Soaking a card?

[Archive]

Posted By: Derek

What is this used for exactly. And how do you go about doing it.
Does it affect the card. I know its used for removing paper and tape. But what about creases. I have a really nice card that looks Ex but it has 2 1-2 milmeter creases on it and they dont even go through the entire card. Would it be wrong if I tried to press these out or should I leave it in Vg shape. I feel it should be at least a 4 and maybe a 5. This is also a 4,000.00 card so Im worried if I do use water and press out the creases that it wont even grade. What should I do? Will it show up at PSA or SGC. I dont think it will be that hard to press them out.
Let me know
Thanks guys.
My main consern is if this is wrong. Ive read dis. about this and Ive heard about yall removing glue which seems worse than this.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

I would not advise soaking a $4000 and trying to remove a crease.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Derek

But for what reason. Will it not grade? What if I just put one drop of distiled water on the 2 creases and then put it in a case. The ard is 100 years old.

[Archive]

Posted By: will

Sure, why not.
Why not add a little spray starch to help firm it up. Easier to get into the toploader.
Irons are also great with thoses creased reprints - helps add the proper toning.
More altered cards to the market to fool the people at GSA/PGC/GAP/ACLU or whoever grades the stuff to jack up the "value".
I guess pure sarcasm requires proper sign-off -

William R. List
Creasy and dirty in Baltimore

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

For a heavy crease or wrinkle, I'm not certain your process would entirely remove it. I'm not an expert in conserving baseball cards, but if card is 90 years old, it's bone dry and I'm not sure that messing around with the surface texture is a great idea. I suspect that pressing a 90 year old wrinkle may simply produce a flat wrinkle, and may make it look worse.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Why are you asking whether it is wrong? Some people are going to say it is and some are probably going to say it isn't. Your real concern is whether the graders can detect it, I presume. Suppose the consensus was that they couldn't but that it was still "wrong"? What then?

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

For what reason?

1. Many collectors consider crease removal to be an alteration, and altered cards are frowned upon in the hobby. MOST collectors, even.

2. If it's a $4000 card, and you try and get out the wrinkle yourself, if you screw it up or if your alteration is detectable by the grading company, your card will not grade. Then you're out whatever you spent on the card.

3. If you successfully take out a crease, get the card graded, sell it, and then the crease comes back, you're going to have an unhappy buyer and word will get out.

If it's a card you want to sell, and it's a $2000 card with the crease and a $4000 card without it, take the $2000 and be happy.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Derek

its a 3500 card in the shape its in. But I hear about people removing glue all the time. i have so many t cards still with glue on them and they all grade. and during the process Ive heard of creases coming out. Ive read sevearl post about people on here doing this. What makes it so wrong if its part of the hobby. There is a post right now about removing paper. How many of the PSA 7-8s used to be glued to paper. its only 2 mm long. A simple screw down might press it out without even trying to.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

It's deception, and I think you'd find you're hard-pressed to find a person here who admits to soaking a card to remove a crease and resell the card. Removing something like scrapbook paper and glue isn't frowned upon the way taking out creases and wrinkles is.

If it's a VG card, it's a VG card. In my opinion, of course - I don't speak for anyone but myself.

Either way, if it's not wrong to do, then you wouldn't mind giving us your ebay ID so that those of us who try and avoid altered cards will know not to bid?

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I forgot to mention that adding a drop of water to a specific kind of card can visably alter the surface texture in the shape of the drop of water. I don't know what kind of card you have, so I don't know that it applies to you.

[Archive]

Posted By: Derek

Ive never done it in my life. I just wanted to get yalls opinion on the subject. I thought this might not be that bad to do bc its only a 2 mm crease. And Ive heard about people doing it on here bf. Dont act like Im a criminal when I havent done anything wrong. I was asking what yall thought.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Derek- I am with Al on this one. The card is too expensive to go screwing around with trying to remove a crease. I am assuming that you are like me and couldn't afford to have a card go from being worth $3500 with the crease, as you mentioned, to being an ungradeable, altered card with a value much, much less. Some of the guys here would probably think 4k is a drop in the bucket, but I am guessing not you and not me either...Leave it be.
tbob

[Archive]

Posted By: Derek

Yeah, Its a gourgeous and extreamly rare card. Ill be happy with it in a 3. And it may grade a 4 sense the creases are so small.
Thanks guys.

