Gone with the stain. Dick Towle

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by smokelessjoe

Wonka,

Are you saying you have cleaned some of your cards with warm H20 in the past and had no issues?

Does not seem right that you are ok with removing stains with water regardless of how much or little of the stain "you think" will be removed... You can not possibly know how much stain would be removed until you are done.

I can recall over the years people posting about (how can I clean) my card and then posting the results as they turned out - then people say great job etc.... I can recall things like distilled water, drop of dawn, wrap in paper towel place in book etc... I do not recall people flipping out about it - instead handing out Kudos....?

I have never cleaned a card. About all I have ever done in terms of using water is to remove some non-sports actress cards from scrap book pages so they can fit into sheets and done this about twice in my life and only recently. In fact I bought a non-sports card from Jay recently and had him soak it off the Cambridge collection page as I was to afraid to try it.



You can still clearly make out where it was once glued..."gone with the stain" far from it....

Cheers,

John

[smokelessjoe]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

I have never cleaned a card. About all I have ever done in terms of using water is to remove some non-sports actress cards from scrap book pages so they can fit into sheets and done this about twice in my life and only recently. In fact I bought a non-sports card from Jay recently and had him soak it off the Cambridge collection page as I was to afraid to try it.



You can still clearly make out where it was once glued..."gone with the stain" far from it....

Cheers,

John

Added to the "Value" definitely....

[1880nonsports]

it's so much a personal call as to where the line gets drawn. The "hobby" seems most accepting of soaking - the rest not so much.

It's not OK to do anything to a card.
It's OK to soak a card in water to remove it from something.
It's OK to soak a card in another solution to accomplish the task.
It's OK to soak a card in water to remove surface glue or paper remains.
It's OK to soak a card in another solution to do the same thing.
It's OK to soak a card in water to remove a stain.
It's OK to soak a card in another solution that will do the same thing.

Water contains "chemicals". Water can also leave a stain and react with inks and fibers. How it will impact the future of the card is unknown but everything degrades with time. Without soaking most cards would still be in albums. Some people might think that isn't a bad thing. We are temporary keepers of this "stuff". I try and leave everything as I found it unless it's rapidly degrading or the problem is such that it prevents my enjoyment of the aesthetic elements. Everything degrades over time - I'm on "the back nine" and showing some stains myself but I wouldn't want to wittingly be the root cause of accelerating the decline of myself or stuff. I have soaked cards in distilled water and that's about as far as I am comfortable going. I haven't seen evidence 20 years later that the few cards I still have from then are any different. I have restored/conserved 2/3 posters and a tin sign. Restoration of such items is accepted and often encouraged - cards not so much.....
While the issues surrounding disclosure are thought provoking (personal responsibility) as are the "if you can't see it how do you know it's there?" arguements - I assume most of my cards have been soaked in some solution and rely on my experience to foster the self preserving belief that nearly all are unaltered otherwise. I'm fine with that.
Mostly these days I find myself grappling with the issues of personal freedom and the moral and ethical implications of making something available in the marketplace that likely will be used in a deceptive manner (recent threads on flips and empty slabs comes to mind). I have to rely on my core belief that there's no reason Dick can't offer such a service that enables others to enjoy their cards in whatever form and condition they want? I have a friend who is a board member here. He collects early base ball and he loves his cards. He took a marker and colored all the edges of his Mayo's becuse he liked the uniformity. It kills me - but they're his cards. That others have and likely will continue to use the service and not disclose what was done to enhance a particular card is troublesome but out of our control. I can only be responsible for myself and that's enough of a struggle.
I like that DT has come here (albeit with an expected outcome that he will do more business) and explained his position. Like the subject of TPG this is a divisive topic. I appreciate when threads like this come up as it helps me to define and redefine how I feel........

[GasHouseGang]

I may be repeating something already said, but water is a chemical. It's also the most widely used solvent there is. If you look up water in a chemistry book it will tell you water is called the universal solvent because more substances dissolve in water than in any other chemical. So to say I would never soak my card in a chemical, but soaking a card off a page in water is ok, is a contradiction. Your just taking a less aggressive approach.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I may be repeating something already said, but water is a chemical. It's also the most widely used solvent there is. If you look up water in a chemistry book it will tell you water is called the universal solvent because more substances dissolve in water than in any other chemical. So to say I would never soak my card in a chemical, but soaking a card off a page in water is ok, is a contradiction. Your just taking a less aggressive approach.

