Cards that CAN and CANNOT be soaked?!

[brianp-beme]

Here is a pretty detailed account of the process posted previously on this site by David K.

Brian


I've soaked many trade cards over the last 20 years, including full and partial scrapbook pages, as well as a smaller number of T206s and other tobacco cards. How successful a soaking is depends largely on what type of glue was used, and you never really know that until the soaking is under way; however, the skill of the soaker also plays a part. Here's how I do it:

* I generally use a wide, shallow baking pan, though this partly has to do with the fact that most trade cards are bigger than tobacco cards, so putting them in a glass, as the original poster showed, won't really work. That's especially true for full scrapbook pages, which is how I got my start soaking more than 20 years ago.

* I fill it at least half an inch to an inch deep with warm-to-hot tap water. I've found that water from my kitchen faucet at its hottest setting is fine for soaking, and will not damage cards.

* I put the card or cards flat in the water with the paper/glue side up. You may see bubbling when the glue hits the hot water, but that's not necessary for a successful soak. If a card keeps floating to the surface rather than staying completely underwater, I may use a spoon to hold it down, leaning the spoon handle on the side of the pan.

* I generally let the cards soak for at least 5 or 10 minutes, unless the paper starts separating from the card all by itself. I'll try at this point, using my fingers or a Q-tip, to see if the paper is starting to come off. If it is, I'll do what I can to separate it from the card, carefully, always watching to make sure there's no paper being lost from the back of the card. If there is, I'll stop and let it soak some more.

* If the paper isn't coming off after 5 or 10 minutes, I'll let the card soak for another 15 or 20 minutes and try again as above. If the paper is coming off, great; if not, I let it soak some more. Once the water has cooled down to room temperature, I'll take the cards out, put them on a paper towel, refill the pan with warm-to-hot water as above, and put the cards back in to soak. I've sometimes had to do this multiple times and soak cards for over an hour. If that's what it takes, that's what you need to do.

* If the paper doesn't come completely off in one piece, I may need to try getting it off gradually, using my finger or (usually better) a Q-tip. This is where skill and experience comes in. You don't want to scrape it too hard, thus making the chance of paper loss much greater, but sometimes you need to rub at the paper and glue repeatedly until it starts to come off bit by bit. I always watch carefully for signs of paper loss at this point, and stop if I see any. I'll try soaking some more before trying again, but sometimes you encounter a glue that's not going to come off without some damage.

* After all the paper is off, I rub the back of the card with my finger or a Q-tip to get all the glue off. You can usually tell when it's off, because the back of the card stops being slippery or sticky (as it is when there's still glue). If you don't get the glue off before drying the card, you'll have problems.

* I press the cards between two paper towels in order to soak up as much of the water as possible.

* I then put a fresh paper towel on a book or other flat surface, put the cards on it, put another fresh paper towel on top of them, and then put a stack of books (or another flat, heavy object) on top of that.

* I let the cards dry for at least three or four days, changing the paper towels after the first day. When they're done drying, I remove the paper towels carefully, making sure none of the paper is sticking to the cards (which may mean there was some glue left on the cards).

[yanks87]

I am going to preface my statement by saying that I understand the difference between the card scandals running rampant in the high grade cards currently and this, but I still have an issue how this thread is so openly accepted and people who trim, recolor, or alter cards are blasted. If the card is staying in your collection, you can do whatever you want to it, the gray area comes in when the intent is to resell the card. Soaking cards compromises the genuine integrity of the card for one benefit, to remove part of it's story to increase the value. Apples to apples with pressing, trimming and recoloring. In a truly benign question, can someone explain how this is any different than a non-acceptable method of card alteration?

[conor912]

Originally Posted by yanks87

If the card is staying in your collection, you can do whatever you want to it, the gray area comes in when the intent is to resell the card.

Many would argue that the latter (the card finding it's way back on to the open market) is inevitable. None of us really "own" anything. The cards belong to the hobby, and each of us is just a shepherd of our respective collections, therefore none of us have the right to alter anything for next "owner", regardless of how far in the future that is.

There is also the argument that undoing something that was done (removing glue, paper, writing, etc) is not as looked down on as, say, trimming.

It gets pretty mind-f*cky. I think that political leanings also have something to do with it.

That was a joke, people. Lighten up.

I personally think it's dangerous to subscribe to an all or nothing approach for anything. I'm generally a "don't touch it" guy, but concede there are instances where action might be prudent.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by conor912

It gets pretty mind-f*cky.

Well put, that is why I had to lob it out there. All that said, I buy cards that look like they were not only chewed on by the dog, but fully processed, if you catch my meaning. It is one of the posts that when it comes back to the surface doesn't sit super well with me in a hypocritical sense. But again, what the hell do I know, just had to ask the question.

[marcdelpercio]

Originally Posted by yanks87

I am going to preface my statement by saying that I understand the difference between the card scandals running rampant in the high grade cards currently and this, but I still have an issue how this thread is so openly accepted and people who trim, recolor, or alter cards are blasted. If the card is staying in your collection, you can do whatever you want to it, the gray area comes in when the intent is to resell the card. Soaking cards compromises the genuine integrity of the card for one benefit, to remove part of it's story to increase the value. Apples to apples with pressing, trimming and recoloring. In a truly benign question, can someone explain how this is any different than a non-acceptable method of card alteration?

Here's the analogy I would give on this one. Imagine that you had a 1963 Corvette that you are going to sell as completely factory original. On the way to the auction, a bird poops on the hood of the car. What do you do? Clearly, most people would say that they would take a wet cloth and wipe it off. Is the car altered or any less original at that point? Certainly not.