[Archive]

Posted By: Derek

But why do people buy cards that have been soaked and removed from an album. And why do they grade if they have been soaked?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Derek, my guess is that if you've never done it before, you won't be able to remove the wrinkles so it appears they were never there.

[Archive]

Posted By: Derek

Im not going to. But I was just asking about the subject how this is wrong. What if while you were soaking a card to remove from an album a crease then was taken out not on purpose. Then would it not be acceptable.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

I often soak T206 cards to remove glue and paper from the reverse. As I have mentioned many times on this Board, one of my best examples -- Pfeister Throwing -- is now in an SGC 70 holder, even though it once had 3/4 of the back covered in paper:




I don't have a scan of the back, but it is uninteresting. In water, the paper came right off and there was essentially no glue to be found. I love this card, and nobody has to worry about it being circulated any time soon. Contrary to some opinions expressed on this board, grading and soaking mix quite well.

I have never used soaking and pressing to eliminate a crease in a card. I suppose the reason I haven't up to this point is because I have had the same ethical concerns that have been expressed here. I have, however, seen creases minimalized by soaking and then pressing cards from which I just wanted to reduce paper or glue on the reverse. I have not seen the phenomena of the creases reappearing -- and I am very very skeptical that they would.

If you are going to do it, make sure to use water equally applied to the whole card -- not just a drop here and there -- and make sure to press the card very well while drying. The most common problem is that a card doesn't dry properly/evenly and then will warp. The way to get the warping out is to repeat the soaking and drying process until you get a card that is not warped. You should 100% try it on penny cards from the same set until you get a good idea about how to do it. It takes a bit of practice.

For some reason T206 lithographs are not damaged in water. In addition, after the cards dry there is no evidence that they were ever in water. Indeed, given where and how many T206 cards have been stored since 1909, it will never be known which ones have been wet and which ones haven't. In fact, there is at least some chance that your $4,000 beauty was lying at the bottom of a water spill or flood circa 1936, but just dried out nicely after a good pressing beneath the 1937 Gimbels Catalog. That is why the grading companies can't find anything wrong with it. The water comes -- does its trick -- and then leaves without any evidence that it was ever there. (Here, this practice should be distinguished from using chemicals or paint, which adhere themselves to the card fibers and never let go -- though, as has been stated on this Board many times, art restoration is commonplace in the multi-million dollar world of art collecting.)

For those that raise eyebrows about such tactics, I want to share an old Steven Wright joke with you:

"While I was gone, someone stole everything in my apartment and replaced it with an exact replica."

If this happened to many of you, I suppose you would call the police and complain that they had been robbed. The rest of us wouldn't really care, but for the fear that the thieves might return and take something without replacing it with a replica.

When I get really rich one day, I am going to buy one of those machines that NASA uses on Mars that can detect the former presence of water in things. I will then, free of charge, offer this service to any Net54er with vintage baseball cards. If I can confirm the former presence of water in your card, I will be happy to purchase that card -- but for a nice discount, of course.

[Archive]

Posted By: Derek

Interesting read. Im not going to do it bc I dont even know how. I just wanted to hear yalls thoughts about this. Its to valueable to even try and I like it how it is. And the perpose was to keep for my own and not resell. I ve had the card for about 2 years now and I just wanted to know if I could take out the 2 creases without damaging the card.
Thanks guys

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Derek- You mentioned that the card is 100 years old and I was wondering what kind of card it was. If it is a T206 we are probably talking about Magie, Demmitt or OHara, based on your price range. Those cards appear to suffer water "baths" much better than others for some reason. I have never heard of some of the other century old cards being soaked so perhaps that might be more dangerous. Although it might have occurred, for instance, I have never heard of an E card from that period being soaked to remove paper or to press out a crease, only some tobacco cards.
I noticed that my year old post is the beginning of the thread and since then I have gone ahead and had several cards slabbed with paper on the back. It's just too much of a risk, in my opinion, if you don't have a card that you are 100% sure will be able to bear up to that kind of treatment.
I've never seen a crease disappear in a card, although I have heard of collectors who have wet their cards and then dried and pressed them with wrinkles or small paper creases disappearing. I assume the stories are true.
tbob

