Cards that CAN and CANNOT be soaked?!

[yanks87]

I am going to preface my statement by saying that I understand the difference between the card scandals running rampant in the high grade cards currently and this, but I still have an issue how this thread is so openly accepted and people who trim, recolor, or alter cards are blasted. If the card is staying in your collection, you can do whatever you want to it, the gray area comes in when the intent is to resell the card. Soaking cards compromises the genuine integrity of the card for one benefit, to remove part of it's story to increase the value. Apples to apples with pressing, trimming and recoloring. In a truly benign question, can someone explain how this is any different than a non-acceptable method of card alteration?

[conor912]

Originally Posted by yanks87

If the card is staying in your collection, you can do whatever you want to it, the gray area comes in when the intent is to resell the card.

Many would argue that the latter (the card finding it's way back on to the open market) is inevitable. None of us really "own" anything. The cards belong to the hobby, and each of us is just a shepherd of our respective collections, therefore none of us have the right to alter anything for next "owner", regardless of how far in the future that is.

There is also the argument that undoing something that was done (removing glue, paper, writing, etc) is not as looked down on as, say, trimming.

It gets pretty mind-f*cky. I think that political leanings also have something to do with it.

That was a joke, people. Lighten up.

I personally think it's dangerous to subscribe to an all or nothing approach for anything. I'm generally a "don't touch it" guy, but concede there are instances where action might be prudent.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by conor912

It gets pretty mind-f*cky.

Well put, that is why I had to lob it out there. All that said, I buy cards that look like they were not only chewed on by the dog, but fully processed, if you catch my meaning. It is one of the posts that when it comes back to the surface doesn't sit super well with me in a hypocritical sense. But again, what the hell do I know, just had to ask the question.

[marcdelpercio]

Originally Posted by yanks87

I am going to preface my statement by saying that I understand the difference between the card scandals running rampant in the high grade cards currently and this, but I still have an issue how this thread is so openly accepted and people who trim, recolor, or alter cards are blasted. If the card is staying in your collection, you can do whatever you want to it, the gray area comes in when the intent is to resell the card. Soaking cards compromises the genuine integrity of the card for one benefit, to remove part of it's story to increase the value. Apples to apples with pressing, trimming and recoloring. In a truly benign question, can someone explain how this is any different than a non-acceptable method of card alteration?

Here's the analogy I would give on this one. Imagine that you had a 1963 Corvette that you are going to sell as completely factory original. On the way to the auction, a bird poops on the hood of the car. What do you do? Clearly, most people would say that they would take a wet cloth and wipe it off. Is the car altered or any less original at that point? Certainly not.

Now imagine instead that before you took it to the auction, you touched up some paint scratches and replaced some small pieces of bumper trim that were damaged. Is the car less original then? Yes, obviously it is as you have added/altered original parts of the car with substances that were NOT part of the original composition.

To me, that is the simple difference between soaking a card and altering it otherwise.

[yanks87]

OK, I kinda get that analogy, but at the same time I think it only holds up for something like rubber cement which can in most cases be rubbed off (hey now!), but when the card as a whole has to be dipped to remove glue, I think it gets in the gray area of doing overall damage to the integrity of the card.

So using your analogy, you would clean the bird poop off the '63 by submerging the entire car in water to remove it. Though you have removed the blemish, you have compromised the card as a whole in the process.

Splitting hairs I guess, but I feel it is a bigger deal than just a surface removal, and either way, the card is altered in my opinion.

[marcdelpercio]

Well, actually I would cover the car in water to clean it quite often. I mean, that's basically the definition of washing a car, right? If you were to purchase the car in my analogy, would you expect that the seller should disclose every time the car was washed in the past 60 years? Do you consider that "compromising" the car?

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

Well, actually I would cover the car in water to clean it quite often. I mean, that's basically the definition of washing a car, right? If you were to purchase the car in my analogy, would you expect that the seller should disclose every time the car was washed in the past 60 years? Do you consider that "compromising" the car?

That's where the analogy falls apart to a certain degree. Because a car is sheet metal, covered in paint and layers of clear coat to protect against the elements, "cleaning it" is really not as intrusive as it would be if the body was made out of a substance that was not water resistant.

I get what you are saying though, but I still see it as a level of compromise when you go through the post and see how many cards cannot be soaked. They are made from paper, pressed pulp that when gets wet, can begin to degrade even if the slightest bit.

In my book, that is something that should be disclosed if the intent is to improve the appearance and value of the card. Similar to the way that comic books, when restored and graded have a different designation/value. It is done in fine arts all the time, during the restoration/cleaning processes on old pieces of art in the name of preservation. So I don't have a problem with the practice as much as I do with the venom thrown at other practices, when soaking in my book, is another tool of improving/altering cards and profiting from the result. Again, all my opinion, just wanted to hear from other folks so I do appreciate you chiming in!

