Alteration vs. Conservation? (Now defined by PWCC)

Walt_AltmenWalt_Altmen Posts: 184 ✭✭✭

In coin world, altered is altered. You most certainly do not clean, dip or scrub. This one intrigues me because almost any collector of anything recognizes or has at least heard of the 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. But I am curious to hear your thoughts on this card offered from one of the apparent top e-auction houses. Is this an acceptable “asset” to let roll out?

And then:

COPY AND PASTED

PWCC Marketplace
Member

PWCC Marketplace's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Oregon
pwcc_auctions
Default

Later this month we will publish our Marketplace Tenets which, among other things, touches on the differences between alteration and conservation. Until then, I will summarize why this card is still live in our auction.

In our view, there's a difference between conservation and alteration. Conservation is any act which returns a card closer to its as-manufactured condition and does not render the card artificially different from the as-manufactured state. Removal of dirt, glue, pencil marks, wax, etc. are good examples of conservation, so long as it's done in a way that doesn't affect the natural properties of a card.

Alteration is very different from conservation in that it generally involves the addition of a foreign matter to a card (i.e. recoloring or corner rebuilding) or the removal of material (i.e. trimming, erasing print, etc).

The ‘52 Mantle in question shows no signs of alteration based on these definitions, so it is an acceptable asset to be sold on the marketplace.

“Can you dig it?”

[email protected]

«1345678

Comments

  • Walt_AltmenWalt_Altmen Posts: 184 ✭✭✭

    And I will play first. I think it’s a super smooth and plausible explanation. A debate that probably needs to be decisively addressed, but impossible to do so.

    Does this plausible explanation stick or “fly” is the real question that probably needs to be addressed.

    “Can you dig it?”

    [email protected]

  • doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 1,773 ✭✭✭✭

    Personally, I don't fool around with cards that have been altered or tampered with in any way. It just doesn't sit well with me. If I were going to buy a 52 Mantle, it would have to be pure. I understand the concept of conservation, and yes it is a good explanation by PWCC. If I purchase a card it has to be as-manufactured. Everyone is different. That's just me.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,324 ✭✭✭✭

    nope, doesnt fly. they define conservation as anything that returns a card close to its manufactured state. cards are not manufactured with creases, corner wear, tape marks, pin holes, scuffed borders etc. all of those types of damage can be fixed by card doctors, or should I say conserved. this is not conservation, it is alteration. Alteration is not an industry accepted activity, it is a deceptive practice.

    what about oversized cards trimmed to standard. no way pwcc. that outfit is starting to concern me with the things I have been reading about them.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Would "conservation" include the removing of wax from the front of a card by wiping with, for example, nylon stocking?

    Is this the one thing considered acceptable? Or not?

    How about a severely warped card being flattened by putting it in a large book?

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,324 ✭✭✭✭

    it is a very slippery slope Joe

  • Walt_AltmenWalt_Altmen Posts: 184 ✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2019 5:47AM

    Soaking a pre-war card is generally accepted so long as chemicals are not used, correct? Primarily because these cards were originally pasted to albums, right?

    The 1952 Topps was not intended to do so, correct? So should any soaking whatsoever, regardless of pressing and cleaning intentions, be allowed? I do not think so, but does fall right on the cusp of that tolerable era, so

    “Can you dig it?”

    [email protected]

  • Walt_AltmenWalt_Altmen Posts: 184 ✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2019 6:05AM

    If PWCC puts it’s name and reputation out there to solidify all of these grey areas, it’s name will probably be cemented in the hobby forever.

    This card will be a great proving ground as to their tenant acceptability.

    Has anyone ever conducted a poll with all of these grey area questions here to garner the community as a whole? Maybe it should be done.

    Soaking for pre-war
    Soaking for post-war
    Wiping with Nylon for vintage
    Wiping for modern
    Pressing for wrinkles
    Pressing modern warping chrome
    And so forth and so on.

    Most importantly, each individual grey area given the a-ok should be followed by “and should it be disclosed to public”?

