Good opinions all; I think you can opt to have the restorers "take away" only (i.e., the blotchy paint on the card) and not "add" anything, rebuild anything, etc. Of course, there is a leap of faith being taken that when the paint is removed, no deeply gouged writing, etc. is revealed. But actually, I doubt that -- if the back shows no such signs of writing indentation.
Basically, having the paint "taken away" by a paper conservator professional (no do-it-yourselfs, please, unless you want the card to be ruined 100%) and having nothing ADDED, to me is a vast improvement, and may well result in a card worth easily double the money paid, even though it would still properly be considered "restored" (or perhaps better to say, "conserved.")
The key is taking away something negative -- but not adding any material to make it appear "better." This is a distinction made all the time, when restoring valuable comics.
<< <i>Good opinions all; I think you can opt to have the restorers "take away" only (i.e., the blotchy paint on the card) and not "add" anything, rebuild anything, etc. Of course, there is a leap of faith being taken that when the paint is removed, no deeply gouged writing, etc. is revealed. But actually, I doubt that -- if the back shows no such signs of writing indentation.
Basically, having the paint "taken away" by a paper conservator professional (no do-it-yourselfs, please, unless you want the card to be ruined 100%) and having nothing ADDED, to me is a vast improvement, and may well result in a card worth easily double the money paid, even though it would still properly be considered "restored" (or perhaps better to say, "conserved.")
The key is taking away something negative -- but not adding any material to make it appear "better." This is a distinction made all the time, when restoring valuable comics.
Good luck!! >>
I see what you are saying. The problem is that it will never (at least in my opinion) get a numeric grade. In that case, why not improve it as much as possible. It's going in an "Authentic" holder either way.
Update: I just shipped it via Fed Ex to the Chicago based company called, Graphic Conservation Company. They will get it by tomorrow. Right now, they are just going to give me a proposal on what they will/can do. I still have not decided. This is just to see what is possible.
14 of 14 people found the following review helpful: repair of prints, books, etc. by a master craftsman, April 2, 2006 By Henry Berry "Henry Berry" (Southport, CT) - See all my reviews
Surprisingly, this recognized classic has not heretofore appeared in English. This translation is the 1950 revised and expanded version of Scweidler's book in German first published in 1938. The subtitle of the title page of the 1950 edition (which is shown in facsimile) is "Past Mistakes and New Methods in the Removal of Age-related Damage to Cultural Treasures in the Graphic Arts." The editor Perkinson notes in his Introduction that Schweidler wrote, "In our field one may not create the new, but bring the old into order." In relation to this, the editor notes that Schweidler's approach to the restoration of old works on paper was that of a doctor to the cure of a patient. The author would agree as recognized by his use of German words which can be translated as "patients" (for pictures), "recuperation" (for a state after certain operations are done), and "surgery" (for the removal of certain problems). With his old-time craftsman's love of his craft, knowledge of its techniques, expertise in applying them, his connoisseur's attachment to different kinds of works on paper, and his assumption that his readers share his love and appreciation and are truly interested in learning the techniques to put old works on paper back "into order," Schweidler is the perfect teacher for this unsung, challenging, and demanding craft. He imparts a complete course from collecting old paper for restoration work through handling both old works and their restoration materials, the use of chemicals, and specialized topics such as The Chemical Treatment of Painted Rice Paper to storage for long-term preservation. Some of Schweidler's techniques are now widely-known in the field of professional preservationists and even among amateurs. Nonetheless, this work is still invaluable not only for Schweidler's meticulous guidance, but also for its editor's Introduction and many notes and the frequent useful illustrations.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>The problem is that it will never (at least in my opinion) get a numeric grade. In that case, why not improve it as much as possible. It's going in an "Authentic" holder either way. >>
I have personally talked with Joe Orlando about his card. I sent him a scan and explained the card in detail. He assured me that they would holder it (given it's authentic) either way. I told him what I was thinking about doing. They will holder it if it is restored.
<< <i>Good opinions all; I think you can opt to have the restorers "take away" only (i.e., the blotchy paint on the card) and not "add" anything, rebuild anything, etc. Of course, there is a leap of faith being taken that when the paint is removed, no deeply gouged writing, etc. is revealed. But actually, I doubt that -- if the back shows no such signs of writing indentation.
Basically, having the paint "taken away" by a paper conservator professional (no do-it-yourselfs, please, unless you want the card to be ruined 100%) and having nothing ADDED, to me is a vast improvement, and may well result in a card worth easily double the money paid, even though it would still properly be considered "restored" (or perhaps better to say, "conserved.")
The key is taking away something negative -- but not adding any material to make it appear "better." This is a distinction made all the time, when restoring valuable comics.
Good luck!! >>
Totally agree. If the restoration cost is reasonable, and the results promised seem believable based on their described technique and experience with successfully removing similar "stuff" off Topps cards from the early 50's, I say "Go for it"
If you loved your wife, and she was beautiful in her 20's, and she had a different beauty in her 70's, would you get her professionally restored to her 20's, or would you enjoy her new beauty in her 70's ? I'm sure there would be different opinions on both, so to each their own. Enjoy your card. It's yours, do what you want with it. Congrats on the purchase.
