How Slippery is That Slope???
 

Disclaimer: I am a full disclosure guy. If anyone is interested in trading for/buying a card I have that's been soaked, I tell them what I did. In one of my YouTube videos, I openly talk about soaking a Jim Palmer RC, because it had a clear, see-though something on it, and it was easily dissolved away.
• I'm also a Drag Clean (my 'Collectorism' for someone who uses pantyhose to remove wax and gum residue from the surface of a card), but don't feel there's anything there to disclose. If asked, though, certainly I would tell.


With all of the talk about 'improving' cards lately, I figured it was time to talk about some experimenting I've been doing on one of my cards.


The 1972 Topps #49 Willie Mays is my favorite card of all time. The wonderful memories it evokes are unparalleled. Having quite a few of them, I've always been bothered by the way my brothers and I kept our cards rubber banded together. Since Mays was our absolute favorite, second to none, he bore the brunt of the rubbery rage by being situated on top of the pile. (This is another 'Collectorism' called Elastigmata - when these types of rubber band gouges are present on a hallowed card.)

So, I decided to see if it was possible to get those Stack Wounds corrected, and went to work on it. It's important to note that no chemicals were used in my attempts (Spoiler Alert: Here's where a snarky know-it-all will say water is actually a chemical compound consisting of two atoms of hydrogen bonded to one atom of oxygen. Gee, you're so clever. But I speak like normal human beings do, so you know full well the 'chemicals' I'm referring to are a far cry from simple water.). In the end, I was actually able to reverse the damage and return the 'Say Hey Kid' to his original form.


Attachment 615254


It's been a few weeks since I've completed this effort, so here's what Willie looks like right now. The flatness (natural curving over time aside) has remained unchanged:

Attachment 615255


So, how slippery is the alteration slope??

Is doing this a bad thing? An unethical thing?

Since the card was only returned to its original shape, do these 'alterations' (with no drastic measures used) make the card a fraud?


Feel free to voice opinions on this particular undertaking, but for the love of crap, keep it clean (and yes, were this card ever to change hands, I would disclose the work done and show the person these pictures).



Side Note: For anyone who cares, that's Harvey in the background, a chainsaw carved bear from the Alameda County Fair...and he is a frickin' awesome piece of handcrafted goodness!!!

I was going to ask who or what was the teddy bear-looking guy in the background. Have to admit he is pretty cool.

I don't see a darned thing wrong with what you've done. I love those psychedelic 72 Topps cards. I don't have near enough of them.

Looks great!

It's amazing what a little bit of water can do.

Given how so much oldschool glue (esp pre-war) was water soluble and one could rescue a card from having it's back destroyed, I would hate to have never had that around as a hobby option.

That option also "inadvertently" solved a few more problems.

If water-soaked cards had issues with card integrity and hastened degradation issues I imagine we would have seen them by now. Soaking to remove glue has been around in common practice for enough decades now that we would see issues in a few sets/issues by now, but most of what we've learned is what sets/issues can and cannot be soaked at all rather than finding out decades later they're structurally failing.

1) Of course it is not a bad thing or an unethical thing. It is your property, you may treat your property however you wish as its rightful owner. While I sometimes don't like a thing an owner does to their property (like the guys who immediately destroy uncut sheets that have immense research value to the hobby without even documenting them first) it is their property and they may rightfully do whatever they wish.

2) Of course not; the fraud is when a seller covers up material facts about the card. I don't believe a single person on this board has ever argued that it is fraud to do something to a card and then to honestly state you did so when you are selling it. It's only fraud when it is sold without honest representation of what was done, covering up the pertinent facts to juice the price.

If Darren was thinking of selling that card, I'd consider buying it, as it is, without any disclosure necessary. And I don't think I'd have been defrauded by that.

I recall a professor in a college electrical engineering class drawing a simple
DC circuit on the blackboard, pointing at a resistor, and asking what the current was going through that resistor. (This is back in the 20th century when handheld calculators were pricey, and the chalk was dusty.) This professor, from my perspective, was always in subtle motion, like a boxer sizing up his opponent. He looked at the circuit, walked back to the resistor, and chalked 300ma beside it. Simultaneously, a geek whiz kid (as I perceived him) announced to the class"312.7 milliamps". The Boxer/Professor kept his gaze on the circuit and said, "Yea, maybe, if it's a perfectly stable and accurate power source, the wiring joints are good, the wire size is proper, and if the resistor is spot on it's value instead of barely being inside it's 10% or 20% tolerance range..." and then he circled his "300ma" and loudly put the chalk in the tray.

I took that as a lesson about not getting tricked into assuming a false precision; the digital calculator was cranking out decimal points that were meaningless in all practicality. Which is what I think card collecting has come to. I want a card I'm not afraid to touch, nor fear someone else touching or holding it for a moment. It's just a baseball card... it's not the bowels of a semiconductor factory, brain surgery, the surface of a mirror in the Webb telescope, nor inside the pristine innards of a modern satellite.

I like that Mays card.

The reality is that tons of cards have been soaked out of scrapbooks. It's well accepted in the hobby. Not to mention the only way these tons of cards were ever gong to be available as singles. Whether it's perfectly consistent or not, I don't think of just soaking in water as either something bad or something that has to be disclosed.

How Slippery is That Slope???


It's like fielding at a 30 degree angle on a green speckled 'milkfall'.


Brian (even Wheaties cards do their best to help make me seem profound)

card
 

looks good
I like it

I love old electrical engineering stories - I remember being in a lecture hall for circuit analysis at UMASS Amherst in 1984. A natural gas smell was present in the air. The professor turned to us and said that he smelled the gas and you are free to leave, but the lecture will continue and the material will not be repeated. No one got up and left and the lecture continued.

This

Here's Harvs helping promote my silly new YouTube channel (ummm...hint, hint)...:D

Attachment 615421

Well, if Harvey doesn't bring a smile to you, you know you're a pretty hard case. He's about as cool as can be. I'll be checking the channel for sure.

So Darren soaked his card to remove dents, and everybody posting on this thread thinks that is fine. Is it really that big of a jump to use Kurt's magic spray (which is probably 98% water) to accomplish the same thing?


Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

How Slippery is That Slope???
 

I don’t think it’s fine.

Edited to say that I didn’t realize I hadn’t posted in this thread yet. There are so many that it’s hard to keep up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro