response!

Oh...and what about water? IS that a chemical?

I voted it would influence me but there does need to be more info.

But the way I looked at it was...if I had the choice between the exact same card that had been chemically cleaned or one that wasn't, I would pick the one that wasn't.

But what if the chemical was an undetectable preservative that prevented the card from turning yellow in the future and even guarded against the terror of pyrolysis.:eek::eek:

LMAO....well, if it comes to pyrolosis I may have to reconsider. I am not a major purist but like my cards unadulterated as much as possible.

Now if the chemical was ONLY water, or a mark had been erased with a plastic eraser, it wouldn't influence my decision...but that is just me.

It depends on what chemicals I am under the influence of while sitting with my cursor on the buy/bid button.

I would prefer that the hobby didn't care, and that, as a result, the TPG's didn't care, but we do and they do.

No, the TPF's apparently can't detect chemical-cleansing today, but there was a time when they also couldn't detect the trimming of the T206 Wagner, or at least chose to ignore it, and there's nothing to say that chemically-cleansed cards won't get the same selective results. It was amazing to me how many of our forum members weren't convinced the Wagner was trimmed and we might have heard from some of them in the Dick Towle thread.

Those are valid points, but the fact is no card seller that I'm aware of ever discloses what chemicals are used to removed stains. So there again if you know that stains were removed from a card, would that in itself influence your purchasing decision? Let's use this card as an example:


http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ages/plank.jpg

It would be good to know if the whiter borders and back, shown in the 'after' scan, are accurate - also, if the pink really was washed out of Plank's face. I have owned a few T206's over the years that displayed that strange look, and I knew there was something wrong with them, but of course couldn't pinpoint it, as I wasn't present at the 'cleaning', but as Barry pointed out in the other thread, it almost certainly had nothing to do with pure water. Again, let's use common sense here.

chemical
 

dr. frank's engaging argument regarding the terror of pyrolysis was a mind-changer for me.
best,
barry

I've been told by someone who knows (And that I believe) That the scans accurately represent the card both before and after cleaning.

It probably got lost in the other thread, but my opinion of that particular cleaning is that it's sloppy amateurish work that goes beyond what's appropriate. And since they couldn't do it well enough to avoid lightening the card overall they probably were too sloppy to neutralize whatever they used. So the card will probably be in for long term damage.

Even if I could afford it, that would greatly influence my decision.

Steve Birmingham

Steve, your point was not missed - it was what made me go back and study the two scans again. It also reminded me of the 'odd' T206's I've owned in the past.

Peter's point might also have been missed by some - this is partly about the premium placed on graded cards. Even though it was shown that the seller probably lost money on the cleaning/grade bump, that might not be the case if someone who's better at cleaning does the job in the future. And even if the TPG can't detect chemical evidence, the collecting community is pretty good at locating the 'before' and 'after' scans, and that's enough to hurt value.

Would influence me
 

I chose it would influence me....but probably not as originally intended.

A card is a card- if I want it and it looks great and a few less people will buy because of the disclosure- that becomes a win win win for me. I am buying to enjoy it and to display it and if it comes cheaper because of the "cleansing" that is even better.

I understand your arguments, and I can agree with them, but to each their own.

If I knew a card for sale had stains removed with chemicals, it would definitely influence my purchasing decision. It would be an easy decision to not buy that card, and let someone else put it in their collection, if they don't mind chemical alterations.

Let's hope going forward that any seller who lists a card for sale and knows it's been chemically cleaned will do the right thing and disclose it to any and all potential customers. Fair enough?

Sincerely, Clayton

Unfortunately, this is about as likely as hell freezing over.

And that is the exact reason I can never seem to get a card I want:D

Exactly. And I wonder why, if there's nothing wrong with it?

Sincerely, Clayton

There you go.

With 100 votes in, it's a 60/40 split. I knew my opinion was in the minority, but it's not as small as a minority as some thought.

It would have been nice if this poll was one of those polls that show who voted for what option.

Sincerely, Clayton

P.S. I voted for the first option, as I am opposed to cleaning cards with chemicals.

