Scrap Book soaking disaster

[Runscott]

We've had quite a few collectors post here that they would NEVER attempt to soak cards. Given that consignors to auction houses often are even less knowledgeable than we are about such things, it's quite a leap to assume that the consignor knew that the cards would not soak off the pages.

It's reasonable to assume that the original owner back in the day simply chose a glue that wouldn't soak - does anyone here really think that someone in 1912 would intentionally seek out a type of glue for their scrapbook that either was or was not water-soluble? They chose glue to make their cards stick to the pages, not thinking about collectors 100 years in the future. If they abused their cards by flipping, trading or any other method, they could easily be creased or worn at the time they were glued in.

Conspiracy theories work much better for today's modern money-oriented people than for 1912's simpler card collectors who weren't worried about investment value of every single item they came across.

[1880nonsports]

or auction house that handled the original book and likely any pages would have known whether the cards would soak - either having tried it or knowing second hand. PERIOD. A consignor who is likely unfamiliar with such ephemera is another thing.
As to when someone might have glued such cards onto the pages is anyone's guess - a leap of faith given the limited information. I would suggest it was likely NOT close to the time they were issued but more likely a second or third hand accumulation of cards. Doubtful it was done recently in an attempt to create a deception. Of course the devil must be given his due - I've seen much worse.
As for the OP taking his shot - most here that have done any volume of buying/selling have taken shots only to be disappointed at times. Count me among them on one or two similar transactions. I have also come out on the positive side of a few including a Goodwin Champions album. I empathize (not that it does much for the OP) - just want to suggest he's not alone. The more EDUCATED shots a knowledgeable person takes - the greater the likelihood of success - at least that's the proverbial carrot.
The "cards" still represent a nice selection depending on one's level of expectation. Life usually gives you the test and then the lesson. As long as we can learn from what we've done - that's the rub...............

[Enfuego]

I feel your frustrations

[Jeffrompa]

I know some here are very good at soaking but I have had similar results . Maybe there is a better solution/liquid to soak in .

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

PERIOD.

Well, I guess that ends the conversation. Remind me not to use that technique.

[1880nonsports]

I accept I may have chosen a poor manner to express what is obviously my opinion and conjecture. I will also agree that sometimes what goes on in life defies description. Just difficult to believe that people who deal in an environment where such items and similar are bought and sold - wouldn't have done some sort of due diligence with regard to extraction - as it's only sell the sizzle and not the steak AFTER it's been determined the cards can't be removed without damage. They would be worth significantly more if they could be rescued.............

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

I accept I may have chosen a poor manner to express what is obviously my opinion and conjecture. I will also agree that sometimes what goes on in life defies description. Just difficult to believe that people who deal in an environment where such items and similar are bought and sold - wouldn't have done some sort of due diligence with regard to extraction - as it's only sell the sizzle and not the steak AFTER it's been determined the cards can't be removed without damage. They would be worth significantly more if they could be rescued.............

I understand, I just don't agree with your assessment. Here at Net54 we tend to assume that if someone roles the dice with an item and loses, someone maliciously attempted to screw them. On the other hand, if they role the dice and win, the seller was ignorant. Why can't a seller simply be ignorant in both situations?

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I understand, I just don't agree with your assessment. Here at Net54 we tend to assume that if someone roles the dice with an item and loses, someone maliciously attempted to screw them. On the other hand, if they role the dice and win, the seller was ignorant. Why can't a seller simply be ignorant in both situations?

Scott, I think you may have missed the information in post #8 where a previous owner of the scrapbook pages knew that the cards were glued via cement to the pages, and his attempts at removal resulted in the cards being skinned.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by glchen

Scott, I think you may have missed the information in post #8 where a previous owner of the scrapbook pages knew that the cards were glued via cement to the pages, and his attempts at removal resulted in the cards being skinned.

Yes, I missed that - thanks.

We could guess who omitted the 'non-removable cement' information, but it would only be a guess. I still disagree that AH's always know their consigned items as well as we feel they should. I've bought upside-down back T206's included in lots and I've bought rare photographs that weren't even included in the auction lot description. Sometimes AH's are just taking what they are given and moving it - especially if it doesn't appear to have much value.

On the other hand, they do lie sometimes as well

[1880nonsports]

encounter a contrary opinion, try and clarify our position, listen to the response, and then agree to disagree. I hope that's where we are. I understand that such situations exist where things just pass through hands without diligence - I just don't think that's the case here. The question of ethical responsibility for disclosure should someone along the chain have known they wouldn't soak is altogether another matter. Most people do the right thing or they don't. It is a question I would have asked - and have on a few FeeBay listings over the years.
It's like a guy who primarily sells graded cards. If they have an expensive card listed ungraded - it raises a flag. May be nothing wrong but just seems a little off. If a big auction house had a scrapbook with valuable cards in it - and they were being offered that way without any mention EITHER WAY as to soakable or not - it raises a flag. May be nothing wrong but just seems a little off. I agree this is just MY take and opinion.
What was lost in my response was the desire to assuage the OP's despair or at least let them know they weren't alone in having gambled and lost and that they should take it just as that whether or not they ever try again. It's a chat board after all and I am just chatting........