Soaking E Series

[Leon]

SB1 nailed it. If you collect vintage cards you probably have some that have been soaked. Sometimes when soaking a card a little water stain will be left and sometimes not. IF the soaking can be detected by a water stain, the TPGs will deduct for it as they would a smudge or dirt, in my experience. Most times they can't tell and therefore won't deduct. It doesn't bother me to own, buy or sell cards that have had something erased or have been soaked. I feel the same way about anything that can be taken off of a card that wasn't there from date of mfg, and is taken off with water and/or an eraser (that is the extent of my leniency). Everybody has their own view but I don't personally think these previous things constitute "alterations", in the trimming, bleaching, stretching sense of the word. We have had good discussions as Rob linked to. And btw, power erasing is in fact taking off layer(s) of paper, so to me that is altering in a bad way.

[HRBAKER]

Ask yourself a couple of questions. When buying a card, if it had been soaked would you want to know. And if when selling a card, if you have soaked it are you going to volunteer that information to the buyer. If you answer yes to the first and no to the second then I think you think soaking is altering a card.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Ask yourself a couple of questions. When buying a card, if it had been soaked would you want to know. And if when selling a card, if you have soaked it are you going to volunteer that information to the buyer. If you answer yes to the first and no to the second then I think you think soaking is altering a card.

I personally don't care and don't ask every time I buy a card, if it has been soaked. I can't actually ever remember asking if a card I was buying had been soaked. I just don't care. I have probably soaked 2-3 cards in my life and only to get some residue or paper off of them. I have erased a few marks from cards too. If folks ask, I will tell, but about 95% of the cards I sell are graded anyway. And of course, I abhor any alterations other than what I have stated. I do draw a line .

I should add this view is for my personal collecting and personal selling. In our auctions we do nothing at all, ever, except for sending a card to get graded.

[asphaltman]

I've "altered" a card three times in my collecting history.

I've soaked two cards....one successfully and one not.



And I've removed a staple from a card. To me it was about the same as soaking...trying to remove something that wasn't supposed to be there. Even though it left me two nice little holes...I didn't have the whole dang staple still clipped through the card.

[HRBAKER]

I agree, I've never asked but I would like to know. Among the litany of things that are done to cards, I think that soaking in "water" and using a gum eraser to remove a stray pencil mark are minor issues. I do think that it could be argued that you are changing the card from its current state and some folks might call that an alteration. That's all I am saying.

[Abravefan11]

I'm not saying I have a problem with soaking a card but I do feel it's an alteration. The purpose in soaking the card is to change something about it with the process correct? Isn't that change an alteration?

Edit: I'm ignorant about soaking and have never done it so I don't know anything about the process.

[asphaltman]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

I'm not saying I have a problem with soaking a card but I do feel it's an alteration. The purpose in soaking the card is to change something about it with the process correct? Isn't that change an alteration?

Edit: I'm ignorant about soaking and have never done it so I don't know anything about the process.

Tim, just curious....so you wouldn't try to remove a staple from a card either?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by asphaltman

Tim, just curious....so you wouldn't try to remove a staple from a card either?

I'm not saying I wouldn't soak a card or remove a staple from it. I just feel whether it's an acceptable alteration or not, it is an alteration to the card. It is semantics as Leon said at this point.

To speak to the quoted question...if I was to remove a staple their would be evidence that the staple had been their. Soaking to remove a foreign substance could leave no evidence that it was there in the first place.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

The purpose in soaking the card is to change something about it with the process correct? Isn't that change an alteration?

No, that is not how I see "soaking". The few times I have soaked a card it was to take residue or paper remnants off. I don't consider it changing the card from the way it was originally mfg'd. It is semantics though and, as many others said, it is altering, just not in a bad way (to me, or most).

[Leon]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

I agree, I've never asked but I would like to know. Among the litany of things that are done to cards, I think that soaking in "water" and using a gum eraser to remove a stray pencil mark are minor issues. I do think that it could be argued that you are changing the card from its current state and some folks might call that an alteration. That's all I am saying.

No doubt some folks will think soaking and/or erasing are alterations. They are. But they are altering it back to being closer to it's original state, so in that aspect, I am actually altering them back to be closer to when they were originally distributed. I should reiterate I very seldom do anything at all....I just collect cards and I am not a high grade collector, so well loved cards are fine by me....I think vg is my favorite condition and I don't mind pr-fr cards that have better eye appeal . best regards