PWCC planning to redefine the difference between altered and conserved in cards

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

People laughed at Albert Einstein too.

He would have run a relatively clean auction.

[steve B]

I think actual conservation is ok. Light surface cleaning if the card is really filthy, deacidifying for stuff like strip cards that won't make it another 90 years without it, that sort of thing.

Removing stains etc is to me where the slippery slope begins.

Pressing/trimming/rebuilding etc shouldn't be acceptable. I can see some exceptions, but they'd need a lot of transparency and disclosure. Even then, it's just way too likely it gets cracked out and regraded without disclosure.


Here's an example of what I believe is ok. This card was in a small paper bag with a stack of other cards, It stuck out, and got partway coated with soot and grime. It must have been in there for decades. I removed some of the surface grime with just a q tip and water. That sort of grime would eventually cause long term problems.

It still has a bit of grime in the tiny cracks that sometimes happen in the surface coating over time. I probably could have gotten that out too, but I think that would be going too far, and I was way too lazy to spend a few hours doing that.

Before


After

[BengoughingForAwhile]

Originally Posted by steve B

I think actual conservation is ok. Light surface cleaning if the card is really filthy, deacidifying for stuff like strip cards that won't make it another 90 years without it, that sort of thing.

Removing stains etc is to me where the slippery slope begins.

Pressing/trimming/rebuilding etc shouldn't be acceptable. I can see some exceptions, but they'd need a lot of transparency and disclosure. Even then, it's just way too likely it gets cracked out and regraded without disclosure.


Here's an example of what I believe is ok. This card was in a small paper bag with a stack of other cards, It stuck out, and got partway coated with soot and grime. It must have been in there for decades. I removed some of the surface grime with just a q tip and water. That sort of grime would eventually cause long term problems.

It still has a bit of grime in the tiny cracks that sometimes happen in the surface coating over time. I probably could have gotten that out too, but I think that would be going too far, and I was way too lazy to spend a few hours doing that.

Before
[IMG]http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=123&pictureid=12668[/IM

After

Did you use tap water or distilled water ?

[Exhibitman]

I've always been in favor of proper conservation including cleaning, de-acidifying, etc. These are lithographs or photographs and need to be considered as such and treated responsibly. I've lost a few old cards to acid damage--they just fell apart across creases--and it is heartbreaking to a collector. If they conserved the Sistine Chapel frescoes I think it is OK for my Goudey card. Adding stuff to a card or rebacking it or similar restoration is where the line should be drawn. Soaking and pressing is right on that line, IMO. Probably something that I want disclosed but I am realistic enough to know it won't be. The micro-trimming and slabbing is a fraud, plain and simple.

I also have to observe with regard to the orthodox position on conservation that the 'no touch' mentality comes from the PSA advertising of two decades ago when they were trying to scare people into using TPG services. "Thou shalt not clean a card" is not a Commandment, but is the end product of successful advertising to the effect that only untouched cards will get past the PSA cops and only then will they be worthy of our interest. Other hobbies that do not have TPG overlords do not act this way, Take postcard collecting . Postcard dealers routinely pencil the prices onto the card backs and collectors routinely remove them using at artgum eraser and no one except us sports card collectors slumming it at postcard shows gives a damn because a faint pencil mark on a postcard isn't the difference between high value and low value unless some TPG slaps plastic on it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I agree with much of what Adam says but I don't see how soaking and pressing is a gray area. It seems to me it's done -- or the vast majority of the time anyhow -- not to conserve a card but to improve its appearance and value, in an effort to deceive. If someone wants to do it and disclose it, that's fine with me, but that will happen on the 13th of Never.

[conor912]

I got to a point a while back where I started just assuming that every card I buy, slabbed or not, has had something done to it over the years. The whole "hobby purist" thing felt good in the beginning but franky just became too exhausting. If I see a card I like the looks of at a price I like, I buy it. If an alteration is undisclosed and I can't see it, then chances are the next guy isn't going to either. And no, I don't consider this burying my head in the sand, it's just a place of peace I've had to come to if I was going to enjoy continuing to collect. All the hemming and hawing in the world isn't going to control what other people do.
Coming off of a recent health scare has put this more in focus than ever. Hug your kids. Kiss your wives. If collecting causes you stress, don't do it. There's plenty of other amazing things in the world to spend your time and money on.

[barrysloate]

Maybe it's time for the hobby to address what is acceptable and what isn't in terms of card restoration. This could be part of a panel discussion, perhaps at a future National. The panel could consist of representatives from the grading services, long time hobbyists, and experts in paper restoration. Removing some soot off the surface of a card is a far cry from rebacking, trimming, and other extreme alterations. Hobbyists could attend the conference and provide feedback. This is a critical hobby issue that is not getting the attention it merits.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by BengoughingForAwhile

Did you use tap water or distilled water ?

Tap water, but very little. Basically used a damp q-tip doing one small section at a time, and absorbing any excess with the dry end. Very similar to how conservators work on old paintings to remove years of airborne crud and "protective" varnish that's yellowed.


Not something I'd do often, It made me really nervous. There's two areas on the neck that came out cleaner than the rest. I figured I'd botched it, and was pretty much expecting an A when I sent it in. It's a 350-460 /25, and at least when I sent it in, was the highest SC 350-460 on the pop report. I'm a bit fussy about gunk, and was really surprised at the grade.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Any thoughts on how this one posted on Blowout was done and if it's legit?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Any thoughts on how this one posted on Blowout was done and if it's legit?

Looking at the front borders of the 5 they look a little less white. My guess is a soaking did it. Regardless, as long as a solvent wasn't used then I am not sure I have a problem with it. Just taking gunk off of a card doesn't bother me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Looking at the front borders of the 5 they look a little less white. My guess is a soaking did it. Regardless, as long as a solvent wasn't used then I am not sure I have a problem with it. Just taking gunk off of a card doesn't bother me.

If that's all it required, and I have no issue with soaking off gunk with water either, I am surprised nobody encouraged the original consignor to HA to do that. Lot of $$$ left on the table.

[calvindog]

Whoa, here's some interesting reading on PWCC. Pretty good read from start to finish. It seems that easily proven trimmed cards are getting PWCC stickers and there's some question if in fact PWCC owns these cards.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1290614

[ClementeFanOh]

I got the "relatively" in the Einstein remark, Peter!