Erasing errant marks and......caramel vs tobacco

[barrysloate]

First off...this is my 5000th post!

That out of the way, the residue left by a light erasure is too small for me to be concerned that the card is altered. technically speaking, if you hold a card between your fingers the natural you're probably adding an infinitesimal layer of oil to it, thus altering it. But no one would actually consider that an alteration. Likewise, a pencil erasure is a virtually undetactable change to the surface.

And if nobody sees it, including TPG, then I don't really care.

[Matthew H]

I don't think a very light mark that can be easily erased should down grade a card to poor in the first place.

Erasing a mark is fine; however, the story about SGC opening a slab so a mark can be erased and a card upgraded is really strange to me. Seems like movie star treatment.

[Mikehealer]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

First off...this is my 5000th post!

Congratulations Barry, that's a lot of typing.

[barrysloate]

A lot of typing indeed.

[E93]

I put Tobacco for Old Puts, but it was a tough decision. Given that they are our only hard evidence of association with a product for the otherwise anonymous set, it seems to make sense. I'm sure E98s were categorized as early candy because many are almost identical with cards from other E sets and those that are unique still fit the basic motif of E90-1-E106 sets (especially E93, E94, and E97). And they do have a lot of apparent caramel staining. My guess is they were mostly distributed with caramel or candy, but the Old Puts should probably be categorized separately. My guess is they were a group of cards produced and distributed with a lot of different products, mostly candy, but obviously at least one tobacco product.
JimB
Edited to add: If they above is nonsensical ramblings, know that I just got back from 26 hours on airplanes and in airports from Asia.