What if T206??????????

[Pup6913]

What if you had a time machine?? Would you go back and visit the factories in search of the rarest T206's and put together a few high grades master sets?? Maybe talk the printer into making a few errors that are 1/1's?

I have found my mind wandering lately about all the crap going on in the hobby. Counterfiet autos, trimmed and altered cards being passed off as good, even over grading of cards that inflate the values accross the board and are not worth it. Is the hobby reaching a peak and is it going to tumble like our economy did?? Probably not but it is a legitamite question.

Also after hearing about the A$$ who faked the Old Mills and a few others altering cards that have passed grading standards I have thought of a great question to ask. And this is just for fun!!!!!:D

If you were able to obtain a few printing stones(plates) from back in 1909 from what ever tobacco company, the stock, appropriate ink circa 1909, and accurate instructions(something I would need:)) would you make a card???

Commons or HOF'ers. Errors or the Big ones??

Now after all of that here is the greatest question. Is it a fake card? Would you consider it a counterfiet or authentic?

I will be the first to weigh in and say no it is not 100 yrs old but it is an original T206(only on technicality) made the same way as the others but in a different era. I would make a few of the portraits like Chase(BLUE), or the guy with the Flock of Seagulls Hair(cracks me up every time I see that card), or a few others. I could not see me making any big ones out of respect oddly enough. I know I have a consience:o

ANYWAY THIS IS JUST FOR FUN SO NO NEED TO GET PISSED AND TWISTED LIKE SOME DO OVER NOTHING. I THINK IT COULD BE NEAT TO SEE HOW PEOPLE WEIGH THIER THOUGHTS IF GIVEN A CHANCE TO MAKE THIER T206's

[drc]

In photography, when the photographer or official owner (Sports Illustrated, Time magazine) take the original negative and makes new photograph years later, it is called "original printed later." At sale the later printing date has to be disclosed. Also, a key to any market value it might have is the photographer or official company made the photo, not someone who found the negatives in a garbage can.

In printing press and ink printing, Salvador Dali sometimes made and signed later prints from the original printing plate. The later editions were distinctly different, with different colors etc, and are cataloged as a later edition. Whether or not the later prints count as originals can be debated, but the later date would have to be disclosed at sale. At the least, they are official prints, authorized, signed and LE numbered by the artist, and, as such, have monetary value.

Notice that a key to the word original, even with 'original printed later,' is that the artist or at least official entity (SI, Time) made the photos or prints. By definition, Joe Schmoe can't make original Salvador Dali prints, even if he has the original printing plates, because he isn't Salvador Dali. The same would go with Joe Schmoe and a tobacco company.

Also, notice another common thread is that the printing date or period has to be disclosed. Whether or not you call the T206s reprints or restrikes or originals or dandelions, the modern printing date would have to be disclosed. For collectors of books, art, vases, Hollywood and sports memorabilia, one of the biggest keys to an item is its age. Age in and of itself has financial value.

I wouldn't call the T206s originals (I'd call them reprints), but they would have original qualities.

From an honest marketing standpoint, if you had original multi-card printing plates, you could make high quality limited edition prints or posters from the plates-- obviously on different paper, etc to prevent hand cut singles. This way the collectors can enjoy the unique original-like prints of an 'uncut sheet,' the prints would have value, and you'd make some money off the venture. I would think most people on this board would love to have one of these for the wall.

[drc]

There was an episode of Dr. Who, who owns a time machine, that involved multiple Mona Lisas made by a nefarious time traveling alien. Dr. Who examined the paintings, all spread out in front of him, and declared them all originals. For identification purposes, he wrote on the backs. Later in time had a hell of a time trying to convince the tour guide at the Louvre that he should be allowed to take down their Mona Lisa and look at the back.