The damage lighter fluid does on vintage MOC's and packaging

[OTB Records]

Sorry that my post has reignited (pun not intended) this thread and the animosity but I personally feel that the community should uncover the truth behind the use of products such as lighter fluid and the potential harm to MOC figures if used to remove stickers etc.

I have been in the world of collecting for many years and lighter fluid is used in numerous areas of collecting as a efficient way of removing some stains/glue etc. Here is a post from a coin collecting forum where someone asked if it was wise to use lighter fluid to clean coins. One of the replies they got was as follows:

"Lighter fluid is awesome! It has even been used to shows up watermarks on little bits of very old paper for more years than we want to know about. It totally disappears from the paper. Totally evaporates and after more time than I am old it has not damaged a single piece of very old paper!"

I believe the original poster of this thread has a duty to bring any concerns to the attention of collectors but (and it's a big but) is this based on facts or is it a form of scaremongering? I fear for the newbies coming to our hobby and reading this will be alarmed by what might happen to their collection in the future.

We need solid facts and proof of any dangers involved.

 

[finestcomics]

I'm a coin collector. You don't want to use lighter fluid on coins unless you want to completely destroy the numismatic value. Contact PCGS, NGC or any reputable coin grader and they will tell you the same.

Edit: here is a video showing the spectrometer PCGS uses to identify tampering on "doctored": https://www.youtube.com/embed/mA3nZeADTBg

 

[finestcomics]

Also, didn't mean to ignore your earlier post, it got buried. The remarks about "restoration" in the comic hobby are very much in alignment with my position on the need to disclose. The link you shared is from Classics Incorporated, who were acquired by CGC last year. Matt Nelson heads up the "conservation" division, and while they are mostly doing things like pressing these days, he would tell you that solvents, especially ones being discussed in this thread, are in fact restorative, and need to be disclosed. As JosephY said earlier in this thread, the value impact is huge - often books restored are worth 1/4 or less of their unrestored counterpart.

 

[kingshearer]

I have used done very little DIY restoration to my vintage stuff . I love price stickers on carded figures since it adds to their authenticity plus , as others have said, it adds a bit history to the piece. I do try to store my boxed items standalone so they keep their shape and any excess tape which has been on second hand boxed stuff I'll try to carefully remove as much as I can but I have had some minor tearing which I can live with. At this time of year I do worry about my big boxed items , falcons at-ats etc being in my cold drafty loft but I've got no other space….so I pray for the summer.

 

[OTB Records]

@ Finestcomics. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear about the use of lighter fluid on coins. The purpose of copying that reply was to show that lighter fluid (in the experience of the poster) didn't leave any residue and wasn't harmful to paper in the long term.

I am also a coin collector. Been collecting coins for approx. 45 years I would also agree 100% with the fact that you should not clean a coin - not even with water. Even handling of coins should be done by the edge and preferably with cotton gloves on.

As I mentioned before the fluids etc. excreted by our own hands is very hazardous (especially in the long term) to coins and paper-based products.

 

[edd_jedi]

I am also a coin collector. Been collecting coins for approx. 45 years I would also agree 100% with the fact that you should not clean a coin - not even with water. Even handling of coins should be done by the edge and preferably with cotton gloves on.

As I mentioned before the fluids etc. excreted by our own hands is very hazardous (especially in the long term) to coins and paper-based products.

I think some people take all this a bit too far. I have a 25 year old (1990) 20 pence coin in my pocket right now that has probably been handled by literally thousands of people over the last quarter of a century, and certainly hasn't ever experienced the 'cotton gloves' treatment. And it is not a pile of dust yet.

I don't think anybody is denying the theory behind chemicals being harmful to materials, but in every-day scenarios it's going to make no difference to the item in our lifetime.

 

[Ross_Barr]

The other things that ring out in my mind is how quickly you learned the ropes over u-grading, posting just a little over a year ago, asking for opinions on whether you should send in missing POP MOC's for u-grading. And then you were the first person to ask for opinions on whether it was cool to sell TT (with disclosure) within the month of the bomb being dropped on the community.

