Interesting stuff.
I have no doubt at all that current technology could easily handle the easy things.
Size, no problem.
Corner wear also no problem. With exceptions on stuff like 88 score with three different die cuts. The first left tufts of torn cardstock on each corner, the second left those about 1/4 inch in from the corners on each edge. I'm sure that could be programmed around.
Edge wear - Tricky, but only because of the physical handling required to scan edges. Yes, even a hobby level robot could do it, but I'm not sure I'd trust a really expensive card to even a really nice commercial/industrial machine.
Identification would be possible, and probably fairly easy. The hard bit as I mentioned would be building the database. I know some of the automated systems can discern between a variety of objects on a conveyor, but as far as I know those systems are limited to picking out a known object from a group of other known objects, with maybe a few hundred different? The one I've seen only had to deal with about 10 different objects. How many cards are there? Just Topps base cards between 1970 and now is around 32000 not counting variations. And that's just base cards from one company.
Determining fakes from real based on the printing? Maybe easy, maybe not. You'd need fairly high resolution scans, I'm not sure how fast commercial scanners can do that. Certainly faster than my home scanner, but how fast? And that's where I think the data problems would get really troublesome. I would believe that adjusting for registration issues can be done simply. The same would probably be true for over/under inking, print lines smeared ink, etc. However once you're comparing dot patterns, the number of different cards goes up a lot. Some sets that had multiple print runs are different when seen at that level. Some sets have cardstock differences that are maybe challenging to tell apart from toning/staining. One of the earlier Topps Allen and Ginter sets had printed on "tobacco stains" (I learned about them when I was opening packs and eating a chocolate bar, I thought I'd ruined an entire box until I realized those stains were part of the design.
Presumably you'd need a known good example to compare the new image to.
That's a LOT of images and pretty big database. Yes, the storage isn't a problem, and a good system is fast enough that it's not really a problem. But the time to create that database and library of images with fairly high resolution seems a bit daunting to me. yeah, the junk wax era could be run through a really automated scanner, but you might have trouble getting access to the more expensive or rare cards.
Surfaces - Ok, I may have to surrender this point. I'm not positive, only because stuff like a scratch on glass usually changes the color where the scratch is, and that's easy for a machine. I'm not sure about something like fine scratches on a very glossy card, or a scratch on the back of a card where it's maybe a thousandth deep, and the same color as the surrounding cardstock, and can be similar to natural imperfections of the material.
I mentioned it poorly, others have said it better that it's more of a business case. How much do the really good systems cost for the physical machine and the development? And how fast can the cards be imaged on all 6 sides and compared? It's probably not hard to hire 3-4 people who can reasonably accurately grade a card in a few minutes for about the same as one good developer. And their hardware/technology cost is far lower, a decent magnifier is under a hundred maybe under 10 depending on how fancy you want. A top quality ruler and usable caliper under 50, and however fancy a computer you want for data entry.
Steve B
|