Quote:
Originally Posted by griffon512
Don't confuse indifference with what is obvious: this has been a bridge to nowhere and will continue to be so because the research process is unreliable, random, and invalid. It would not pass muster to even a hint of academic research scrutiny. As I said before -- though I recognize that any objective points will likely never be digested -- if one can not even verify which cards are coming from Bond Bread packages and Sports Star Subject packages everything else is irrelevant. That should be obvious but apparently it isn't. If one is doing a scientific experiment and they can't even identify who is in the control group and who is in the experimental group any results that follow are irrelevant. Clear enough? Probably not.
In Ted's Post 298 -- comprised mainly of Homogenized Bread cards he got when he was a kid in 1947 with the exception of two cards he identified as in later years -- it is clear that there is no material difference in the "intensity of the whiteness," the key differentiator in your words, between the backs of his cards and the supposed Sports Star Subject back you often use in your post.
If you want to blacklight every card you can gather from the Festberg find and compare them to Homogenized Bread cards, go for it, no one is going to stop you.
If people want to waste their time contributing to this "research" that's their choice. I've wasted enough time reading these posts.
By the way, I'm pretty confident there is nothing legally binding about slapping on a copyright on a Internet forum post. Not that anyone of rational mind would have the slightest interest in reproducing the information in this thread.
Copyright: Me, dumbass who spent too much time on this thread
|
It obvious from your response that you did not read the reference,
http://poynton.ca/ColorFAQ.html, which primarily concerns reconciling the difference with digital images. Had you done so, you would have recognized that a pool of pictures being sought does not produce research that is unreliable, random, or invalid. In fact, it provides guidance for taking random pictures and modifying to a standard normal for computer use. Regardless of the pool of pictures we obtain, all can be adjusted to the same color standards we set for Bond Bread and Sport Star Subject cards. From Ted we have original Bond Bread inserts and I have some of the Subjects cards, on which to establish such standards. It is a complex and detailed process I am not yet willing to do unless I have enough pictures to apply it to.
I see you have apparently lost interest in finding out just what is actually a Bond Bread or a Sport Star Subjects card. For some reason you chose to delete most of the content of your postings in this thread prior to the one quoted above.
It seems you did not like the direction I was going in pointing that high grade cards of the lookalike Bond Bread and Sport Star Subjects sets primarily come from Sport Star Subjects sets. Obviously you do not agree that placing a single card inside a bread package to be handled as it will by the recipient will cause cards to have more wear than those being placed in a protective box from which one did not have to take any cards out.
I also noticed that on 05-29-2020 you started a Post, which you have now changed the title to “no longer for sale -- 1947 Homogenized Bond Bread SGC 7.5 Jackie Robinson RC.” There, you were offering an SCG graded 86 NM+ card that SCG had labeled as a “1947 Bond Bread Jackie Robinson” for over $3,500.
I am duplicating your pictures from your thread below.
If you are really interested in knowing whether your card is accurately authenticated by SCG, then asked them how they know its not a Sport Star Subject set card. The rest of us would like to know the answer. Do you?
I'm sorry I have not been fully disclosing all of the information I have. I first wanted to address the compelling questions raised for years in this thread that may cause some to misinterpret the facts I have uncovered.
For example, in the scan of the back of the SCG card above, the lower right corner of the picture shows the round die-cut ending but with the remaining bottom end of the card not in direct alignment with that die cut. The cards from a stack of sheets were first cut with a straight knife blade to make stacks of individual cards. Then two adjoining sides of a stack of card were die-cut, then the cards rotated 180 degrees to die-cut the other two sides. The opposite corners of a card were cut by the same die-cutter. While parts of the opposite corners show cuts from part of the same die-cutter, they are usually not an exact match. I have several examples of such die-cutting.
The cards were printed on sheets with no space between cards. Even today, straight-edge cutting of cards is not an exact science. Otherwise, “centering” would be of no concern. I will be providing in my article detailed information about the die-cutting, including pictures of the cuts different die-cutters used so you see which your card matches up with.
Griffon512, I own copyrights. I appreciate your attempt at humor in the “copyright” notice you added at the end of your post. I understand for a Copyright to be valid, it must say “copyright” or have the © symbol, the date, and the name and address of the copyright holder. I don't think yours meets that test. Even if it did, the fair comment I've made above about your post would be protected from copyright infringement. I make no claim to the intellectual property of anyone else.
Be well,
Mike
Copyright 2020 by Michael Fried, P.O. Box 27521, Oakland, California 94602-0521