Recolored 1888 N162 Cap Anson from SGC 1.5 to PSA 4
 

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...&postcount=767

If you bought this PSA 4 recently from PWCC, you should probably return it.

Edit: not sure it was purchased/submitted by Gary Moser because it was bought via Heritage Auctions.

There could have been a bunch of paper scrap stuck to the front of the card that soaked off like the paper scrap on the back did. It's not necessarily recolored. Just fyi...

I don't think people should be stating things like this card is recolored without proof. This card might be recolored. It's also possible that the before and after shots aren't even be the same card.

With everything negative I've seen and read about from PSA and SGC I still have a hard time believing they would miss two separate spots on the same card that were colored in.

Then I'd love for the current owner to chime in with the card condition in hand.

If you look at the back of the card, you can see the remnants of the stain on the PSA 4. It matches the stain on the SGC 1.5, meaning it is the same card.

Steve

Very depressing. TPGs need to step up their game on expensive cards. As a collector I know I have put too much faith in these companies based on what has been revealed over the last several months in particular.

Even if it's not the same card and not re-colored that seems like a real sketchy 4.

Did it also get a PWCC sticker for exceptional eye appeal?

Even on the doctored card there's still obvious staining on the back, and paper loss as evidenced by a bunch of type being almost unreadable.

If that were, say a 1957 Topps card with those issues, would it have gotten any better then a "2"?

I agree. Even if not doctored (and I fully believe it is the same card and the card was totally doctored), how on earth did it get a 4 with the paper loss on front and the missing lettering on back? PSA screwed the pooch x2 on this one.

How did the words Anson and Brouthers reappear on the back where there seems to be paper loss on the 1.5? Or is that extra material that was stuck maybe?

Not paper loss. It's scrapbook remnants (or whatever it was glued to).

Thanks David, that makes sense.

Here's a T206 that I sold last year that had residue on the back. I bought it thinking it was paper loss until it arrived and I looked at it hand.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ghlight=Jordan

I bought this Anson in the latest PWCC auction. Really appreciate everyone bringing the changes to my attention.

Having the card in hand, I believe like a poster above said that there was residue and paper scrap on the card, and those have been removed. I can't see any evidence of recoloring or filling, and the black dots on the top left are on the case & not the card.

You might want to take another look at your card. I don't have the advantage of having the card in hand but, to me, that sure looks like paper loss on the front that was filled in with color. Heck, the color doesn't even match and you can still see what appears to be paper loss that wasn't filled in all the way.
https://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/3/9/...27971905_o.jpghttps://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/3/9/...27971878_o.jpg

Pretty sure the doctor removed extra paper on front and back. You can see it better in hi-res on the Heritage website:

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1...umbnail-071515

You can still see the same pattern on what appears to be the area that was colored in. IF it was additional paper that was removed, how does the pattern remain the same?

Either way, that top left corner is paper loss. No question about that. PSA 4?

Here's what the top left border should look like.

I can't quibble with you on that. Looks like what I'd imagine a rebuilt corner might look like, but can't say I've seen many of those - intentionally. This Kevin Saucier article on rebuilding corners was re-posted on Blowout. I recall when it first made its rounds on Net54 12 years ago.

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...ard-to-detect/

.
.
.

Good old Kevin. I remember here years and years ago when Kevin was offering a service to review your slabbed cards for a second opinion on alteration, Jim Crandell was touting his expertise, and when I asked Jim how many of HIS cards Kevin had revewed, he said none.

If I recall, Crandall was a true believer that none of his high grade T206 cards that had been graded by PSA had been tampered with, and that included a belief that none had ever been soaked in water.

Thanks for the update. It seems odd that there would be paper affixed to the front of the card and that it was originally submitted that way to SGC last year. I would still recommend sending it to PSA for a review. If you like the card, and they agree it is overgraded, you will get the card back in a lower numbered slab and a check for the difference between what you paid and the value of the new grade.
Are the remaining white spots on the front paper loss as well or still additional paper adhered?

If you were stuck in a scrapbook for 100+ years you might have some paper shards stuck in your mustache and on your sleeve too :D The scraps on the fronts are usually a result of excess paste/glue on the fingertips of the original owner touching the card when gluing it down. Over time the front of the card touching the opposing page, or possibly being accidentally swiped over with more sticky fingers. Don't forget that scrapbooks were a work in progress. I've handled many Victorian scrapbooks where there is paper shrapnel on fronts and backs, and many other types of debris. Not odd at all when you have experience with 19th century ephemera. My 2c

This thread is a good example of why we shouldn't jump to conclusions or present speculation as fact. Without getting into the whole conservation vs alteration mess there is a difference in my opinion between removing excess paper or scrap book residue and recoloring a card, rebuilding a corner, trimming, etc.

