Cards that CAN and CANNOT be soaked?!

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

I'll respond since I was quoted. Soaking happens and is usually not disclosed. Right or wrong it happens. I would wager that virtually all crisp pre-war cards were glued into a book at one time.

shilling happens too......so its fine as well with that logic..

[Mikehealer]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

You don't have to buy a card if its priced to high......plus whoever is shilling..if they 'win' the item they will pay 10% etc..so I don't think it can be that common.... if a card you want to sell for 250..and its at 200..you going to shill for 220? if win you just lost 22 dollars..makes no sense

there are enough ebay auctions and auctions out there we can come up with what we want to offer for a card..if a card is bid too high, we don't buy it..

a reserve is almost the same thing as a schill bid or a starting price at the amount the seller wants...it all comes down to what the buyer wants to pay for the card....a card is worth what someone wants to pay for it..

but at least the buyer knows exactly what the card is.... a soaked card that is not disclosed is assumed to be not soaked........why not tell the buyers on ebay that a card is soaked if no big deal? I haven't seen one listing that says that..

however I see lots of starting prices and reserves on cards...so buyers know how much the seller wants for the card, shilled or not.....at least the buyer knows what the card is..

when cards are won , they we know what someone was willing to pay for the card..whether there were prior shill bids or not.......the card is the card.....

if put 'card was soaked'...will the prices go down from a same listing in which saying the card wasn't soaked?..... if the value is the same..then i a wrong soaking doesn't matter...


but if someone is willing to pay $500 for a card whether there was a shilling to get there or a reserve price...was the problem...to the buyer its worth $500........if put 'buy it now' for $500...or shilling..the outcome is the same....with the soaking ..its not...or lets see at least one ebay listing saying card was soaked...

if a seller of a 1952 Mantle psa tells you on an auction yesterday, that he shilled up to $30,000..cause he didn't want it go for less than that..and he risked paying $3,000 if he
'won' and the card ultimately sold for $35,000...would you subtract value for that? how about if he told you in soaked the card? ...which one hurts the value more..thoughts?

You asked for thoughts, so here are mine. Try proofreading your posts before hitting the submit button. Also to suggest soaking a card in water is worse than shilling is ridiculous.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mikehealer

You asked for thoughts, so here are mine. Try proofreading your posts before hitting the submit button. Also to suggest soaking a card in water is worse than shilling is ridiculous.

I glad you discussed the content of the post....talking about proofreading etc seems like you are avoiding the actual discussion....

if you think a card is bid too high due to shilling you can choose not to buy the card..or can choose to buy the card at your price......... to say 'is ridiculous' with no content of an argument is ridiculous......

so basically anything you say after this post..ill just post that what you say is ridiculous..........(if your post actually has content and doesn't just address proofreading)......

[Mikehealer]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I glad you discussed the content of the post....talking about proofreading etc seems like you are avoiding the actual discussion....

if you think a card is bid too high due to shilling you can choose not to buy the card..or can choose to buy the card at your price......... to say 'is ridiculous' with no content of an argument is ridiculous......

so basically anything you say after this post..ill just post that what you say is ridiculous..........(if your post actually has content and doesn't just address proofreading)......

Well spoken.
Shilling is stealing and is against the law. It doesn't matter what a person is willing to pay for an item, when if not shilled that person would have gotten the item for less. Shilling also creates a false market value. Did I mention that shilling is stealing!
I'm not saying soaking is an accepted practice by all. Some think it is altering a card and some don't. I understand both sides.
I'll bet that if you ask anyone that has soaked a card, if they have soaked they would tell you yes. On the other hand if you asked someone that has shilled if they have shilled, you will not get such a truthful answer.
So I will stick to my earlier statement, to even suggest soaking is worse than shilling is ridiculous.
Merry Christmas to all.

[jbsports33]

Any R cards can be tough like Goudeys - but anything earlier is a bit easier - I think it was the glue in the 30s and 40s that make it hard – but we have had no issues with T206 type cards and even 19the Century - lots of non-sports are in scrap books, make good practice

[Tao_Moko]

I think there are mixed results on T209-2 but mine was not a success. Lost several pieces of the image and text on the back. May have been an isolated incidence but scared me away from future attempts.