Ok, I just had a little fun. I took my card and "placed" it in an authentic holder like it is. I then did a little computer work and improved the looks of the card step by step. Which card would you rather have?
Step One - I "placed" my card into "Authentic" holder.
Step Two - I removed the paint and restored the background only. Now it is in an "Authentic/Altered" holder from here on out.
Step Three - I fixed the border, blemishes on skin and hat.
Step Four - I removed the dirt from the borders.
What if (and I mean if) these professional people from Chicago can make the card look like step 4?
Anyone can correct me if they perceive this to be wrong...but to me, removing this "stuff" off the card should be basically a similar thing as removing wax off a card, as far as the value and grading is concerned. If wax can be removed from a card and no problems would occur, then PSA grades those cards with no problem whatsoever. Certainly if a 9 type card, has been rubbed, and the wax stains removed, and surface wear occured, and maybe it slips down to a 7 because of that...but it doesn't get classified as altered.
I would say to the restorer - "Just remove the "stuff" off the card, and do NOT do anything else" - I don't feel that should receive an altered designation.
If the paint could be removed by using distilled water only and no trace of the paint is left behind, then the card could even get a numeric grade. However, if anything other than distilled water is used to remove it, it will only go into an "authentic" holder.
<< <i>If you loved your wife, and she was beautiful in her 20's, and she had a different beauty in her 70's, would you get her professionally restored to her 20's, or would you enjoy her new beauty in her 70's ? I'm sure there would be different opinions on both, so to each their own. Enjoy your card. It's yours, do what you want with it. Congrats on the purchase. >>
This would be more like your wife was tar and feathered against her will and now you will pay to let her go to the spa to clean up instead of forcing her to dirty the sheets each night and be shamed to go out in public.
Wax comes from the factory, paint or ink or whatever comes after.
Those are like comparing apples and oranges.
Steve >>
Steve - That's a valid point, but in my view the wax stains, as you know, came during the packaging process, and not during the printing process. So I guess the "interpretation" comes in as to what constitutes the original pristine card...IE: after it was printed or after it was packaged? In my opinion it should be after it was printed and cut...that is the pristine card.
Removing a printing flaw from a pristine card in some manner would be altering the card, no doubt about that, but removing gum and wax stains, "stuff" that occured in the packaging process, in my view should not be viewed as an alteration.
Wax comes from the factory, paint or ink or whatever comes after.
Those are like comparing apples and oranges.
Steve >>
Steve - That's a valid point, but in my view the wax stains, as you know, came during the packaging process, and not during the printing process. So I guess the "interpretation" comes in as to what constitutes the original pristine card...IE: after it was printed or after it was packaged? In my opinion it should be after it was printed and cut...that is the pristine card.
Removing a printing flaw from a pristine card in some manner would be altering the card, no doubt about that, but removing gum and wax stains, "stuff" that occured in the packaging process, in my view should not be viewed as an alteration. >>
Steve - To further illustrate...I've bought numerous, too numerous to count, raw vintage cards over the years, some I've flipped, some I keep for my collection, and some I've carefully removed the wax stains and some of these are in my collection. I consider it to be a better card with some of those "ugly" wax stains carefully removed...and not for a second have I ever considered that I've altered the card. If you disagree, that's okay, and I'll respect your opinion with a question...Have you ever removed a wax stain from a card and if you did would you then believe that it should now be considered an altered card?
The thing about a wax stain (on the front) is that it can be removed with a pair of hose. No one can prove that it was removed or ever existed. I do not feel that removing wax is altering a card.
I think both SteveK and WinPitcher make valid points.
WinPitcher states that
<< <i>Wax comes from the factory, paint or ink or whatever comes after. >>
SteveK states that
<< <i>wax stains, as you know, came during the packaging process, and not during the printing process. >>
But I think the packaging process (and thus the wax stains) is part of the end/entire product that reaches the consumer's hands, e.g., back in 1952 and even in 2008, a consumer is not able to purchase a card that is not already packaged. In other words, I can't walk into Target (or any other store) and buy a non-packaged card. Yes, I can walk into a baseball card shop and purchase a single card. However, that card was presumably, at one time, inside a pack. As such, I would consider removing wax stains as altering a card.
Consequently, the response to SteveK's inquiry,
<< <i>what constitutes the original pristine card...IE: after it was printed or after it was packaged? >>
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONSUMER is that an original card is after it is packaged because a consumer cannot purchase a card directly after it is printed.
Removing a printing flaw from a pristine card in some manner would be altering the card, no doubt about that, but removing gum and wax stains, "stuff" that occured in the packaging process, in my view should not be viewed as an alteration.
