To Clean or not to Clean

[BeanTown]

I know this is, or has been industry standards for awhile now. However, some cards could really benefit from being cleaned up. It's refreshing to see the path of this high end card with the short history of two auctions.

Heritage sold it as a SGC 30 back in May 2016 for 5975.00

Then it we to the cleaners and then got submitted to PSA for grading.

PWCC sold it as a PSA 2 back in November 2016 for 5677.88.

Looks like good honest bidding in both auctions and a fair market price both times. It's a lot more difficult to be a flipper on rare cards with low population numbers than more main stream cards (52 Mantle, 55 Clemente, 63 Rose, etc...).

So, I guess what I'm saying is that some cards would greatly benefit from being cleaned (with water). The only bigthing that affects the card would be how skewed the population report is.

[GasHouseGang]

It's a shame they "cleaned" that card, as they totally washed out the original color.

[sterlingfox]

I agree, it looked way better in the SGC case

[rats60]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

I know this is, or has been industry standards for awhile now. However, some cards could really benefit from being cleaned up. It's refreshing to see the path of this high end card with the short history of two auctions.

Heritage sold it as a SGC 30 back in May 2016 for 5975.00

Then it went under the water to get cleaned and got submitted to PSA for grading.

PWCC sold it as a PSA 2 back in November 2016 for 5677.88.

How do you know it was only cleaned by water? Were you the one who cleaned it or do you know who did it? How do you know chemicals weren't used, but can't be detected? Can you provide a link to where SGC and PSA have said it is OK to clean cards with water? If this is the industry standard, why was the cleaning not disclosed when the card was sold? Isn't the answer to the last question that it is not the industry standard and there are a lot of people opposed to any alteration of cards including soaking?

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by rats60

How do you know it was only cleaned by water? Were you the one who cleaned it or do you know who did it? How do you know chemicals weren't used, but can't be detected? Can you provide a link to where SGC and PSA have said it is OK to clean cards with water? If this is the industry standard, why was the cleaning not disclosed when the card was sold? Isn't the answer to the last question that it is not the industry standard and there are a lot of people opposed to any alteration of cards including soaking?

I've never owned this card. By knowing many collectors, it's my opinion that cleaning cards by water is more acceptable than in years past, and more along the lines of industry standards. Since, I rarely use TPGs I do not know what their stance is for using water.

It's above my pedigree to be able to look at a card that has been worked on with chemicals, trimmed down to size, creases pressed out that don't break the paper, etc... We will leave that to the experts with TPG and collectors can choose who to use for their expertise.

I completely agree with the post saying the gloss has been removed and doesn't look as good as it did in the SGC holder. Clarity and gloss are important ingredients many look for in a card. Since, we don't see this series come up forsale a lot, it's more difficult to compare to other M110s.

Looks like the bottom right corner got dinged along the breaking out (or putting) in the holder process or the cleaning process. Ultimately the grade was consistent with both TPGs.

[MW1]

Not a fan of this type of "restoration." In fact, I wouldn't call it restoration at all. It's degradation and an unfortunate alteration of an original piece of artwork...which happens to be published in the form of a Sporting Life cabinet. Submersing a card or sports item in water (or other solvent) isn't always an inert process. Even distilled water can damage a card or unnecessarily alter its original integrity by loosening the paper fibers or diminishing the color/gloss.

[gemmint77]

The original card looks much better.

[packs]

I like the original too and for the same grade I'd prefer the natural look.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by MW1

Not a fan of this type of "restoration." In fact, I wouldn't call it restoration at all. It's degradation and an unfortunate alteration of an original piece of artwork...which happens to be published in the form of a Sporting Life cabinet. Submersing a card or sports item in water (or other solvent) isn't always an inert process. Even distilled water can damage a card or unnecessarily alter its original integrity by loosening the paper fibers or diminishing the color/gloss.