Still haven't heard much on T207's. How does the gloss handle a soak?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mikehealer

Well spoken.
Shilling is stealing and is against the law. It doesn't matter what a person is willing to pay for an item, when if not shilled that person would have gotten the item for less. Shilling also creates a false market value. Did I mention that shilling is stealing!
I'm not saying soaking is an accepted practice by all. Some think it is altering a card and some don't. I understand both sides.
I'll bet that if you ask anyone that has soaked a card, if they have soaked they would tell you yes. On the other hand if you asked someone that has shilled if they have shilled, you will not get such a truthful answer.
So I will stick to my earlier statement, to even suggest soaking is worse than shilling is ridiculous.
Merry Christmas to all.

I like this post much better than you made...I like the discussion and thanks for the good response...


I think a reserve is the same thing as shilling..the item doesn't sell if it doesn't go over the reserve......I know there are problems with shilling...I can tell you when I have bid on used cars and I have felt I was bidding against the soda machine in the back of the auction

the issue why I think shilling is not so bad is I cant see it being prevalent...let the seller keep eating a buyers premium every time he 'wins' a card....I would never want to risk losing 10%..i know there are some extreme examples out there where it could make sense in theory but time after time I just do see it taking place in the real auction houses..

I do see old threads on the soaking that I had not seen till today. They make the same points about if you don't disclose it for fear the item will go down then there is something wrong with that..

can we agree that if there are two identical cards in every way (except whatever happens to the paper if one of them was soaked ) and if one was soaked and the other wasn't and they are being sold raw, that you will prefer the unsoaked card?

however on the 1952 topps mickey mantle psa 5 was sold for for $30,000 last week to a real buyer..but we are told that there were some shill bids that were under the final price, would that really impact the value?

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

the issue why I think shilling is not so bad is I cant see it being prevalent...let the seller keep eating a buyers premium every time he 'wins' a card....I would never want to risk losing 10%..i know there are some extreme examples out there where it could make sense in theory but time after time I just do see it taking place in the real auction houses..

What if the auction house is doing the shilling? All shilling is illegal, unethical, and downright evil. It makes me sick to my stomach to think of how much collectors have overpaid because of it.

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

can we agree that if there are two identical cards in every way (except whatever happens to the paper if one of them was soaked ) and if one was soaked and the other wasn't and they are being sold raw, that you will prefer the unsoaked card?

I would, but I'm one of the few who is against all altering: soaking, erasing, etc.

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

however on the 1952 topps mickey mantle psa 5 was sold for for $30,000 last week to a real buyer..but we are told that there were some shill bids that were under the final price, would that really impact the value?

Are you really asking this?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I like this post much better than you made...I like the discussion and thanks for the good response...


I think a reserve is the same thing as shilling..the item doesn't sell if it doesn't go over the reserve......I know there are problems with shilling...I can tell you when I have bid on used cars and I have felt I was bidding against the soda machine in the back of the auction

the issue why I think shilling is not so bad is I cant see it being prevalent...let the seller keep eating a buyers premium every time he 'wins' a card....I would never want to risk losing 10%..i know there are some extreme examples out there where it could make sense in theory but time after time I just do see it taking place in the real auction houses..

I do see old threads on the soaking that I had not seen till today. They make the same points about if you don't disclose it for fear the item will go down then there is something wrong with that..

can we agree that if there are two identical cards in every way (except whatever happens to the paper if one of them was soaked ) and if one was soaked and the other wasn't and they are being sold raw, that you will prefer the unsoaked card?

however on the 1952 topps mickey mantle psa 5 was sold for for $30,000 last week to a real buyer..but we are told that there were some shill bids that were under the final price, would that really impact the value?

A few more points on shilling and soaking.

Why do you think that a shiller is paying 10%? Most just cancel the transaction so there are no fees.

Shilling is stealing even if the shill bidder was not the under bidder. More bids bring more interest to a card.

Card soaking. I would pay the exact same price for 2 cards that look exactly the same even if I knew 1 was soaked. Now if they done a bad job of soaking that is a different story. I personally see nothing wrong with soaking if done properly.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Are you really asking this? [/QUOTE]


I assume there is always puffed out prices up there..thats why I don't care what the winning bid is..i just look for price points where there were many unique bidders involved.

If an auction was a 'silent' auction..they just go by the highest bid right? no matter how much higher the winning bidder is....maybe auctions should just do that to avoid shilling ....

shilling is also not so black and white...a friend of a friend knows you have an item on ebay and bids to an amount that he would buy if no one else buys the item but if he was not your friend he would not of bid on the item at all.......if that friend of a friend ended up winning the item he would absolutely pay.is that shilling?

