Gone with the stain. Dick Towle

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

This is perfect. How does what you said here apply differently when water is used:

Paul read my post...and look at the link. Let me know when tap water makes major stains on a T206 Plank go away.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Paul read my post...and look at the link. Let me know when tap water makes major stains on a T206 Plank go away.

Not relevant to what I am saying, but thanks anyway. Answer my question first.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Not relevant to what I am saying, but thanks anyway. Answer my question first.

Paul I have stated an answered your question about ten times in this thread perhaps indirectly sorry.

Soaking a card in water doesn’t clean cards to the extent of the example posted above. This is what some of us myself included have issues with in terms of chemicals and solvents used by Dick. Soaking some OJ’s from a scrap book like Jay did with the Cambridge collection still leaves cards that have flaws and would grade likewise. They just won’t be attached too old nasty 8.5x 11 sheets of paper anymore.

However having chemicals applied to remove any trace of residue or brighten a card beyond its dingy dirty state without some sort of disclosure like the example above is not on the up and up. Hence why it’s not mentioned and hidden 99% of the time. This exactly what Paragon did in my example above no mention in print about the cleaning. Once caught hand deep in the cookie jar they quickly changed the online description. Does this seem like something folks do since everyone is so open to this in our hobby and its so harmless and accepted?



So now that I have outlined my simple position once again. Please help me understand how tap water was used to remove the stains from the card above? Or what harmless water like substance was used and why it wasn’t disclosed since it's harmless?

Don't know why this harmless no worse than water cleaning of Plank wasn't disclosed in the write up I'll give you a hint....



Cheers,

John

[T206Collector]

John,

Respectfully, I think your argument boils down to "If water would remove the stain, then it is okay to use and it is not deceptive to hide disclosure." Did I get that correctly? For what it's worth, I agree with this statement.

But, if you are also saying "I would only use water to remove the stain even if a chemical would have the same impact as water would" then I just don't know why you would draw the line at the chemical, as opposed to the impact on the card. To me the impact on the card is paramount, and I do not know how I would ever determine whether water or a chemical would have dissimilar effects on the same stain.

I am not trying to be obtuse here.

Paul M.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

John,

Respectfully, I think your argument boils down to "If water would remove the stain, then it is okay to use and it is not deceptive to hide disclosure." Did I get that correctly? For what it's worth, I agree with this statement.

But, if you are also saying "I would only use water to remove the stain even if a chemical would have the same impact as water would" then I just don't know why you would draw the line at the chemical, as opposed to the impact on the card. To me the impact on the card is paramount, and I do not know how I would ever determine whether water or a chemical would have dissimilar effects on the same stain.

I am not trying to be obtuse here.

Paul M.

99% there Paul, I would expect disclosure if one used any method to remove stains and or clean up a card. If disclosure was made and it was only water.... I guess it would boil down to how much I trusted the person selling me the item and how much I needed that item. Does that make sense?

Cheers,

John

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

99% there Paul, I would expect disclosure if one used any method to remove stains and or clean up a card. If disclosure was made and it was only water.... I guess it would boil down to how much I trusted the person selling me the item and how much I needed that item. Does that make sense?

Yes, okay. I think disclosure is unrealistic even in the water context because of the profit issue. Also, I think disclosure of water is unfair given how many of our forefathers practiced ritual T206 soakings. I believe many of my SGC 60+ T206 cards have spent some time in the bath, which is why they remain so fresh. And, finally, I think a chemical which leaves the card in the same state as water does is just fine with me.

I think I've now beaten my dead horse enough, but at least I feel better having talked it through.

[RGold]

My mom always cleaned my cards with this.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Yes, okay. I think disclosure is unrealistic even in the water context because of the profit issue. Also, I think disclosure of water is unfair given how many of our forefathers practiced ritual T206 soakings. I believe many of my SGC 60+ T206 cards have spent some time in the bath, which is why they remain so fresh. And, finally, I think a chemical which leaves the card in the same state as water does is just fine with me.

I think I've now beaten my dead horse enough, but at least I feel better having talked it through.

Agree depending on folks to come clean wink wink is not going to happen.

However if I bought a 20k card from you and got before images down the road from someone else, and they said you know Paul bought that card like this and then worked some magic on it. To find out you sold it to me with no mention of the cleaning water/chemical whatever it would be the last transaction I would do with you.

To me if this is so innocent and harmless why would anyone choose to omit.

Cheers,

John

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

99% there Paul, I would expect disclosure if one used any method to remove stains and or clean up a card. If disclosure was made and it was only water.... I guess it would boil down to how much I trusted the person selling me the item and how much I needed that item. Does that make sense?

Cheers,

John

That's a question I have avoided (should you disclose soaking?). I personally don't think it's necessary, given the affect of water on cards; however, I do respect the opinions of collectors who don't want a soaked card. If I was selling or trading a card that I knew had been soaked, to someone who either asked that question, or who I knew was adamantly anti-soak, then I would certainly disclose it. I rarely soak cards anymore (and don't own any as far as I know), so it probably will never be an issue. If I were to obtain "a lot" of cards that needed to be soaked, then I probably would put a line in every sale page, mentioning that all the cards in the current group being sold, had been soaked from an album.

As you have mentioned, water doesn't remove everything - I have never had it completely remove a stain, or even have much impact on a stain; however, it does take off old tobacco, most dirt, and paper affixed by water-based glue. And I think that's good.

As an aside, I have a few great baseball albumen images with horribly disfigured mounts - I'm looking for similar mounts in better condition with uninteresting pictures and plan to do a transplant.

I would disclose the transplant when sold.