Joe, your reference to revisionist history is unfair. In order:

(1) I have been a collector for a longer time than that, but only connected to the community within the last couple of years. I didn't know much about u grading when I connected with the community, which is why I asked the question as to whether I should u grade the POP removed MOCs. The overwhelming response was that I should not U grade them, to which advice I listened and did NOT U grade them. Over the next year and a half or so I learned so much more about the harms of U grading, and now I count myself as an advocate against the practice. And I am trying to educate others as I myself was educated. Isn't that how this is supposed to work?????????????????

Here's the thread on the topic: http://forum.rebelscum.com/t1103142/

You might want to read the whole thing before pointing fingers and choosing facts convenient to your agenda to cherry pick

(2) As for the TT scenario, I started what I believe what was a really good discussion about the ethical ways of moving on from TT pieces. The best and most transparent disclosure. I am not ashamed of the question. In fact, it made most people think about the best way to sell these, if at all.

Here's the thread on the topic: http://forum.rebelscum.com/t1105904/

You might want to read the whole thing before pointing fingers and choosing facts convenient to your agenda to cherry pick

But perhaps it's your style to slant facts and try to belittle and attack people that don't believe something controversial you say such as this topic without facts to back it up. I personally don't find that way of proving your point effective at all.

 

[OTB Records]

I am also a coin collector. Been collecting coins for approx. 45 years I would also agree 100% with the fact that you should not clean a coin - not even with water. Even handling of coins should be done by the edge and preferably with cotton gloves on.

As I mentioned before the fluids etc. excreted by our own hands is very hazardous (especially in the long term) to coins and paper-based products.

I think some people take all this a bit too far. I have a 25 year old (1990) 20 pence coin in my pocket right now that has probably been handled by literally thousands of people over the last quarter of a century, and certainly hasn't ever experienced the 'cotton gloves' treatment. And it is not a pile of dust yet.

I don't think anybody is denying the theory behind chemicals being harmful to materials, but in every-day scenarios it's going to make no difference to the item in our lifetime.

Very true but that is collectors for you. Some areas of collecting go way over the top when it comes to the handling and conservation of items.

This is why I feel this whole lighter fluid debate is important.

 

[OTB Records]

My personal feeling towards after-factory price stickers etc. is that they distract from the item whether it's a carded figure, comic, die-cast toy etc. I believe that the collectable in question should be in as close as possible condition to as it left the factory.

Now I totally understand those who see shop price stickers as adding to the history but personally if I had the choice of the same item with or without the sticker I would always choose the one without.

This is why I feel the lighter fluid debate is important and should get to the facts as I would rather have a piece that someone has successfully removed a price sticker from. I don't care what they have used to remove the sticker as long as it hasn't left any noticeable marks/residue/damage etc.

For me the ability to revert an item back to its factory state is important as long as it's not invasive.

Now - restoration like that used by some comic book companies I find unbelievable and indeed damaging. This kind of 'restoration' work is beyond returning an item to its former glory and is more like faking or replication. Replacing chunks of comics that have been lost or damaged!!!! Unbelievable. I would much rather have the item in its original poor condition than something that has been tampered with to this degree.

For me there is a major difference between conservation and restoration.

 

[Joseph_Y]

My personal feeling towards after-factory price stickers etc. is that they distract from the item whether it's a carded figure, comic, die-cast toy etc. I believe that the collectable in question should be in as close as possible condition to as it left the factory.

Now I totally understand those who see shop price stickers as adding to the history but personally if I had the choice of the same item with or without the sticker I would always choose the one without.

This is why I feel the lighter fluid debate is important and should get to the facts as I would rather have a piece that someone has successfully removed a price sticker from. I don't care what they have used to remove the sticker as long as it hasn't left any noticeable marks/residue/damage etc.