[1952boyntoncollector]

[QUOTE=bnorth;1358365]A few more points on shilling and soaking.

Why do you think that a shiller is paying 10%? Most just cancel the transaction so there are no fees.


--I don't thinks its a quick easy way out all the time if you 'win' your own item for a lot of reasons....

if you win an item on mile high they let you just cancel the transaction if you win..that easy? no headaches at all?


ebay I thought chargeds you a final value fee, if you keep canceling a transaction among the same bidder I would think you will get charged a final value fee eventually...

if you yourself or your friend on your behest won your item at mile high, heritage etc. ..you lose 20% don't you as buyers premium? how do you cancel a transaction at heritage, mile high etc...I just don't think its as easy as 'canceling the transaction'..if you win....

now if you own the auction house and its your item...now that's a real problem.....

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

however on the 1952 topps mickey mantle psa 5 was sold for for $30,000 last week to a real buyer..but we are told that there were some shill bids that were under the final price, would that really impact the value?

Yes, shill bidding impacts the value of cards.

Leaving aside the particular auction you cite, please allow me to explain.

- Card X (could be a '52 Mantle, could be something different) is up for auction
- There are a number of bids on the card, all of which are legitimate
- Bidder Y is currently winning the auction at $10,000
- Bidder Y has placed a max bid of $12,500
- Bidder Z (who actually owns the card and is selling it in this auction) places a shill bid of $12,000
- Bidder Y wins the auction at $12,100

In the example above, Bidder Z stole $2,100 from Bidder Y. Additionally, to answer your question, Bidder Z has impacted the entire market for Card X.

Because of his unethical shill bidding, the card's market value is now perceived to be $12,100. Had he not placed the shill bid, the market value would have been perceived to be $10,000.

So, Bidder Z has not only robbed someone, he also caused future buyers (in the short term, at least) of Card X to overpay.

Hope this makes sense. And please know this isn't an attack.

Best regards,

Eric

[1952boyntoncollector]

understood but the underbidder was willing to pay $12,500 for it so the card is worth as much as someone is willing to pay $12,500 so its still market value..

also on big auction houses there are big gaps in bidding slots...especially once you get to $12,000

20% on 12,000 is $2400..i don't think a shiller would want to win the card at $12,000 to 'win' an extra $500......there could be shilling at $8000 but to me its more like a reserve..especially when there are people willing to pay over $11,000.....

as long as theres a 10-20% penalty of loss for shilling and 'winning' can we agree that the problem isn't that big of a deal...its when they don't have to pay a penalty would be the problem.....the penalty polices itself..now of course there will be extreme examples..like in everything....

...if you set a reserve to $12,500 and its bid to $12,000....the bidder will be forced to big against themselves to get it to $12,500..same outcome...

[nolemmings]

There are times when shilling is used to form an undisclosed reserve, and while I find it irksome, I don't lose sleep over it. If that Mantle card mentioned typically sells in the $25-30K range and people are prop bidding (shilling) it to 15-16K, I'm not all that bothered. Yes it shows an artificial interest in the card that may spur activity, and I wish it didn't happen, but I don't get all bent when I know there are 3-4 guys that are going to be there in the end making legit bids in the FMV range.

I am among the minority that doesn't soak and would prefer to not have soaked cards. That being said I don't look so negatively at soaking that if it is a card I really want and is seldom found, I would turn my back if the Seller told me it had been soaked. Don't know how I'd feel if they developed a soak-o-meter that could tell me which of my cards had been soaked--I think I would try and replace them but can't say for sure.

[Runscott]

I wonder how many soaked cards anti-soakers have bought that they love, unaware of the soaking, but that they would have considered to be too ugly prior to soaking.

[Runscott]

Until we see Todd's soak-o-meter, it is as irrelevent as wiping a booger off a card, which I hope no one would object to.

[rhettyeakley]

Scott, what happens when the booger-o-meter comes to market? Are all cards immediately worthless?

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

shilling happens too......so its fine as well with that logic..

That's exactly what I was getting at. Thanks!

[Runscott]

Rhett - if we are ever able to date the added material on a card, what will be the accepted removsl age? e.g- 100 yr old boogers cannot be removed but you can wipe off yesterday's sneeze?

[BlueBlood]

here's an example, and both sold through Probstein recently...


http://www.ebay.com/itm/1950-Bowman-...p2047675.l2557



http://www.ebay.com/itm/1950-Bowman-...p2047675.l2557

[Runscott]

That Robinson was soaked?

