Authenticating with a jeweler's loupe

[cardsagain74]

Just received a loupe and have been testing a few raw cadillac cards that I always figured were real (but looking closeup gives more peace of mind).

Thankfully all passed my initial test of comparing pixelation to commons/graded cards. But I am a neophyte at this.

Other than the pixel patterns, anyone have advice on other useful methods or specifics to look for (either for authenticity or checking for common alterations)?

Thanks!

[Tyruscobb]

One method is to submerge the card under water for an extended period. If the card starts to separate, it is real. If it does not, then it is fake.

Another method is to Light the corner on fire. If you see a green flame, the card is real. A blue flame signifies a fake. :D:D

Haha. In all seriousness, I do exactly what you are doing - Compare commons with marquee cards under a loupe. I check for print dots, texture, thickness, etc.

This is going to sound weird, but the card must also pass my smell test - a literal, not proverbial, smell test one. Old cardboard has a distinct smell to it, at least it does to me.

[cardsagain74]

One method is to submerge the card under water for an extended period. If the card starts to separate, it is real. If it does not, then it is fake.

Another method is to Light the corner on fire. If you see a green flame, the card is real. A blue flame signifies a fake. :D:D

Haha. In all seriousness, I do exactly what you are doing - Compare commons with marquee cards under a loupe. I check for print dots, texture, thickness, etc.

This is going to sound weird, but the card must also pass my smell test - a literal, not proverbial, smell test one. Old cardboard has a distinct smell to it, at least it does to me.

Well my low grade Aaron rookie already has one corner that started to thin or singe or something, so it didn't need the fire test :)

I try to use those other measures that you mentioned, but it always feels like a best guess situation when you're not experienced in dealing with fakes or reprints. Should order a few for a more direct comparisons. I've read the standard info about them feeling clearly more glossy, but it'd help to actually have something in hand.

From what I can tell, I doubt too many fakes would pass the loupe pixel exam? No idea how likely it is for the exact print to be copied/replicated successfully, but with what I've read about cards like the '51 Bowman Mantle and the '86 Fleer Jordan, that doesn't usually happen

[nat]

"No idea how likely it is for the exact print to be copied/replicated successfully"

It's harder with older cards, because of greater differences in printing technology. Under magnification cards from 86 will look fairly similar to what you could print today, but the further back in time you go the more obvious the differences get.

One thing to look out for is the parts of the card that are supposed to be printed in solid ink versus those that are supposed to have a dot pattern. It's not foolproof, but bad counterfeits will sometimes have dot patterns where there should be solid ink.

[drcy]

What's the magnificatin? 20x, other?

[GasHouseGang]

I've wondered more about trimming. Is it obvious with a loupe? Anyone have a photo example?

[UKCardGuy]

Just received a loupe and have been testing a few raw cadillac cards that I always figured were real (but looking closeup gives more peace of mind).

Thankfully all passed my initial test of comparing pixelation to commons/graded cards. But I am a neophyte at this.

Other than the pixel patterns, anyone have advice on other useful methods or specifics to look for (either for authenticity or checking for common alterations)?

Thanks!

This is a topic that's been of real interest to me too. I've done some research and happy to share what I've learned. It would be great to have this elaborated by others with more knowledge than me.

I found a useful guide on pre-war authentication here: http://cycleback.com/

Most of my questions have been about post war cards. Sportscard Counterfiet Dectector by Bob Lemke (https://www.amazon.com/Sportscard-Counterfeit-Detector-Updates-Collectors/dp/0873412842/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=sports+card+counterfeit+detector+bob+lemk e&qid=1605273836&sr=8-2)is a very good resource. I picked up a used version from 1994 really cheap. As I'm not trying to authenticate modern cards, this was OK for me.

Key themes to check:
1) Pixelation in the cards and understanding the subtleties of half-tone printing.
2) Looking at the solid color areas of the card. These are generally, the facsimile signatures on the card and the solid color bars with the player/team name on them.
3) Comparing the card stock to a known good example
4) Cards that are too short (e.g. trimming)
5) Artificial ageing. I'm still learning to detect these.
5) Printing quality issues (e.g. is something blurry or less detailed than you'd expect)
6) Typos (e.g. incorrect branding, logos, text)

I've attached photos of a real 1955 Jackie Robinson and a Reprint card that I bought to learn the difference. Hopefully, it's helpful.

[Jgrace]

I've wondered more about trimming. Is it obvious with a loupe? Anyone have a photo example?


Easier on some sets than others. T206s, for example, generally have a distinctive edge from the factory cut that rolls from front to back. Trimming will expose the raw fibers that are visible under a 100x loupe. If I can find that smooth edge on all four sides of a card - even though natural wear may expose fibers in sections - I’m 99% sure it’s not trimmed.

[rsdill2]

What's the magnificatin? 20x, other?



I think 10x is typically about right. 20x can be a little too much.

[steve B]

I think 10x is typically about right. 20x can be a little too much.

It varies from person to person. I use cheap 40X ones. That level of magnification exposes pretty much everything.



Much of figuring out if something is real comes down to experience. I'm fortunate that I began getting serious back when almost no cards were even in holders and anyone who had vintage inventory probably had at least 40-50 cards from a set. It's much easier to learn whats "right" when you have a big fistful to literally handle.

[drcy]

What types/years of cards are you using it on. Knowing that, I can go on with some ideas.