After you guys voted that it was okay to cut up Spalding and Reach Guides, nothing surprises me. Fortunately this hobby is big enough for 'Intro to cutting and framing', as well as 'Chemistry 101'.

I can't think of any additional ways to destroy things, but I know my collecting peers won't let me down. Think memorabilia.

I agree with this. Also, I think the poll options are a bit limited.

FYI in my experience you can cure pyrolosis by taking the card to a cemetery during a full moon along with a dead cat.

And that premium is another whole discussion. (I think I'm one of the few that are ambivalent about the whole grading thing. )

I think some preservation work on cards should be acceptable. Removing them from scrapbook material that will damage them eventually or that will crumble away in a few more years should be fine, And preferable to the common back damage from just ripping them out.
And some cleaning and perhaps stain removal on some cards. The Johnson I cleaned is probably a good example of where I think the limits are.
And some cards like most strip cards should be deacidified or they likely won't last another 90 years.

The stuff used by the pros is actually beneficial long term IF it's used properly.

Cleaning with random stuff, especially stuff that removes a noticeable degree of color is extremely poor practice.
I'd almost go so far as to say that it's a solid indication of deception. The means to do a basic surface cleaning and maybe remove most of a stain that will cause damage is well within the ability of anyone with a bit of patience.

Some chemicals are actually totally ok to use on paper. Stamp watermark fluid is ok and often does a very little bit of surface cleaning just from checking the watermark. It won't remove any color, or for that matter most stains. And its use is almost universally accepted. There are devices for detecting the watermarks without fluid, but one is very expensive and the other (which I own) doesn't really work. So the fluid is used by nearly everyone except the people too cheap to buy it. They use lighter fluid. (And many stamps that aren't from the US the watermark can be seen by holding it up to any decent light. )

It's just so situational to me there isn't an easy answer.

Maybe---
T206 given a light cleaning or removed from a scrapbook -ok
T206 Bleached to * - Not ok

W515 - deacidified by a conservator with a letter/receipt - ok
W515 - "prettied up" by straightening a poor original cutting from a strip -???Less ok- Somehow I recall many people being in favor of doing something like that

The point that alterations, both positive and negative are rarely if ever disclosed is a big one. I think that if a professional cleaning/stain removal was less stigmatized we'd see more disclosure. Stuff done to deceive will always go undisclosed.


Steve Birmingham
PS you guys should see the S that's done to stamps. The philatelic foundation had a display at the international show in DC in 2006 that was really pretty scary. I'm not bad at spotting some alterations, but they had examples that were almost impossible to spot without being shown what was "wrong" about them.

Steve - I would love to read about the stamp alterations if you have a link to the story.

I'll see if I can find a couple articles.

Stamp shows are a bit different from card shows, there's the usual dealer tables, but the bigger shows have exhibits that are competitive. The exhibit is judged against a standard and the exhibitor can win various awards based on how well the topic is presented and how difficult it is to get the items. It's more complex than that but that's the short version. They're shown in frames that hold 16 - 8 1/2x11 pages.

The Philatelic foundations exhibit at the international show was around 8-10 frames, maybe more with 3-4 items a page.

Steve B

The numbers are growing a little tighter. Doesn't this kind of disprove the theory in the other thread - that cards that have had a stain removed would sell for less money? To me, the numbers kind of say if one person won't buy a card due to stain removal, the next person will. Thoughts?

If the stain was removed how would you know you were buying a card with the removed unless it was told to you, not likely
mike

Ah, they've put some similar stuff online.

I'll start a new thread since it's way off topic for this one.

Steve B

I have a strange feeling some of the people voting in the second category would not vote that way if their screen names were attached to their votes. But since they aren't, it's a safe way to skew the numbers.

I say this because- realistically- this poll just says "chemically cleaned". It does not even give a specific type of chemical. Really? So, you guys are telling me that "in general", a card can have been cleaned with any "unknown chemical" and this wouldn't influence your decision to buy it? I'm calling B/S.

"Hey, this card has been cleaned with chemicals-no, you don't get to know what kind- but L@@K AT HOW IT POPS!!!!!!!" WOW!!!!!" Place your bids and hurry, this is going to go fast!!!"

