altered? - what are your thoughts?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>These are two different e90-1 cards from the same set. Each are slabbed. As typical, the corners look like normal wear with the naked eye. Each has been photographed very close-up, angled at just the right position and digitally highlighted (brightness/contrast only) so that a better assessment can be made. <br /><br />What is your opinion and why?<br /><br /><br />Card #1<br /><br /><img src="http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s139/only_child/e90_3.jpg"> <br /><br /><br />Card #2<br /><br /><img src="http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s139/only_child/e90_5.jpg"><br /><br />Card#2A - closer shot<br /><br /><img src="http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s139/only_child/e90_1_N.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br />Kevin Saucier

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p>Looks like the corners have been re-built though not very professionally. (IMHO) I'm surprised that these would pass a competent grader's examination.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>I am sure not envious of people who have selected a hobby niche where this consideration is important, however, it is my opinion that both cards have been altered.<br /><br />The reason that I say this is that there appears to be more "card material" adhered to both cards than would be required if each card had totally square corners. This is particularly apparent on card 2 where the adherent material is bulbous. Card 1 requires some mental three dimensional repositioning of the material, and that is most accurately done by computer, however, imho there is also too much material on that card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Probably both--right Kevin. Please give us the details behind these.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rick McQuillan</b><p>Kevin, thanks for the great post. Here is my two cents. <br /><br />I have been looking at some of my E cards and T206's under a 2x magnifyer, a 10x magnifyer, and a 100x microscope. None of the corner wear on my cards looks similar to the corners on your cards. On my cards with similar corner wear I can see some "build up", or thickening of material, but the built up material looks more like it is due to wear and separation of paper rather than the fairly thick, solid material that appears in your photos. Under 100k magnification the corner wear appears almost like a cotton ball and I can see many individual fibers. <br /><br />The other issue that makes it difficult to judge your cards is that we can't see the edges. On a card with normal corner wear the edges with the wear will be thicker than the edges with little or no wear.<br /><br />Another indication (and I can't really tell from your photos) is that the corner build up on your cards appears to be of uniform thickness throughout the entire wear area, but with normal wear the thickest part of the wear would be on the very tip of the corner and the "unlayering" would get thinner as you get nearer the body of the card.<br /><br />My guess is that both cards are altered.<br /><br />Gosh, I need to get a life! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Rick<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>If I had seen these in person, I wouldn't think twice as they look like a corner mush to me. But given that Kevin is posting it, the chances they are altered goes way up (or at least the chances that Kevin thinks they are altered goes way up). <br /><br />Kevin, let us know what you think. Also, if it is an alteration, what's the motive? I mean, the alteration doesn't look good, the card isn't going to grade higher with a corner like that compared to one with corner wear (I'm guessing on that)...so why would someone do that on purpose? Looking forward to learning.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>I think 1 is just a rough corner, but 2 definitely looks altered.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>My guess is also that both are altered....It looks like there's too much paper on them...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>Correct, cards 1 & 2 are both altered with rebuilt stock on trimmed edges.<br /><br /><br /><br />Here are two different cards from the very same set. Both are appropriately graded as Authentic. <br /><br />These card have been trimmed, some on more than one edge. The pictures below show an edge lip that were probably caused in the card doctoring process. As a comparison, I trimmed a couple cards with two different devices and pressed especially hard to exaggerate the raised lip. This is caused when a straight edge used as a guide is pressed firmly on the opposite side as the cutting utensil is drawn across. The pressure from that straight edge creates the raised edge. * Note - this is yet another objective sign to look for when examining a card suspected of being trimmed.<br /><br />The e90-1's both have a faint but very clear raised lips (very distinct under a halogen light) in addition to an obviously trimmed edge. The slightly lighter toned edge (which can't be seen) would indicate the trim job was done fairly recently (my theory). <br /><br />The raised edge would lead one to believe that this was done intentionally by someone with experience in an attempt to improve the look of the card...presumably to get a higher grade and are just a few of several.<br /><br />My humble opinion is that this is not the work of an old collector who trimmed cards so they would fit into an album or for aesthetics, these are trim jobs gone bad. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Card #3 - a trimmed edge with a reverse side raised edge compared to an exaggerated trimmed edge<br /><br /><img src="http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3120/trimpointscompmp1.jpg"><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />Card #4 - another but better example of a trimmed edge with objective findings. Again an exaggerated trimmed card is shown below it.<br /><br /><img src="http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/1843/trimpointscomp2me3.jpg"><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />What are your collective thoughts so far?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Kevin Saucier