[BlueBlood]

Originally Posted by Runscott

That Robinson was soaked?

Yes it is a lot whiter, and the stain on back is gone..

[sb1]

Um.......they are not even the same card.

[BlueBlood]

Originally Posted by sb1

Um.......they are not even the same card.

Haha you are very mistaken, look again..Even look at the black mark on back of card in the very center, now look at the other card..

[sb1]

Ok. I saw the first ones that popped up on the ebay page without scrolling down. So, you are talking about the 6.5 which is the same identical card, and still has the mark on the back, however the wax stain is gone, soaking won't take it out, that would have been chemical work.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by sb1

Ok. I saw the first ones that popped up on the ebay page without scrolling down. So, you are talking about the 6.5 which is the same identical card, and still has the mark on the back, however the wax stain is gone, soaking won't take it out, that would have been chemical work.

so chemical work is soaking or not..

[Runscott]

deleted due to lack of interest. I realize that the photo-restoration and soaking posts are only of interest to a limited number of members. I have a mailing list of such members and in the future will only send this type of information to that group.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Runscott

No. When we say "soaking" we are talking about water only.

if water takes off ink that came from a pen and the water removes the ink..its ok correct..

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

if water takes off ink that came from a pen and the water removes the ink..its ok correct..

Good question. My personal opinion is that soaking with water is fine, regardless of what it removes (if it's a card type we have identified as 'soakable';e.g-T206). For soakable cards it's not going to remove anything original to the card. T205's are the exception in my opinion - if you aren't careful, bits of print lettering will come off the back.

But if you soaked a T206 that had ink writing on it, and the ink became faded or blurred, it could be obvious that it had been soaked. I've never run into an example like that, and not sure how PSA or SGC would react to it, but to me it would then just be a matter of aesthetics. Also, if it's water-soluble ink, you could run into more problems when you try to dry it and the ink is wet.

[tiger8mush]

sorry if I missed it, but what about E121s? Has anyone successfully soaked one without issue?

Thanks!

[pencil1974]

Anyone ever attempt to soak a Donut of America card. I have one that has glue and extra paper (scrapbook) on the back but never have attempted on anything other than a "real" type of card before.

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

sorry if I missed it, but what about E121s? Has anyone successfully soaked one without issue?

Thanks!

Hi

I just bought a group of 27 cards that were glued into a 1922 bankbook (same as notebook paper). 20 E121s and 7 E220s. They all soaked fine. Using some of the previous posts as a guide, here's a step by step rundown of what I did;

I started with paper pages with cards glued, at about 5pm.

4 by 4.jpg

I filled some pans with luke-warm water, and put individual sheets, each having two cards per side into the water.

dish.jpg

The pages floated, every now and then I pushed them down to the bottom. I left them in for about 15 minutes. I then picked up the sheets and it was quite easy to pull the cards, very slowly, off the sheets, except for one sheet, that one I soaked for another 20 minutes. The backs of the cards still had glue residue on them. I gently rubbed that off with a paper towel and put the individual cards back in the pan, after refilling with clean water.

IMG_1739.jpg

I left the cards in water for another 15, took them out, put them in between paper towels and topped with books.

books.jpg

I changed paper towels after an hour, and again around 9pm. The next morning they looked and felt pretty good, but I still changed the paper towels and let sit for another day.

Below are the end results

front.jpg

backs.jpg

Thanks

Bob

[atx840]

Nicely done Bob!

[Harford20]

I have seen some soaking experience comments on Old Judge, Mayo, etc.,
but not much on the 19th Century Trade cards. I have seen a few "really beat-up" folios/albums that are falling apart, yet there are some trade cards I would love to salvage and add to my collection.

Does anyone have experience soaking the really flimsy trade cards (i.e. Baby Talk, Brownies, Tobin Lithos, Cosack & Co or Sporting Life) from older album pages?
Some of these safe to soak? None of them?

Thanks
Dave

[trdcrdkid]

Dave --

Most of my soaking experience over the last 20 years has been with trade cards, and a pretty large percentage of the trade cards around today were soaked out of albums, much more so than with tobacco cards. I generally haven't had any problems with any of the standard types of trade cards, which would include the baseball trade cards you mention. My first soaking experiences, 20+ years ago, was with an album of trade cards and other ephemera where the pages were brittle and falling apart, but the cards were fine; I didn't have any problems soaking them, and most of those cards are still in my collection today. I posted this description of how I do it in one of the recent soaking threads:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...70&postcount=7

[Harford20]

trdcrdkid,
Thanks for the information, as well as the Instructions. Now I just have to get over my "fear of drowning" and get one underwater.