[Archive]

Posted By: Derek

Yes it is a t206, Ive heard of it done. I just dont want to lose the intregrity of my card. Its for myself. But I would just love to presnt it in a PSA 4 or 5. It may grade a 4 but I think it will stay at a 3 bc of the 2 tiny creases. Its such a nice card I dont think Id be willing to try. But they are just so damn small.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Removing a 2mm wrinkle is not a crime against humanity or anything close. However, it is unethical for a seller to intentionally withold information about a card that he knows would lower the sales price. This is particularly true when the seller himself would pay less for a card with removed wrinkles. Telling a potential buyer that wrinkles were removed with distilled water and a spoon is okay, but I assume informing potential buyers is not the common intention for someone removing wrinkles.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

"However, it is unethical for a seller to intentionally withold information about a card that he knows would lower the sales price."

I respectfully disagree. Buying a baseball card is like buying a used car. Caveat emptor -- let the buyer beware.

However, I'm glad to hear there is a Code of Ethics governing baseball card transactions. When someone gets a chance, could they please e-mail me a copy?

If ethics had any impact on this hobby, we would not desperately need third party grading.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

In response to your main question--"My main concern is if this (removing creases) is wrong".

It sure is. Card restoration is the biggest problem facing the industry today. People who restore cards should be outed and ostrasized.

One semi-frequent poster on Network 54 tried to make a big issue of it a while back and he said he and his business suffered quite a bit because he was not afraid to mention names.

Lets hope that SGC and PSA can stay one step ahead of the crooks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

David Rudd wrote, "However, it is unethical for a seller to intentionally withold information about a card that he knows would lower the sales price.", and you responded, "I respectfully disagree. Buying a baseball card is like buying a used car. Caveat emptor -- let the buyer beware."

I am really shocked to hear you say this after your very cogent post about where you drew the line in terms of soaking, namely at removing creases, which you yourself characterized as an ethics-based position. Are you really saying it's OK to commit fraud (because the intentional withholding of material information is fraud) just because a baseball card is involved?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Peter,

I always wondered who all these people were who soaked and pressed cards. I thought they were some mysterious figures who operated in the shadows of the hobby. I was wrong--they were right in front of my eyes on the premier vintage message board in the hobby.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

I know a collector who bought scrapbooks in the early 60s, tore the pages apart, and pitched them in the bathtub to soak off E and T cards.

I bet it was going on before then, at least a couple of generations.

So it is almost certain that many of the folks who protest the soaking of a card actually own cards that have been soaked. And if that upsets you perfectionists, mail your soaked cards to me, and I'll refund you postage.

Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I have never altered or restored a card, but I would have no problem purchasing a restored card as long as it is permenantly restored with no foreign materials added or original materials removed or altered from their original state.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I owned a restored item.

Several years back when I was moving, I stored some stuff at my parents house. This included an 1800s die cut cardboard Sweet Caporal sign from a Mastro auction. When I stopped by to pick up my stuff, my mom told me she accidentally broke off the top of the sign. "But don't worry," she said, "I glued it back on." Using Elmer's glue, she did a good enough job that if she hadn't told me, I probably wouldn't have noticed. I told her she should go into business.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

When I said that "I have had the same ethical concerns that have been expressed here," I certainly did not mean to suggest that it was wrong for someone to soak a T206 and press out a crease, if that is possible. I was saying that I personally did not like the idea, but I am well aware that it goes on, is undetectable and that I probably have scores of T206 cards in my collection to which it has been done. I can still sleep well tonight.

Again, why are you so concerned about whether undetectable things happened to your card over the 100 years prior to your ownership? What does it matter if the pressing was intentionally done to remove a crease as opposed to pressed in a photo album, with unintentional crease removing results? Why does water when applied to a card which is then dried with no ill after effects bother you so much? What is it about the sanctity of dryness that moves your collecting habits? Why should a pencil mark on a card -- the worst kind of alteration -- trump a perfect erasure of that same pencil mark without disturbing the fibers of the card?

