Soaking a card?

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Frank wrote:

"you need to collect Goudeys or Old Judges, they don't soak."

I can't speak for Old Judges, but Goudeys ABSOLUTELY "soak". I've soaked glue off the back of '33 Goudeys and I've seen and owned '38 Goudeys that have been soaked. I've also seen Bowmans, Topps, Diamond Stars, E cards, T cards, and N cards that have been soaked.

Furthermore, I think your comment about the "mindless pursuit of collecting graded cards" is irrelevant to the discussion. I know you like to take pokes at people who collect cards in slabs, but, at least in my mind, this has nothing to do with the issue. The issue, in my mind, has to do with the intent to deceive - whether you're deceiving a grader, a buyer, or just someone viewing your collection has little relevance to me.

I have a '33 Goudey Billy Herman - gorgeous card. Perfect centering, decent corners, vivid color, wrinkle right across the middle. Without the wrinkle, it's a 6. With the wrinkle, it's a 3. I guess I could have tried to take the wrinkle out, but I elected not to - it's still a beautiful card, and I'm not that concerned with the number on the holder. So I had it graded, and I enjoy it every time I view my collection.



-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: andy becker

i guess i am the strawman, or to quote reggie....perhaps i'm the straw that stirs the drink

i agree with jim 100%. don't alter cards. love them the way they are or upgrade.....

this is a very slippery slope......any alterations, whether dectactable or not, are unacceptable.

i cannot believe we are discussing "acceptable" alterations.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

How is removing glue,paper, or tobacco any different from removing a crease! Natural state of wear. WHat about all that glue and paper that was once on the card. That feels far worse than this. The card once had a huge chunk of glue and paper on the back and now it doesnt. A card once had a crease and now it doesnt. How is this right but the other is wrong. Doesnt feel right to me. If you say altering a card from its natural state is wrong. Then all of it is wrong!

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Bump in a grade? What do you think removing paper or glue does to the grade!!! If you think removing glue or tape from a card is ok, then you must accept removing a crease. Its the same thing!

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

The common thinking, by most but not all, is that if you take something off of a card that wasn't supposed to be there, and there are no remnants left behind, then it's ok. I agree and that is all I have ever done. Soaking and regular erasing of pencil marks are ok by me and I don't care if someone does it to a card I am buying. If I can't tell anything was done I don't care.....Not a purist attitude but a collector one.....imo..

edited to say I still think it's wrong to soak wrinkles/creases out.....

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

"If putting cards between books or in a hard case does that then I am against it."

When you have a card with a crease, then by definition some amount of force was applied to the card which caused it to be bent in two or more different directions. Thus, the card, when creased, was not flat. By flattening the card in a toploader or screw down -- or even just in your fingers after the bend -- you are reducing the effect and appearance of the crease, even if the crease is still visible under proper lighting. Over time, this flatness would only improve the appearance of the crease, but I am unaware of any studies done on this point.

But I really appreciate all of the input here. The only way we're ever going to identify a unified set of principles about baseball cards is to explore the minds of the collectors beyond the initial trigger response, which is "alterations are taboo." Well, why? And how far are you willing to go before you think you've crossed that line? And, what is that line? Why is it different from one sophisticated collector to the next?

This would make a great article, but I suspect many collectors that favor water soaking and pressing would fear retaliation by the collectors that view such practices, though clearly accepted by many sophisticated collectors, as taboo.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

But like they said, if you press out a crease and you cant tell it has been done. then is it ok? Removing something that wasnt suposed to be there. It was part of its journey to be placed in a scrap book. Like a crease. They both can be removed. No wear or glue was ever suposed to be there but they are. Natural state should stay. Even if in a book. All is wrong. I feel removing a card from paper is just as bad as anything

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

What if the card in question was once glued to an album. Then I soaked it and removed the glue. Which has been quoted as being acceptable. now while I did this the once crease that was 2 mm long vanished. What do you do now. Is the card now altered or just part of removing it from the album and restoring it to how it was suposed to be? Glue and paper free.
What do you do now, Re crease the card?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Leon,

I find that awful hard to believe.