Dave

[rdixon1208]

I tried to soak a V61 Neilson's Chocolate and the results were not good. It had paper on the back which came off nicely, but most of the ink also came off the front.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by pencil1974

Anyone ever attempt to soak a Donut of America card. I have one that has glue and extra paper (scrapbook) on the back but never have attempted on anything other than a "real" type of card before.

I am curious if you ever did this? Since the backs are blank I am not sure what good soaking is going to do? Plus they are all hand cut from boxes so the grade or appearance won't be helped too much.

[Hot Springs Bathers]

Has anyone had any success with 1948 Bowman baseball or football. It seems that a high percentage of them have a brownish, dirty tint?

[ZachS]

Had a good soak yesterday. I picked up some T121 Sweet Caporal WWI Scenes cards and one of them had a glob of some sort of adhesive. I soaked it overnight and the next morning it started flaking off so I left it to soak all day yesterday. When I got home the glob popped off fairly easily. It left a slight stain where the adhesive was but it looks much better than it did. Total soak time was around 24 hours.

Before and after (the after pic was taken with my phone and doesn't look that great... the actual card looks much nicer):

[Harford20]

Well, using trdcrdkid's soaking thread, only varying a bit with warmer water, finally sent some of my 19th century trade cards to the depths. Was amazed at how well things went. Most of my soaking times were near 20 minutes before the old album just peeled off.

I did run into some "newer" attachment techniques on one set of cards that had paper on the back. OK, new question: has anyone ever found a "safe" way to remove double-stick tape without removing the back of the trade card? Is double-stick tape completely non-water soluble? I did try very hot water for as much as 30 minutes without any visible change in the tape. The cards still look 20x better without the thick paper on the back, but if I could the tape off it would be a total coup. Any ideas would be great.

Dave

[Stonepony]

I'd not soak a T213. I recently couldn't resist soaking a T213 Matty which had glued paper covering entire back. I'm not patient and it took 2 hrs of soaking and teasing the paper off with difficulty. The back came off ok, but that T213 sheen/gloss was totally lost giving the card a bland, washed out appearance. Lesson learned.

[TipTopBread]

Has anyone soaked a D322? With what result?

[Chris-Counts]

Here are a few 1941 Play Balls I soaked. They came out pretty nice. I'm not sure it was because the paper was high quality or the glue was water-soluble.

[caramelcard]

Originally Posted by TipTopBread

Has anyone soaked a D322? With what result?

Yes, i have soaked a D322. It held up fine. But, it always depends on what it's attached to or what is attached to the card.

Cards glued in albums with a card directly on the other side of the page don't soak off well.

And I'm not a big fan of partial soaking or using water on one spot of the card to remove something. It hasn't worked that well and can leave uneven color.

As I'm sure you know, D322s commonly have back damage. I haven't figured out why, but maybe you can shed some light on this. Might just be that a lot of collectors placed them in scrap books over the years?

Good luck.

Rob

[kmac32]

Add W572 strip cards to the list of soakable cards. Just did 18 today with no injuries or fatalities on the card front. Was a fun project and would do it again. Found old clippings of players from the era glued on black paper and then the W572 cards were glued on top of the clippings.

[Joshchisox08]

Has anyone successfully soaked their SO ???

[Stonepony]

Ignore list population now at 1

[kmac32]

There is a lot of 8 T207 cards on eBay with pin holes and if they weren't $106.00, iI would buy them to see if T207 cards would soak okay. Would ne an interesting experiment and who knows what the outcome would be. With that said, I have enough respect for my money that buying T07 cards with pinholes is not a good way to spend money but these would be the perfect cards to experiment on.

Kmac

[kmac32]

Did a T205 this afternoon to remove scrapbook paper. Card soaked quite well and paper came off the back in about 2 minutes. Went to dry card and there was a small spot of glue that stuck to the paper towel that I was using so I took a wet qtip to remove the fragment of towel. Came off pretty easy but so did a couple of the red ink letters so decided to leave well enough alone. As mentioned earlier, T205 cards can be soaked but the ink on the back is fairly fragile so you have to be careful in drying the card and nit too much rubbing or you can lose ink. I echo Runscott's comments with respect to T205 cards.