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