Turpentine, acetone, bleach, lighter fluid, etc........no, it would not influence my decision to purchase a card. As long as I can't tell, who cares. No, I'm not sure that it won't fall apart 15 years from now, but who cares? By then, someone else will probably own it anyways-right? :rolleyes:

Give me a break.

At least some of you came out and gave your opinions-which even though I may not agree, I respect your opinion and willingness to explain your position on this. But, it's only been a few.

Or, maybe my perception is off-I've always assumed collectors of pre-war cards were 100% against using chemicals on these 100+ year old gems.....

Sincerely, Clayton

I'm a collector of prewar cards. I do not buy the cards for an investment. I buy them because I love baseball and history (and the history of baseball). Although I have never chemically cleaned a card, I did try to soak a T206 Hindu once, wih bad results. With this being said, I'd still clean my cards with chemicals every day of the week if it improved their appearance.

Presumably Towle has done lots of work for lots of clients. Show me ONE auction, of a slabbed card anyplace, that discloses the work he did to get the card in that slab. Show me ONE client of his who discloses the work he did when selling graded cards.

Thank you for your honesty Brendan, that's good to know.

Sincerely, Clayton

Some of us (well at least I know this is true for myself) believe it has been discussed enough between this and the thread this one evolved from that we don't have the need to keep the debate going, but voted anyways. I know all the arguments both ways, now it is just interesting to see how many people vote each way.

It would be more interesting to see who voted which way. I cannot believe that that many people would not let the fact that a card has been chemically cleaned *with any unknown chemical* influence their decision to buy the card. Just not buying it.

Sincerely, Clayton

Thanks Clayton. I was not trying to be difficult whatsoever. I just have no plans of selling any; they are simply a conversation piece. So if they are cleaned (or even trimmed) I'll take them! Haha.

I fully understand :) and didn't take it any other way. Your honesty is appreciated. At least with a trimmed card you know what you are getting though ;)

Sincerely, Clayton

Why? So you can PM every person who disagreed with you? I just don't see the need.

Also to be technical the poll wasn't about "any uknown chemical" it just said chemicals. Since not everyone even agrees with the definition of EVERY dictionary on what a chemical is. It is very possible that a lot of people are voting yes because water is a chemical (no matter what anyone here says to the contrary). Now if the poll was worded differently it could have different results matching more what you expected to see.

Clayton just likes to stir the pot.

I voted for the less popular option
 

You know, I don't think it truly matters very much. We want to buy the cards that look and feel right and if the chemical removal is proper and helps that, it is our business as to what we buy,

Look it's the same argument as trimming and tell me, who would not buy the Wagner PSA8 card. C'mon now, if you could afford that card you would but that Wagner because it looked and felt so good

Rich

I wouldn't make a generic comment about Clayton like that.

I just happen to disagree with him on this matter. There have been other debates I have seen him in here where I agree with him and there are several times he isn't debating anything and just discussing cards.

There are other people on the thread that I believe do just like to stir the pot, I just wouldn't lump Clayton into that category.

Rich, I think you just tied yourself in a knot.

What would be the point of PM'ing every person who disagreed with me? I'm failing to see the logic there. Maybe because I buy cards? Maybe because I'd like to know who is ok with chemically altering cards? Some people may be ok collecting cards that have been known to have been cleaned with chemicals, and never plan to sell them. But, if they run into unfortunate situations in life, they may have to sell. If they did sell- I (as a buyer) would like to know that they (as a collector) didn't mind chemical alterations. Disclosure. Honesty. On the same token, if it were a person who strictly sells cards, I want to know, for the same reasons. That's why. I hope that makes sense.

Yes, "technically" the poll just said "chemicals". To me, since NONE were specified, I use a blanket description of "any unknown chemicals". That's what we are talking about, right? UNKNOWN CHEMICALS.

Hey, why don't you PM anyone on this thread who publicly stated they are ok with chemicals........and ask if they received a PM from me yet. :rolleyes:

Sincerely, Clayton

Glad to see that you know me so well. By the way, you keep forgetting your hashtag's when you make your posts.