Sorry but I would have to have that proven to me before I accept that. We have not known each other until recently but I have been involved in the hobby for over 20 yeras and certainly my experience has been that most think that ANY form of card alteration and doctoring is wrong.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: steve f

Peterose, You made your point several times. Your frequent responses may skew an honest tally. I'm interested in others posts. Please wait for other opinions to come in then criticize. Thanks. Steve F

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Most collectors I know - and I say most, not all - feel the way Leon does about soaking off paper and gunk.

Most collectors I know also feel that taking out creases and wrinkles is wrong.

Why the difference? I don't know. I can't articulate it myself.

That being said, one thing I DO know is that the altered cards are out there - whether soaked, pressed, trimmed, or otherwise - and most of us probably have a few in our collections. I think there's a direct correlation between the age and condition of the card, and the probability that it has been altered - meaning the older and higher grade the card, the more likely there's been an alteration.

Just my opinion.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

We'll see......see new thread poll....I think you are going to find it hard to believe....but maybe I have it all wrong....best regards...your friendly pot stirrer....

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

I think I can articulate the basis for Al's position which seems similar to my own. Scrapbook material is EXTRA material, not part of the card, so if you can remove it without altering the surface of the card, then you are not really tampering with the card itself. However, a crease is something that affects the surface of a card and is presumably something acquired in its natural life, so removing a crease truly is altering a card to improve its condition by removing wear it has incurred. Does that make sense?

Jim, I certainly respect yours and Andy's absolutist position, although I think I can draw the line where I draw it without getting onto that old slippery slope. I think as a practical matter too one must recognize that a whole lot of T cards were stored in scrapbooks.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Leon,

Perhaps so but I am on this board mainly to learn so it is what it is.

I would truly be disappointed however if it turned out you were right.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

I wanted to make a comment on Leon's poll, specifically with respect to the removal of ink.

In general, I don't do it. I stay away with cards with writing on them - I only have two: A T206 Matty and an Abner Doubleday CDV.

However, I also feel that if a card was marked and the mark was removed in such a way that it was ABSOLUTELY IMPERCEPTIBLE, and left no erasure marks or scrubs, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'm sure I own more than a few. However, I think there are some important caveats:

1) E121 Herpolsheimers. ALL of these cards had pencil marks on them. When I see one without pencil marks, it makes me insane.

2) Any prewar card with a rubber stamp. I don't want these stamps removed, no matter where they came from. I feel like these stamps are part of the card - whether they're an ad stamp or the stamp of someone's name.

How's THAT for wishy-washy?

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Yes I have, but I still havent heard anything about them.
I would just like to hear the thoughts on soaking a card off an album and then it somehow removed a crease. Then is it wrong

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Peter:

Your articulation of the point is about as close to what I feel as you're going to get. You and I have discussed this issue at length many times, and I agree we're on the same page.

EDIT - to Peterose, to answer the question you've asked a couple of times. I'd find it hard to envision a situation where a crease can be removed without any sort of pressure put on it. The process of soaking gunk off a card usually doesn't involve pressure - just soaking, maybe a little rubbing. However, if a crease mysteriously came out of a card I was soaking for the purpose of removing gunk, then I'd have to consider that an exception, and not the rule, and so I'd live with it.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

Count me as one who is against all alterations. IMHO, is soaking tolerable--no. Is pressing tolerable--absolutely not.

I can envision a few alterations that might be tolerated, but they would all involve very low end cards, and any sale would require disclosure, unless the alteration were obvious. I could see applying a good old fashioned eraser to a card with offensive writing, so long as a sign of the erasure remained. I doubt I would ever own such a card, unless it was a filler or extremely scarce, but if so, I would make sure you could see signs of erasure with the naked eye. I also could see filling in a pin hole with the card's surrounding fibers--again, this would be making an already low end card less ugly.

Finally, and I know this is slippery, but if I ding a corner taking a card out of its holder, I have no problem with using my thumb and forefinger to try and "press" it back to the way it was. Some other steps to improve corners are tougher calls for me.