    Trimming obviously, but what about flattening modern? Does John Q. Public need to know about the encylopedias that sat on top of the chome?

    “Can you dig it?”

    [email protected]

  • rcmb3220rcmb3220 Posts: 810 ✭✭✭

    they use a generic term like conservation when the real term is restoration. I’m not sure where the line is drawn on restoration. The least controversial restoration would be removing dust or finger prints from a chrome card. Followed by removing wax or pencil marks. At the other end is soaking in water or chemical alteration. I suppose I’m fine with some mechanical restoration in terms of removing something from a card.

    Dane

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,324 ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2019 6:01AM

    there is a guy on a facebook group i am a member of who advertised that he would remove the very small scratches on refractors which make the glossy fronts look hazy. he did this by using a chemical compound and a microfiber cloth to buff out those scratches. it amazed me how many people didnt think this was an alteration and sent him cards for this ¨service¨.

    card doctors are everywhere. I guess it doesnt really surprise me with all of PWCCś antics that i have read about.

  • Walt_AltmenWalt_Altmen Posts: 184 ✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2019 6:26AM

    They are admiting the raw card in the 1st pic is the card in the slabbed 2nd pic. Someone ALWAYS knows. The statement pasted below the pics is in direct response to it’s “conservation”.

    “Can you dig it?”

    [email protected]

  • rcmb3220rcmb3220 Posts: 810 ✭✭✭

    I think the picture of the graded card shows the second cert. it was also graded once before - recently as well I think - and got the same grade.

    Dane

  • PADIdiverPADIdiver Posts: 130 ✭✭
    edited May 3, 2019 8:04AM

    Won't this lead to people cracking out a Mantle PSA 1 to aim for a PSA 2 and double their money? Just as an example

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,324 ✭✭✭✭

    no, if PWCC´s nomenclature catches hold, it will result in a slew of cards being cracked, altered, submitted and rejected by PSA.

  • Dpeck100Dpeck100 Posts: 10,158 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Can someone chime in and explain what pressing actually is?

    Obviously they are trying to flatten out the card in some form but I am curious the process.

    If it is similar to putting a card under a bunch of books to try and make a bowed card more flat I don't see that as an issue at all.

  • AANVAANV Posts: 96 ✭✭

    @craig44 said:
    no, if PWCC´s nomenclature catches hold, it will result in a slew of cards being cracked, altered, submitted and rejected by PSA.

    This happens routinely.... except for the rejection part. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that almost every investment piece in a holder hasn't been through the "conservation" process.

  • rcmb3220rcmb3220 Posts: 810 ✭✭✭

    @Dpeck100 said:
    Can someone chime in and explain what pressing actually is?

    Obviously they are trying to flatten out the card in some form but I am curious the process.

    If it is similar to putting a card under a bunch of books to try and make a bowed card more flat I don't see that as an issue at all.

    I take more as trying to get rid of creases or wrinkles. Flattening a card with a vending curl to it for example wouldn’t be “restoration”. I assume most would agree with that.

    Dane

  • LarkinCollectorLarkinCollector Posts: 6,596 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I have no problem with wiping or flattening for modern or vintage, but am a strong 'No' on anything beyond that (soaking, pressing, etc.). I've seen many on N54 who seem to be fine with a water soak, but, if disclosed, I would never purchase (though it's possible-likely some have ended up in my collection without knowing).

  • LGCLGC Posts: 79 ✭✭✭

    Doesn’t PSA have to opine here and, knowing the history, either agree with it or disagree and possibly re-grade it?

  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 8,480 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2019 9:03AM

    I wouldn’t knowingly touch any of this crap. I reject any and all efforts to change the condition of a card except for flattening a curled card.I’m on the fence on wax stain removal and the reason I’m on the fence is that I’m pretty sure I reject that too. Soaking cards is an abomination in my eyes.

    ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw
    3, 5, 34, 60, 100, 103, 153, 213, 240, 263, 279, 294, 302, 328, 347, 376, 389, 416, 443, 452, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 576, 579, 580, 581, 584, 606, 609, 622, 634, 642, 654, 673, 678, 682, 724


    ISO 2019 Topps Heritage HIGH NUMBERS BASE CARDS I NEED
    512, 515, 527, 538, 548, 555, 556, 580, 591, 608, 613, 615, 640, 648, 653, 654, 679
    SP's I NEED
    700, 702, 707, 709, 713, 719, 724

  • doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 1,773 ✭✭✭✭

    Personally, I am against all efforts to tamper with a card in any way. If I buy a card, I want it as-manufactered.

  • LGCLGC Posts: 79 ✭✭✭

    PWCC can’t have it both ways. Their other key pillar: “We at PWCC are not professional graders so we trust in the reputation and opinion of 3rd party professional graders. Professional grading is subjective and different 3rd party graders will often disagree over the grading on a single card."

    Either just keep the original grade or knowing what you know, inform the grader and let them decide, but tell the story/be transparent in both cases. PWCC deciding to draft their own definition means they can start to be “judges”, which they clearly state they aren’t, and also the auction house (a significant conflict of interest, IMO!).

  • doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 1,773 ✭✭✭✭

    I can already see this thread going into a 2nd page. Here we go.😉

  • krisd3279krisd3279 Posts: 695 ✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:
    it is a very slippery slope Joe

    This.

    Kris

    My 1971 Topps adventure - Davis Men in Black

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,324 ✭✭✭✭

    @Dpeck100 said:
    Can someone chime in and explain what pressing actually is?

    Obviously they are trying to flatten out the card in some form but I am curious the process.

    If it is similar to putting a card under a bunch of books to try and make a bowed card more flat I don't see that as an issue at all.

    soaking and pressing are not the same as trying to flatten a curled chrome card. the goal is to relieve wrinkles and to increase the surface area of the card for trimming.

    the card doctor will soak a card in distilled water and introduce pressure to the card to flatten it. much more pressure than a stack of books could exert. Imagine cooking a hamburger and flattening it out with a press. the the burger gets much thinner and the diameter gets much larger. the same is happening with soaked/pressed cards. they are half the thickness of an unaltered card and oversized. the card doctor will then trim off the excess boarder to bring the oversized card back to standard. this will take care of any rough edges can help with centering and also clean up rough corners.

    it is absolutely alteration and should never be accepted as standard practice. that is how the edges and corners of the mantle have been cleaned up. PWCC should pull that card.

  • akuracy503akuracy503 Posts: 1,898 ✭✭✭

    On Instagram i've seen several services that will guarantee better grading results for modern cards. Pristinecardlcleaners comes to mind advertising a lot of success with Refractors and Chrome cards getting Gem Mint and Pristine grades. If anyone has ever opened a pack of Bowman Chrome you know little surface scratches and residue from finger prints etc are almost 100% the case. This stuff gets cleaned up and submitted for grading with good results.

    Did anyone in the 80's dust off wax pack residue from their cards? Ever get a card that curls from vending boxes? Tried flattening it out between weighted flat surfaces?

    It's all subjective whatever method is done. Reality is that there needs to be some sort of leniency for these practices since it is likely very prevalent in the hobby.

    In my opinion true doctoring is the practice of adding substance to a card to rebuild or enhance it's appearance resulting in higher TPG grades. Like I said removal or modification on the natural state of a card is very subjective as mentioned in examples above..

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,324 ✭✭✭✭

    @akuracy503 said:
    On Instagram i've seen several services that will guarantee better grading results for modern cards. Pristinecardlcleaners comes to mind advertising a lot of success with Refractors and Chrome cards getting Gem Mint and Pristine grades. If anyone has ever opened a pack of Bowman Chrome you know little surface scratches and residue from finger prints etc are almost 100% the case. This stuff gets cleaned up and submitted for grading with good results.

    Did anyone in the 80's dust off wax pack residue from their cards? Ever get a card that curls from vending boxes? Tried flattening it out between weighted flat surfaces?