Sincerely, Clayton

Thanks Andy, I appreciate that. We don't have to agree, and I respect your opinion. I think I'm getting too emotionally involved in this subject, and I've said my piece. Thanks again.

Sincerely, Clayton

The question about PMing was a facetious question as I really don't see why it matters. I know you aren't PMing people as I haven't received one.

As pointed out earlier, though, cleaning isn't disclosed in most cases. So people on both sides of the debate have cleaned cards in their collection. So again knowing whom would buy if it was disclosed doesn't mean anything when it comes to buying. And sense there is that misconception that only people that are OK with buying cleaned cards are the ones that own cleaned cards, may be the same reason they don't want the transparency in this poll.

Emotion to me comes from what feels like acqusation
 

I am happy to listen to both sides of the argument. But at issue is would you buy a "cleansed" card.

No one disagrees that the failure to disclose in search of extending profits is unethical as has been continuosly discussed, but as I read the responses I can't help but feel that the undercurrent of that argument includes that if you would buy them you are unethical as well.

These cards are not in their natural state anyway - they have been through all sorts of stuff over time. What is a little maintenance on them?

I buy food that is not organic - so I am not in my original state either.
My house no longer has lead paint- it is not original.
I had some scratches on my car buffed out - it is not original.
I lost a button on a sweater and sewed a new one on - it is not original
Why are pieces of cardboard the line in the sand?

money

Some people don't like it when other's make money. If a card is sells for less than it was bought for most won't complain other than the seller. If a card sells for more than it was bought for that upsets a lot of people other than the seller (including quick flips, switching grading companies, and getting a bump in grading)

Keep stirring the pot. #HereYouGo

I think we have to be careful about judging those who disagree with us, as being unethical, or feeling that those who we disagree with think that we are unethical. I certainly don't think buyers of cleansed cards are unethical, nor do I think many others here do. I've heard some of the most ethical people in our hobby state that they don't mind chemically-cleansed or trimmed cards.

As an aside: Clayton, Alex - what the heck is a 'hash tag'? I keep hearing the ESPN bozos quote tweets, including the word 'hash-tag', which sounds so weird. Are people actually human-talking in text-speak now?!?!?!

Hi Scott,

You bring up a valid point and I can see how my comments may have implied that. And I will apologize for that as well, if that's the case.

But, I will not go as far as to say I think this issue of chemically cleaning cards is good, or right. Still 100% against it. I feel that regardless of the reasoning behind it, it sets a bad precedent and affects the integrity of the card. Unless we are all going to be buried with these cards, they will eventually end up in another collectors hands. I am not convinced that there will be no long term damage in some form. I look at it the same way I look at trimming, adding color, removing color, or any other alteration.

But at the end of the day, I have no right to tell someone what is right for them to do with their cards. If people want to draw pink hearts and smiley faces on them, that's their business I guess. I keep my cards in the exact same condition I receive them in, dingy or not, a blemish, stain, wrinkle- rounded corners-to me it's what I love about them. I don't want to remove anything that has traveled with it over the past century, but that's just me.

As far as tweeting, I don't do it either, and understand very little about it. I know all tweets have a hashtag and are usually one or two sentences long, and I believe it is because there is a very small character limit allowed in a tweet. I have no idea what the hashtag does, hell, I've never even sent a text message before (other than an email) :o:D

I am glad to see more people are against this than for it, but at the same time it's sad to see how many people are ok with it. Just my opinion folks.

Sincerely, Clayton

It seems like a lot of the concern people have about soaking or cleaning is that the cards may be sold without disclosure in the future. I address this problem by keeping a detailed excel spreadsheet.

The sheet lists my collection with the purchase price and notes on condition. Among the condition notes are if I soaked the card or suspect that it has been trimmed in the past.

I find this system to be very helpful because it helps me know which cards to upgrade. Also it gives me some peace of mind in knowing that it would help my wife sell my collection if (really when) I die.