Now, distinguish these alterations from chemical additives, restoring cardboard, adding white paint to borders, trimming down corners, etc -- all of which modify the card from its factory and worn condition by addition or taking away pieces of cardboard. I understand the concern about these -- as do the grading companies, by the way. But, I'll side with PSA, SGC and GAI on this one -- if its water, and the card is dry so you can't tell there was ever water there, then there is no harm, no foul, and no applicable ethical dilemma.

Finally, on fraud, without breaking out my Black's Law Dictionary, or looking to the state law definition of civil fraud, I do not believe that fraud attaches until you make a material misstatement of fact or otherwise attempt to sell a card that has been altered in a detectable sense. According to you, if I soak a card to press a crease, then have the card triple graded by PSA, SGC and GAI as an EX 5, that when I go to sell the EX 5, I also have to disclose that I once soaked the card. Not only that, but I must also disclose whether I kept the card in a smoke free environment, what the humidity was like on the day I shipped the card and how many times I had exposed the card to UV light. That is just outrageous.

I usually understand the puritanical limits of baseball card collecting -- I understand why we do not permit the restoration that Picasso and Klimt have succumb to (even with prices far greater than the fabled Wagner) -- but to those of you that dream of cards that have never been soaked and dried under a stack of phone books or what have you, y'all need to get over it because it has happened to your cards and you'll never know and you and your cards will never be the worse for it.

Paul

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

As someone who doesn't need to consult a dictionary, I can tell you that fraud is the misrepresentation OR OMISSION of a material fact, with intent to induce reliance thereon, etc. I think what we disagree on, Paul, is whether pressing out a crease is material. And I don't think you can really define that by whether or not it is detectable or not, because that is a slippery slope, one can posit technology that could do things to cards that I believe you would consider unacceptable yet they might not be "detectable." Sort of like the crooks being ahead of the detectives. Interesting discussion though, especially when one attempts to draw the lines.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

To further clarify, I think the problem I have with taking out a crease as opposed to scrapbook removal, leaving aside the question of whether it might come back, is that a crease is part of the natural wear a card has encountered during its use, so there seems something improper about deceptively undoing that wear. Whereas storing something in a scrapbook and then soaking it out doesn't involve removing wear that has naturally occurred to the card, just removing it from a storage medium and some extra material in the process. Maybe it's not a perfect distinction, but it's one that makes sense to me -- ESPECIALLY when I would guess a substantial amount of intentional crease removal is for the purpose of improving a card's condition in order to sell it for more money than it otherwise would sell for. To me, that is disclosable.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Amen, Paul...

I am against soaking a card to stretch it so that it can be trimmed down to size, and then get a good grade. But I don't worry about it, because I'm not following along this mindless trend of pursuing "graded" cards.

I'm all for soaking an old T card to remove tobacco bits or paste or scrapbook paper.

And selling a raw card that has had glue or paper washed off of it isn't criminal, it isn't fraudulent... I lack the ability to comprehend the thought process that gets anone to the point to think that water on a T206 is a crime or a tort.

If you guys are serious about that stuff, you need to collect Goudeys or Old Judges, they don't soak. Then you'll be safe.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Frank's post leads us back into the same confusion we got into last time this subject was discussed. I think we are conflating washing off extra material with crease removal, and I was at least trying to draw a distinction. This thread is about crease removal, read the first post from the guy asking was it wrong to remove a crease. Who here said anything about the sanctity of dryness or anything against soaking off extra material? Seems to me "you guys" are setting up a straw man. Frank, your views on taking out creases (yes, with water) would be interesting.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The general concensus is that removing something that wasn't an original part of the card is okay: scrapbook paper, glue, etc. Altering the card itself is considered different: trimming, coloring, etc.

In my opinion, of the alterations, pressing out a small wrinkle pales in comparison to, say, trimming.

It should be noted that there is a big difference between altering and detailing the alteration at sale, and altering and not detailing the alteration at sale. I'm not about to argue that all alteration is bad, because I don't think all alteration is bad. However, I would argue that, good or bad, alteration that will potentially effect sales price has to be disclosed at sale.

