Quote:
|
Quote:
If you've got $20,000 invested in a specific grade (9 versus 8), all this stuff is something to keep you up at night. If it's a low grade T206 common, you'll sleep just fine. I joke that my mom's so cheap that even if something turns out to be a fake she underpaid. My mom has a large painting on her wall, and after looking up close at it I informed her that it was a reproduction. She said "That's okay. I only paid $3 for it at a garage sale." |
Quote:
The result of my posting was that I was labeled a trouble-maker and basically told to shut up by more than one Net54 member. As long as there is money to be made, none of those who are profiting want to hear about it. Who's profiting? Most of those who collect slabbed cards. The same is true on the autograph side, which is why you will see autograph experts going after the low-hanging fruit (blatant forgers who set up their own TPA's, which none of us profit through) and leaving the big TPA's alone. As long as the money keeps flowing everyone is happy. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Just like the law passed some years ago that certain companies must give employees 90-days notice if there may be a plant closure. Since then all employee paychecks give notice that there may be a plant closure. |
I know it would likely never happen, but duly note that I said put the margin of error on the label, not a different number. The 1% example you use isn't the margin of error, it's a different calculation. That someone calls his dog a cat doesn't make it a cat.
|
Quote:
But I wasn't referring to margin of error in grading. I was referring to ignoring doctoring of cards for some submitters. |
How about we just stop trusting flips and make educated decisions for ourselves? It all comes down to capitalism in the end...I for one try to avoid doctored cards and whether its graded or not matters very little in my assessment.
|
Quote:
When I see the praise being lavished on people I know to be card doctors or who are outlets for card doctors, because they deliver a card timely, it makes me kinda sick sometimes. Well, that's overstating it, but still. |
Quote:
|
And some of them post on this website with no issues. If I ran the board, they would be "gone with the suspension."
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Gone With The Stain... Dick Towle.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ighlight=towle I thought the clue would be more than obvious. Guess I was wrong. |
Some of what he does I guess you could argue about, but he admits he takes out wrinkles.
|
Quote:
|
Much appreciated; I always thought it was bizarre he was allowed on this site.
|
Quote:
My gut tells me, after a bit of dirt/staining has been purposely added to hide this restoration, it is ver hard? Quote:
I appreciate the education lesson, however. Thanks for starting it. :) |
Built up corners are straightforward to identify.
|
Coming from a guy with 30 years experience... right? If the corners are rebuilt with modern paper, those will flouresce under a black light. However, ones built using donor T206 cards would not, based on the article above. Under a high power microscope, it might be easy as well. But to the regular Joe buying cards, it's not really a thought I have when purchasing cards. I just assume it hasn't been done and probably won't look for it.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Flash forward 31 years later, Andy Broome wrote a nice article in the June 2017 issue of Beckett's Vintage Collector titled "Altered States." It's about card doctoring - everything from trimming, soaking, re-coloring, power erasing, pressing, rebuilding, etc and leaves it to the reader to determine what is acceptable and what is not. He does say, "My personal belief is if nothing is added or taken away from the physical card and there is nothing left behind, then it it more likely acceptable." As collectors, we each have to determine what is acceptable and what is not. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
There are numerous ways it is identified. In part because the two parts don't seemly fuse together and, even if original paper stock is used, foreign substances have to be used to affix or integrate it to the card. Cut a single sheet of raw paper or card stock, cut it in half and try and put it back together using any method you can think of.
|
Quote:
|
I will quit this friendly debate, but I'm not wrong. There are net54 lawyers, accountants and physicians whose opinions I rightfully defer to, but this is my field.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The discussion about what can be identified and who can identify it is an interesting one.