So if we drop the semantics, as I'm sure you've never referred to drinking a glass of water as 'drinking a glass of chemicals', so you do realize that water and [other] chemicals are generally, using the English language, typically differentiated in conversation...your point is that water is less aggressive than chemicals?

Okay, Thanks.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Runscott

So if we drop the semantics, as I'm sure you've never referred to drinking a glass of water as 'drinking a glass of chemicals', so you do realize that water and [other] chemicals are generally, using the English language, typically differentiated in conversation...your point is that water is less aggressive than chemicals?

Okay, Thanks.

Scott,

I actually agree with his stance on water being the universal solvent. Having said that, I understand that water is delivered (or collected, plumbed, etc.) differently by people, depending where they are. This likely presents in a fashion most varied when discussing "tap" water.

It appears that you know more about chemistry than some of us. Please explain why the "chemical" water I drink when in Philadelphia is different than the distilled water I buy at the grocery store.

I truly do respect you (and always have) and sincerely want your opinion on this.

Best regards,

Eric

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Scott,

I actually agree with his stance on water being the universal solvent. Having said that, I understand that water is delivered (or collected, plumbed, etc.) differently by people, depending where they are. This likely presents in a fashion most varied when discussing "tap" water.

It appears that you know more about chemistry than some of us. Please explain why the "chemical" water I drink when in Philadelphia is different than the distilled water I buy at the grocery store.

I truly do respect you (and always have) and sincerely want your opinion on this.

Best regards,

Eric

Eric, yes I do know a lot more about chemistry than some of the people posting in this thread. That doesn't mean I know much

I took 3 chemistry classes in high school, and 8 in college. I am not a chemist. My daughter ran some tests on tap water in Atlanta and told me that it was unfit to drink. The tap water in Seattle is incredibly drinkable. I also know that the bottled water you buy in the store is often no more pure than your local tap water, but I have no idea what you are drinking in Philadelphia.

Personally, I drink tap water unless it tastes bad or someone tells me it is unsafe. I don't like the taste of 'soft' water.

That's all I know, and water doesn't interest me enough for me to do additional research. Oh yeah, it has one less 'H' than Hydrogen Peroxide, and that makes a really big difference if you are debating on which one to drink.

[1880nonsports]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Scott,

I actually agree with his stance on water being the universal solvent. Having said that, I understand that water is delivered (or collected, plumbed, etc.) differently by people, depending where they are. This likely presents in a fashion most varied when discussing "tap" water.

It appears that you know more about chemistry than some of us. Please explain why the "chemical" water I drink when in Philadelphia is different than the distilled water I buy at the grocery store.

I truly do respect you (and always have) and sincerely want your opinion on this.

Best regards,

Eric

this is as far as I've gotten in the thread - but I wanted to suggest for your longevity that distilled water is not a source of water to sustain your life - as everything has been removed........

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

this is as far as I've gotten in the thread - but I wanted to suggest for your longevity that distilled water is not a source of water to sustain your life - as everything has been removed........

I think he meant 'bottled water', but I'm just guessing.

(This thread has it all)

[dstudeba]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

this is as far as I've gotten in the thread - but I wanted to suggest for your longevity that distilled water is not a source of water to sustain your life - as everything has been removed........

This is a joke right?

[dstudeba]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Scott,

I actually agree with his stance on water being the universal solvent. Having said that, I understand that water is delivered (or collected, plumbed, etc.) differently by people, depending where they are. This likely presents in a fashion most varied when discussing "tap" water.

It appears that you know more about chemistry than some of us. Please explain why the "chemical" water I drink when in Philadelphia is different than the distilled water I buy at the grocery store.

Water has the chemical formula H2O. What comes out of the tap has a variety of other molecules in it. Most common will be elements such a calcium and magnesium which stain your bathtub and sink fixtures. There are also a number of other chemicals that haven't been completely filtered out at the water plant. When water is distilled it is evaporated and condensed to remove other products which don't have the same boiling point. The distillation process and the number of distillations will determine how pure the water is.

Water is a chemical and a solvent like other solvents. They all behave differently. Water can be extremely dangerous and reactive in certain situations.

As I mentioned before, the process of soaking in water or soaking in Towle solution is detectable. It might be cost prohibitive for the grading companies to detect it, but it is detectable.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by dstudeba

As I mentioned before, the process of soaking in water or soaking in Towle solution is detectable. It might be cost prohibitive for the grading companies to detect it, but it is detectable.

The question is whether or not it matters. How detectable is water? How much does it change the item? Ask the same questions about Dick's chemicals. Drinking water is not going to kill you, but I'm guessing that drinking Dick's solution might make you a little sick. But maybe it's just like water - that's what some here would have us believe.