As long as you accept that it will/should be Authentic/Altered, 4 does look nice. HOWEVER, sometime in the future, it WILL be cracked and passed off as unaltered and be given a grade by someone - and that will perpetuate the fraud. I still vote for just leaving it at Authentic since that is the true condition of the card at this point in time. Besides, Authentic will bring more $$$ than Authentic/Altered.
<< <i>The thing about a wax stain (on the front) is that it can be removed with a pair of hose. No one can prove that it was removed or ever existed. I do not feel that removing wax is altering a card.
Doesn't anybody like my Mantle's that I "edited"? >>
Yes, it was interesting but of course it's all hypothetical. It'll be much more interesting to hear how much money the restoring company wants to restore the card, if in fact they feel they can even successfully do it, and if you agree to the restoring deal, then if the card does in fact get successfully restored, it'll be very interesting to see the results, and then how it winds up slabbed by PSA.
You might even get a movie deal out of this mystery story.
In this case, the "altered" card should bring substantially more than the "authentic" card would in its present state.
However, I do not dismiss the risk that someday somebody might try to perpetrate a fraud with the altered card. That really is not our problem, though; maybe it should be, but it's not.
Except for the swear-words and the mini-swatsikas under the Tempera, I would settle for the card having a nice milk and water bath in the Pyrex tub, if it was mine.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
No offense, Steve, but I have to agree with Storm. An "authentic" holder implies that something is not right anyway. I would much rather have the better eye appeal. Of course, the price of the conservator will determine if I do it or not. He will have a proposal done by next week.
In this case, the "altered" card should bring substantially more than the "authentic" card would in its present state.
However, I do not dismiss the risk that someday somebody might try to perpetrate a fraud with the altered card. That really is not our problem, though; maybe it should be, but it's not.
Except for the swear-words and the mini-swatsikas under the Tempera, I would settle for the card having a nice milk and water bath in the Pyrex tub, if it was mine.
>>
Slightly OT and I don't wish at all to hijack a most interesting thread, but this leads to a huge flaw, in my opinion, in the PSA and all grading companies for cards such as this in not "DESCRIBING" at least very briefly, why a certain card got the grade it did, especially if the circumstances aren't obvious.
In this case what would "altered" mean to a potential buyer from a scan off a sale on ebay? Could mean trimmed, could mean a doctored corner, could mean removing stuff from the card as the thread has described, or it could mean other things as well. And what does "authentic" mean in the same light as to why a card didn't receive a grade?
Why can't PSA give a brief description on the label as to what the flaws are on the card? Especially on a key "expensive" card such as this.
<< <i>They do, remember the Steve Hart recolored Mantle and Mays?
The cert said:
Authentic, Recolored.
Steve >>
But Steve - it should be in "every" case then in my opinion. IE: I would never want a trimmed edge card in my collection for various reasons, but if there were a slight doctoring of a corner, I might accept that depending on the circumstances, the card, and the price.
And as I previously stated, removing the "junk" off this 52 Mantle wouldn't bother me a bit because in my view it should receive a grade as long as that's the only thing the restorer would do. How hard could it be for PSA to put a brief description on the label of ALL valuable cards - I would have to believe it would add credability and value to the company, and add to enjoyment of the hobby.
Shane, Step 4 of your photoshop work is really nice and I wouldn't hesitate to do the work if it came out like that. You have a really nicely centered Mantle rookie and it's messed up right now, but the card has such crazy potential that it would be foolish to not restore/improve it...and why you are doing it, you should go all the way. I wonder if they can rebuild those corners just a little so it presents as Mint? The market may be small, but there will always be a select group of people who will pay big money for a Mantle rookie that looks like that one could.
<< <i>As long as you accept that it will/should be Authentic/Altered, 4 does look nice. HOWEVER, sometime in the future, it WILL be cracked and passed off as unaltered and be given a grade by someone - and that will perpetuate the fraud. I still vote for just leaving it at Authentic since that is the true condition of the card at this point in time. Besides, Authentic will bring more $$$ than Authentic/Altered. >>
I can see both sides of the argument. But as far as "perpetuating the fraud" I don't buy it. It would be no different than if he slabbed the card as is, sold it, and someone else having it restored and passed off as original. With this logic we should probably just destroy every '52 Topps Mantle because there is a chance someone could doctor it sometime in the future and pass it off as unaltered. With any card there is a chance that someone is going to try to improve the condition to earn a few extra dollars by passing it off as legit.
Chris My small collection Want List: '61 Topps Roy Campanella in PSA 5-7 Cardinal T206 cards Adam Wainwright GU Jersey
Exactly! There is really no true way to stop someone from doing anything to ANY card. I guess I could always burn the card and keep it from ever getting into the market. I could, but that's not very likely. There is no way that this card would get past PSA without them knowing that it is restored.
"I suspect there must be some writing under the paint. There does not come to mind another rational reason to paint a card. Such writing might be less attractive than the paint; might not."
<< <i>There is no way that this card would get past PSA without them knowing that it is restored. >>
Again, you seem to be very sure about that. I don't believe that they (or any grading company) will always tell that a card has been restored. They may or may not tell the first time but crack and resubmit in the future and they could have a very different opinion. Consistency is not their strong point, as well as detecting alterations every time.