On a somewhat related topic, I do believe that the thinking of this board has changed over time, as has the thinking of some long-time members of this board and its predecessor. I have watched this with interest over the years. Maybe it's evolution, maybe just coming out of the closet, maybe keepin up with the Jones', maybe just my imagination. Still, I swear if one were to take the time to study all the old threads from this and the Full Count Board, one would see how the thinking about alterations (and grading companies, too, for that matter) has changed here.

[Archive]

Posted By: martindl

Always an interesting topic and always one that elicits differing arguments as to the validity or not.

I have an opinion but it applies to me only - and without trying to sound self righteous, though it likely will, I don't think its about cards and creases and paper, its about personal integrity. I won't call it ethics, because its obvious from this thread that there can be no standard - what some people think is ethical, others do not. I don't belive anyone can be judge and jury on this one.

Personal integrity is just that - personal. There is no standard, its not a measure to judge others, its what applies to each of us based on our beliefs, upbringing, etc.

I live my life to my standard of integrity (i didn't say higher than anyone elses) - whether thats a resume, selling a car, selling a card, someone ringing something up wrong in a grocery store, etc. I don't think there are times when my personal standards apply and others where they don't - for me its an all the time thing regardless of the situation.

As to soaking, pressing, altering, etc. its not for me, based on the above. I do feel quite sure that I have cards that others have alterered but if they didn't tell me about it, and the graders can't detect it, then I can't do much about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Todd,

How would you say it has changed over the years?

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I would say that there is a much more stated tolerance for doing things to a card now than previously. When I looked at the informal poll, it was running about 50-50 on whether soaking and removing marks was acceptable, maybe a little more toward acceptable. A couple of years or so ago, I believe it would have been about 20% in favor, 80% against, give or take. Maybe it was just that the stated opposition was more vocal back then, but I don't think so--I think if you studied the posts carefully, you'd see that some frequent posters then and now have changed positions. I know of one off the top of my head, but will not divulge his name either here or privately. It's not that big a deal, people of course can change their views over time, and who knows, maybe I remain the unenlightened one. I pass no judgments, I merely believe this board has become far more accepting of changes made to cards than it was a couple or few years back.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Thanks Todd--puzzling to me why but thats what it is.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I have to say that so far I am surprised at the poll. I thought it was heavily weighted towards my way of thinking...not that I will ever go with the flow just to go with it.....so, so far I am surprised....Maybe I was wrong? First time for everything....and btw, I don't see me changing my view on the subject.....as I did on the F vs E card thread.....best regards.....your servant...

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Leon,

I am surprised too--perhaps more than you.

I can't see me changing my point of view either.

My experience comes from the graded card world where people got their cards graded to avoid cards that had been altered or restored in some way. My sense is that they would be heavily against both of these. I had thought that true vintage collectors would be as well.

At least I feel good that the view on taking out creases is unanimous although maybe someone would be afraid to say it is okay at this point?

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: John

I’m a little tossed up on this issue. I do find it funny though, or at least a little odd.

I have a few of the Harris Collection Cards, which I won in 2000, as well as a handful of high-grade T206’s. While not the amount or extent of high-grade material that other collectors have.

A lot of collectors here if I remember correctly don’t collect high-grade cards for the below reasons. Including you Paul (T206collector)

1.They don’t look real, compared to well loved cards.
2.They have most likely been altered in a way, which allowed them to become high end.
3.Price bubble will burst soon, on the overpaying and number chasing game.
4.They can’t afford to keep up with the Jones’s.

While I agree with #3 to a point, and unfortunately for the time being I am held in a holding pattern around #4. I find it hypocritical of some of the views expressed in this topic.

So removing paper, pencil, glue and creases,is ok for some. If you end up with that EX+ butterfly from its G-VG cocoon.

However how many Harris type Cards and other high-end cards have been altered in your own words?

What’s the difference? How many PSA 7,8,9’s had glue or paper on them at one time, hence they were altered to obtain that high-end grade, in your own words your against that, so you shy away from those pre-war blazers,even criticize those who do collect them to a degree. But altering a card to EX in your own collection is ok? The only difference in my mind was the quality of the material pre-altering. The situation and methods are the same, the outcome different.

It’s ok to steal a pack of gum, just not rob a bank? Where do you draw the line, and who foots the bill for you decisions in the end?

