REA Auction - Noting prior work done to cards

[parkplace33]

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?

[53toppscollector]

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

[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.

[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?