I think I would do all possible to get the "substance" off the card, but nothing more. It's been 50 years after the fact, but I think anyone here that accidently got paint, mustard, or anything else on a card tonight would do everything they could to get as much of it off as possible. Maybe not apples to apples, but removing the paint, if possible, is just common sense to me.
Touching up other issues is a different ballgame IMO.
The best pitch to start a hitter off with is always strike one.
"Touching up other issues is a different ballgame IMO."
//////////////////////////////////
In general, that is likely thought of as the "hobby-responsible" view. But, it's not a universal truth, and it cannot be enforced upon the private property of folks who have a different view.
The OP decided that he wants the card to be the best it can be. It would not be my choice, but it is not my card.
The chances of me slipping a self-fixed card past PSA/SGC is alot greater than the chance that a "professionally" restored card will slide into a graded slab. The "pro" does nothing to conceal his work; PSA/SGC will see it EVERYTIME.
I am eager to hear the details of the pending proposal.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
Have you considered contacting a paper conservator? There is a good one I have dealt with named Trace Heft.
Send him pics of the card and what was done to it. He is an expert in the field and will know if the paint can be removed without harming the integrity of the card.
I just got an email from the art conservator in Chicago. They are going to charge me $2,000 just to remove the paint. Anything extra will be more than that. I politely told them, "No, thanks." They are shipping it back to me. I was prepared to go a maximum of $1,000, and was hoping for around $500 or so. I may contact Eclipse Paper Conservation for one more estimate.
Now (unless Eclipse works out), I am back at square one.
I have an important question to ask everyone. Even if you have stated your opinion, I would like it again on this specific question. Since this card has already been recolored and altered from its original state, what would be wrong with -
1) At the very least, taking a black ink pen or a thin Sharpie and "fixing" the black border. I think I could do it to where it would look better than it does now.
2) (I know this sounds outrageous) Repainting over the light blue with a color that matches the original more closely.
I know what I have proposed sounds crazy under normal conditions. I do think that what I have proposed could POSSIBLY enhance the eye appeal a little bit. However, there is risk involved in doing that. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
<< <i>I just got an email from the art conservator in Chicago. They are going to charge me $2,000 just to remove the paint. Anything extra will be more than that. I politely told them, "No, thanks." They are shipping it back to me. I was prepared to go a maximum of $1,000, and was hoping for around $500 or so. I may contact Eclipse Paper Conservation for one more estimate.
Now (unless Eclipse works out), I am back at square one.
I have an important question to ask everyone. Even if you have stated your opinion, I would like it again on this specific question. Since this card has already been recolored and altered from its original state, what would be wrong with -
1) At the very least, taking a black ink pen or a thin Sharpie and "fixing" the black border. I think I could do it to where it would look better than it does now.
2) (I know this sounds outrageous) Repainting over the light blue with a color that matches the original more closely.
I know what I have proposed sounds crazy under normal conditions. I do think that what I have proposed could POSSIBLY enhance the eye appeal a little bit. However, there is risk involved in doing that. Your thoughts would be appreciated. >>
SOAK the paint off. Experiment with a milk and water mix. If the paint is Tempera, it should come off. You might have to add some acetone, but probably not.
Slab it.
.....................................
$2K is way too high.
I would want to pay MUCH less than $1K to get the paint off.
.........................
Unless you have gorilla hands, the chances of hurting the card with a nice soak are slim/none.
.........................
To set your mind at ease, take a common 52 and soak it in water, in a Pyrex dish. See? Nothing bad happens.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
SOAK the paint off. Experiment with a milk and water mix. If the paint is Tempera, it should come off. You might have to add some acetone, but probably not.
Slab it.
.....................................
$2K is way too high.
I would want to pay MUCH less than $1K to get the paint off.
.........................
Unless you have gorilla hands, the chances of hurting the card with a nice soak are slim/none.
.........................
To set your mind at ease, take a common 52 and soak it in water, in a Pyrex dish. See? Nothing bad happens. >>
Storm - I don't agree or disagree, and you're definitely more knowledgeable than me about this, but I think it's important to keep in mind that it's possible the offset ink from the card has "molecularly" mingled with the paint over the years and removing the paint could remove the ink with it - a disaster is possible.
I still think a good idea would be to try to find out if at all possible exactly what that paint is, then take say a VG 1952 Topps common and paint it on there, try to artificially age it somehow, and then experimenting with trying to remove the substance - not a "perfect" experiment by any means, but of course there isn't any room for error here. Just my opinion - good luck with however it goes.
<< <i>I'll chime in with a hunch, I think someone took an eraser to it then repainted it. Removing the paint may very well leave you with raw cardboard. >>
A half-inch area could be cleaned with acetone. Soft brush and a Q-Tip. NO PRESSURE with the brush or cotton. Let the chemical do the work, NOT your pushing/pressing.. Such an ultra-conservative approach is a waste of time, in my view.