My take on it is that there are some very skilled people on both sides of repairs. Doing the repair isn't hard, doing it so it's hard to detect is. And as far as I know, most real conservators don't try to make a repair undetectable, just undetectable to most people giving the item a casual look. They also do some important stuff like deacidifying the paper, stabilizing fragile pieces and doing acceptable and reversible stuff to ensure the item has a good chance of lasting a lot longer. In some hobbies, like old posters, that's entirely acceptable, in others like ours, it's not generally accepted. Detecting some alterations isn't easy. At the International stamp expo in 2006, they had thousands of square feet of displays of all sorts of amazing stuff. The one I spent the most time with was an assortment of altered stamps displayed by the Philatelic foundation (One of the stamp equivalents of PSA/SGC but in many ways better than either) I couldn't spot the alterations on nearly everything they displayed. Which was a bit scary. They showed pretty much every sort of "improvement" that can be done. Tears fixed so they were nearly invisible, missing corners, sides etc rebuilt and added, watermarks and other features of the paper itself added.. I thought I was pretty good until I spent an hour looking at that display. I've learned a lot since, but would still miss a decent portion of what I saw. That's why a marginally trained person giving a card a minute or so of inspection really just isn't enough. As far as the paper being possible to duplicate, I'll say that getting close is possible getting close enough even using original material will still be detectable. Might it be "possible" to duplicate it exactly? Yes, but it's very unlikely someone will do it any time soon. The detailed technical specs aren't even known in a general sense, and those more likely than not vary between sets and possibly even between print runs. And that's just the paper. |
Quote:
Soaking in water Soaking in chemicals Card stretching Re-coloring Removing creases Power erasing Trimming Rebuilding Removing wax stains Anything else you can think of I think you would have to qualify it by stating that for the sake of argument that the restoration/alteration would never be detectable, which would a buyer find acceptable and which would a buyer find not acceptable. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But we could word the poll as you suggested. I just don't think the poll would be answered honestly. Julie wrote 32 years ago she's fine with a crease being removed. Lew even said that he thought most of the card community would agree. Where did he get this assumption? By talking to / surveying collectors. So, what's changed in the last 32 years that it was acceptable then, but not now? |
Quote:
|
I would guess the only item that is debatable is the soaking with water to remove things/items that were not originally on the card. All other "improvements" would not be acceptable.
|
Quote:
Heck, here's a thread where Dan McKee admits to spooning out creases. It's a very interesting read. Oh, and wait for it...the most overused Net54 term..."Dan's a good guy." Sure, it says so in post #29. It's right there in black and white, you can read it for yourself. My point is that it happens a lot, most people just don't admit it. At least Dan admitted it... http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ght=Green+cobb Dick Towelle got banned for removing creases. :confused: |
Quote:
Cardstock is made from pulp, which comes from trees. If, for example, you examined two 1939 Dimaggio cards, one altered and one unaltered, under intense magnification, I can only assume that the DNA of the chemically altered card would leave some sort of fingerprint. You wouldn't even have to take the cards out of the slab. The day of reckoning is coming for slabbed altered cards. When a credible Forth Party Grader comes along to "out" these slabed altered cards, the game is over. The real question is will anyone care. I think the poll question should be this: If there were a foresnic cardstock lab that could determine if your slabbed vintage card was altered, would you pay to have it re-certified? |
Lol Arguing with DRCY about this is funny
David actually has been trained in this area. Arguing with someone who is actually an expert in this field shows how little you know on the subject. Coming on here and arguing with false information against someone who actually knows what they are doing shows you to be a fool. David may be to nice to point this out I am not.
The Mastro statement about every prewar 7 or better being altered is complete BS. He was trying to justify his greed. Are many, hell yeah, is everyone of them? Absolutely not. Every company has made errors saying I use a or b company so i know all my cards aren't altered is also a statement that makes one look the fool. Are some better than others? Absolutely they are, but they are all run by humans therefore they are all going to make mistakes sometimes. My suggestion is go out to shows and hang on boards talk to people get educated about the hobby. There are a lot of honest good hard working people in this hobby. There is also a lot of scum. It really isn't hidden as well as some make it out to be. |
Not all cardstock is made from wood pulp. T206s and many other sets of that era are on cardstock that's probably cotton and linen fibers. It's also pretty close to modern acid free cardstock, magazine backing boards are very close. (But not the same thickness, so don't even think about it...)
