REA Auction - Noting prior work done to cards
 

I found it very interesting that two of the big cards in the current REA auction have information about what was done prior to the card before it was graded.

T206 Doyle (https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...?itemid=150606)

After much research and consultation, Graphic Conservation Company, a professional art restoration and conservation company with a specialty and focus on all paper items, was selected to handle the project. Weeks of process testing on some of the non-sport cards provided valuable insight into the manner in which the cards were mounted. After perfecting the process, the Doyle was cleanly removed from the page on which it had lived for over 110 years. Graphic Conservation performed no other cleaning or conservation type work on the card, leaving it in virtually the same condition as when it was diligently added to the scrapbook by the original collector. SGC, as part of its grading process, was briefed on the work done to remove the card and reviewed it thoroughly to ensure it met the company's standards for grading.

T206 Plank (https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com...?itemid=150612)

This card originally appeared as Lot 282 in REA's Spring 2010 auction (realizing $32,313), having been consigned by the estate of Charlie Conlon, one of the hobby's truly great pioneer collectors. It should be noted that since the sale of this card it had a moisture stain removed from the top portion of the card.

They didn't have to disclose both... just interesting that they did. Thoughts?

disclosure and providing more information is always preferable. good on them, but I'd expect nothing less from REA, tbh

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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? :confused:

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?

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.

Got that and understand but I doubt we would have the same access. I imagine you would agree.

I would agree. The unknown in this instance is how much scrutiny was raised about the cards, if at all, prior to disclosing their history.

I am sure it was disclosed upfront or maybe even prior to giving a green light to the work. I am just not overjoyed by one more instance of privileges granted to some and not to all.

As someone elsewhere noted...there appears to be some loss on the back of the doyle from removal. Should this warrant a 3.5? There is no question that all submitters are NOT created equal. Guessing if I submitted same card with same qualifications it'd be in an A/1-2 holder.

That card is 100 percent not a 3.5. I think 2, maybe a 2.5 at best.

LOLOL. I had not even looked at the card. Just did. There is light scuffing all over the back. The stains on the front appear muted but that could be the scan. Also the right edge appears different than the left edge but that could be the SGC gasket. Either way the scuffing on the reverse puts it in a 2 category, imo.

Wonder if the card was presented to PSA first and did not grade or if work was disclosed and PSA said do not bother submitting it? Not that PSA is some pillar of ethics or anything.

Awesome so not only does it get over graded but the submitter has access to the graders to explain work that was done. Good thing it is only a Doyle variation and not an important card int he hobby.

I agree with Jay. Removing the moisture stain is a card alteration. The card should grade authentic.

I love and respect the disclosures.

That adds greater trust to the auction house and allows the bidders to decide what to do based on their preferences and beliefs.

Especially with high end rare cards.

Both are great cards and I hope it makes it into someone collection on this board.

Sgc was a good idea for that card

Someone will try and cross it, and wonder why it won't make it.

Is Conservation Now Being Accepted by SGC to receive a number grade without disclosure of the work???

Great Job REA for disclosing...my question is why doesn't SGC’s grade on the Doyle say “RESORED”

Maybe sgc changed it's standards and allows work?

If this is a 3.5, I’m a 9.

Just as the 9.5 Mantle, SGC is clearly happy to over grade big name cards to get more attention and sales records for their slabs. And it will work, as ‘collectors’ don’t seem to care about reality but the number on the paper slip.

The Plank should be an A. The Doyle I would get a 2 if I sent a common in the exact same condition.

It doesn’t say it was restored. Just removed from a scrapbook. PSA grades those as well. The PSA 2 Doyle that sold at Mile High was also removed from a scrapbook.

Wrong. All submitters are equal. But some are more equal than others.

Dunno if you are a 9 or not but the comment gets a 10. Exactly my point. As great as the disclosure is I am very uneasy with the rest of the story surrounding both cards. I am far from a purest but I call bullshit on the whole thing. If SGC or PSA is not going to do this for you then they should not be doing it for REA or REA's higher profile consignor. I get 60s commons booted for fucking min size from both companies.

alter
 

I dont mind it at all, and Im sure there will be many many bidders who feel the same way

Great job by REA!!! I would expect nothing less from them. Full disclosure is definitely preferable. I have no qualms with them using a professional company to remove Doyle from a scrapbook. Scrapbook removal is done on a regular basis and there are even threads right here requesting help in soaking glued cards from scrapbooks or other backing. I also have no personal problem with the water stain being removed on the Plank. I have cards from my childhood that have damage from me spilling liquid on them and that makes them no less valuable to me and I keep them as part of my collection.

Right but the soaking process most here use or maybe all use, is that using water. The Doyle underwent something much different, it would seem given it took weeks of analysis and an explanation to SGC. Not sure anyone here has an issue with removal as a general concept.

Again, this sounds like you are ok with conservation as long as it is disclosed and that is cool. I think may would agree with you. Far as most of us know, we might not have the same success submitting these two cards with the expectation of any numerical grade. That you still value your childhood collection with stains is a whole other topic.

They mete and dole unequal grades iunto a savage hobby.

This would be my second objection; this does not sound like a normal soaking but that something fairly extreme but vague was done (and not entirely successfully after weeks of preparing this process and discussing it with the graders, looks like some bits of paper loss). Then again, auctioneers are so used to writing superfluous and exaggerated crap for their catalogs, maybe it was just a quick soak!

I have no issue with Doyle- the goal was to detach a card, not improve it, and if that all is they did, then I don’t care. The Plank is a bit more problematic. Attached are pics of the plank with the water stain and now. If all that was done is the stain was removed/erased (as opposed to recolored, etc), then I really don’t have a problem; it’s not much different from removing the Doyle from an album. But if the card was improved by addition, then I have an issue. Regardless, it’s not ideal and I think REA is very classy (per usual) to disclose it; although they didn’t have to and anyone doing their own research could figure it out

Also noteworthy is the grade on the Plank. SGC gave it a 2. Water stain “removed” and PSA gives it a 2.5 with that paper missing in upper left corner and large crease midway down card. Compare that to this 2.5, which has a minor marking from an album removal

I am perfectly OK with a trained conservator removing an item from an album or removing a water stain (which, frankly, is little more than a soak with some mild cleaner). Full stop.

The grades on the Plank piss me off, though. That kind of crease causing paper loss? If I send in that card maybe I get a 1.5. That card and this card are equals?

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...rtrait%201.jpg

And this one is worse???

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...on%20ready.jpg

Membership has its privileges.

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.

Grading has been very lenient on the more expensive cards since before there was anything like PSA. Especially Wagners.

The one I saw in person sold as poor, it had writing and creases, but was a Wagner. It sold maybe 3 times in the next 3 years or so, always called a higher grade and with a big bump in the asking price, eventually being a G-VG.... No alterations, just dealers grading on the curve.
(which for some really uncommon cards might be a better way)

They are just preparing everyone for the future of cards. One small step before the giant leap.

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

'Weeks of scrutiny' sounds a hell of a lot more professional and enticing than 'we chucked it in some water.'

Who knows what they actually did? But, it's definitely using some descriptive flair for a card that will draw a bunch of casual eyeballs and potential news stories.

I respect the disclosure, even if most heavy collectors inherently expect the soaking.

Definitely seems like some poetic license. Or maybe a whole lot of omphaloskepsis couched as more thrilling action.