was it common back then ? [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

10-22-2006, 09:13 AM

Posted By: jPDoes anyone know if it was common to put laquer or somekind of clear coating on tobacco cards back in the time that the T206's were being offered. I know it was common to paste them in scrap books and or albums. does anyone have any examples of authentic cards that have had clear coating or laquer applied to them, plz show us your examples. thanks. jP

Archive

10-22-2006, 09:20 AM

Posted By: barrysloateOver the years I have handled several T206 that had a shiny coating on them, but they were so few in number that I could hardly call it common. In fact, I was never quite able to figure out why they had that glossy look.

Archive

10-22-2006, 09:21 AM

Posted By: jPbarry do you have one that you can share on here, i am curious as to how it looks. thanks

Archive

10-22-2006, 09:49 AM

Posted By: JoeJP, this is not T206, but a T205 Cobb, looks like laquer on the card. This was deemed counterfeit by SGC, some day will have some board members look at it in person. Joe <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1161445714.JPG"> Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

Archive

10-22-2006, 10:31 AM

Posted By: barrysloateHopefully Joe's T205 gives you some idea because I haven't had one in a long time. Besides, it is more tactile than it is visual. It might not show up well in a scan, but if you held one you would know immediately that it was different.

Archive

10-22-2006, 10:40 AM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesHow else would you preserve a card which you valued? Lamination was not yet an option. So doesn't shellac make sense? You can see thru it. It protects.

Archive

10-22-2006, 10:44 AM

Posted By: jay behrensballs were shellaqued on a regular basis. Sadly, instead of preserving the signature, what it did was leach the ink out of the ball. If you chipped the shellaque, you lost that portion of the sig. I had a wonderful presentation game used ball from the 1923 WS signed by Ruth, McGraw, Huggins, Altrock and McQuillian. The owner decied to try and remove the shellaque becuase it was yellowing and cracking so bad. He ended up removing half the Huggins sig. It was the only signed baseball I ever owned that I didn't get signed in person. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-22-2006, 11:04 AM

Posted By: jPBarry or Joe (thanks for the scan) Is it more likely that a card that has had laquer or gloss applied to it would have a better chance of being authentic rather than a reprint? i have seen reprints of T206 & T205 and they are glossy like the cards of today (upper deck,topps etc.)an obvious gloss that you can tell was applied in the production process. on the other hand i have seen cards that something was applied to it and its easy to see it was done by human hand. That leaves the ? of possible authenticity. i would think those that are in the business of making fake T206's dont apply gloss to them. what do you think ?

Archive

10-22-2006, 11:15 AM

Posted By: joeAnyone have any opinions on the Cobb T205 that I scanned? I know SGC deemed it counterfeit, but maybe because of the shellac type shiny stuff? Tough with a scan I know, but are there other ways to identify the counterfeit cards, such as this T205? Thanks Joe Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

Archive

10-22-2006, 11:26 AM

Posted By: barrysloateJoe- it's really tough to tell from a scan. Again, I would have to have it in hand to make an assessment.

Archive

10-22-2006, 11:33 AM

Posted By: joeThanks Barry, like I said before, someday I'll get this card into your hands or someone on the board. Maybe cleveland next summer. Joe Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

Archive

10-22-2006, 11:35 AM

Posted By: LentelAt first glance it looks different than most t205's I have seen. Not positive but doesnt look right

Archive

10-22-2006, 11:49 AM

Posted By: John SI don't believe that it was common, but I have seen at least a few examples with shellac coatings. I have a N300 with some type of clear-coating applied. As stated by other members, it tends to yellow and crack over time, especially after 111 years. <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1161452883.JPG">

Archive

10-22-2006, 12:58 PM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisThe Ty Cobb card with the Ty Cobb back has a sheen type of coating on the front. Which, in my opinion, renders it not a T206 card. Plus, the fact that it has a unique Factory 33 on it. None of the 524 cards in the T206 set have this Fac.#. It resembles a T213 card. Nowadays, most collectors are not aware of the shiny front on this card, since the few that have been found are "locked-up" in Graded plastics. T-Rex TED

Archive

10-22-2006, 01:06 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI agree with Ted that the Cobb back is no more a T206 than all the Coupon backs that look like T206's. Also, all of the other T206 backs are found on dozens if not hundreds of players' cards; the Ty Cobb back is only on the red Cobb. That in itself is strange. The Ty Cobb brand seems to have had no interest in securing any affiliation with the players in the set; their only interest was to promote their brand by using one very famous local player.

Archive

10-22-2006, 01:10 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackShelaquing both fakes and and genuine cards is uncommon. I have heard of a case or two of altered cards (common to rare variation) that were shelaqued. This was to help cover the alterations on the front of the card. The buyer didn't detect the alterations himself, but noticed right away that the card was shinnier than his other cards from the issue so had others look at it.

Archive

10-22-2006, 01:30 PM

Posted By: steve fJoe, Barry's right. Really need to have the card in hand to be certain... Compared to graded T205's, yours appears off. If you don't have another T205 for comparison, check this example at the LOC and you may see differences. (Large file, be patient.) <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/bbc/1400/1480/1483fu.tif" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/bbc/1400/1480/1483fu.tif</a>

Archive

10-22-2006, 01:48 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackForgot to add that antique shelaqe or varnish or whatever will likely get darker with age, often quite dark. If the covering is clear and bright, like laminate at the drug store, it likely is recent ... I would think few if anyone would varnish a genuine T205 Cobb in recent years. I would think if you gave a genuine T205 Cobb to most people, even if when they weren't card or baseball fans, the idea of varnishing the card wouldn't even cross their minds. Now, there may be someone out there who, when given a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle for Christmas, proceeds to the local Kinko's to laminate the card but he would be a rarity.

Archive

10-22-2006, 02:37 PM

Posted By: fkwHere is a T206 that I owned. It has some type of coating on the front that has turned it slightly pinkish-yellow. Overall it still is a nice card, but obviously has something on it. <img src="http://centuryoldcards.com/images/t206cobbgreen.jpg">

Archive

10-22-2006, 03:39 PM

Posted By: joeHere is the Cobb and a Delahanty. Pretty much the same color. The Cobb shows up darker. joe <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1161466640.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1161445714.JPG"> Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

Archive

10-22-2006, 03:47 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackOld fishing lures were varnished, and you can often identify modern fakes with a black light. I don't own lures, but have heard that the modern varnish often fluoresces brightly, while antique varnish does not.

Archive

10-24-2006, 01:11 PM

Posted By: Lee BehrensI have this T206 Devore that has been shalacked. I got off the phone with SGC and they said if the card is deemed original but shalacked they will slab it authentic. <img src="http://attic2cash.net/T206DevoreRedHindu.jpg">

Archive

10-24-2006, 01:21 PM

Posted By: leonGuys...part of the reason a Cobb back is a T206 is that it's worth more than a T213 that way. Believe it or not I think it's a deciding factor. With that being said I still need a Cobb back for my T206 back set <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>. (they are cool cards regardless...and I don't really consider it an '06 either) edited to add I don't believe Cobb/Cobb is a T213 either....I believe it's a unique set....