Now imagine instead that before you took it to the auction, you touched up some paint scratches and replaced some small pieces of bumper trim that were damaged. Is the car less original then? Yes, obviously it is as you have added/altered original parts of the car with substances that were NOT part of the original composition.

To me, that is the simple difference between soaking a card and altering it otherwise.

[yanks87]

OK, I kinda get that analogy, but at the same time I think it only holds up for something like rubber cement which can in most cases be rubbed off (hey now!), but when the card as a whole has to be dipped to remove glue, I think it gets in the gray area of doing overall damage to the integrity of the card.

So using your analogy, you would clean the bird poop off the '63 by submerging the entire car in water to remove it. Though you have removed the blemish, you have compromised the card as a whole in the process.

Splitting hairs I guess, but I feel it is a bigger deal than just a surface removal, and either way, the card is altered in my opinion.

[marcdelpercio]

Well, actually I would cover the car in water to clean it quite often. I mean, that's basically the definition of washing a car, right? If you were to purchase the car in my analogy, would you expect that the seller should disclose every time the car was washed in the past 60 years? Do you consider that "compromising" the car?

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

Well, actually I would cover the car in water to clean it quite often. I mean, that's basically the definition of washing a car, right? If you were to purchase the car in my analogy, would you expect that the seller should disclose every time the car was washed in the past 60 years? Do you consider that "compromising" the car?

That's where the analogy falls apart to a certain degree. Because a car is sheet metal, covered in paint and layers of clear coat to protect against the elements, "cleaning it" is really not as intrusive as it would be if the body was made out of a substance that was not water resistant.

I get what you are saying though, but I still see it as a level of compromise when you go through the post and see how many cards cannot be soaked. They are made from paper, pressed pulp that when gets wet, can begin to degrade even if the slightest bit.

In my book, that is something that should be disclosed if the intent is to improve the appearance and value of the card. Similar to the way that comic books, when restored and graded have a different designation/value. It is done in fine arts all the time, during the restoration/cleaning processes on old pieces of art in the name of preservation. So I don't have a problem with the practice as much as I do with the venom thrown at other practices, when soaking in my book, is another tool of improving/altering cards and profiting from the result. Again, all my opinion, just wanted to hear from other folks so I do appreciate you chiming in!

[marcdelpercio]

Originally Posted by yanks87

That's where the analogy falls apart to a certain degree. Because a car is sheet metal, covered in paint and layers of clear coat to protect against the elements, "cleaning it" is really not as intrusive as it would be if the body was made out of a substance that was not water resistant.

That's a fair point, but I feel that the purpose of this thread is to determine what cards can be soaked WITHOUT intrusively degrading the composition. When I soak a card, my goal is to simply remove things that HAVE degraded it and were not a part of the card to begin with. That is where I draw the line with alterations. To add color or trim away a part of the card that was initially there is fundamentally changing the original integrity of the card. Soaking dirt or added paper off of it is not. It is possible pretty close to 100% of the time with enough scrutiny and technology to detect trimming/rebuilding/recoloring. It is not possible at all to detect a card that has been soaked in water. And the reason for that is because that card has NOT been altered from its original state.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by yanks87

OK, I kinda get that analogy, but at the same time I think it only holds up for something like rubber cement which can in most cases be rubbed off (hey now!), but when the card as a whole has to be dipped to remove glue, I think it gets in the gray area of doing overall damage to the integrity of the card.

So using your analogy, you would clean the bird poop off the '63 by submerging the entire car in water to remove it. Though you have removed the blemish, you have compromised the card as a whole in the process.

Splitting hairs I guess, but I feel it is a bigger deal than just a surface removal, and either way, the card is altered in my opinion.

What would you say to do about a card that had water-based paint spilled on it? The aesthetic value is ruined. You now have 3 options: 1) throw it away 2) keep it as-is or 3) soak it in water and get back its aesthetic value. Then what about oil-based paint that would require solvent? I'm not saying there's a right or wrong, necessarily, though I think that's where most would probably (at least claim to) draw the line.

Everyone falls on a different place on the ethical spectrum for everything, so I try not to judge, but I think it's safe to say that the majority of people want the things they own (and/or are trying to sell) to be as nice and presentable as possible.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by conor912

What would you say to do about a card that had water-based paint spilled on it? The aesthetic value is ruined. You now have 3 options: 1) throw it away 2) keep it as-is or 3) soak it in water and get back its aesthetic value. Then what about oil-based paint that would require solvent? I'm not saying there's a right or wrong, necessarily, though I think that's where most would probably (at least claim to) draw the line.

Everyone falls on a different place on the ethical spectrum for everything, so I try not to judge, but I think it's safe to say that the majority of people want the things they own (and/or are trying to sell) to be as nice and presentable as possible.

That sounds like my kind of card! I am definitely on the spectrum, or at least I have been told as such. If a card had something dropped on it, it is up to the owner what to do with it. Does that ruin the aesthetic to me, no, but to others it may. Tobacco Stains, Caramel Stains, hell kid's writing positions on cards provides more validation than any grading could ever to me, but that is to me. I would NEVER take a solvent to a card, or for that matter soak a card to remove glue, for fear what it would do to the actual card. I have a feeling I am in the minority, but there is an aura of hypocrisy that this post exists at the same time as the other post about buffing newer card surfaces to get better grades. Apples to apples in my book. But again, my opinion and thank you for the reply!

[conor912]

I guess when you think about, cardboard is essentially wood pounded into a slurry with water, then pressed and dried. Is temporarily reintroducing water back into it really changing it? If you wash and dry a dirty shirt, have you changed the shirt?

Now we’re back to the mind-f*cky part