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rick McQuillan</b><p>Kevin, this is a fascinating subject for me. I appreciate the time and effort that you put into these posts.<br /><br />I was at a card show a couple of months ago and bought some T206's from a dealer who is very reputable, but he deals mainly in 50's and 60's baseball cards. I bought all of his T206's except for one card. This was a beautiful common, with 4 sharp corners, no creases or wear, and probably would have graded a 7. I noticed right away that the card didn't look quite right, and after I examined it a little closer I could tell that it was trimmed.<br /><br />If this had happened a couple of years ago, before I became obessed with this board and T206's, I would not have noticed the trim job.<br /><br />Thanks much!<br />Rick

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Note to self:<br /><br />When trimming with a metal ruler and exacto, be careful not to use unnecessary pressure on the card, because you could permantntly distort the card surface.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Kevin- do you have any clear scans you can provide of vintage cards that have been rebacked? In particular I would like to see a close up of the edges. Thank you.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>Here you go Barry, from a thread a few months ago:<br /><br /><br /><br />Here are edge examples of rebacked cards and some things to look for:<br /><br /><br />The first is a near perfect example with no seams, added tone, vintage faux cuts and unassuming thickness. Suspect cards at this level need all edges to be thoroughly examined with a loupe and under a halogen. Hopefully you will see some flaw or indicator that it has been rebacked such as; small cracks, overlap in card stock at the corners, fresh white cuts, adhesive residue (on the edge or on the borders) or raised fibers from sanding. Almost all rebacked cards that I have seen have thicker stock than a traditional card.<br /><br /><img src="http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s139/only_child/rebacked_nice1.jpg"><br /><br /><br />Here is an example of what a slight seam split (right side) looks like. Many may still miss this since the split is close to normal then blends into a very normal looking edge. Many pre-war cards that have not been altered may even have edges that naturally look just like this.<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s139/only_child/rebacked1.jpg"><br /><br /><br />This rebacked card has near perfect thickness and great tone. Two completely different type and color cardstocks were joined creating a very distinct seam. Thankfully most rebacked cards will have this appearance. Without a loupe and inspection light, even this card has a natural look to the naked eye.<br /><br /><img src="http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s139/only_child/rebacked2_line.jpg"><br /><br /><br /><br />Kevin Saucier<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Thanks Kevin. It's more than a little scary because even looking at your pictures, if you didn't tell me the cards were rebacked I would probably miss it. The work is so well done that without magnification it looks seamless.<br /><br />And I don't need to tell you that cards like those are already residing in holders. Here's a question: Obviously some kind of adhesive was used to glue the front to the back. Is it possible when viewing the front of the card that some light lines of glue would become visible along the edges? As glue gets older would it be likely to stain the paper?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />Yes adhesives are used. If done with any skill it is very difficult to tell from looking at the card surface or as you can see..the edges as well. The adhesives will not show through the front, back or edges. IMO this is the most arduous of any alteration, taking as much as eight tedious man-hours per card. It is also very risky, with a high probability of destroying either section.<br /><br />Sloppy or inexperienced work may show signs of doctoring in many places with seeping soaking adhesives being the big one.<br /><br />If you suspect quality work, scope the corner edges. Rounding or squaring sections will sometimes reveal the front/back section of the other card since that is the toughest part to perfect...IMO.<br /><br />The middle card used in the example above is a t205 front with a t206 back. I sent it to a t205 expert for kicks. He could not idently the edge seams until pointed out. Scary was his words as well. I'm just hoping to give enough info to help others identify this alteraton.<br /><br /><br />Hope this helps!<br /><br /><br /><br />Kevin Saucier