Not a goodie goodie, just I have to agree with Jim where does it stop, a little soak, a little press, why not a little trim? After all, the card is oversized the factory didn’t want them this size.

I will say that I have less a problem with erasing pencil, as long it’s disclosed to me. However my gut says I’ll be the last to know, and thousands of dollars later on a card that’s not cool. IMO

Just my thoughts.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

John I am not sure I see any inconsistency. My fear of high grade prewar cards is not that they have been soaked out of scrapbooks but that they have had wrinkles removed, or have had corners spooned out, or worse. When I was collecting high grade prewar I just saw too many cards that even to my eye (which is far less well-trained than most of the guys here) looked odd in one way or another (they were significantly short, the thickness disappeared at the corners when you looked at them sideways, etc. etc.). But for reasons stated I don't have a problem with soaking if its purpose and effect is just to remove extra material without degrading the surface of the card in any way. Although again, I have the highest respect for people with a more absolutist point of view, and as in anything in life once one moves away from an absolutist position it is hard to be perfectly consistent.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Peter well taken I understand. For the record I don’t collect ultra-high end either. But mostly because of that damn Powerball, how many tickets does a guy have to buy!

I hear you loud and clear, however wouldn’t a PSA 8 that was covered in glue at one time, be almost as deceptive as a guy trimming and soaking?

Good points Peter, noted.

John

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

John, I definitely don't think so.

If I found a discount-priced bunch of oversized Goudeys that could be trimmed down to sharpen their corners, or that had wrinkles that could be pressed out, I probably wouldn't buy them.

If I found a discount-priced scrapbook from 1933 that had a bunch of brand-new Goudeys glued to the pages that could be soaked off, I'd jump all over them.

Why? I don't know. I will refer you back to Peter's posts, as I've elected to make him my official spokesperson on topics relating to card alteration.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

John, I would guess that any card that was handled enough to have been stuck in a scrapbook with glue or whatever substance would no longer have been NM/NT anyway even aside from the glue. I could very well be wrong on that, but my guess is the cards that have genuinely survived in that condition were more or less unhandled or stored in some other way. How's that for fighting the hypothetical? But that said, if a pristine or nearly pristine card was glued into a scrapbook, and retained its NM MT qualities otherwise, and you could get it out of the scrapbook and get the glue off just with water and leave the surface just as it was before, then I don't think that would trouble me really.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I think your Goudey example brings things into sharp focus. I wonder the various boardmembers' views if they each found a scrapbook page of beautiful goudeys, T-206s or whatever.

1. What a cryin shame these are glued into a book. I think I'll pass.
2. What a cryin shame these are glued into a book. Still, I'll buy it and keep the cards on the page.
3. What a cryin shame these are glued into a book. Still, I'll take 'em out of the book and keep 'em, glue and paper on the back as is.
4. Hey, I can soak these puppies and have some primo cards, of course, for my own enjoyment only.
5. Hey, I can soak these puppies and have some primo cards, which I can submit or sell as high grade.

If number 5, would you disclose the soaking--why or why not?

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Al, well taken I respect your thoughts.

I would like to make clear I’m not saying soaking & trimming are complete equals. Nor am I advocating either.

However the point of a NRMT card is that it has survived all these years without being trimmed, glued, soaked etc. At least it is to me, perhaps I’m in the minority wont be the first time. In fact if I bought and paid full price for a NRMT card to find out it was covered in glue at one time, and soaked off. I would be just as mad if I found out the card was trimmed. I would equally frown upon the person who sold it to me if they did not disclose such information upon purchase.

To me working on a card in anyway is altering or repairing it. In the art world repairs happen all the time, and most are so perfect you would never know. But it almost always lowers the value of that work. I think the same should apply in our little world.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

This is all very interesting and I'm not getting anything done at work.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

I guess where I would part company with John is over the definition of alteration. Maybe it's just semantics, but I can see where removing extra material without degrading the surface could be considered something short of alteration. What, if fact, is "altered" in such a case? One can always posit absurd examples, but surely not even the most ardent anti restorationist would argue with blowing dust off a card before putting it into a holder. Now suppose it was something that you couldn't blow off but had to flick off with a fingernail. Alteration? To me paper removal with water is more on that spectrum than on the crease removal/spooning/trimming spectrum.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve f

al·ter (ôltr) Pronunciation Key
v. al·tered, al·ter·ing, al·ters
v. tr.