    It's all subjective whatever method is done. Reality is that there needs to be some sort of leniency for these practices since it is likely very prevalent in the hobby.

    In my opinion true doctoring is the practice of adding substance to a card to rebuild or enhance it's appearance resulting in higher TPG grades. Like I said removal or modification on the natural state of a card is very subjective as mentioned in examples above..

    buffing out scratches on chrome/refractors is 100% alteration. It is removing a portion of the original gloss in order to remove tiny scratches. you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise

  • akuracy503akuracy503 Posts: 1,898 ✭✭✭

    Craig while I do not condone or support these practices I will ask...what will you do if the modern collectors of today change the hobby and adopts these practices (as they already have) then it becomes a normal part of TPG and increased value. What can you do? What do you think the old school vintage guys said and felt when grading companies came into the scene? Did they keep it real with with their Raw cards? Did they quit the hobby because they refused to acknowledge the grading scales? While evolving anything can become disruptive it’s a natural part of growing.

    Either love it or hate it. Really nothing you can do about it. It’s the reality.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,324 ✭✭✭✭

    trimming seems to be an accepted part of the hobby to some. should we do nothing about it because some accept it as common practice? seems a rather fatalistic view.

  • akuracy503akuracy503 Posts: 1,898 ✭✭✭

    Trimming started way back before I was born. It was so rampant with some vintage guys I still see remnants of trimmed post war vintage cards at card shows. The common denominator here is that we have grown too reliant on TPG's to be the gatekeeper. We lost the art of making our own decisions based off the raw card. How were deals made and cards sold before TPG's?

    Acceptable is subjective and we need to go back to the basics of making our own judgement. There is no other way to squash this debate. There should never be finger pointing and blame. It is what it is.

    Going back to my original question.. What will you do? (Refer to my solution)

  • detroitfan2detroitfan2 Posts: 2,884 ✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2019 11:46AM

    Am I the only one confused here? If the card is given a number grade by PSA, isn't the question of alteration vs. conservation already answered?

    Edited to add: And I must admit I am surprised by the answer.

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @craig44 said:
    it is a very slippery slope Joe

    I will bet you that anyone pulling a rookie card from a wax pack, or buying one raw, with wax spots on the front will wipe them off. This doesn't alter the card. Card wasn't manufactured with wax on it.

    Not sure if a warped card gets rejected by PSA at any point, but I will say the same as above.

    I don't know how I feel about a distilled water soak (never heard of that) but that seems to be where the slippery slope starts.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 1,773 ✭✭✭✭

    Personally I wouldn't want water within a mile of my cards.

  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 8,480 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @craig44 said:
    it is a very slippery slope Joe

    I will bet you that anyone pulling a rookie card from a wax pack, or buying one raw, with wax spots on the front will wipe them off. This doesn't alter the card. Card wasn't manufactured with wax on it.

    Not sure if a warped card gets rejected by PSA at any point, but I will say the same as above.

    I don't know how I feel about a distilled water soak (never heard of that) but that seems to be where the slippery slope starts.

    But it was pulled from a pack with wax on it. When wiping that wax off with a woman’s (or mans) stocking you easily could be taking gloss/print with it. Altered.

    ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw
    3, 5, 34, 60, 100, 103, 153, 213, 240, 263, 279, 294, 302, 328, 347, 376, 389, 416, 443, 452, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 576, 579, 580, 581, 584, 606, 609, 622, 634, 642, 654, 673, 678, 682, 724


    ISO 2019 Topps Heritage HIGH NUMBERS BASE CARDS I NEED
    512, 515, 527, 538, 548, 555, 556, 580, 591, 608, 613, 615, 640, 648, 653, 654, 679
    SP's I NEED
    700, 702, 707, 709, 713, 719, 724

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @softparade said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @craig44 said:
    it is a very slippery slope Joe

    I will bet you that anyone pulling a rookie card from a wax pack, or buying one raw, with wax spots on the front will wipe them off. This doesn't alter the card. Card wasn't manufactured with wax on it.

