Informal Poll- Soaking and erasing of cards

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill K

1. yes
2. yes

My personal collection - http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f176/fkm_bky/

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

Yes I would like to modify my eraser NO.

I have no problem with erasing light pencil marks on cards. Especially my Zeenuts and especially since I intend on keeping the cards in my personal collection and they are not being acquired for re-sale. I just find it more asthetically pleasing to have the pencil marks erased. I use an art-gum eraser.

As for soaking my answer remains NO.

Steve- your above answered has been modified.....need to start from scratch to get an accurate percentage.... (leon)

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

1. yes
2. yes

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

New Tally:

1. Yes - 34 - 72%
No - 13

2. Yes - 29 - 62%
No - 18

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

1. Yes (I'd like to make this for non-sale, collection only soaking but I've already heard the rebuttals on that).
2. Yes

[Archive]

Posted By: RayB

1. No
2. No

RayB

[Archive]

Posted By: Alan Elefson

1. No
2. No

[Archive]

Posted By: steve yawitz

1. Y
2. Y

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

yes
yes

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

1-yes 2-yes

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

1. no
2. no

[Archive]

Posted By: joe

1-yes
2-yes

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad Freeman

1. Yes
2. Yes

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Drum

1. yes
2. yes

[Archive]

Posted By: Martin Neal

1. YES
2. YES

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

1. Yes
2. Yes

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric B

1. Yes
2. No

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

1.Yes
2.Yes

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Tocco

1. No
2. No

[Archive]

Posted By: barry arnold

yes
yes



barry

[Archive]

Posted By: Chuck

Yes
Yes

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

No need to go much longer...here are the final results....

1. Is soaking glue or paper off of a card ok to do?

YES- 49..... 74.2%
NO- 17..... 25.8%



2. Is erasing a pencil or pen mark ok to do?

YES- 43..... 65.1%
NO- 23..... 34.9%


The numbers really speak for themselves....
I am surprised that the Yes's were that low....but I guess this is what it is.....Thanks to all who participated...

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

I think the numbers would be dramatically different if the entire card collecting hobby were polled. My guess is that if another forum such as the PSA forum took the same poll that it would be overwhelmingly against card soaking and erasing.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

We aren't the CU boards....After looking at those boards a few times I would kindly place my bets on this board for experience knowledge...though I am sure they are some nice people over there too....And you know the old saying.....if cows pooped butter you wouldn't have to churn

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

Maybe then card soaking and erasing is acceptable for this vintage forum and not the overall hobby?

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

btw I have never heard of that old saying.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I guess if you did a poll on the other board we would know. Less than that and I don't think we should make that assumption....Like I say those are good folk over there and I would let them speak for themselves. This board has spoken in the survey given....

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

One thing to note is that conservation exprets will tell you that it is not good to keep antique prints incontact with wood, glue and old paper. Even when the print is in an antique wooden frame and matte, the conservator will recommend you remove the print and rematte it in proper paper, for preservation of the print. My guess is that many conservators would recommend that an expensive baseball card be removed from old paper scrap and glue to help preserve the card.

My question is if a conservator said that, while the card may look fine for the five years you've owned it, that leaving glue and acidic paper affixed will likely damage the card over the next 10,20,50 years-- would people then be more willing to have the paper and glue removed?

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

I am not disagreeing with you. The results would be interesting to see. I also agree that the participants in the forum are different than the participants in the Beckett and CU forums, just like prewar card might be different than modern cards.

Frankly, I am shocked that the results show that soaking and erasing cards are acceptable. I believe in certain states, alterations of this kind must be disclosed and there may be civil penalties or criminal penalties or both if the alterations are not disclosed. I have been buying cards for a long time and I cannot remember reading a description disclosing this type of alteration. If alterations were so acceptable by the hobby at large, then I do not believe it would be a big deal to list the work done in the auction descriptions. If alterations were so acceptable, I do not believe there would be statutes mandating disclosure.