I would simply test a 52 card, get used to how it reacts; when I was comfortable, I would go for it.
Soaking cards is NOT brain surgery.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
In grade-school, 1st/2nd grade, we used to erase cards and other printed stuff.
The worst I recall it getting was usually just an absence of the color. The color would just look white. That might be what's under there, but I think there is nothing under there.........maybe some birds or swastikas in ink.
You can check for paper-loss under the paint by lighting the card up from the rear. BIG hand-lantern will do it.
There is no way in heck I would settle for a "painted card," when I could get the paint off.
If I thought there was ANY chance in heck that you could kill the card by soaking it, I would not suggest doing it.
I don't intend to incriminate myself for posterity on the internet, but just let me say that "soaking is not dangerous."
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
Well, I wish you luck, but if you do follow storm's advice, def practice on a low-grade common '52 first. I also agree, 2,000 is far too much. Have you contacted Matt Nelson at all? I think his prices are more reasonable, and are posted on his site. Having worked on mega-bucks Action 1's, he's trustworthy.
Again, good luck whatever you decide, but remove -- don't "add".
Comments
Basically, having the paint "taken away" by a paper conservator professional (no do-it-yourselfs, please, unless you want the card to be ruined 100%) and having nothing ADDED, to me is a vast improvement, and may well result in a card worth easily double the money paid, even though it would still properly be considered "restored" (or perhaps better to say, "conserved.")
The key is taking away something negative -- but not adding any material to make it appear "better." This is a distinction made all the time, when restoring valuable comics.
Good luck!!
<< <i>Good opinions all; I think you can opt to have the restorers "take away" only (i.e., the blotchy paint on the card) and not "add" anything, rebuild anything, etc. Of course, there is a leap of faith being taken that when the paint is removed, no deeply gouged writing, etc. is revealed. But actually, I doubt that -- if the back shows no such signs of writing indentation.
Basically, having the paint "taken away" by a paper conservator professional (no do-it-yourselfs, please, unless you want the card to be ruined 100%) and having nothing ADDED, to me is a vast improvement, and may well result in a card worth easily double the money paid, even though it would still properly be considered "restored" (or perhaps better to say, "conserved.")
The key is taking away something negative -- but not adding any material to make it appear "better." This is a distinction made all the time, when restoring valuable comics.
Good luck!! >>
I see what you are saying. The problem is that it will never (at least in my opinion) get a numeric grade. In that case, why not improve it as much as possible. It's going in an "Authentic" holder either way.
Update: I just shipped it via Fed Ex to the Chicago based company called, Graphic Conservation Company. They will get it by tomorrow. Right now, they are just going to give me a proposal on what they will/can do. I still have not decided. This is just to see what is possible.
Shane
<< <i>
Why are you frowning?
Shane
Book Good
////////////////////////////
AMZN Review
14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
repair of prints, books, etc. by a master craftsman, April 2, 2006
By Henry Berry "Henry Berry" (Southport, CT) - See all my reviews
Surprisingly, this recognized classic has not heretofore appeared in English. This translation is the 1950 revised and expanded version of Scweidler's book in German first published in 1938. The subtitle of the title page of the 1950 edition (which is shown in facsimile) is "Past Mistakes and New Methods in the Removal of Age-related Damage to Cultural Treasures in the Graphic Arts." The editor Perkinson notes in his Introduction that Schweidler wrote, "In our field one may not create the new, but bring the old into order." In relation to this, the editor notes that Schweidler's approach to the restoration of old works on paper was that of a doctor to the cure of a patient. The author would agree as recognized by his use of German words which can be translated as "patients" (for pictures), "recuperation" (for a state after certain operations are done), and "surgery" (for the removal of certain problems). With his old-time craftsman's love of his craft, knowledge of its techniques, expertise in applying them, his connoisseur's attachment to different kinds of works on paper, and his assumption that his readers share his love and appreciation and are truly interested in learning the techniques to put old works on paper back "into order," Schweidler is the perfect teacher for this unsung, challenging, and demanding craft. He imparts a complete course from collecting old paper for restoration work through handling both old works and their restoration materials, the use of chemicals, and specialized topics such as The Chemical Treatment of Painted Rice Paper to storage for long-term preservation. Some of Schweidler's techniques are now widely-known in the field of professional preservationists and even among amateurs. Nonetheless, this work is still invaluable not only for Schweidler's meticulous guidance, but also for its editor's Introduction and many notes and the frequent useful illustrations.
<< <i>The problem is that it will never (at least in my opinion) get a numeric grade. In that case, why not improve it as much as possible. It's going in an "Authentic" holder either way.
>>
You seem to be sure of that. Bad call.
Shane
<< <i>Good opinions all; I think you can opt to have the restorers "take away" only (i.e., the blotchy paint on the card) and not "add" anything, rebuild anything, etc. Of course, there is a leap of faith being taken that when the paint is removed, no deeply gouged writing, etc. is revealed. But actually, I doubt that -- if the back shows no such signs of writing indentation.