    Not sure if a warped card gets rejected by PSA at any point, but I will say the same as above.

    I don't know how I feel about a distilled water soak (never heard of that) but that seems to be where the slippery slope starts.

    But it was pulled from a pack with wax on it. When wiping that wax off with a woman’s (or mans) stocking you easily could be taking gloss/print with it. Altered.

    If gloss is removed card is altered. But if carefully done it might NOT. Then is it ok? If the two materials (wax, cloth) are softer than the gloss on the card, it should be easy to wipe off the wax without taking off any of the gloss.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 8,480 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @softparade said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @craig44 said:
    it is a very slippery slope Joe

    I will bet you that anyone pulling a rookie card from a wax pack, or buying one raw, with wax spots on the front will wipe them off. This doesn't alter the card. Card wasn't manufactured with wax on it.

    Not sure if a warped card gets rejected by PSA at any point, but I will say the same as above.

    I don't know how I feel about a distilled water soak (never heard of that) but that seems to be where the slippery slope starts.

    But it was pulled from a pack with wax on it. When wiping that wax off with a woman’s (or mans) stocking you easily could be taking gloss/print with it. Altered.

    If gloss is removed card is altered. But if carefully done it might NOT. Then is it ok? If the two materials (wax, cloth) are softer than the gloss on the card, it should be easy to wipe off the wax without taking off any of the gloss.

    We will have to agree to disagree. I reject ANY attempt at changing the composition of a card pulled from its original source.

    ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw
    3, 5, 34, 60, 100, 103, 153, 213, 240, 263, 279, 294, 302, 328, 347, 376, 389, 416, 443, 452, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 576, 579, 580, 581, 584, 606, 609, 622, 634, 642, 654, 673, 678, 682, 724


    ISO 2019 Topps Heritage HIGH NUMBERS BASE CARDS I NEED
    512, 515, 527, 538, 548, 555, 556, 580, 591, 608, 613, 615, 640, 648, 653, 654, 679
    SP's I NEED
    700, 702, 707, 709, 713, 719, 724

  • LarkinCollectorLarkinCollector Posts: 6,596 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @softparade said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @softparade said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @craig44 said:
    it is a very slippery slope Joe

    I will bet you that anyone pulling a rookie card from a wax pack, or buying one raw, with wax spots on the front will wipe them off. This doesn't alter the card. Card wasn't manufactured with wax on it.

    Not sure if a warped card gets rejected by PSA at any point, but I will say the same as above.

    I don't know how I feel about a distilled water soak (never heard of that) but that seems to be where the slippery slope starts.

    But it was pulled from a pack with wax on it. When wiping that wax off with a woman’s (or mans) stocking you easily could be taking gloss/print with it. Altered.

    If gloss is removed card is altered. But if carefully done it might NOT. Then is it ok? If the two materials (wax, cloth) are softer than the gloss on the card, it should be easy to wipe off the wax without taking off any of the gloss.

    We will have to agree to disagree. I reject ANY attempt at changing the composition of a card pulled from its original source.

    What if you add a fingerprint pulling a chrome card out of a pack? Is it OK to wipe it off?

  • PADIdiverPADIdiver Posts: 130 ✭✭

    out of curiousity... what would the original raw card have graded at PSA? I'm curious to know how much this "conservation" increased the value of the card by?

  • ahopkinsahopkins Posts: 861 ✭✭✭✭

    @softparade said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @softparade said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @craig44 said:
    it is a very slippery slope Joe

    I will bet you that anyone pulling a rookie card from a wax pack, or buying one raw, with wax spots on the front will wipe them off. This doesn't alter the card. Card wasn't manufactured with wax on it.

    Not sure if a warped card gets rejected by PSA at any point, but I will say the same as above.

    I don't know how I feel about a distilled water soak (never heard of that) but that seems to be where the slippery slope starts.