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Thanks Kevin. Among other things you need good eyesight, something I was not blessed with.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>And this example applies solely to cards which have been slit in half, correct, Kevin?<br /><br />Cards which have been seperated by soaking, such as photographic cards for example, which result in the picture having its backing entirely replaced; involves an entirely different diagnostic approach regarding seam identification (because there is none). However, the residual glue inspection would still apply, I guess.<br /><br />Other than determining that period materials were used, what else would you look for?<br /><br />Also, applied to all rebacking jobs, is it effective to search for glue with a black light? Or does everyone who does this use old glues which will not flouresce?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>Are these some of the cards that you sent to PSA and SGC and the graders were unable to catch?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I've always felt someone could buy an N173 cabinet of Anson with a nice photo but a damaged mount...<br /><br />And then a Dog's Head cabinet of a common player with a clean mount...<br /><br />And all sorts of funny things could ensue!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>This stuff is very scary. What would it cost to have some serious work like this done to a card? I'm not asking to have it done; rather I want to know what value of a card do I need to worry about this stuff potentially being done to it. If it costs $500 no one is going to do it to card that will only bring in $300.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>"Are these some of the cards that you sent to PSA and SGC and the graders were unable to catch?"<br /><br /><br />I haven't sent in any rebacked yet. Instead of wasting my money I just made some Frankenstien cards and let Mike Baker and a couple other collectors examine them. He always gives an honest opinion of whether it would pass or not. Here are some that I had fun with which have been shown here before. Any staining is from the original card source and not any adhesives:<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://webpages.charter.net/sabrjay/altered/t205back.jpg"> <img src="http://webpages.charter.net/sabrjay/altered/backed.jpg"><br /><br />Pirate made to look hand trimmed. Done to warn collectors to be careful<br /><img src="http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s139/only_child/pirateback.jpg"><br /><br />Other than it's an impossible combination, this is tough to tell with solid seams, blended corners and correct thickness<br /><img src="http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/2311/t20552wt8.jpg"><br /><br /><br />Enjoy!<br /><br /><br />Kevin Saucier

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The Pirate one is of course incredibly scary.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>If the Pirates can really be created in that way, that would be something else. Someone unscrupulous would have much to gain if the merging of the T213-2 of T213-3 front with the plentiful Pirate chinese backs cannot be detected by PSA or SGC.<br /><br />Barry, I agree with your point about the N173s. Same can be said about almost any series of cabinet cards. If a T5 Hall of Famer's photo is detached and stuck on a common mount, this would be impossible to distinguish. The last group of T5 cabinets in Clean Sweeps all had different looking mounts and they were all slabbed by PSA as authentic.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Wes- I suppose with a vivid imagination you could create almost anything.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Until grading and alteration-detecting become an exact science, it's all speculation and conjecture to me. Two different sets of eyes could call the same card auth and altered. So what's the point with all the conspiracy theories? They seem amusing enough, but what's the point? Should we all be so paranoid that we never buy any cards ever again- graded or not?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>Here are cards # 1& 2 trimmed and rebuilt. As you can see they are from the Lionel Carter collection and appropriately graded "Authentic" by SGC. Most, if not all, of his cards sold for a premium simply because the chain of custody was so tight and relatively secure. Many of his sets were purchased and preserved by his hands only or were bought/traded before doctoring cards was even a consideration.<br /> <br /><br /><img src="http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s139/only_child/cartercards.jpg"><br /> <br /><br />Shown in another post were these two cards each having been trimmed with crimping evident. Cuts that were presumably made by someone with some skill and not scissor cut long ago to fit into an album...just my opinion.<br /><br />Here are some possible questions that may come to mind:<br /><br /> <br /><br />1) When were these cards purchased or obtained?<br /><br />2) Was this set pieced together, obtained all or partially at once?<br /><br />3) Why do they have rebuilt corners...a somewhat modern alteration? <br /><br />4) Why were more than a few trimmed if Mr. Carter just mounted as-is?<br /><br />5) Who did the altering and when?<br /><br />6) Did any others by chance get past any graders?<br /><br />7) Knowing there were several high grades along with a mixture of others, do you think his collection was as secure as many thought?<br /><br />8) If these were purchased long ago, the modern chain of custody for this set would have been; Carter to Mastro to SGC back to Mastro. Is this correct?<br /><br /><br />Just throwing this out because I find it a little confusing. What are your thoughts or opinions?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Kevin Saucier

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Interesting, Kevin. Are you suggesting the possibility that some of Carter's cards were replaced with latter-day altered ones before they hit the auction?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>if someone liked their cards to look mint, alterations might have been made just to please themself.(with no intention of ever selling,or ever imagining the consequences)) <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>"if someone liked their cards to look mint, alterations might have been made just to please themself.(with no intention of ever selling,or ever imagining the consequences)) "<br /><br />That's a plausible possibility