Some good questions would be:
1) If you purchased this card all cleaned up and later discovered the before scan on this forum, would you be pissed?
2)Would you want your money back?
3)Would the seller/auction house/TPG be obliged to give you your money back?

JimB

Correct! As a buyer, this is one of my biggest concerns. Disclosure. Good post Alex! ;)

Sincerely, Clayton

1) Absolutely. You can clearly see that the card was altered-just check out the shading in the uniform, that says it all.

2) Yes.

3) I've never dealt with an auction house, so not sure how to answer that one.Maybe someone with more experience could explain who would ultimately be responsible. But- herein lies the problem when someone who cleans cards with ANY type of unknown (unknown to everyone but the "cleanser") chemicals, and thinks just because it can pass through the graders that all is well-just look at the Plank. It crossed over and got a .5 bump. But, when you see the comparison scans, to me, it screams "altered". Should be graded "A". Will this card degrade 10-20 years from now?

Sincerely, Clayton

I don't buy restored comics.
I wouldn't buy a restored/ chemically aided card.

That's pretty much how I look at that card too.

I'd be mad, and I'd want some change in price either a full return or some reduction.

But I don't think the auction house would be required to give me anything unless they were part of or knew about the cleaning.

I do have a feeling that that particular card will have problems in a few years.
And the way I view that card is different from how I view other cards that were cleaned less aggressively.


Steve B

No, no and no.

Did Kendrick get mad when he found out that his Wagner was trimmed? Probably not. Did he ask for his money back? Probably not. If finding out purchasing a $2+ million trimmed card didn't upset Kendrick, why should purchasing a cleaned card bother me? I have too many other important things to worry about in life.

The questions also infer that the card (Plank) loses value now that is publicized that it's been cleaned. Did the Wagner lose value after it was publicized it's been trimmed? Again, probably not.

Interesting question. Part of me finds it unfathomable to not be indifferent that a $2.8 Million dollar investment turned out to be fraudulent, yet at the same time the apathy and indifference towards fraud and deception in this hobby at times has been astounding.

IF I was able to pay the money for a plank I think I would pay more for the clean one even after they disclosed it. I know I am in the minority (as shown by the above poll) but that is me. Also there isn't a single card in my collection currently that is cleaned to my knowledge, but I wouldn't have a problem with it if I found out one had been cleaned. I do have some that are trimmed, but I would never pay more for a card that is altered (in my mind altered is not the same as cleaned).

I just can't imagine ever being upset and thinking "DANG IT! I wish this card still had a coffee stain!"

I agree with you about "too many other important things to worry about in life", and if we weren't discussing this card, I wouldn't give it much thought; however, with all respect, you can compare the trimmed Wagner and the chemicalized Plank in terms of their both being slabbed alterations of 'big' cards, but that's about it - the T206 Wagner is famous and has a long pedigree, including a book and a huge court debacle. All of that has apparently kept it's value steady. If it is sold again, we'll see if that holds.

The Plank has none of that going for it, although Eddie now gives the appearance that he's no longer embarrassed to be in a slab, and is ready to be on a slab instead.

If you really want to compare the two, and chemical-cleaning is going to be deemed okay, you would have to imagine that trimming is also okay, and doesn't have to be disclosed for PSA-slabbed cards. In such a world you would only have 'before' and 'after' scans. I would go for chemicals over that scenario.

I have a question for the memorabilia collectors here-hopefully some are reading this thread. Is it taboo to clean memorabilia? Bats with wood chips missing, is it ok to fill those in? Cleaning up a glove, or a ball? A seat from a stadium that no longer exists-if the paint is dull, is it ok to paint it back to it's original color, because it would "look" better? Or, do collectors of these items like the item to be left exactly how they received it?

Thanks in advance for any responses, I appreciate the input-

Sincerely, Clayton

You list several different examples there and I think each would be treated differently. I think it would be taboo to clean game-used memoribilia - bats, glove, balls. Those are expected to show signs of game-use.

I think it would be okay to restore a stadium seat, but that's just my opinion. If it's something you're going to display in your home, some may want to restore it, some may want to keep is as it was. I think that's just a matter of personal preference.