    But it was pulled from a pack with wax on it. When wiping that wax off with a woman’s (or mans) stocking you easily could be taking gloss/print with it. Altered.

    If gloss is removed card is altered. But if carefully done it might NOT. Then is it ok? If the two materials (wax, cloth) are softer than the gloss on the card, it should be easy to wipe off the wax without taking off any of the gloss.

    We will have to agree to disagree. I reject ANY attempt at changing the composition of a card pulled from its original source.

    I'm with @softparade on this one. I never wipe the wax off. To me, it's still part of the factory process. It got on the card in the pack. It stays on the card.

    Andy

  • LarkinCollectorLarkinCollector Posts: 6,596 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ahopkins said:

    @softparade said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @softparade said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @craig44 said:
    it is a very slippery slope Joe

    I will bet you that anyone pulling a rookie card from a wax pack, or buying one raw, with wax spots on the front will wipe them off. This doesn't alter the card. Card wasn't manufactured with wax on it.

    Not sure if a warped card gets rejected by PSA at any point, but I will say the same as above.

    I don't know how I feel about a distilled water soak (never heard of that) but that seems to be where the slippery slope starts.

    But it was pulled from a pack with wax on it. When wiping that wax off with a woman’s (or mans) stocking you easily could be taking gloss/print with it. Altered.

    If gloss is removed card is altered. But if carefully done it might NOT. Then is it ok? If the two materials (wax, cloth) are softer than the gloss on the card, it should be easy to wipe off the wax without taking off any of the gloss.

    We will have to agree to disagree. I reject ANY attempt at changing the composition of a card pulled from its original source.

    I'm with @softparade on this one. I never wipe the wax off. To me, it's still part of the factory process. It got on the card in the pack. It stays on the card.

    Same question ...

    @LarkinCollector said:
    What if you add a fingerprint pulling a chrome card out of a pack? Is it OK to wipe it off?

  • softparadesoftparade Posts: 8,480 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2019 2:22PM

    @LarkinCollector said:

    @softparade said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @softparade said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @craig44 said:
    it is a very slippery slope Joe

    I will bet you that anyone pulling a rookie card from a wax pack, or buying one raw, with wax spots on the front will wipe them off. This doesn't alter the card. Card wasn't manufactured with wax on it.

    Not sure if a warped card gets rejected by PSA at any point, but I will say the same as above.

    I don't know how I feel about a distilled water soak (never heard of that) but that seems to be where the slippery slope starts.

    But it was pulled from a pack with wax on it. When wiping that wax off with a woman’s (or mans) stocking you easily could be taking gloss/print with it. Altered.

    If gloss is removed card is altered. But if carefully done it might NOT. Then is it ok? If the two materials (wax, cloth) are softer than the gloss on the card, it should be easy to wipe off the wax without taking off any of the gloss.

    We will have to agree to disagree. I reject ANY attempt at changing the composition of a card pulled from its original source.

    What if you add a fingerprint pulling a chrome card out of a pack? Is it OK to wipe it off?

    A finger print? LOL
    Not a good analogy. Actually it's horrible in comparison to a wax stain from the packaging process. But guess what, that's OK. We will just fall on the opposite side of this debate.

    ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw
    3, 5, 34, 60, 100, 103, 153, 213, 240, 263, 279, 294, 302, 328, 347, 376, 389, 416, 443, 452, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 576, 579, 580, 581, 584, 606, 609, 622, 634, 642, 654, 673, 678, 682, 724


    ISO 2019 Topps Heritage HIGH NUMBERS BASE CARDS I NEED
    512, 515, 527, 538, 548, 555, 556, 580, 591, 608, 613, 615, 640, 648, 653, 654, 679
    SP's I NEED
    700, 702, 707, 709, 713, 719, 724

  • LOTSOSLOTSOS Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2019 2:26PM

    With wax I'm fine with wiping it off the surface, same for prints. But for staining I would be against soaking to remove. To me wax on the surface and fingerprints are superficial. A stain, wax or otherwise is impregnated into the fibers of the card. I'm also a no to buffing scratches off refractors to me that is removing part of the card to improve it. No different then trimming just on a flat surface vs an edge. Everyone has there line in the sand that's mine.