Basically, having the paint "taken away" by a paper conservator professional (no do-it-yourselfs, please, unless you want the card to be ruined 100%) and having nothing ADDED, to me is a vast improvement, and may well result in a card worth easily double the money paid, even though it would still properly be considered "restored" (or perhaps better to say, "conserved.")
The key is taking away something negative -- but not adding any material to make it appear "better." This is a distinction made all the time, when restoring valuable comics.
Good luck!! >>
Totally agree. If the restoration cost is reasonable, and the results promised seem believable based on their described technique and experience with successfully removing similar "stuff" off Topps cards from the early 50's, I say "Go for it"
professionally restored to her 20's, or would you enjoy her new beauty in her 70's ? I'm sure there would be different opinions on both, so to each their own. Enjoy your card. It's yours, do what you want with it. Congrats on the purchase.
AUTHENTIC HOLDER is WAY more desirbale than Authentic/Altered/restored......
plus you have the unknown of how the card will look if it is "restored"..it may look worse!
1977 Topps Star Wars - "Space Swashbucklers"
Step One - I "placed" my card into "Authentic" holder.
Step Two - I removed the paint and restored the background only. Now it is in an "Authentic/Altered" holder from here on out.
Step Three - I fixed the border, blemishes on skin and hat.
Step Four - I removed the dirt from the borders.
What if (and I mean if) these professional people from Chicago can make the card look like step 4?
Shane
I would say to the restorer - "Just remove the "stuff" off the card, and do NOT do anything else" - I don't feel that should receive an altered designation.
Wax comes from the factory, paint or ink or whatever comes after.
Those are like comparing apples and oranges.
Steve
Shane
<< <i>If you loved your wife, and she was beautiful in her 20's, and she had a different beauty in her 70's, would you get her
professionally restored to her 20's, or would you enjoy her new beauty in her 70's ? I'm sure there would be different opinions on both, so to each their own. Enjoy your card. It's yours, do what you want with it. Congrats on the purchase. >>
This would be more like your wife was tar and feathered against her will and now you will pay to let her go to the spa to clean up instead of forcing her to dirty the sheets each night and be shamed to go out in public.
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
<< <i>SteveK I believe you are wrong.
Wax comes from the factory, paint or ink or whatever comes after.
Those are like comparing apples and oranges.
Steve >>
Steve - That's a valid point, but in my view the wax stains, as you know, came during the packaging process, and not during the printing process. So I guess the "interpretation" comes in as to what constitutes the original pristine card...IE: after it was printed or after it was packaged? In my opinion it should be after it was printed and cut...that is the pristine card.
Removing a printing flaw from a pristine card in some manner would be altering the card, no doubt about that, but removing gum and wax stains, "stuff" that occured in the packaging process, in my view should not be viewed as an alteration.
<< <i>
<< <i>SteveK I believe you are wrong.
Wax comes from the factory, paint or ink or whatever comes after.
Those are like comparing apples and oranges.
Steve >>
Steve - That's a valid point, but in my view the wax stains, as you know, came during the packaging process, and not during the printing process. So I guess the "interpretation" comes in as to what constitutes the original pristine card...IE: after it was printed or after it was packaged? In my opinion it should be after it was printed and cut...that is the pristine card.
Removing a printing flaw from a pristine card in some manner would be altering the card, no doubt about that, but removing gum and wax stains, "stuff" that occured in the packaging process, in my view should not be viewed as an alteration. >>
Steve - To further illustrate...I've bought numerous, too numerous to count, raw vintage cards over the years, some I've flipped, some I keep for my collection, and some I've carefully removed the wax stains and some of these are in my collection. I consider it to be a better card with some of those "ugly" wax stains carefully removed...and not for a second have I ever considered that I've altered the card. If you disagree, that's okay, and I'll respect your opinion with a question...Have you ever removed a wax stain from a card and if you did would you then believe that it should now be considered an altered card?
Doesn't anybody like my Mantle's that I "edited"?
Shane
WinPitcher states that
<< <i>Wax comes from the factory, paint or ink or whatever comes after. >>
SteveK states that
<< <i>wax stains, as you know, came during the packaging process, and not during the printing process. >>
But I think the packaging process (and thus the wax stains) is part of the end/entire product that reaches the consumer's hands, e.g., back in 1952 and even in 2008, a consumer is not able to purchase a card that is not already packaged. In other words, I can't walk into Target (or any other store) and buy a non-packaged card. Yes, I can walk into a baseball card shop and purchase a single card. However, that card was presumably, at one time, inside a pack. As such, I would consider removing wax stains as altering a card.
Consequently, the response to SteveK's inquiry,
<< <i>what constitutes the original pristine card...IE: after it was printed or after it was packaged? >>
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONSUMER is that an original card is after it is packaged because a consumer cannot purchase a card directly after it is printed.
/s/ JackWESQ
Isn't that what I said?