[Archive]

Posted By: MikeU

A little late, but I am in Korea:

1. Yes
2. Yes

Both based on Leon's no chemicals statement.

[Archive]

Posted By: MikeU

"If alterations were so acceptable by the hobby at large, then I do not believe it would be a big deal to list the work done in the auction descriptions. If alterations were so acceptable, I do not believe there would be statutes mandating disclosure"

Wesley,

I think the general thought of vintage collectors is soaking cards to remove scrapbook pieces and erasing lead/pen is not altering a card.

I think the same people that do not have a problem with soaking and erasing (myself included) will have significant issues with true alterations e.g. adding material, coloring and trimming.

The one item that I would like to see a poll on is soaking and pressing out creases acceptable. This falls between the soaking/erasing and the outright trimming, coloring and adding material.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Wes, there's no question that alterations do change the value of the card, and alteration that changes the value should be disclosed at sale and, in most cases, legally must.

Almost all cards I've seen first hand in albums were low grade, and it's unlikely a bidder would raise or lower their bid when finding out that the stained, creased grade poor trade card was removed from an album. Whenever a collector sees for sale a low grade card with "glue and scrap paper remnants on back," he should be able to figure out the card came from an album.

I haven't done a survey, but my guess is that the vast majority of trading cards removed from old albums grade Good to Poor, with probably more closer to Poor than Good. If you've ever seen an album with T206s or Allen & Ginters good enough to be auctioned by Mastro, you will see that many to most of the cards are in rough shape. And it wasn't uncommon for a Victorian kid to trim the cards, either to fit on the album page or for aesthetic reasons.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

My opinion is that it's downright silly to say if in 1955 a kid pasted a T206 into the pages of his book, it's wrong to remove the card. The book and the T206 aren't original together-- they have nothing to do with each other than a stupid kid glue them together. The crime, if there is one, is the kid pasting the card into the book not removing the card from the book. Removing the card is bringing the card back, or closer, to its original state.

The Darby boxes were found nailed to the walls of a barn. I suppose some would have us pray for the soul of he who dared remove those nails and take down those cards. Apparently he should have only sold a Darby box while still affixed to a barn wall.

In my opinion, the idea that a kid's paste slopped on the back of a card is an original part of the card is strange.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi David,
I think most of the Darby's were nailed to a garage here in NC, Durham to be exact, but I agree with your meaning. Be well Brian


PS I bet it's raining more here in NC than in Seattle

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

"The Darby box is in it's natural habitat, nailed to a garage in North Carolina" or "The rare Darby box is shown here in pristine condition, with the original garage still attached" sound like lines from a Monty Python skit.

Sunny in Seattle.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Gallo

1. Yes

2. Haven't decided yet


James Gallo

Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I think the most interesting thing about this poll was how few people split their votes with yes to one but no to the other. Rather than depending on the actual action taken, it seems that overall the whole topic is a matter of philosophical viewpoint.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Wesley,

The PSA folks might be overwhelmingly against soaking. But I think that it is likely that at least a third (or maybe more) of the PSA T206s have been soaked, maybe not by the guy who sent them in to grade, but at some point in time. Those cards have been through at least 3 or 4 collectors, and most likely dozens... Those collectors wouldn't have nearly as much to collect if it were not for soaking. They might be against it, but tens of thousands of cards would still be on album pages without it.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

It’s the discloser more than anything that bothers me not the soaking. I think they should be removed, and not wasted, as long as its disclosed, and their values reflected that they were removed, pressed, soaked what ever.

But the sad thing is you I and the lamp post know that very very few people are going to bring any action such as soaking up. In fact several collectors here already said they would not mention it at time of sale.

Sort of a hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil mindset.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I think I've come up with a fair compromise. The new hobby rule is: You are allowed to remove stuff from cards, but anything you remove you have to eat. For example, if you are willing to eat an entire Victorian scrap album, soak away.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Oh, that's nasty.

-Al