For me the ability to revert an item back to its factory state is important as long as it's not invasive.

Now - restoration like that used by some comic book companies I find unbelievable and indeed damaging. This kind of 'restoration' work is beyond returning an item to its former glory and is more like faking or replication. Replacing chunks of comics that have been lost or damaged!!!! Unbelievable. I would much rather have the item in its original poor condition than something that has been tampered with to this degree.

For me there is a major difference between conservation and restoration.

I personally disagree on your disdain for restored comics, as long as true archival techniques are used, AND any repairs are disclosed, the level of restoration that I'll allow in my collection stops at anything beyond small piece repair (marvel chipping/spine reinforcing, etc) and colour retouching.All of which are detectable when submitting a book for 3rd party grading. Replaced (reproduced) pages, or covers, I wouldn't want. But we all have our cut off points, I'd rather have a moderately restored Amazing Fantasy 15 that looks like a 9.0(which is what I do have), than a 1.5 unrestored that looks like a truck ran over it. The problem that people are having when it comes to AFAs service is that they're not disclosing that work has been done to the items in their population reports. Sure if an item comes thru that they didn't do the work on , they'll refuse it, but if they do the work they'll slab it and put a shiny sticker on it, lying to the community that nothing invasive has been done to the item. Even the restoration company that CGC owns makes sure that every bit of work is disclosed when they slab the book up. IF AFA offered more invasive work, they certainly wouldn't disclose it, based on what they're currently doing.

Cheers
Joe

 

[OTB Records]

@ Joe. You make some very interesting and valid points. I personally don't agree with this kind of extensive restoration even if it is disclosed but that just my personal opinion.

I do find your comment about AFA not disclosing any restoration work undertaken as a worry. Usually whenever AFA is mentioned in a thread I immediately switch off so I was totally unaware of this.

 

[finestcomics]

The other things that ring out in my mind is how quickly you learned the ropes over u-grading, posting just a little over a year ago, asking for opinions on whether you should send in missing POP MOC's for u-grading. And then you were the first person to ask for opinions on whether it was cool to sell TT (with disclosure) within the month of the bomb being dropped on the community.

Joe, your reference to revisionist history is unfair. In order:

(1) I have been a collector for a longer time than that, but only connected to the community within the last couple of years. I didn't know much about u grading when I connected with the community, which is why I asked the question as to whether I should u grade the POP removed MOCs. The overwhelming response was that I should not U grade them, to which advice I listened and did NOT U grade them. Over the next year and a half or so I learned so much more about the harms of U grading, and now I count myself as an advocate against the practice. And I am trying to educate others as I myself was educated. Isn't that how this is supposed to work?????????????????

Here's the thread on the topic: http://forum.rebelscum.com/t1103142/

You might want to read the whole thing before pointing fingers and choosing facts convenient to your agenda to cherry pick

(2) As for the TT scenario, I started what I believe what was a really good discussion about the ethical ways of moving on from TT pieces. The best and most transparent disclosure. I am not ashamed of the question. In fact, it made most people think about the best way to sell these, if at all.

Here's the thread on the topic: http://forum.rebelscum.com/t1105904/

You might want to read the whole thing before pointing fingers and choosing facts convenient to your agenda to cherry pick

But perhaps it's your style to slant facts and try to belittle and attack people that don't believe something controversial you say such as this topic without facts to back it up. I personally don't find that way of proving your point effective at all.

Short of spelling out the context of me referencing these, or asking you to reread my post, I have nothing further to add. It's pretty self-explanatory.

If you coming on these boards and belittling/ridiculing what I'm trying do, which is to raise awareness and educate on the matter of reconditioning using lighter fluid and the need for disclosure isn't an attack, I don't know what else to make of it.

I'm not sure what else you want in the way of proof, but I've already urged you to do a lighter test. I'm also not sure if you even read the article I linked in the very first post of this thread, but there is a quote there from Stephen Ward of UKG which very clearly suggests not using lighter fluid. Combine this with the suggestions I've heard from paper experts with a combined 45 years of experience on conserving paper, and adhering to museum conservation standards, I don't know what else I need to say.

