Soaking (water only) - 1915 Cracker Jack?

[notfast]

This was one of those times where you should have left it alone.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by notfast

This was one of those times where you should have left it alone.

I said that in post 16 and was rebuked.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I said that in post 16 and was rebuked.

Yes you were unnecessarily shamed repeatedly for suggesting it. Was not too hard to see the outcome. Well on the bright side at least it was not a Jackson.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

OP was obviously too trigger-happy to soak that card without trying his hand on something else as was suggested, but it's his card and he says he's fine with the damage, so that's that.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

But I thought soaking doesn't alter a card.

And yet somehow, you still passed the bar exam?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It would be interesting if our experts weigh in on why this might have happened?

From abrasion. Not from soaking. Hope that helps.

Originally Posted by notfast

This was one of those times where you should have left it alone.

Really? You'd honestly prefer the before photo than the after photo? I think most people would definitely prefer the after pic.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

And yet somehow, you still passed the bar exam?

Go take a bath with your altered cards.

I provided you with irrefutable proof that paper getting wet and then drying fundamentally changes the structure of the paper. Soaking a card alters both the structure and the appearance of a card, which happen to be the two most fundamental aspects to card condition. So if you can play mental gymnastics to justify your alterations, more power to you. But don't insult my intelligence in the process. It is YOU who couldn't pass the bar exam with that logic.

"Hur dur, I'm altering the appearance and structure of a card to make it more valuable, hur dur, but I'm not altering it." :rollseyes:

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Go take a bath with your altered cards.

I provided you with irrefutable proof that paper getting wet and then drying fundamentally changes the structure of the paper. Soaking a card alters both the structure and the appearance of a card, which happen to be the two most fundamental aspects to card condition. So if you can play mental gymnastics to justify your alterations, more power to you. But don't insult my intelligence in the process. It is YOU who couldn't pass the bar exam with that logic.

"Hur dur, I'm altering the appearance and structure of a card to make it more valuable, hur dur, but I'm not altering it." :rollseyes:

It's almost as if you believe your own bullshit

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Go take a bath with your altered cards.

I provided you with irrefutable proof that paper getting wet and then drying fundamentally changes the structure of the paper. Soaking a card alters both the structure and the appearance of a card, which happen to be the two most fundamental aspects to card condition. So if you can play mental gymnastics to justify your alterations, more power to you. But don't insult my intelligence in the process. It is YOU who couldn't pass the bar exam with that logic.

"Hur dur, I'm altering the appearance and structure of a card to make it more valuable, hur dur, but I'm not altering it." :rollseyes:

Purists don't like to hear this, but most prewar (tobacco/candy) cards were once glued into albums and this is the reason why they survived this long. In other words, keeping them in albums is what preserved them. And soaking them is the reason we all enjoy these cards today. So, I'm all for it.

[Belfast1933]

And to put a final bow tie on my experience here with this CJ Collins… I present my lovely new SGC 1.5 Collins

I think he looks very handsome in his new Tux and I look forward to finding just the right place in my card cave for him.

My lesson learned?

If soaking, go EASY on any gentle scrubbing (lost a few letters in this process…). But also, I very much prefer the final “after” results over the “before” dirt/scuff version.

I also am reminded that, once my cards are in my collection and on display, I spend 98% of the time enjoying the front of the card - and Eddie looks great to me

[BRoberts]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I said that in post 16 and was rebuked.

Peter, how many Cracker Jacks have you held under a black light to see if they fluoresce?

[jingram058]

Back in the late 80s, when I got back into cards, blacklights and loupes weren't in wide use at all. Now I have both, and have examined all my pre-war. If any are indeed fake, they're so good I can't tell. Good enough for me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BRoberts

Peter, how many Cracker Jacks have you held under a black light to see if they fluoresce?

At least 17 but I will have to check my notes.

[Belfast1933]

Thanks again for the opinions and help with this - this card is for my PC and I happen to like the look better this way but understand it may not be the same view held by all… and that’s ok. 99% of the time, I’ll only be looking at Eddie from his front side anyway so this is largely moot.

(Now, where is that “turn off comments” button so I can help prevent this thread from deteriorating into a Net54 scrum?)

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Belfast1933

Thanks again for the opinions and help with this - this card is for my PC and I happen to like the look better this way but understand it may not be the same view held by all… and that’s ok. 99% of the time, I’ll only be looking at Eddie from his front side anyway so this is largely moot.

(Now, where is that “turn off comments” button so I can help prevent this thread from deteriorating into a Net54 scrum?)

In my opinion, it does look better, sir!

[Beercan collector]

the back wasn’t gonna look good no matter what - it’s either gonna have some paper loss or it’s gonna look like somebody wiped their butt with it