Below is the link to free my guide to authenticating early cards, published by Love of the Game Auctions

Authenticating Early Baseball Cards (https://mailchi.mp/loveofthegameauctions/free-e-book-authenticating-early-baseball-cards-by-david-cycleback?fbclid=IwAR3Vx_7rgfqeVizcUXvbTBrAMJpPtY_ brXYdv5zCm6bTmUKEIRGqFVgPin4)

[Jgrace]

It varies from person to person. I use cheap 40X ones. That level of magnification exposes pretty much everything.



Much of figuring out if something is real comes down to experience. I'm fortunate that I began getting serious back when almost no cards were even in holders and anyone who had vintage inventory probably had at least 40-50 cards from a set. It's much easier to learn whats "right" when you have a big fistful to literally handle.


Yeah I have a cheap 100x loupe (small handheld scope with a light, really) and it really tells you everything you need to know. I’m not sure I’d go down to 20x or 10x.

[bnorth]

This is a topic that's been of real interest to me too. I've done some research and happy to share what I've learned. It would be great to have this elaborated by others with more knowledge than me.

I found a useful guide on pre-war authentication here: http://cycleback.com/

Most of my questions have been about post war cards. Sportscard Counterfiet Dectector by Bob Lemke (https://www.amazon.com/Sportscard-Counterfeit-Detector-Updates-Collectors/dp/0873412842/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=sports+card+counterfeit+detector+bob+lemk e&qid=1605273836&sr=8-2)is a very good resource. I picked up a used version from 1994 really cheap. As I'm not trying to authenticate modern cards, this was OK for me.

Key themes to check:
1) Pixelation in the cards and understanding the subtleties of half-tone printing.
2) Looking at the solid color areas of the card. These are generally, the facsimile signatures on the card and the solid color bars with the player/team name on them.
3) Comparing the card stock to a known good example
4) Cards that are too short (e.g. trimming)
5) Artificial ageing. I'm still learning to detect these.
5) Printing quality issues (e.g. is something blurry or less detailed than you'd expect)
6) Typos (e.g. incorrect branding, logos, text)

I've attached photos of a real 1955 Jackie Robinson and a Reprint card that I bought to learn the difference. Hopefully, it's helpful.

Used David's site and Bob's book and both are great.

2 of the things I use are a top lighted 60-100X microscope and my TV. Scan a card at at least 1200dpi and then put that picture on your big ass TV screen. When you can see a high quality picture at 3.5'X2.5' instead of 3.5"X2.5" it makes a huge difference.

[samosa4u]

Other than the pixel patterns, anyone have advice on other useful methods or specifics to look for (either for authenticity or checking for common alterations)?


Yeah, get yourself a UV light (also known as a black light). If I ever get an expensive card, then I will always examine it under my UV light. First of all, there are so many cheap ones that can be purchased online for a few bucks - avoid these. They aren't strong enough to detect anything. Here is the one I have:

https://cdn-tp1.mozu.com/24871-37656/cms/37656/files/c61e22a6-b2e9-4b79-9a11-dec9ec414ab4

It's powerful and I paid around $15 CAD for it.

The best time to examine your high-end cards is at night. You don't want any light coming in through your windows. Turn off your lights and make sure your room is pitch black. Then place the card on a table and examine both surfaces under your UV light. Vintage cards should not be glowing. This is because paper companies started adding optical brighteners in their manufacturing process around the 1960s or so. So, if your baseball card from 1953 is glowing, then you know it's a counterfeit. If you have a card with colored borders (example - 1979 O-Pee-Chee Gretzky), then you want to pay special attention to the corners and edges. This is because sometimes people used to color in the areas that had wear on them. These inks will stand out under the UV light. And finally, if the card was removed from an album, then there is a chance you might pick up glue stains and other bits of residue which can't be seen with the naked eye.

It's very fun examining cards under a UV light, but only do it once in a while, and make sure to never expose your skin/eyes to the light.

[cardsagain74]

What types/years of cards are you using it on. Knowing that, I can go on with some ideas.

Below is the link to free my guide to authenticating early cards, published by Love of the Game Auctions

Authenticating Early Baseball Cards (https://mailchi.mp/loveofthegameauctions/free-e-book-authenticating-early-baseball-cards-by-david-cycleback?fbclid=IwAR3Vx_7rgfqeVizcUXvbTBrAMJpPtY_ brXYdv5zCm6bTmUKEIRGqFVgPin4)

I'm using one of those small Wesley 30x 60x loupes with the tiny LED lights. The smaller magnifying glass hasn't been of much use, but the larger (nickel) size one gets the job done well.

It's for post-war vintage, mostly '48 Bowman through '50s and '60s Topps

Appreciate the link to your book and your other input (both yours and everyone else who has chipped in!)

[drcy]

The guide I linked to will have very useful authentication tips for you, including for without the use of a loupe. The tips apply to Post WII cards such as Topps and Bowman as well.

[Leon]

I use an Eclipse GemPro loupe. It is the loupe of choice of many graders. Best one I have ever used or seen....

.

[conor912]

There are certain things that I’ve realized shouldn’t be looked at under magnification. My cards and my face are among them.

[irv]

I use an Eclipse GemPro loupe. It is the loupe of choice of many graders. Best one I have ever used or seen....

.

Leon, I assume you meant Gem "ORO" and not gem pro?

I am also curious what magnification you use/prefer?

I have always heard 10x but now this thread has me confused?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW7Ao06OAJg