Eraser vs. baby powder

When it comes to removing a card's coating so its more receptive to ink, there are two schools of thought. Some of us use erasers. Some of us use baby powder. In the name of science, and for collectors across the world, I conducted an experiment to solve this debate.

Though I rely upon, and put up with the shavings from, a white eraser to prep my cards, I tried using baby powder on a couple to try that approach. With an unprepped Alexander Ovechkin card, from Upper Deck's 2006-07 Be A Player offering, as my test subject, I signed my name across the middle. The ink bubbled like dinnertime stew.

To initiate the test, I erased the top-left corner of the card's photo. As always, shavings multiplied with each pass. Once cleared, though, the fast-drying writing stuck well to the still-glossy surface. All in all, it's why I prefer this method.

Baby powder, as the testing phase concluded, was dribbled upon and gently rubbed onto the picture's bottom-right corner. Though most slid off easily, it took several tries to rub away the last layer. Even then, the writing fades and appears a little splotchy.

Ironically, the bottom of the card needs no help. It's a nice flat spot, absent of sheen, to have it signed. Good luck, though, getting a player to oblige. Hence, the necessary prep work.

Upon careful consideration, and certainly without any guilt of bias, my opinion, and mine alone, is erasers remain the way to go. To me, they create less mess overall (chalk is like dust; it floats and settles elsewhere.). I also question the durability of a signature that's sitting on a fine powder residue.

Remember, this is just my opinion. Differing opinions are welcomed, too. But I believe that, given the facts and findings presented above, this age-old question can be put to rest.

You're welcome.

Labels: , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home