![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
View Poll Results: Should E98 Old Put be classified as caramel or tobacco? | |||
caramel |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
30 | 71.43% |
tobacco |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
12 | 28.57% |
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I don't want to get into too deep of debates in the pick up threads so am posting this new thread to discuss erasing errant marks from cards. Also if a card is stamped by a tobacco company, but has always been categorized as a caramel card, should it be now be classified as a caramel or tobacco issue?
As previously stated I have no issue with removing an errant mark that wasn't put there at time of mfg. Many times I will leave them if they provide some kind of informational value. As for the categorizing of an Old Put E98, I would still put it in the caramel category. I am not dead set on that so maybe some responses will change my mind?
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Agreed on both counts. I have erased light pencil marks on occasion. If there's no trace of erasure marks, it improves the appearance of the card.
The e98 overprints began life as a caramel card and should remain there despite the stamp. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
maybe there should be some sort of sub section for both instead of just saying its a caramel or tobacco. I dont know if those where packaged in tobacco or a company bought the overstock and gave them away as a promotion in a store but would be cool to find out.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I don't believe that anything post-production changes the category of the card. For example, we have seen some T206s stamped by journalists to hand out (presumably) as business cards. This act obviously does not change the t206 from a tobacco issue into a business card . . . does it?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think removing marks of any kind is altering the card. I realized comic collectors and vintage collectors of many things...vintage cars, clothes...whatever do this all the time. A serious coin collector would never alter a coin. A mark on a card may be removeable but I doubt that it could be done without disturbing the paper fibers. Comic books are cleaned and restored all the time...this is wrong to me. I also (IMO) think that autographed or signed cards are ruined I don't care if its babe ruth or joe shmoo. I (if I collected sigs) would prefer them on a baseball or index card or anything but a baseball card. Aloha, Dave. Since when did cleaning and pressing creases out of a comic become ok and cleaning or pressing a card not. Cleaning pressing restoring is a BIG no no for me. Aloha, dave.
Last edited by Cardboard Junkie; 06-03-2012 at 09:36 AM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Light pencil marks that don't disturb the paper can be erased. No problem with that.
Regarding E98 Old Put, how were they distributed- with tobacco or with candy? I voted tobacco but it really depends on how people acquired them. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American Caramel E121 series of 80 survey revisited | brianp-beme | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 33 | 01-11-2012 03:46 PM |
Caramel cards...whats the deal with all the writing on them?? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 12-07-2007 09:51 PM |
SOLD 1910 E75 American Caramel - Near Set 16/20 | Archive | Everything Else, Football, Non-Sports etc.. B/S/T | 0 | 05-29-2007 10:07 PM |
E96 Philadelphia Caramel Connie Mack "Signed" FT | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 4 | 08-31-2006 08:31 AM |