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>I won the E90-1 Lionel Carter near-set in the Mastro auction and gave a few of the Authentic cards to Kevin. Here are some thoughts on his questions:<br /><br />1) When were these cards purchased or obtained?<br /> In another thread, I asked when LC stopped collecting. It was shown he was still collecting into the 1990s, but that doesn't really help us know when he picked up the E90-1 cards or these two cards specifically. I don't think we'd ever know unless we asked LC, and I'm not even sure he'd remember.<br /><br />2) Was this set pieced together, obtained all or partially at once?<br /> The grades throughout the set was really mixed. These two SGC Authentic cards do look nice, but there were other SGC Authentic cards that were erally beat up, some with pinholes, some that were really 3/4th of a card instead of a whole card. My guess is he got a bunch in a lot, but then tried to piece the set together slowly.<br /><br />6) Did any others by chance get past any graders?<br /> I hope not, because I own 90 cards. The good thing is SGC caught these two (among others), so IMO the chances of them missing others may be minimized. Also, their history of catching altered cards has been pretty good IMO.<br /><br />8) If these were purchased long ago, the modern chain of custody for this set would have been; Carter to Mastro to SGC back to Mastro. Is this correct?<br /> Back to #1 - if he was collecting through into the 90s and upgrading or putting together his sets, then possibly he bought some of the E90-1 in the 80s or 90s when trimming started becoming an issue. Then again, it sounds like he wouldn't have paid up for a mint card (even though he liked mint cards), so its less likely someone profited greatly by selling them trimmed cards. Also, e-cards were fairly cheap in the 80s/90s, so there was even less incentive. I'm not expert, I didnt' start collecting these til a couple of years ago, but that's what I hear.<br /><br /><br />edited to add note: in case anyone was wondering due to my initial post in this thread, I was not aware these were the same cards that I gave him when Kevin first posted them (not that I mind they were the same cards).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>"Kevin. Are you suggesting the possibility that some of Carter's cards were replaced with latter-day altered ones before they hit the auction?"<br /><br /><br /><br />Really not suggesting anything. I'm just taking some objective findings and throwing them out there for all to see as I am curious what others think. It's certainly debatable. <br /><br />Personally, I found it interesting. Maybe something, maybe nothing...who knows?<br /><br /><br /><br />Kevin Saucier <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>Since no one here was there to see the alleged alterations take place, the conclusion that the cards were trimmed or rebacked or whatever is a subjective opinion based on purportedly expert analysis of a physical object. Not to say Kevin isn't with expertise in the field; merely pointing out that unless you saw the alteration performed you are stating a subjective opinion based on observations of the finished product and not an objective fact.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p><b>cmoking</b> -- Carter was collecting E cards as early as 1969. He is on an old list of E collectors/traders that I have. Interestingly, so is Bill Mastro. (edited to add: I am making no "suggestions" by adding Mastro's name, just stating a name that is prominent to all and that I thought was interesting. There are 49 names on this list, Nagy included.)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p>Adam...I've said it before, when I need an attorney I'm calling you first! It helps that your local as well <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />No...I think most would say hacked edges and two cards with almost identically rebuilt corners are cleary objective. IMO grading is subjective.<br /><br /><br />Kevin

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>"unless you saw the alteration performed you are stating a subjective opinion based on observations of the finished product and not an objective fact"<br /><br />Naming the type of evidence in no way infers its inadequacy. There is no intent to convict the doctor here, simply to identify the patient as dead.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Paul, thanks for the interesting tidbit, its always nice to hear of firsthand accounts. Did you buy chance buy/sell/trade with Lionel Carter? Any interesting stories?<br /><br />In the other thread, Dennis provided this link to a story written by George Vrecheck on Lionel Carter: <a href="http://oldbaseball.com/refs/carter/lionelcarter.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://oldbaseball.com/refs/carter/lionelcarter.html</a><br /><br />From this section, I figured he started collecting E and T cards shortly after WWII...but it doesn't answer the more interesting question (at least more interesting to me) of "when did he stop collecting and buying?"<br /><br />"After the war Carter moved to Chicago. In 1946, John D. Wagner sent Carter a significant collection of early tobacco cards after learning of Carter’s interest in cards and his war record. Carter politely declined the gift and sent the cards back. But in time he was able to trade with Wagner and others so that he worked backward in completing tobacco and candy sets from the early 1900s. This time it was harder for Carter to get the mint condition cards that he preferred. He couldn’t buy them as they were issued. "<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>Here are two examples that illustrate perfectly the comment about not all of Mr. Carter's cards that were altered appearing near-mint. The Easterly looks beautiful, but check out the bottom corners on the Goode.<br /><br /><img src="http://members.aol.com/wolfie51sb/lct206.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay wolt</b><p>I have some Auth Carter cards as well<br />and found it odd since the Mastro DVD<br />kept talking about Lionel Carters chase<br />for perfection. That filler cards were not<br />his style he wanted only the best.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p><b>cmoking</b> -- Thanks for the very interesting link. Nope, I never b/s/t-ed with Carter (I wish!) I was pretty young then and just starting to go after pre-war, probably didn't have the nerve. The list is from a Candy and Gum issue "Handbook" I got at the time. I put up a few pages here on another thread a couple of weeks ago -- not sure which one. If interested shoot me an email and I'll send you a scan.