A rule of mine for selling is that if in the auction description you omit information about the item because you know the information will lower the sales price, that's something you're supposed to include in the description.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Since you're interested...

Soaking to remove a crease is beyond soaking to get flour paste and scrapbook paper off of a card.

Soaking to remove a crease so you can get the card graded higher so it will sell better, that bothers me.

Soaking to remove a crease so the card presents better in your own collection, that is tollerable, at least to me. I know others will frown or rant about that, some will think it is ok, too.

If I bought an E102 Cobb (one of the ones I lack) and the top left corner was folded over like a dog's ear, would I be wrong to straighten it? It seems that some folks here would think so. I'm ok with unfolding it. I'd probably put Ty in water for a while, then after a few hours I'd lay him out on paper towels, straighten that dog ear, dry him off, then press him between blotting paper and encyclopedias (others use phone books, but here in the Kentucky hills the phone books are quite thin).

I have 2 really nice Delehanty T206s, Washington and Louisville. I just bought a duplicate Washington card. I'm going to get my good one slabbed and auction it. And I have not soaked it!!! Oddly enough, the replacement was in a PSA 2 holder, but Jim was "busted" out. Now if I can find an affordable and ok Frank Delehanty, I'll be ready to send them off. He has not been soaked by me, either. These were 2 really nice T206s. Back here when other "novice" collectors would talk about qualifying near mint by mentioning the age of the card, I'd show them one of these and hush them up.

So that is a long answer... I'd straighten a wrinkle a bit if it straightened in the drying and blotting process a bit, on a card I was keeping. I'd not tinker with the wrinkle of a card I was about to sell. I'd have no problem at all soaking off scrapbook paper from a T206 I was about to sell. If a buyer asked I'd truthfully answer him, and if soaking bothers him then he won't have enough money to buy a card from me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

"Soaking to remove a crease so you can get the card graded higher so it will sell better, that bothers me."

I think then, as I suspected, that we in fact are in agreement on the fundamental subject of this thread which is a guy who wanted to do precisely this. This is precisely what bothers me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

"Soaking to remove a crease so the card presents better in your own collection, that is tollerable, at least to me."

And what about when that card "for the collection" inevitably comes back to the market?


T206 - I tend to agree that we cant worry about what may have happened to our cards before we obtained them. What I do have a problem with is cards that have wrinkles but are graded as though they should not (for exmaple, psa 4s or sgc 50s) - I always wonder whether these cards were misgraded or soaked to remove a wrinkle, graded properly, and then, after being graded, the wrinkle came back. (I know sgc's standards would permit a small wrinkle on an sgc 50 - nevertheless, you rarely see them follow that standard. Ive found that cards with small wrinkles almost never do better than a 40. I suspect psa's standards are similar).

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Peter,

But the card will ultimately come back to market.

In my opinion, not only is taking a crease out of a card wrong under any circumstances, it should be something that any vintage collector does not tolerate.

I suspect you feel this way too--it just did not come out that way in your post.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

"In my opinion, not only is taking a crease out of a card wrong under any circumstances, it should be something that any vintage collector does not tolerate."

At least Peter was able to offer a rationale behind his opinion.

Jim,

In your opinion, why is it "wrong" and "intolerable" to press a card between two heavy books, or even a lucite screwdown, in order to permanently reduce or remove the appearance of creases or wrinkles on a vintage baseball card?

Do we all need to take our cards out of hard cases? And if not, what is an acceptable amount of hard plastic to keep our baseball cards in?

Thanks,

Paul

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Jim, I thought I was clear that I was distinguishing between taking out creases, which I think is definitely wrong because it is removing wear that occurred during the life of a card, and simply removing scrapbook material. If not, let me reiterate that I am certainly opposed to taking out creases and wrinkles for that reason; also I suppose it is altering the surface of a card as one finds it although that rationale gets a bit tricky.

[Archive]

Posted By: andy becker

i don't think it is ever ok to alter a card.
removing scrapbook remains is taboo by me. soaking a card is taboo.

i have collected cards for 31 years. i have never ever altered a card.

perhaps i have higher standards than most, but i'm really surprised by some of the responses in this thread.

and, as to pressing out a crease....are you kidding???? that is doctoring a card. plain and simple.

i may own a card that has been soaked, maybe....but i would never do that myself. never.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

Peter,

I believe Andy is your "strawman".