+1

I'm 100% against card doctoring. However, restoration is different; I'm a fan of restoring cards to their former glory, purely for the purpose of honoring the card and the hobby. I am NOT a fan, however, of restoring a card for the purpose of profit. This seems to be a situation where someone thought they could turn a profit by "cleaning" the card. They ended up washing out the original color, and took away the staining that I personally like with Pre-War cards.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by MW1

Not a fan of this type of "restoration." In fact, I wouldn't call it restoration at all. It's degradation and an unfortunate alteration of an original piece of artwork...which happens to be published in the form of a Sporting Life cabinet. Submersing a card or sports item in water (or other solvent) isn't always an inert process. Even distilled water can damage a card or unnecessarily alter its original integrity by loosening the paper fibers or diminishing the color/gloss.

If it was a piece of artwork there would be no debate: proper cleaning and restoration is an accepted activity in the art world. It is in fact a mandate to cultural institutions across the world to preserve and conserve their holdings. Even the Sistine Chapel underwent significant cleaning and restoration efforts in the 1970s-1990s.

[MW1]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

If it was a piece of artwork there would be no debate: proper cleaning and restoration is an accepted activity in the art world. It is in fact a mandate to cultural institutions across the world to preserve and conserve their holdings. Even the Sistine Chapel underwent significant cleaning and restoration efforts in the 1970s-1990s.

The word "proper" is key. I see nothing proper about what was done here. And certainly, in the world of art, restoration is also a very controversial subject.

The color and pigmentation you see on the ceiling and walls of the Sistine Chapel, for instance, are not original. They have been altered (some intentionally, some not) and are only a pale approximation of what they once looked like when Michelangelo finished his masterpiece. The same is true of other famous works of art. Consider da Vinci's "Last Supper". Once "restoration" was done on it, much of the original color had been removed and the work appeared so faded that it was nothing like what you commonly see in prints, pictures, and reproductions.

If anything, I would maintain that the problems with the clumsy "restoration" of various sports cards and the difficulties produced by some of the controversial restoration work performed on famous works of art have many similarities.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by rats60

How do you know it was only cleaned by water? Were you the one who cleaned it or do you know who did it? How do you know chemicals weren't used, but can't be detected? Can you provide a link to where SGC and PSA have said it is OK to clean cards with water? If this is the industry standard, why was the cleaning not disclosed when the card was sold? Isn't the answer to the last question that it is not the industry standard and there are a lot of people opposed to any alteration of cards including soaking?

Its actually an industry standard not to disclose soaking a card and also not many other defects. You pretty much expect to be told about any paper loss, wrinkles or creases but thats about it when see a description at an AH. (most sellers have the card in hand and can disclose those things but may not know about a prior soaking)

I think you can buy a PSA 4.5 card for example and if they didnt disclose a wrinkle i think you would have a right to send it back even if it is 'no returns' but finding out a card was in a different holder and grade earlier and soaked i dont think there is as much of a right as the prior example...others may disagree

[rats60]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Its actually an industry standard not to disclose soaking a card and also not many other defects. You pretty much expect to be told about any paper loss, wrinkles or creases but thats about it when see a description at an AH. (most sellers have the card in hand and can disclose those things but may not know about a prior soaking)

I think you can buy a PSA 4.5 card for example and if they didnt disclose a wrinkle i think you would have a right to send it back even if it is 'no returns' but finding out a card was in a different holder and grade earlier and soaked i dont think there is as much of a right as the prior example...others may disagree

What about if they pressed the wrinkle out and don't disclose. Then it comes back later. What is the buyers recourse? Doesn't lack of disclosure mean the seller doesn't think it is a generally an accepted practice?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by rats60

What about if they pressed the wrinkle out and don't disclose. Then it comes back later. What is the buyers recourse? Doesn't lack of disclosure mean the seller doesn't think it is a generally an accepted practice?

right can go round and round on this but there is a gray area thats accepted and is buyer beware and reputation of seller is impacted.

net54 forums are good to 'out' the bad sellers and to make inform buyers.

I would think if there is a wrinkle on the card you can send it back if it happens within a 'reasonable amount of time' Seller can say didnt know there was a wrinkle (if not showing at time of sale) there just like saying didnt know card was soaked.

I just have never seen an auction house in the last 4000 listings disclose a card was soaked, but i have seen many that disclose wrinkles even though you cant tell from the scan....thats the business practice i see...other can disagree