[marcdelpercio]

Originally Posted by yanks87

That's where the analogy falls apart to a certain degree. Because a car is sheet metal, covered in paint and layers of clear coat to protect against the elements, "cleaning it" is really not as intrusive as it would be if the body was made out of a substance that was not water resistant.

That's a fair point, but I feel that the purpose of this thread is to determine what cards can be soaked WITHOUT intrusively degrading the composition. When I soak a card, my goal is to simply remove things that HAVE degraded it and were not a part of the card to begin with. That is where I draw the line with alterations. To add color or trim away a part of the card that was initially there is fundamentally changing the original integrity of the card. Soaking dirt or added paper off of it is not. It is possible pretty close to 100% of the time with enough scrutiny and technology to detect trimming/rebuilding/recoloring. It is not possible at all to detect a card that has been soaked in water. And the reason for that is because that card has NOT been altered from its original state.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

That's a fair point, but I feel that the purpose of this thread is to determine what cards can be soaked WITHOUT intrusively degrading the composition. When I soak a card, my goal is to simply remove things that HAVE degraded it and were not a part of the card to begin with. That is where I draw the line with alterations. To add color or trim away a part of the card that was initially there is fundamentally changing the original integrity of the card. Soaking dirt or added paper off of it is not. It is possible pretty close to 100% of the time with enough scrutiny and technology to detect trimming/rebuilding/recoloring. It is not possible at all to detect a card that has been soaked in water. And the reason for that is because that card has NOT been altered from its original state.

True, but I did see a lot of W551's recently that were very obviously soaked as the inks bled all over the place, it was a mess of blue and red, great in modern art, not so good in this case. They were slabbed and sold. So I will agree, soaking is the one of the least of the nefarious things that can be done to cards, if it is nondestructive, in order to restore or preserve the original card, but in my book (very thin with a lot of pictures), it is still "meddling."

[conor912]

Originally Posted by yanks87

OK, I kinda get that analogy, but at the same time I think it only holds up for something like rubber cement which can in most cases be rubbed off (hey now!), but when the card as a whole has to be dipped to remove glue, I think it gets in the gray area of doing overall damage to the integrity of the card.

So using your analogy, you would clean the bird poop off the '63 by submerging the entire car in water to remove it. Though you have removed the blemish, you have compromised the card as a whole in the process.

Splitting hairs I guess, but I feel it is a bigger deal than just a surface removal, and either way, the card is altered in my opinion.

What would you say to do about a card that had water-based paint spilled on it? The aesthetic value is ruined. You now have 3 options: 1) throw it away 2) keep it as-is or 3) soak it in water and get back its aesthetic value. Then what about oil-based paint that would require solvent? I'm not saying there's a right or wrong, necessarily, though I think that's where most would probably (at least claim to) draw the line.

Everyone falls on a different place on the ethical spectrum for everything, so I try not to judge, but I think it's safe to say that the majority of people want the things they own (and/or are trying to sell) to be as nice and presentable as possible.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by conor912

What would you say to do about a card that had water-based paint spilled on it? The aesthetic value is ruined. You now have 3 options: 1) throw it away 2) keep it as-is or 3) soak it in water and get back its aesthetic value. Then what about oil-based paint that would require solvent? I'm not saying there's a right or wrong, necessarily, though I think that's where most would probably (at least claim to) draw the line.

Everyone falls on a different place on the ethical spectrum for everything, so I try not to judge, but I think it's safe to say that the majority of people want the things they own (and/or are trying to sell) to be as nice and presentable as possible.

That sounds like my kind of card! I am definitely on the spectrum, or at least I have been told as such. If a card had something dropped on it, it is up to the owner what to do with it. Does that ruin the aesthetic to me, no, but to others it may. Tobacco Stains, Caramel Stains, hell kid's writing positions on cards provides more validation than any grading could ever to me, but that is to me. I would NEVER take a solvent to a card, or for that matter soak a card to remove glue, for fear what it would do to the actual card. I have a feeling I am in the minority, but there is an aura of hypocrisy that this post exists at the same time as the other post about buffing newer card surfaces to get better grades. Apples to apples in my book. But again, my opinion and thank you for the reply!

[conor912]

I guess when you think about, cardboard is essentially wood pounded into a slurry with water, then pressed and dried. Is temporarily reintroducing water back into it really changing it? If you wash and dry a dirty shirt, have you changed the shirt?

Now we’re back to the mind-f*cky part

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by conor912

I guess when you think about, cardboard is essentially wood pounded into a slurry with water, then pressed and dried. Is temporarily reintroducing water back into it really changing it? If you wash and dry a dirty shirt, have you changed the shirt?

Now we’re back to the mind-f*cky part

EXACTLY. And yes you have changed the shirt, fibers break down during every wash, but that might be going down a rabbit hole it's best to stay out of!!