1. To change or make different; modify: altered my will.
2. To adjust (a garment) for a better fit.
3. To castrate or spay.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...that turns on the disclosure element.

I think I've beaten this point into the ground, but why disclose something that isn't there -- is and will always be undetectable. The reason people want a disclosure, in my opinion, is not so they can decide if a card has been changed, but if it has been undetectably changed.

More to the point, if the card has been graded by PSA, SGC or GAI, then I really do not think any disclosure is needed. That's the beauty of 3d party grading. I would rather have SGC's final word on a card than yours. Why? For a number of reasons, including, I suppose primarily, the liquidity of the card is not dependent on your opinion.

Finally, I think Wonkaticket is right that there is a parallel or crossover here between high grade lovers and the SGC 40-60 and below crowd. I do not buy high grade T206 cards -- i.e., higher than SGC 80 -- because of a presumption of alteration I bestow on those cards. But when I say alteration, let me be clear -- I'm not talking about soaking and removing paper/glue, which I am sure is why some cards are quite high grade (that is, they were kept in albums all those years with sharp corners, white borders and no creases). I am, rather, talking about, almost exclusively, trimming, i.e., the taking away of cardboard from the card after it leaves the factory. This is universally disliked by collectors.

But, perhaps those that want all of their cards to be PSA 7 and higher, may be a little bit more, say, uptight about former/hidden/undetectable flaws in their cardboard. Sort of a virgin fantasy, but applied to baseball cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

“I would like to make clear I’m not saying soaking & trimming are complete equals. Nor am I advocating either.”

I think I stated that above, certainly one is more obtrusive than the other. Removing glue is more than cleaning to me; the glue wasn’t there when it left the factory in 1909. When added later life the value of that card dropped IMO. Removed or not the card was not as found, and should be fully disclosed and should lower the value.

I think a good example is the car-collecting world. Buyers pay big bucks for factory exact cars, in other words no changes all original parts, paint etc. If you bought a Duesenberg that was blue, and upon closer inspection you found the original color to be green, stripping and repainting it does not make it original again.

Where does this stop? Why don’t we all clean our PB backs to get rid of those stains etc? I don’t collect coins, but is ok to polish out scratches in coins? Does it affect their value?

Peter please clarify, are you saying if you bought a NRMT-EX card for market value on that type of card, only to find out a week ago it was GD at best. You would have no problem and be happy with the purchase? Would you disclose or pass on to the next buyer with no mention of your findings?

Just curious?

[Archive]

Posted By: John

One more question, from what we know. The method for soaking to remove glue & paper etc. is virtually the same, in which you would go about removing a crease correct?

So who’s to say by cleaning and or removing glue etc. that you are or could be altering the card in the process? Seems like a Pandora’s box that could be why most would not disclose. Seems hard to prove “I was just cleaning the back, had no intention of removing any creases and the card was crease free when I began the process”.

Kind of like your wife finding you in bed with another women, “honey this isn’t what it looks like I can explain!”

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

To bring in elements of another thread, I don't think you can really remove a crease or wrinkle without adding pressure. I don't apply any pressure if I'm soaking a card - it's purely soaking and perhaps some rubbing.

Once I soaked a card for too long and ADDED wrinkles, which sucked. But I can't see how you can remove a wrinkle without doing something besides purely soaking it.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

If you soak without pressing the card will warp. You have to dry it between two pieces of paper and then beneath a stack of books (or something akin).

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Understood.

I'm talking about the kind of pressure that would take out a wrinkle. My experience has been that sticking a wet card inside a thick book will not do that. Perhaps yours is different.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

John not sure I understand the question, what is the reason the card is GD as opposed to NM, is is because it started off with glue and therefore really was only GD to begin with, or that a crease came back, or simply that the seller overgraded it?

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

"My experience has been that sticking a wet card inside a thick book will not [take out a wrinkle."