Even if you continue to ignore the suggestions I've already put forward from paper experts, I do happen to believe you do respect Stephen Ward's opinion enough, especially when I told you your UKG Palitoy Fett mailer was pieced together with parts not belonging with one another. An issue I raised with you because I wasn't sure if you didn't know well enough from your limelighting it as a one-of-a-kind rarity, but definitely to help you better understand it was an anomalous, one-time things UKG would never do again, and that AFA would not recognize or grade in the same way.

Again, I bring these matters up to give you a clear trail of examples, all fact based (and please don't twist the truth) of someone who has demonstrated a capacity and willingness to learn and change for the better of the hobby, and who also shares an interest in educating and sharing information which helps others put a positive foot forward. All things which are surprising given the current situation and your insistent dogma for attacking my position on the use of lighter fluid, even when there's suggestions of strict avoidance from people you've turned to in the past for direction and advise.

Explain it so I'm not resigned to believe it's just how you keep up appearances, and conveniently pick and choose what you want to divulge, so long as it doesn't make you look bad.

 

[finestcomics]

I am also a coin collector. Been collecting coins for approx. 45 years I would also agree 100% with the fact that you should not clean a coin - not even with water. Even handling of coins should be done by the edge and preferably with cotton gloves on.

As I mentioned before the fluids etc. excreted by our own hands is very hazardous (especially in the long term) to coins and paper-based products.

I think some people take all this a bit too far. I have a 25 year old (1990) 20 pence coin in my pocket right now that has probably been handled by literally thousands of people over the last quarter of a century, and certainly hasn't ever experienced the 'cotton gloves' treatment. And it is not a pile of dust yet.

I don't think anybody is denying the theory behind chemicals being harmful to materials, but in every-day scenarios it's going to make no difference to the item in our lifetime.

I mostly agree with your sentiment. I've recovered coins from a 100+ year dirtnap. Even if I washed it under water and submitted it, it would come back "excavated" or "cleaned." At that point, it's numismatic value is near worthless.

No one cares about my found coins, or the ones in our pockets - they care about people "doctoring" them to achieve an appearance that makes collectors go nuts and throw gobs of money at them. If there weren't hundreds upon hundreds of coins worth 5, 6, and 7 figures, nobody would care. But because of the money involved, these techniques to detect tampering become very important.

Similarly, when the majority of MOC's were selling for under $100 in the 90's, nobody cared to touch them up or doctor them. Now that these same MOC's are consistently hitting 4 and 5 figures, the money involved changes the need for people to come clean on what's being done to the toys they're putting several months pay into.

 

[finestcomics]

My personal feeling towards after-factory price stickers etc. is that they distract from the item whether it's a carded figure, comic, die-cast toy etc. I believe that the collectable in question should be in as close as possible condition to as it left the factory.

Now I totally understand those who see shop price stickers as adding to the history but personally if I had the choice of the same item with or without the sticker I would always choose the one without.

This is why I feel the lighter fluid debate is important and should get to the facts as I would rather have a piece that someone has successfully removed a price sticker from. I don't care what they have used to remove the sticker as long as it hasn't left any noticeable marks/residue/damage etc.

For me the ability to revert an item back to its factory state is important as long as it's not invasive.

Now - restoration like that used by some comic book companies I find unbelievable and indeed damaging. This kind of 'restoration' work is beyond returning an item to its former glory and is more like faking or replication. Replacing chunks of comics that have been lost or damaged!!!! Unbelievable. I would much rather have the item in its original poor condition than something that has been tampered with to this degree.

For me there is a major difference between conservation and restoration.