DNA can be seen, but the process isn't simply sticking it in a microscope. And it can't be seen all that well. Plus, the pulp could have bits of multiple trees, or other plants. An old papermakers trick if the pulp was too watery was to throw in a bale of straw. That would absorb water as it got ground up in the pulp mixer. Quote:
|
Quote:
Still this type of thread is done over and over. This thread and 'card values are falling' and 'what cards are the best value to buy now' type threads........ |
Quote:
|
People were nice in their debate. I wasn't offended.
However, as someone trained in museum sciences, I can tell you that people here would be amazed at the advanced science that is used in examining art and artifacts. There are instruments that examine the very molecular structure of material using x-rays, gamma rays and other radiation, and can not only identify what chemicals and substances are in it but their exact concentrations. They can not only identify a diamond, but, from the chemical structure, tell you where the diamond originated from. My research areas and expertise are in authenticity, not condition or grading. However, many forgeries in art and artifacts involve alterations-- everything making a common print into a rare variation to reconfiguring an ancient vase--, so identifying later added material, such as when rebuilding the corners of a trading card, is an integral part knowledge of someone in the area. If you want to read about the area: Authenticating Art and Artifacts: An Introduction to Methods and Issues Interestingly, the sports memorabilia hobby does not use many of the advanced methods used by museums. But for a $9.99 holiday special for a one minute look at your 1957 Topps, that's not to be expected. However, all the looking at scans, researching history and finding issue dates that is done on this board is all good stuff. Many collectors are legitimate historians and experts on their particular cards. As I say in the book, a veteran collector can often identify something as a reproduction before the university nuclear physicist can plug in his x-ray spectrometer. |
It is very interesting to see Steven tell David he is wrong. David, of course, is right.
Also would like to note that I agreed with Glyn on something - it might be the first or second time ever, so it's worth mentioning. Peter - some of the missed alterations are unforgivable while I'm sure some are accidental. Others exist because, while the technology to detect the alteration exists, it is too expensive to be practical;i.e-we couldn't afford to pay the TPA to do such checks. Numerous examples have been discussed here in the past, such as dryness of the item (water content). There are also some very nifty alterations that can currently be done to 19th century items without detection - I wrote an unpublished paper about these and ran it by some of the 19th century cardboard collectors here and they were almost unanimous in agreement that I should keep it unpublished. The tests were super-fun to run and I'm sure that if I have thought of them, others with financial incentive have not only thought about them, but have implemented them to the tune of many thousands of dollars. (don't think too much about it). |
Alright, it sounds like David knows much more than myself but I do not think TPGs are using the equipment that he is referring to...maybe I'm wrong, but I've never seen anyone use more than a 80x loupe, black light and some computer technology. So in that regard, with those tools, I will stand by my statement that good restorers can make it undetectable to TPGs...maybe not museum folk, but TPGs simply aren't museum folk.
|
Quote:
|
While I have been in the hobby for over 30 years, I am a born-again card collector. I haven’t seriously collected cards since the early 1990s. During my break from cards, I focused on autographs and memorabilia. When I started collecting cards again last year, I started to buy graded cards not because I like them, but because I was looking for the security of them not been altered. This thread is extremely depressing to me. I really don’t care if the card is graded or not, as I just want a nice looking card. I actually prefer raw cards. I mainly buy graded cards for financial security in case somebody has to sell them in the future from my family. I don’t want them to get ripped off. If the market comes tumbling down, then I guess it was all for not!
|
Quote:
I feel way safer buying raw cards. With the Mexican guy with the fake cards in PSA slabs, the cracked and resealed PSA slabs, and the fact it is harder to actually see/inspect the card through the layer of plastic. Another twist to this card doctoring thread. Like Scott I have experimented with sending a bad card to the grading companies, has anybody else and would you share the results? Here are mine, I send the same counterfeit card to the big 3. Beckett-Rejected on only attempt. SGC-Rejected on all 3 attemps PSA-Slabbed on all 5 attempts. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I've never cut a sheet. But if the same tools and methods are employed in someone's basement as they use at the factory, how is any grading company supposed to distinguish between a sheet cut card and a factory cut card if you can't tell the difference (ie the grain of the cut)? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Ungraded Cards are not “raw”, they are cards in their natural state
|
Quote:
|
Yes, in the sense that those things would look worse encased in plastic as well.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:01 AM. |