I actually think that may be true, but I believe I have seen instances were the wrinkle or crease was ameliorated some, if not wholly removed. As much as this is obviously a taboo on this Board, I do think that research may be warranted. Of course, anyone that conducts such research and reports on the results runs the risk of being labeled a card doctor, from whom people won't want to buy or trade cards from. Perhaps if the results were fully disclosed the results would be different.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Suppose I took an identical card, graded for the sake of example 7 by any one of the major grading companies. I auction it on four different occasions. Hypo 1, I just give the grade and a scan. Hypo 2, I give the grade, a scan, and a glowing description. Hypo 3, I give the grade, the scan, the description, but add that I removed scrapbook material before submitting but it is now undetectable, as shown by the grade. Hypo 4, same as 3 except I add that I soaked and pressed out a small wrinkle before submitting but it is now undetectable, as shown by the grade. I would bet that especially if it was a desirable card, the prices in all four scenarios would not differ significantly.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I agree and I would pay the same... which may not be the prevailing sentiment...but it's mine. To each their own.....heck, I've got better stuff to worry about than if my vintage card had something done to it that is totally unnoticeable....

[Archive]

Posted By: John

But were talking every day baseball cards, hell even the most elusive T206’s there are certainly more than one of. I would have to say you would see some price differences in those auction listings especially upon full discloser. I’m hoping that people would bid accordingly knowing that the only reason it’s a 7 is because someone worked it. I would also hope that it wouldn’t even obtain that 7 because the card does not deserve the grade after being worked. Hell isn’t that the whole point these plastic slabbing Sob’s are here in the hobby now? To weed this stuff out, not decide what level of working it is ok and what’s not?? That’s why your scenario makes no sense to me.

Do you think after being soaked and worked it deserves the grade Peter?

I guess where you and I differ Peter is I am pretty much a black & white guy. Doing anything to improve the quality and value of an item to me is doctoring, no matter how innocent the terms.

If the card due to you efforts is more valuable. Congrats you have doctored a card period. You can spin it to say it wasn’t meant to be there. It was to increase my viewing pleasure and make the card more attractive in my collection etc. The guy who trims them is also looking to make them more attractive, as is the guy with black marker on the N300’s. He’s making them more attractive to buyers for more $.

Changing anything on that card that was different than from the day you found it, is doctoring a card and in some small way makes you a card doctor. Now replace the glue and or wrinkle when you sell and I’ll eat my own words, and type a formal apology.

I respect your views Peter I do, just having a hard time wrapping my mind around them. Nothing personal, and this isn’t just addressed to you. You and I just seem to be typing to each other.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Crandell

Peter,

I disagree.

I would not bid on it in cases 3 and 4 and it sounds like at least 30-40% would not either. Even those who think that card doctoring is fine I bet most would not bid as much.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Leon,

So your of the hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil Monkeys huh?

I respect that and if it works for you great. I just don’t buy it though it sounds as if your saying as long as I cant tell, its ok. So if I were to devise a new method of trimming cards today that was undetectable and told you later after you got and paid for your expensive type card. You would be ok with that? It only matters if someone else can tell?

Regards,

John

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

I do not mean to lend my approval to any of this by my hypothetical. Personally, as I have stated, soaking does not really bother me for the reasons many have stated, but crease removal does and I PERSONALLY would avoid scenario 4 totally. I am just stating my admittedly cynical views as to what I think would happen in the market, because I think there are enough people buying cards, UNLIKE Jim and yourself and others to be sure, who care more about the label than anything else and they would bid the card up to the same levels. Just my opinion and I hope I am wrong.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

John as to your point about the scenario making no sense, I firmly believe many many cards that have had wrinkles taken out of them and worse are making their way into high number holders. It's debatable what percentage, but I don't think the grading companies have the time or the technology to detect very expert work.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I disagree also. Moreover, since it seems the prevailing view is that soaking etc. is both OK and widely done, then why is it rarely, i.e. never disclosed? Hell, if the price realized is going to be the same with or without disclosure, then why not tell it like it is? Methinks it's because it does affect the price and the number of bidders, and as Jim pointed out, a healthy percentage of people here would not buy it.