I personally disagree on your disdain for restored comics, as long as true archival techniques are used, AND any repairs are disclosed, the level of restoration that I'll allow in my collection stops at anything beyond small piece repair (marvel chipping/spine reinforcing, etc) and colour retouching.All of which are detectable when submitting a book for 3rd party grading. Replaced (reproduced) pages, or covers, I wouldn't want. But we all have our cut off points, I'd rather have a moderately restored Amazing Fantasy 15 that looks like a 9.0(which is what I do have), than a 1.5 unrestored that looks like a truck ran over it. The problem that people are having when it comes to AFAs service is that they're not disclosing that work has been done to the items in their population reports. Sure if an item comes thru that they didn't do the work on , they'll refuse it, but if they do the work they'll slab it and put a shiny sticker on it, lying to the community that nothing invasive has been done to the item. Even the restoration company that CGC owns makes sure that every bit of work is disclosed when they slab the book up. IF AFA offered more invasive work, they certainly wouldn't disclose it, based on what they're currently doing.

Cheers
Joe

Yes, thanks for reinforcing these talking points Joe. They are themes which are being overlooked. It's especially interesting given Stephen Ward's suggestion to avoid using lighter fluid, and AFA non-response.

BTW: the original email went out to both Jan 8 - Stephen Ward replied same day (twice).

 

[OTB Records]

@ Finestcomics. I hear what you are saying but your reference is to paper. With carded SW figures you are dealing with printer's varnished card. I personally believe that this varnish will (and does) protect the integrity of the print and paper mix from liquids such as lighter fluid.

Comparing the removal of stickers from untreated or lightly sealed paper such as that used on American comic books is a different thing from removing stickers from MOC SW figures.

You can also look at it this way. What about the long term damage from the adhesive chemicals used in the stickers? These could (and do) over a period of time compromise the paper/card leading to more damage than if the sticker had been carefully removed.

 

[finestcomics]

@ Finestcomics. I hear what you are saying but your reference is to paper. With carded SW figures you are dealing with printer's varnished card. I personally believe that this varnish will (and does) protect the integrity of the print and paper mix from liquids such as lighter fluid.

Comparing the removal of stickers from untreated or lightly sealed paper such as that used on American comic books is a different thing from removing stickers from MOC SW figures.

You can also look at it this way. What about the long term damage from the adhesive chemicals used in the stickers? These could (and do) over a period of time compromise the paper/card. leading to more damage that if it had be carefully removed.

A couple of points of clarification. The first is I did provide samples of breached cardbacks and several boxes to those offering an opinion as far as damage to paper. I feel this is important as the suggestion has been made that it's "different", and while I agree that not all MOC's are created equally (more on this point shortly) the MOC cardstock is perhaps more concerning due to the paper composition containing acids not present in cover stock.

Also with reference to your comment on the "varnish" finish being more resilient, I would argue that paper composition of comic covers, especially those from the 60's, might stand a better chance of withstanding the harmful VOC's in lighter fluid as these covers contain clay, which is one of the organic compounds giving the cover it's lustre and sheen. In reference to my comment of ligher fluid acting as a "trigger", cardstock on MOC's on the other hand contain acids which could react rather negatively to the presentation of a foreign VOC or chemical solvent.

Secondly, and to the point of not all MOC's being created equally, a Canadian GDE cardback seemed to crack almost immediately when exposed to a dab of lighter fluid, which reinforces the need to be aware of what impact it can have across all vintage items (especially foreign lines which may not have used similar standards as Kenner Ohio).

I would imagine the same applies for stickers, meaning some adhere better than others. Though I hope you appreciate that while some may find this information useful, this is really not something I want to get into too deeply because I'd rather the practice come full stop.

As such, my emphasis is on disclosing the use if people choose to ignore or overlook the residual risk warning being presented. Disclosure could help people make more informed decisions on whether it's a piece a collector wants to add to their collection.

 

[Grant_C]

Any chance of a condensed version of this in bullet points.

 

[jambobbyb]

Yes... :lol:

 

[finestcomics]

 

[Ross_Barr]

Any chance of a condensed version of this in bullet points.