    Kevin

  • LarkinCollectorLarkinCollector Posts: 6,596 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2019 2:32PM

    @softparade said:

    @LarkinCollector said:

    @softparade said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @softparade said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @craig44 said:
    it is a very slippery slope Joe

    I will bet you that anyone pulling a rookie card from a wax pack, or buying one raw, with wax spots on the front will wipe them off. This doesn't alter the card. Card wasn't manufactured with wax on it.

    Not sure if a warped card gets rejected by PSA at any point, but I will say the same as above.

    I don't know how I feel about a distilled water soak (never heard of that) but that seems to be where the slippery slope starts.

    But it was pulled from a pack with wax on it. When wiping that wax off with a woman’s (or mans) stocking you easily could be taking gloss/print with it. Altered.

    If gloss is removed card is altered. But if carefully done it might NOT. Then is it ok? If the two materials (wax, cloth) are softer than the gloss on the card, it should be easy to wipe off the wax without taking off any of the gloss.

    We will have to agree to disagree. I reject ANY attempt at changing the composition of a card pulled from its original source.

    What if you add a fingerprint pulling a chrome card out of a pack? Is it OK to wipe it off?

    A finger print? LOL
    Not a good analogy. Actually it's horrible in comparison to a wax stain from the packaging process. But guess what, that's OK. We will just fall on the opposite side of this debate.

    Sure, it's pretty common on modern chrome and other high-gloss stocks. Heck, I've pulled some "classic stock" Topps straight from packs that they must have handled before the ink was dry that have a similar affect.

    If you could easily wipe this off (while risking potential scratching of the gloss), is it OK?

    ETA: Wax stains on the card at the back of the pack where it's sealed may be from the packaging process, on the front, it's from poor storage. Is it OK to clean off of the latter?

  • doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 1,773 ✭✭✭✭

    And into the night session we go...........

  • ReggieClevelandReggieCleveland Posts: 3,084 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is interesting. Seems like the type of thing that if you ask 100 people you're going to get 100 different answers.

    Arthur

  • ahopkinsahopkins Posts: 861 ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2019 2:38PM

    @LarkinCollector said:

    @ahopkins said:

    @softparade said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @softparade said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @craig44 said:
    it is a very slippery slope Joe

    I will bet you that anyone pulling a rookie card from a wax pack, or buying one raw, with wax spots on the front will wipe them off. This doesn't alter the card. Card wasn't manufactured with wax on it.

    Not sure if a warped card gets rejected by PSA at any point, but I will say the same as above.

    I don't know how I feel about a distilled water soak (never heard of that) but that seems to be where the slippery slope starts.

    But it was pulled from a pack with wax on it. When wiping that wax off with a woman’s (or mans) stocking you easily could be taking gloss/print with it. Altered.

    If gloss is removed card is altered. But if carefully done it might NOT. Then is it ok? If the two materials (wax, cloth) are softer than the gloss on the card, it should be easy to wipe off the wax without taking off any of the gloss.

    We will have to agree to disagree. I reject ANY attempt at changing the composition of a card pulled from its original source.

    I'm with @softparade on this one. I never wipe the wax off. To me, it's still part of the factory process. It got on the card in the pack. It stays on the card.

    Same question ...

    @LarkinCollector said:
    What if you add a fingerprint pulling a chrome card out of a pack? Is it OK to wipe it off?

    Not sure if your response was intended for me, Kyle, but I'll respond anyway. I'll be honest, I have not handled enough chrome or the like (i.e., modern cards) to know if a fingerprint can be wiped off without damaging the surface of a card. When I pull cards from a pack, I'm very conscious of touching the card surface. Whether or not I've left a fingerprint visible to the naked eye, I know that the oils from my fingers are interacting with the card surface.