Common sense tells most of us that water is well, sort of safe. It washes stuff off, wood is basically made of water, and paper is made from wood, etc., etc. But let's not let common sense confuse the issue. After all, water is a chemical.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

So to say I would never soak my card in a chemical, but soaking a card off a page in water is ok, is a contradiction.

+1, or at least hypocritical. To focus on the solvent (water or otherwise) as opposed to the impact on the collectible, is misguided, in my view.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I may be repeating something already said, but water is a chemical. It's also the most widely used solvent there is. If you look up water in a chemistry book it will tell you water is called the universal solvent because more substances dissolve in water than in any other chemical. So to say I would never soak my card in a chemical, but soaking a card off a page in water is ok, is a contradiction. Your just taking a less aggressive approach.

+2

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I may be repeating something already said, but water is a chemical. It's also the most widely used solvent there is. If you look up water in a chemistry book it will tell you water is called the universal solvent because more substances dissolve in water than in any other chemical. So to say I would never soak my card in a chemical, but soaking a card off a page in water is ok, is a contradiction. Your just taking a less aggressive approach.

Sure thing guys, what type of plain old water removes these stains again and makes whites pop like an oxy clean ad?



Sure I guess one could say a pocket knife is a self defense weapon...but I don't think it would be hypocritical stance to say a gun has a bit more punch compared to grandpa's Swiss Army with a can opener. To me that's difference here from a little water to Billy Mays Towle.



P.S. Eric maybe it is our Philadelphia water.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

P.S. Eric maybe it is our Philadelphia water.

John,

Philly water drawn from the Schuylkill may very well be the most toxic substance on the planet.

Soaking anything in Schuylkill Punch is a bad idea. And not disclosing such a soak should be downright criminal.

Best regards,

Eric

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

I may be repeating something already said, but water is a chemical. It's also the most widely used solvent there is. If you look up water in a chemistry book it will tell you water is called the universal solvent because more substances dissolve in water than in any other chemical. So to say I would never soak my card in a chemical, but soaking a card off a page in water is ok, is a contradiction. Your just taking a less aggressive approach.

I agree with this statement.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't think of water as a chemical. I think of substances that are synthesized for particular purposes as chemicals. But whatever. Who wants to defend Towle's removal of wrinkles, any takers?

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think of water as a chemical. I think of substances that are synthesized for particular purposes as chemicals. But whatever. Who wants to defend Towle's removal of wrinkles, any takers?

Peter,

I will not bite on defending Dick. However, I will say that water is a chemical...with a pH very close to 7. Whatever solution he uses is close to that, chemically.

Best,

Eric

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think of water as a chemical. I think of substances that are synthesized for particular purposes as chemicals. But whatever. Who wants to defend Towle's removal of wrinkles, any takers?

Good point, I'm actually a little surprised how laid back folks are about Dick's work. Like the Plank above wouldn't bother anyone? Just me? We all know that wasn't water that did that...let alone Dick's comment on taking out wrinkles. Seems more like folks are into splitting hairs or arguing semantics on what a chemical is vs. addressing the fact that this is used to profit and done under secrecy.

Even funnier over the years there have been countless threads posting dirty items from eBay or previous auctions selling in new auctions all cleaned up etc. I don’t seem to remember the “no big deal” vibe from those threads.

Cheers,

John

[Peter_Spaeth]

PSA doesn't like chemicals either. even if they can't detect them.

N-7 Evidence of Cleaning - When a whitener is used to whiten borders or a solution is used to remove wax, candy, gum or tobacco stains.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Good point, I'm actually a little surprised how laid back folks are about Dick's work. Like the Plank above wouldn't bother anyone? Just me? We all know that wasn't water that did that...let alone Dick's comment on taking out wrinkles. Seems more like folks are into splitting hairs or arguing semantics on what a chemical is vs. addressing the fact that this is used to profit and done under secrecy.

Even funnier over the years there have been countless threads posting dirty items from eBay or previous auctions selling in new auctions all cleaned up etc. I don’t seem to remember the “no big deal” vibe from those threads.

Cheers,

John

Well-said, John. Earlier today I didn't mind debating the differences between water and chemicals, because I was bored and not inclined to work. Now I'm relaxed and that conversation seems incredibly stupid.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think of water as a chemical.

Peter, you are so weird. I drink a quart of chemicals every morning when I get up. Get with the program.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I mix a little hydrogen peroxide with mine. Those extra atoms rev me up.