Steve
<< <i>The thing about a wax stain (on the front) is that it can be removed with a pair of hose. No one can prove that it was removed or ever existed. I do not feel that removing wax is altering a card.
Doesn't anybody like my Mantle's that I "edited"?
Yes, it was interesting but of course it's all hypothetical. It'll be much more interesting to hear how much money the restoring company wants to restore the card, if in fact they feel they can even successfully do it, and if you agree to the restoring deal, then if the card does in fact get successfully restored, it'll be very interesting to see the results, and then how it winds up slabbed by PSA.
You might even get a movie deal out of this mystery story.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
In this case, the "altered" card should bring substantially more than the
"authentic" card would in its present state.
However, I do not dismiss the risk that someday somebody might try to
perpetrate a fraud with the altered card. That really is not our problem,
though; maybe it should be, but it's not.
Except for the swear-words and the mini-swatsikas under the Tempera,
I would settle for the card having a nice milk and water bath in the
Pyrex tub, if it was mine.
Shane
Then I would not hesitate to have it done, I dont care what kind of holder it rest in.
<< <i>"Besides, Authentic will bring more $$$ than Authentic/Altered. "
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
In this case, the "altered" card should bring substantially more than the
"authentic" card would in its present state.
However, I do not dismiss the risk that someday somebody might try to
perpetrate a fraud with the altered card. That really is not our problem,
though; maybe it should be, but it's not.
Except for the swear-words and the mini-swatsikas under the Tempera,
I would settle for the card having a nice milk and water bath in the
Pyrex tub, if it was mine.
Slightly OT and I don't wish at all to hijack a most interesting thread, but this leads to a huge flaw, in my opinion, in the PSA and all grading companies for cards such as this in not "DESCRIBING" at least very briefly, why a certain card got the grade it did, especially if the circumstances aren't obvious.
In this case what would "altered" mean to a potential buyer from a scan off a sale on ebay? Could mean trimmed, could mean a doctored corner, could mean removing stuff from the card as the thread has described, or it could mean other things as well. And what does "authentic" mean in the same light as to why a card didn't receive a grade?
Why can't PSA give a brief description on the label as to what the flaws are on the card? Especially on a key "expensive" card such as this.
The cert said:
Authentic, Recolored.
Steve
<< <i>They do, remember the Steve Hart recolored Mantle and Mays?
The cert said:
Authentic, Recolored.
Steve >>
But Steve - it should be in "every" case then in my opinion. IE: I would never want a trimmed edge card in my collection for various reasons, but if there were a slight doctoring of a corner, I might accept that depending on the circumstances, the card, and the price.
And as I previously stated, removing the "junk" off this 52 Mantle wouldn't bother me a bit because in my view it should receive a grade as long as that's the only thing the restorer would do. How hard could it be for PSA to put a brief description on the label of ALL valuable cards - I would have to believe it would add credability and value to the company, and add to enjoyment of the hobby.
he did to fix the card.
That paperwork can remain with the card to let folks know
what happened. The docs will also show "before" pictures.
Collect Auctions
<< <i>As long as you accept that it will/should be Authentic/Altered, 4 does look nice. HOWEVER, sometime in the future, it WILL be cracked and passed off as unaltered and be given a grade by someone - and that will perpetuate the fraud. I still vote for just leaving it at Authentic since that is the true condition of the card at this point in time. Besides, Authentic will bring more $$$ than Authentic/Altered. >>
I can see both sides of the argument. But as far as "perpetuating the fraud" I don't buy it. It would be no different than if he slabbed the card as is, sold it, and someone else having it restored and passed off as original. With this logic we should probably just destroy every '52 Topps Mantle because there is a chance someone could doctor it sometime in the future and pass it off as unaltered. With any card there is a chance that someone is going to try to improve the condition to earn a few extra dollars by passing it off as legit.
My small collection
Want List:
'61 Topps Roy Campanella in PSA 5-7
Cardinal T206 cards
Adam Wainwright GU Jersey
Shane
"I suspect there must be some writing under the paint. There does
not come to mind another rational reason to paint a card. Such
writing might be less attractive than the paint; might not."
He actually invented the first "refractor"!!
Hope it comes out nice!
<< <i>There is no way that this card would get past PSA without them knowing that it is restored. >>
Again, you seem to be very sure about that. I don't believe that they (or any grading company) will always tell that a card has been restored. They may or may not tell the first time but crack and resubmit in the future and they could have a very different opinion. Consistency is not their strong point, as well as detecting alterations every time.
Touching up other issues is a different ballgame IMO.
//////////////////////////////////
In general, that is likely thought of as the "hobby-responsible" view. But, it's not
a universal truth, and it cannot be enforced upon the private property of folks
who have a different view.
The OP decided that he wants the card to be the best it can be. It would not be
my choice, but it is not my card.
The chances of me slipping a self-fixed card past PSA/SGC is alot greater than
the chance that a "professionally" restored card will slide into a graded slab.
The "pro" does nothing to conceal his work; PSA/SGC will see it EVERYTIME.