    Andy

  • LarkinCollectorLarkinCollector Posts: 6,596 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ahopkins said:

    @LarkinCollector said:

    @ahopkins said:

    @softparade said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @softparade said:

    @JoeBanzai said:

    @craig44 said:
    it is a very slippery slope Joe

    I will bet you that anyone pulling a rookie card from a wax pack, or buying one raw, with wax spots on the front will wipe them off. This doesn't alter the card. Card wasn't manufactured with wax on it.

    Not sure if a warped card gets rejected by PSA at any point, but I will say the same as above.

    I don't know how I feel about a distilled water soak (never heard of that) but that seems to be where the slippery slope starts.

    But it was pulled from a pack with wax on it. When wiping that wax off with a woman’s (or mans) stocking you easily could be taking gloss/print with it. Altered.

    If gloss is removed card is altered. But if carefully done it might NOT. Then is it ok? If the two materials (wax, cloth) are softer than the gloss on the card, it should be easy to wipe off the wax without taking off any of the gloss.

    We will have to agree to disagree. I reject ANY attempt at changing the composition of a card pulled from its original source.

    I'm with @softparade on this one. I never wipe the wax off. To me, it's still part of the factory process. It got on the card in the pack. It stays on the card.

    Same question ...

    @LarkinCollector said:
    What if you add a fingerprint pulling a chrome card out of a pack? Is it OK to wipe it off?

    Not sure if your response was intended for me, Kyle, but I'll respond anyway. I'll be honest, I have not handled enough chrome or the like (i.e., modern cards) to know if a fingerprint can be wiped off without damaging the surface of a card. When I pull cards from a pack, I'm very conscious of touching the card surface. Whether or not I've left a fingerprint visible to the naked eye, I know that the oils from my fingers are interacting with the card surface.

    In neither instance can you tell any difference in surface gloss between where the fingerprint/wax was and wasn't. I've tested and found I can't distinguish after a reasonable amount of study. Discussions of nefarious alteration methods get shut down around here pretty fast, but there's been many pantyhose threads over the years from 70s BB to 86F BkB Stickers (which should be next to impossible to get without a ST qualifier unless wiping). I guess all I can say is I once had concerns about the practice too, but my stance has changed. Undetectable removal above the surface gloss, without affecting the stock, has become OK in my mind.

    I handle carefully too, but purchase a lot of raw that already has these there or on my second pass before sending in for grading, need to move a card in the CS1 to see if a tiny scratch is on the card or the CS. Try doing the latter without leaving an edge of one ;) Both pantyhose and microfiber do come with risks, but those are catching a corner with the fabric and debris getting between fabric and card, then rubbed, causing scratches.

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 3,324 ✭✭✭✭

    @akuracy503 said:
    Trimming started way back before I was born. It was so rampant with some vintage guys I still see remnants of trimmed post war vintage cards at card shows. The common denominator here is that we have grown too reliant on TPG's to be the gatekeeper. We lost the art of making our own decisions based off the raw card. How were deals made and cards sold before TPG's?

    Acceptable is subjective and we need to go back to the basics of making our own judgement. There is no other way to squash this debate. There should never be finger pointing and blame. It is what it is.

    Going back to my original question.. What will you do? (Refer to my solution)

    I do not think modern collectors have accepted trimming as accepted practice as per your earlier post. If it were accepted practice why are there attempts at hiding this activity? It may be accepted for unscrupulous dealers but I don't think it ever had been by collectors.

    I disagree that it "is what it is". I think collectors should be talking about this and finding the trimmers and getting them out of the hobby.

  • Walt_AltmenWalt_Altmen Posts: 184 ✭✭✭
    edited May 3, 2019 6:22PM

    @PADIdiver said:
    out of curiousity... what would the original raw card have graded at PSA? I'm curious to know how much this "conservation" increased the value of the card by?

    Key question.

    What about the actual card designation being a 4.5?

    Is this a magic number for some reason if the card has been soaked?

    If so, why?

    “Can you dig it?”

    [email protected]

Sign In or Register to comment.