REA Auction - Noting prior work done to cards

[raulus]

The Doyle discussion about the preservation work done seems a little more necessary.

Earlier in the description, they disclosed that these pieces were all pasted down in a scrapbook. So the logical question follows how they managed to get them out of the scrapbook and into a slab.

There’s certainly room to suggest that they could have just skipped the discussion of the scrapbook altogether, and avoided the need to talk about the process of getting them out. But I suspect the story adds as much as it might detract for any collector. And particularly with this piece, being as rare as it is. A little extra story helps add to the aura and legend.

[Lorewalker]

My initial thoughts are kudos for disclosure but graders should not grade cards based on explanations, should they? Either the card is worthy or grading or it is not. Just wonder if any of us would be afforded the same consideration and if some conservation is now ok and a card can get a numerical grade, where do we draw that line and how is that line drawn?

[packs]

I don't see any issue with removing a T206 from a scrapbook for grading. There are posts on this board all the time that seek guidance for soaking cards for the same effect.

I think it's great they disclosed this to bidders but not that it was entirely necessary. We're told to buy the card, not the holder. A successful soak or scrapbook removal is reflected in the card and not the disclosure.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't see any issue with removing a T206 from a scrapbook for grading. There are posts on this board all the time that seek guidance for soaking cards for the same effect.

I think it's great they disclosed this to bidders but not that it was entirely necessary. We're told to buy the card, not the holder. A successful soak or scrapbook removal is reflected in the card and not the disclosure.

And when the work is not legitimate but the card gets graded anyhow, when are we ever going to hear about that? The 13th of Never.

[oldjudge]

I have no issue with scrapbook removal--it happens all the time. This time it was just done in an optimal fashion. What I do have an issue with was the water stain removal. How far is that really from crease removal? At the least, the restoration should be disclosed on the slab. In my opinion, the card shouldn't have been graded.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And when the work is not legitimate but the card gets graded anyhow, when are we ever going to hear about that? The 13th of Never.

I thought we were talking about scrapbook removal. That's what my comments were about.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't see any issue with removing a T206 from a scrapbook for grading. There are posts on this board all the time that seek guidance for soaking cards for the same effect.

I think it's great they disclosed this to bidders but not that it was entirely necessary. We're told to buy the card, not the holder. A successful soak or scrapbook removal is reflected in the card and not the disclosure.

My issue is not that it was removed. We have all done that. Question is why would it take weeks of analysis, etc to perfect the method? Again where do we draw the line? I think most of us say soaking is ok but this scrapbook was not one that required far more than soaking in water to liberate an undamaged card.

Not directed at you but so what is it that is ok and what is not? Each of us will have a different answer of course. So should we all send our cards off to conservators and then try to get them past the graders? What is ok for a conservator to do to a card before it is considered an alteration? Ya think that if we did have them professionally cleaned that we would get their ear for an explanation and still yield a numerical grade?

Heck didn't PWCC push this whole concept and he got ripped to sheds over it like 3 years ago?

[packs]

Maybe someone just wanted to do a good job and remove the card without damaging it. People seek advice for the same thing on here all the time. Whether you soak the card yourself or pay someone to do it for you, isn't the motivation the same?

My definition of altering a card is adding or subtracting from the card itself. If you're trimming the card or you're adding color to the card or you're frankensteining two cards together, that all falls under alteration to me.

Removing an original card from a mounted surface without altering the card, is not alteration in my opinion. If you can reduce a stain without removing or adding anything to the original card, you have not altered it either.

Otherwise, you would have such a stringent view that a crease must be considered alteration, etc. because the card was not released creased, etc.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by packs

Maybe someone just wanted to do a good job and remove the card without damaging it. People seek advice for the same thing on here all the time. Whether you soak the card yourself or pay someone to do it for you, isn't the motivation the same?

My definition of altering a card is adding or subtracting from the card itself. If you're trimming the card or you're adding color to the card or you're frankensteining two cards together, that all falls under alteration to me.

Removing an original card from a mounted surface without altering the card, is not alteration in my opinion. If you can reduce a stain without removing or adding anything to the original card, you have not altered it either.

Otherwise, you would have such a stringent view that a crease must be considered alteration, etc. because the card was not released creased, etc.

I appreciate that. I prefer to have cards that have not been messed with but it is not realistic so I am pretty liberal with regard to what is ok. If it passes my eye, which I feel is pretty good, then I am ok. I would prefer if work is disclosed but most is not.

And nothing against REA and whatever involvement they had with these cards, and since you responded to me, how do you feel abut REA having access to the graders to explain the conservation? Do you think you and I would have the same access and be received the same way?

[packs]

It's hard to answer that question because I'm not sure how relevant the disclosure was to the graders. In other words, it might make a company look good public relations wise to say they disclosed XYZ but the reality might be that the disclosures were unnecessary and had no impact on the outcome.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

My issue is not that it was removed. We have all done that. Question is why would it take weeks of analysis, etc to perfect the method? Again where do we draw the line? I think most of us say soaking is ok but this scrapbook was not one that required far more than soaking in water to liberate an undamaged card.

That's just how professionals work. To remove a high value item from a scrapbook, they have to dissolve the glue. While most of us would check the glue under a lesser card and have a guess that plain water will do before filling a tray with water, the pro restorers/conservators of most things examine and test so they are a certain as they can be that what they're about to do will work, and won't cause damage to the paper or inks.

Even if they've done T206s before, they'll want to be sure because glues are different.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by steve B

That's just how professionals work. To remove a high value item from a scrapbook, they have to dissolve the glue. While most of us would check the glue under a lesser card and have a guess that plain water will do before filling a tray with water, the pro restorers/conservators of most things examine and test so they are a certain as they can be that what they're about to do will work, and won't cause damage to the paper or inks.

Even if they've done T206s before, they'll want to be sure because glues are different.

Nah...I don't think that is quite accurate.