Altered high grade E93s in Mile High?

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by calvindog

They're the same cards.

Jeff has made his opinion crystal clear. As to the (?) in the OP, I think that was his way of inviting conversation. I welcome such post before an auction ends rather than after.

[Econteachert205]

In the art world it is perfectly acceptable to remove old varnish and layers of dirt and nicotine using solvents. Holding baseball cards to a higher standard than masterpiece paintings seems a bit much.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

In the art world it is perfectly acceptable to remove old varnish and layers of dirt and nicotine using solvents. Holding baseball cards to a higher standard than masterpiece paintings seems a bit much.

These pieces of art are 1 of a kind original masterpieces...so without preservation they would be gone...whilst most baseball cards were mass produced...kinda like artist lithographs...which would not be as acceptable to clean/preserve in my opinion.

A vintage bb card that is a one of a kind would likely receive less scrutiny if restored/cleaned...like the just so young.

[Cozumeleno]

Maybe it's just me, but ...

To be honest, I don't see soaking in water as any different than using another chemical. The ultimate intent is to remove something you don't want on the card for whatever the reason - for it to sit in your collection, for financial gain, etc. What does it matter if it's a chemical instead of water?

I'm willing to concede that some chemicals may cause harm to the card over the years, but that's another discussion. If we're talking about altering cards for deceitful purposes (assuming there's no disclosure), aren't soaking in water and chemicals pretty much the same thing?

Is soaking/chemical removal okay? That's up to each individual person to decide. But frankly, I just don't see the difference since the intent is exactly the same - to improve the quality of the card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The intent of soaking in water can be just to get the cards out of a scrapbook in the first place.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The intent of soaking in water can be just to get the cards out of a scrapbook in the first place.

That's true, but it's still altering the card from it's current state, isn't it?

Soaking a card in water with glued paper on the back is still altering the card from its current condition. The card was glued and has residue/paper now stuck to it. I am removing that residue/paper and that changes the card (in my mind). It wasn't intended to be there but neither were ink marks, stains, etc. that are removed by chemical.

I don't know, maybe I'm splitting hairs here. But I consider that pretty much the same thing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I have no issue with being as purist, but at the same time I would point out that soaking out of a scrapbook is (I think) generally accepted by the community whereas most other things are not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

These pieces of art are 1 of a kind original masterpieces...so without preservation they would be gone...whilst most baseball cards were mass produced...kinda like artist lithographs...which would not be as acceptable to clean/preserve in my opinion.

A vintage bb card that is a one of a kind would likely receive less scrutiny if restored/cleaned...like the just so young.

It's all a question of what is considered acceptable in the community. Probably for the reasons Pete says, restoration that is undisclosed has never been considered acceptable, and originality is of paramount importance, in the card community.