I am eager to hear the details of the pending proposal.
Send him pics of the card and what was done to it. He is an expert in the field and will know if the paint can be removed without harming the integrity of the card.
http://www.eclipsepaper.com/
Ankur
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
//////////////////////////////////////////
That's is detailed in this "Moby Dick" thread.
The OP is waiting for the pro's proposal; should come soon.
Now (unless Eclipse works out), I am back at square one.
I have an important question to ask everyone. Even if you have stated your opinion, I would like it again on this specific question. Since this card has already been recolored and altered from its original state, what would be wrong with -
1) At the very least, taking a black ink pen or a thin Sharpie and "fixing" the black border. I think I could do it to where it would look better than it does now.
2) (I know this sounds outrageous) Repainting over the light blue with a color that matches the original more closely.
I know what I have proposed sounds crazy under normal conditions. I do think that what I have proposed could POSSIBLY enhance the eye appeal a little bit. However, there is risk involved in doing that. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Shane
<< <i>I just got an email from the art conservator in Chicago. They are going to charge me $2,000 just to remove the paint. Anything extra will be more than that. I politely told them, "No, thanks." They are shipping it back to me. I was prepared to go a maximum of $1,000, and was hoping for around $500 or so. I may contact Eclipse Paper Conservation for one more estimate.
Now (unless Eclipse works out), I am back at square one.
I have an important question to ask everyone. Even if you have stated your opinion, I would like it again on this specific question. Since this card has already been recolored and altered from its original state, what would be wrong with -
1) At the very least, taking a black ink pen or a thin Sharpie and "fixing" the black border. I think I could do it to where it would look better than it does now.
2) (I know this sounds outrageous) Repainting over the light blue with a color that matches the original more closely.
I know what I have proposed sounds crazy under normal conditions. I do think that what I have proposed could POSSIBLY enhance the eye appeal a little bit. However, there is risk involved in doing that. Your thoughts would be appreciated. >>
$2,000! Good grief!!!
My opinion on the questions:
1) No
2) No
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
SOAK the paint off. Experiment with a milk and water mix.
If the paint is Tempera, it should come off. You might have
to add some acetone, but probably not.
Slab it.
.....................................
$2K is way too high.
I would want to pay MUCH less than $1K to get the paint off.
.........................
Unless you have gorilla hands, the chances of hurting the card
with a nice soak are slim/none.
.........................
To set your mind at ease, take a common 52 and soak it in water,
in a Pyrex dish. See? Nothing bad happens.
<< <i>"Your thoughts would be appreciated."
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
SOAK the paint off. Experiment with a milk and water mix.
If the paint is Tempera, it should come off. You might have
to add some acetone, but probably not.
Slab it.
.....................................
$2K is way too high.
I would want to pay MUCH less than $1K to get the paint off.
.........................
Unless you have gorilla hands, the chances of hurting the card
with a nice soak are slim/none.
.........................
To set your mind at ease, take a common 52 and soak it in water,
in a Pyrex dish. See? Nothing bad happens. >>
Storm - I don't agree or disagree, and you're definitely more knowledgeable than me about this, but I think it's important to keep in mind that it's possible the offset ink from the card has "molecularly" mingled with the paint over the years and removing the paint could remove the ink with it - a disaster is possible.
I still think a good idea would be to try to find out if at all possible exactly what that paint is, then take say a VG 1952 Topps common and paint it on there, try to artificially age it somehow, and then experimenting with trying to remove the substance - not a "perfect" experiment by any means, but of course there isn't any room for error here. Just my opinion - good luck with however it goes.
Shane
I would (in order):
1. Slab and keep
2. Slab and sell
3. Sell as is (if you can profit)
4. Soak (after much practice) and see if it's as presentable (or better) than it is now, then go back to step 1.
5. Restoration service
<< <i>I'll chime in with a hunch, I think someone took an eraser to it then repainted it. Removing the paint may very well leave you with raw cardboard. >>
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Possible.
Not the most likely scenario, though.
A half-inch area could be cleaned with acetone.
Soft brush and a Q-Tip. NO PRESSURE with the brush or cotton.
Let the chemical do the work, NOT your pushing/pressing..
Such an ultra-conservative approach is a waste of time, in my view.
I would simply test a 52 card, get used to how it reacts; when I
was comfortable, I would go for it.
Soaking cards is NOT brain surgery.
The worst I recall it getting was usually just an absence of the color. The color
would just look white. That might be what's under there, but I think there is
nothing under there.........maybe some birds or swastikas in ink.
You can check for paper-loss under the paint by lighting the card up from
the rear. BIG hand-lantern will do it.
There is no way in heck I would settle for a "painted card," when I could get
the paint off.
If I thought there was ANY chance in heck that you could kill the card by
soaking it, I would not suggest doing it.
I don't intend to incriminate myself for posterity on the internet, but just let me
say that "soaking is not dangerous."
Again, good luck whatever you decide, but remove -- don't "add".