What about other types of memoribilia? I have some autographed mini-helmets (football and baseball), that reside on my bookshelves and they tend to get dust on them. I occasionally wipe them with down a damp cloth to remove the dust. I see nothing wrong wtih that.

...

Thanks for the reply David. Makes sense.

As far as wiping down your mini-helmets, that sounds reasonable. Now, if you were using Windex.... :D Side note, a Swifter may be better :)

Brian- I'm not sure on the Plank. There are many questions I would have-like, who sent it in to be cleaned, the consignor? The auction house? Combination of both? What was it cleaned with? Who cleaned it? Who submitted it? Was it disclosed (all information) to the winner? As far as the last question-if it were disclosed (all information) to the buyer, and he followed through, I guess the buyer would be ok with the card as is.

It's mind boggling that with such a high profile card that they would go to those extremes for a .5 bump!!

As far as value-of course varies, but I'm sure someone could look up what it sold for. I don't even know what auction house sold it.

It is clearly chemically altered, and an altered card should not have the numerical grade-in my opinion. The scans are the proof.

Sincerely, Clayton

Clayton, I'm not sure that the chemically cleaned plank should have been numerically graded and I'm sure the tpg's did not test for such a thing, but what if nothing shows up on the card as being altered? I mean, I clearly see that the card has been treated one way or another, but other than the pics, what proof is there that this card has been altered? Water can change the appearance of a card, but most people have no issue with it and I definitely see two sides of the spectrum on this debate...does water/chemicals clean a card or alter it? Are you ok with a card that has received a numerical grade that has been soaked in water? I don't soak cards myself, but I have never looked down on people for doing so with water and I'm not ready to say it's 100% ok to clean a card with chemicals...but where do we draw the line?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Mike,

In my opinion, you can clearly see the Plank has been altered by chemicals. If you just look at the uniform, you can see this. It didn't just remove a stain, it removed shading in the uniform and also color in other areas. That, to me, is altered. In the case of the Plank, it literally looks bleach white!! I mean, plain old water won't do that.

I think when people bring cleaning cards with water into the issue of cleaning cards with chemicals, it distracts from the topic at hand, which is using chemicals to clean cards. It is almost putting the two on a level playing field, when it is not. Many of these cards have been exposed naturally to moisture over the century, rain, damp basements, etc. so comparing a card exposed to water (in my opinion) isn't the same discussion. I think it's another topic that deserves it's own thread.

That Plank is whiter than any T206 I have, and may be the whitest T206 I have ever seen. It looks unnatural. How a grader didn't notice THAT is beyond me. A 100+ year old card being bleach white. :rolleyes:

Sincerely, Clayton

Hey Clayton,

You bring up valid points for sure and in the plank's case, you are definitely right, but how about other cards that don't get affected visually by chemicals? I know you are passionate about this subject, but let's say there is no proof of long term effects for using chemicals and all it does is clean the card...what then? The plank was obviously abused by someone that didn't know what they were doing, but I'm sure there are other examples that do not affect the visual appeal. Moderation is key to a lot of things in life, right? So what is there in these "chemicals" that makes cleaning them so wrong? I guess what I'm looking for is the list of contents/ingredients so we know what is right and wrong to use. Can we get a list or do we just go generic and say all chemicals? IMO this subject needs to dig a lot deeper if we are going to assume the generic route.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm just breaking this down to address this first. We can't have proof of long term effects when no one is doing a comprehensive long term study-so, we may have something like "short term effects". Here is one of the problems. Long term effects currently unknown.

Sincerely, Clayton

Excellent question! And, another part of the problem. We aren't privy to a list of the chemicals being used because they are being used by people who are making money doing it. Consider it a "trade secret", so to speak. So- how can you do a long term study when you have no clue what chemicals are being used? Who is going to provide a list? Not the people who are cleaning these cards, getting them past the graders, and getting more and more collectors using their services. I highly doubt that.

So, for me, I am left with having to assume any and all chemicals-and when I think of that, I'd prefer these cards to not be treated with ANY chemicals-detectable in the short term or not.

Sincerely, Clayton