A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>I wanted to discuss with you a couple of rejects I recently got back from SGC for being "soaked, cleaned." Now, I've soaked cards in water to remove paper and glue before, with no problems getting those graded. What's the difference here? What are people cleaning cards with that SGC finds offensive? I did notice that both cards have some strange barely detectable impressions on the front -- the same kind you would get on your hand if you pressed it against the grass on a field for a few minutes. And the polar bear backs glisten every so slightly with a strange blueish hue under direct light. Also, the Latham is chipped on his chin and right eye. Both cards were under $15 on eBay a few months back.<br /><br />Anyway, long story short, would these cards be graded by PSA or GAI? The Latham would be a 3 or a 4, and the Mattern a 4 or a 5. It's not crucial to me that they get graded, because I'm not likely to sell them anytime soon. But I was just curious for your thoughts. Would a resubmit to SGC fare any better the second time around?<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1103901959.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1103901929.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1103901946.JPG">

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>I've resubmitted rejects and had them grade the next time. <br /><br />The only "safe" thing to soak an item in is distilled water, and that assumes the dyes are not water based. <br /><br />Did you actually soak these yourself?<br /><br />

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>No. I have soaked cards in water and had them graded by SGC in the past. These were, apparently, soaked and cleaned in something else. I was wondering what they could have been soaked in that bothered SGC.

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>Trae R.</b><p>Could someone please explain the process involved to clean/soak the cards in distilled water?

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p><I>*I've resubmitted rejects and had them grade the next time. <br /><br />The only "safe" thing to soak an item in is distilled water, and that assumes the dyes are not water based.</I>*<br /><br />Adam forgot to mention that he has and will continue to disclose such facts in the event the effected cards change hands. Rest assured that given his aggressive stance against card altering and misrepresentation that he himself would never do anything to contribute to the demise of the hobby.<br />

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>resubmit or try another service, all rejected cards should be submitted several times before giving up. The 1,5 million Wagner was refused by PSA the first time for being trimmed. Now it is slabbed.

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>Trae R.</b><p>What the basis on rejecting cleaned cards? I just don't understand - like with coins for example. You would want to clean the coin to bring out its original luster, right? Why should antique/vintage cards be any different? It's not as if you're restoring paper-loss or trimming the card to make it look like it's something it's not. You're just making it look nice again without doing much of anything to actually "alter" the card.

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>Dan B</b><p>Cleaning collectible coins is generally never a good idea. And is usually easily detected by the grading services.

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred</b><p>I'm rather interested in seeing before/after pictures of cards that have been soaked. Does anyone have any of these pictures to share?

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Ask any art restorer and they will tell you the same thing: distilled water is the only stuff that doesn't deposit minerals or chemicals on paper items being soaked in it. If the dyes in the card were affected by the cleaning or if there is some kind of residue left on the card there was probably some form of chemical solvent involved. Since it removed stains but not the card colors like bleach would, I'd guess it was solvent that works on oily stains (like tobacco resins) and has additives that cause it to evaporate like dry cleaning fluid does. <br /><br />All of that assumes that SGC was correct about the card and not just having a brain fart the day they looked at the card, which is why I suggested you have the card rechecked. <br /><br />BOTN: get a life. Your reputation carries more weight than anything I could say.

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Why not call SGC and ask them what their standards are and what their problem with the particular cards was, they may have kept notes or the grader may recall, but if nothing else I am sure they would disclose their policies as to what is or is not acceptable.

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Adam. <br /><br />You are right. Thankfully, despite your efforts, my reputation does carry far more weight than anything you can say. But I know that will not discourage you from continuing your campaign. <br /><br />

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>You are the one who keeps attacking me. Your last few posts in response to things I have written that have nothing to do with you have been highly confrontational and hostile towards me. I never owned any of the cards you were called out over by other people, so why are you choosing to attack me? You obviously have a great many unresolved issues with respect to the way you conduct yourself and have chosen to take it out on me rather than on the people who questioned your activities in the first place. If I was a third party reader of your posts, the way you conduct yourself would not fill me with much enthusiasm for dealing with you, even with regard to slabbed cards. <br /><br />You seem to have a problem handling criticism from other people without becoming unreasonably hostile. There are many competent mental health professionals in your area who can help you with your apparent anger management issues; I'd suggest you consult one.

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Adam<br /><br />I see your memory must be failing you. I was merely trying to point out the hypocrisy of what you have written about me and to me in contrast to that which you practice in your own life and preach to others. Guess I would call it the sliding scale of ethics.

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>Dan koteles</b><p>I would not purchase one without a stain . All Polar Bear back t205 and t206s should have them. This is what sorta gives them their identity.<br /><br />Same way with 1914 c- Jacks w/o a stain also. It may have been the bells and whistles of not seeing a stain is what may triggered them to not grade it.<br /><br />My opinion,<br />Dan

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Dan,<br /> While I agree that the majority of Polar Bears have some staining, I don't think every polar bear without stains has been cleaned. I have always believed that each pack contained 2-3 cards and that those cards in the back or middle had little or no staining. This "theory" of mine comes from viewing several Polar Bear "finds" where about 70% of the cards exhibited staining and 30% were almost perfectly clean. I believe Dennis Purdy found a few unopened Polar Bear packs several years ago, and could probably shed a little more insight. Happy Holidays Brian

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>.........

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Koteles</b><p>Hi Brian,<br /><br />Thanks for the unopened clarification. I definetely know nothing about the packs and always thought that there were 1 card per pack. Did all of the different cigarette packs that contained t206's have more then 1 card ?<br /><br />I still like the "old style " look of the product stain along with the card, maybe because of just being used to it.<br /><br />Happy holidays to you as well.

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>DD</b><p>Seems like scrap tobacco would have come in a pouch, similar to Redman. The theory of 3 cards sounds plausible. I would think that cigarette packs only had 1 card.

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>Brian Weisner</b><p><br /> Hi Dan, and DD<br /> I'm not sure how many cards were in each package, but the Hindu ad's that appeared in the Times Picayune at the time talk about 2 picture cards being inserted into each pack. We also know that Uzit and Tolstoi packs included one baseball card and one military card from the factory letters which were discovered several years ago. There is also strong anecdotal evidence from now deceased collectors who remembered 2 cards came in most packages, but sometimes as many as 3-4 were included. Hope this helps Brian

A couple of SGC Rejects (T206)
 

Posted By: <b>canjond</b><p>I believe Polar Bears contained up to 5 cards. At one time I owned the original discovered unopened Polar Bear that was featured in SCD (having purchased it from Mark Murphy). I was never able to determine how many cards came inside it but I heard rumors that one from the find was opened at Gloria's show and it yielded 5 cards. Again, I have no way of proving this or knowing for sure (I asked Leon about this when I was putting together the guide and eh hadn't heard the rumor). However, it seems plausible that larger packs would have had multiple cards. Also, if anyone wants the Hindu ads that state 2 cards per pack, I can email or post them.