Poll for Buying Cards with Chemically Removed Stains

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

I've been told by someone who knows (And that I believe) That the scans accurately represent the card both before and after cleaning.

It probably got lost in the other thread, but my opinion of that particular cleaning is that it's sloppy amateurish work that goes beyond what's appropriate. And since they couldn't do it well enough to avoid lightening the card overall they probably were too sloppy to neutralize whatever they used. So the card will probably be in for long term damage.

Even if I could afford it, that would greatly influence my decision.

Steve Birmingham

Steve, your point was not missed - it was what made me go back and study the two scans again. It also reminded me of the 'odd' T206's I've owned in the past.

Peter's point might also have been missed by some - this is partly about the premium placed on graded cards. Even though it was shown that the seller probably lost money on the cleaning/grade bump, that might not be the case if someone who's better at cleaning does the job in the future. And even if the TPG can't detect chemical evidence, the collecting community is pretty good at locating the 'before' and 'after' scans, and that's enough to hurt value.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Steve, your point was not missed - it was what made me go back and study the two scans again. It also reminded me of the 'odd' T206's I've owned in the past.

Peter's point might also have been missed by some - this is partly about the premium placed on graded cards. Even though it was shown that the seller probably lost money on the cleaning/grade bump, that might not be the case if someone who's better at cleaning does the job in the future. And even if the TPG can't detect chemical evidence, the collecting community is pretty good at locating the 'before' and 'after' scans, and that's enough to hurt value.

And that premium is another whole discussion. (I think I'm one of the few that are ambivalent about the whole grading thing. )

I think some preservation work on cards should be acceptable. Removing them from scrapbook material that will damage them eventually or that will crumble away in a few more years should be fine, And preferable to the common back damage from just ripping them out.
And some cleaning and perhaps stain removal on some cards. The Johnson I cleaned is probably a good example of where I think the limits are.
And some cards like most strip cards should be deacidified or they likely won't last another 90 years.

The stuff used by the pros is actually beneficial long term IF it's used properly.

Cleaning with random stuff, especially stuff that removes a noticeable degree of color is extremely poor practice.
I'd almost go so far as to say that it's a solid indication of deception. The means to do a basic surface cleaning and maybe remove most of a stain that will cause damage is well within the ability of anyone with a bit of patience.

Some chemicals are actually totally ok to use on paper. Stamp watermark fluid is ok and often does a very little bit of surface cleaning just from checking the watermark. It won't remove any color, or for that matter most stains. And its use is almost universally accepted. There are devices for detecting the watermarks without fluid, but one is very expensive and the other (which I own) doesn't really work. So the fluid is used by nearly everyone except the people too cheap to buy it. They use lighter fluid. (And many stamps that aren't from the US the watermark can be seen by holding it up to any decent light. )

It's just so situational to me there isn't an easy answer.

Maybe---
T206 given a light cleaning or removed from a scrapbook -ok
T206 Bleached to * - Not ok

W515 - deacidified by a conservator with a letter/receipt - ok
W515 - "prettied up" by straightening a poor original cutting from a strip -???Less ok- Somehow I recall many people being in favor of doing something like that

The point that alterations, both positive and negative are rarely if ever disclosed is a big one. I think that if a professional cleaning/stain removal was less stigmatized we'd see more disclosure. Stuff done to deceive will always go undisclosed.


Steve Birmingham
PS you guys should see the S that's done to stamps. The philatelic foundation had a display at the international show in DC in 2006 that was really pretty scary. I'm not bad at spotting some alterations, but they had examples that were almost impossible to spot without being shown what was "wrong" about them.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Steve - I would love to read about the stamp alterations if you have a link to the story.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

Steve - I would love to read about the stamp alterations if you have a link to the story.

I'll see if I can find a couple articles.

Stamp shows are a bit different from card shows, there's the usual dealer tables, but the bigger shows have exhibits that are competitive. The exhibit is judged against a standard and the exhibitor can win various awards based on how well the topic is presented and how difficult it is to get the items. It's more complex than that but that's the short version. They're shown in frames that hold 16 - 8 1/2x11 pages.

The Philatelic foundations exhibit at the international show was around 8-10 frames, maybe more with 3-4 items a page.

Steve B

[steve B]

Ah, they've put some similar stuff online.

I'll start a new thread since it's way off topic for this one.

Steve B

[teetwoohsix]

I have a strange feeling some of the people voting in the second category would not vote that way if their screen names were attached to their votes. But since they aren't, it's a safe way to skew the numbers.

I say this because- realistically- this poll just says "chemically cleaned". It does not even give a specific type of chemical. Really? So, you guys are telling me that "in general", a card can have been cleaned with any "unknown chemical" and this wouldn't influence your decision to buy it? I'm calling B/S.

"Hey, this card has been cleaned with chemicals-no, you don't get to know what kind- but L@@K AT HOW IT POPS!!!!!!!" WOW!!!!!" Place your bids and hurry, this is going to go fast!!!"

Turpentine, acetone, bleach, lighter fluid, etc........no, it would not influence my decision to purchase a card. As long as I can't tell, who cares. No, I'm not sure that it won't fall apart 15 years from now, but who cares? By then, someone else will probably own it anyways-right?

Give me a break.

At least some of you came out and gave your opinions-which even though I may not agree, I respect your opinion and willingness to explain your position on this. But, it's only been a few.

Or, maybe my perception is off-I've always assumed collectors of pre-war cards were 100% against using chemicals on these 100+ year old gems.....

Sincerely, Clayton

[Bpm0014]

I'm a collector of prewar cards. I do not buy the cards for an investment. I buy them because I love baseball and history (and the history of baseball). Although I have never chemically cleaned a card, I did try to soak a T206 Hindu once, wih bad results. With this being said, I'd still clean my cards with chemicals every day of the week if it improved their appearance.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Presumably Towle has done lots of work for lots of clients. Show me ONE auction, of a slabbed card anyplace, that discloses the work he did to get the card in that slab. Show me ONE client of his who discloses the work he did when selling graded cards.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I have a strange feeling some of the people voting in the second category would not vote that way if their screen names were attached to their votes. But since they aren't, it's a safe way to skew the numbers.

I say this because- realistically- this poll just says "chemically cleaned". It does not even give a specific type of chemical. Really? So, you guys are telling me that "in general", a card can have been cleaned with any "unknown chemical" and this wouldn't influence your decision to buy it? I'm calling B/S.

"Hey, this card has been cleaned with chemicals-no, you don't get to know what kind- but L@@K AT HOW IT POPS!!!!!!!" WOW!!!!!" Place your bids and hurry, this is going to go fast!!!"

Turpentine, acetone, bleach, lighter fluid, etc........no, it would not influence my decision to purchase a card. As long as I can't tell, who cares. No, I'm not sure that it won't fall apart 15 years from now, but who cares? By then, someone else will probably own it anyways-right?

Give me a break.

At least some of you came out and gave your opinions-which even though I may not agree, I respect your opinion and willingness to explain your position on this. But, it's only been a few.

Or, maybe my perception is off-I've always assumed collectors of pre-war cards were 100% against using chemicals on these 100+ year old gems.....

Sincerely, Clayton

Some of us (well at least I know this is true for myself) believe it has been discussed enough between this and the thread this one evolved from that we don't have the need to keep the debate going, but voted anyways. I know all the arguments both ways, now it is just interesting to see how many people vote each way.