Paul

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

To take the discussion one step further, Paul (and others), if it's OK to use pressure to remove a wrinkle, is it also OK to spoon a corner? If not what's the difference, one isn't using chemicals or adding material?

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

I think you and I agree a lot more than not. You and I share a strong interest in finding that line that collectors are willing to cross over, though we may end up on different sides of those lines. It seems to me it is a very personal decision based on gut feelings and emotions. It is almost a religion, with people referencing "taboos" and "sins." I find the discussion very enlightening and interesting -- ultimately, just entertaining.

As I mentioned earlier in this post, the thought of pressing out a wrinkle seemed a bit shady to me, too. But after giving the topic some time to digest, now I'm not so sure. Spooning, to me, could damage the card and scuff the face. But if the net effect is the same as a good pressing between the slabs of a lucite screwdown, I'm not sure it matters one way or the other.

I would propose a new forum poll -- what measure of card doctoring is acceptable to you -- you may answer with regard to more than one:

a) None - don't you go anywhere near my card!
b) Water soaking to remove glue/scrapbook
c) Water sooaking, Drying, Pressing to reduce/remove wrinkles/creases
d) Chemicals to remove glue/scrapbook
e) Chemicals to remove wrinkles
f) Spooning to remove wrinkles/straighten corners
g) Erasing pencil/pen marks
h) Anything that makes the card look more mint -- Trim, Bleach, Etc.

But, I am more fascinated by people's rationales than their answers to these questions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

I am ok with b. While I don't have a strong gut reaction against erasing a light pencil mark providing it doesn't alter the surface, I think to be consistent I would have to say no to that because it involves changing wear a card acquired during its natural life. I am opposed to the rest of the items on the list.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Paul,

All of the examples are unacceptable.

Unlike Peter, I am also against the soaking of cards to remove glue.

I think it is a slippery slope once you start to think that certain forms of card doctoring are acceptable.

The hobby should take a stand(or at least the premeir message board in the hobby should take a stand) that all forms of card doctoring and alteration are unacceptable .

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Andy,

You are surprised--I am shocked.

There are 5 topics in the last two days --all having to do with card doctoring and alteration--many of the posts a "how to do it without anyone knowing" post.

Honestly, I think this is a huge issue and the fact that serious collectors such as Paul think its fine to take creases out under certain circumstances is shocking. Previously, I thought this was going on but in the shadows of the industry by characters you would not want to associate with. I was wrong.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

Jim,

You talk about a slipperly slope, but you do not explain why it is slippery or what the harm is. You have zero tolerance, but you do not explain the harm in pressing a card between two heavy books, or even a lucite screwdown, in order to permanently reduce or remove the appearance of creases or wrinkles on a vintage baseball card.

Again, do we all need to take our cards out of hard cases? And if not, what is an acceptable amount of hard plastic to keep our baseball cards in?

Thanks,

Paul

[Archive]

Posted By: steve f

b, d;

In a nutshell, If the change is made to up the grade then I'm against it... HOWEVER ,

Ive removed scrapbook paper and paper tape from my m101-2 Jackson after moistening then pulling most of the scrap paper and avoiding, as much as possible, paper-loss. This did leave residue and very small amt of staining. I've also pulled very yellow Scotch tape from a raw T206 back, again, leaving old adhesive.

So long as the desired effect isn't a "bump in grade"... I feel removing paper that was a distraction is a non-issue when there is still adhesive or glue blob still attached to the card back.

Of Course, the Jackson didn't receive a number grade anyhow, just Auth. The T206 did grade, but I highly doubt it was a bump since the entire, previously-taped area remained stained.

If selling, I would divulge to the buyer that I had made these changes. I don't consider this and erasing writing(That would cause paper-loss and AUTH grade I believe) an alteration, but I'm not as certain of the other choices up there. Steve F

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Paul,

I was not aware that keeping a card in a hard case can reduce or get rid of creases.

My position is that nothing should be done by anyone that intentionally improves the condition of the card.....period.

If putting cards between books or in a hard case does that then I am against it.