We should be especially careful when making claims like this about cards that are live in current auctions.

How does PSA miss that upper left corner? T206fanatic, if you decide to keep the card, I'd send it to PSA & get a partial refund on their grading mistake.

The card sure looks like it's been re-colored to me. Look at the spot on the left of the card that I believe to be paper loss. Now see my pics below. The pic on the left is from the Heritage Auction. The pic on the right is from the PWCC auction. In the PWCC auction you can see what appears to me to be the same spot filled in with color. If you look real hard, you can still see the same pattern of paper loss even through the added color. You can also see what appears to be a small speck of white where the added color wasn't filled in all the way. It's there. Now maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me and it's really something else other than added color? That's a possibility. But there is definitely something there and I see it. If the owner of the card wants to conveniently overlook it, that's fine. He can also conveniently overlook the paper loss in the upper left corner and believe it's really a PSA 4 if he wants to.

I tend to believe the guy with the card in hand, even if his opinion is biased. As he is the one who owns the card it doesn't really matter what the rest of us think. And regardless of whether it's been soaked, recolored, or isn't altered at all it's a nice looking card that I wouldn't mind having in my collection.

I think that was just dissonance. He's a smart guy and knows cards, he had to know.

It's probably small spots of paper loss where the stuck piece lifted some of the surface off with it when it was removed. The pattern could just be that the surface underneath was covered for so long that the color is darker from less exposure. Ever taken a sticker off of something that was outside for awhile and the surface underneath was un-faded?

The 19th century scrapbooks I've come across have had dozens of non-sport cards just like the Anson, pasted or glued in them. When you remove by soaking them there isn't always a clean separation from the pages. The card is 131 years old, if it had paper shards stuck to it for that long there's a good chance some of the ink surface fused with the glue and came off. I can't justify the grade at all but a couple people are really wanting this to be a color touch up when its likely not. If it was they sure did a crappy job leaving a bunch of tiny spots!

I'm starting to lean towards the evidence that there was paper stuck to the front of the card that was removed, however that doesn't excuse the remnants of the glue stain on the back, and the back of the card also looking like the text was sandpapered over several times.

yeah but the ignorant blind poker player only sees what he wants, not the facts

It's probably the same card, but it is possible two cards had similar stains. Just like it's possible the card was recolored, and it's possible it wasn't. Are you really too stupid to understand that?

I think there's a distinction in color in the area where the paper was compared to the rest of the card. I don't think it's due to recoloring, but, rather, the ink under the paper having not been exposed to the elements for the past ~130 years the way the rest of the card's front was. We're talking about a difference in color that's so slight that even having blown the image up, what, 10x?, it's still a case of some people see it and some don't. With such a subtle change I think my theory seems more logical than PSA missing multiple recolored spots.

no opinion about the corner shot from the back
 

(no not the one Kawhi Leonard hit to win the seventh game at the last second) but based on all the scans posted I think it's almost a certainty that there was just excess paper removed. Possibly due to the sticky finger theory as many times that's the case with antique paper in the form of trade and insert cards that have been glued in a scrapbook by a child with six fingers BUT such a condition would likely result in the part of the layer underneath coming loose from the card when removing it.
Particular to this issue and quite a few other "N" cards is that they were glued into stock or company issued albums - often contemporaneous with their issue. The company issued album pages had a very porous texture and the inking on the N162's (and others) was layered on the surface. Over time small bits of paper fiber from an opposing album page might adhere to the front of a card as the items are exposed to aging and varying storage conditions - often while pressed together in a box with great great grandpa's stuff in the attic for generations. When the excess fiber is removed by soaking (NOT always possible) - the underlying inking may exhibit any number of differences - sometimes subtle on a micro level when compared to the unaffected surrounding neighborhood under scrutiny and at other times more obvious. That's pretty much what I see here. I have seen quite a few examples of this in my 20+ years of collecting this stuff.

SOAKING CARDS HAS BEEN AN ACCEPTED PRACTICE BY A WIDE MAJORITY OF HOBBY PARTICIPANTS at least as best I can judge since I started collecting. I would imagine more than 80% of 19th century tobacco cards were soaked from an album and likely significantly more. You would have a different hobby if soaking was verboten. If there's no paper loss from the machinations whether to the printing on the back or a depiction on the front - I find no issue. It's up to the consumer.

no guarantees whether written or implied

I'll concede the added color issue. I don't have the card in hand, so I can't say with certainty. That issue aside, does anybody believe the card merits a PSA 4? Before anyone answers, look at the top left corner again.

SGC graded it a 1.5. PSA graded it a 4. Which TPG got it right?