Sorry there was a systems gliche in my last post of less than an hour ago. Below it is corrected without the long white space and other errors. As to the other members' responses about the sources of the pictures, their manufacturers and the processses involved, you are getting closer. It's detailed and I hope to have a response posted very soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcoz
Nice cards guys!
|
A response about "Babe Ruth" and a note about seeing the reactions of ultra-violet (UV) light on the paperstock of a card to determine its vintage.
BE CAREFUL ABOUT USING UV LIGHT! It is part of normal sunlight but our eyes do not see it. Our bodies though sure can feel the sunburn UV light can cause. We can wear UV light shielding sunglasses, but don't stare directly at the sun. UV light can be dangerous.
Today, UV light sources are readily available and around us in many products. For example, lightbulbs generating more intense UV light than in sunlight are bought by many households to periodically sanitize away the bacteria and viruses that can normally accumulate including the bad "bugs" we do not want around. All of those sanitizing UV bulbs come with cautions not to be around the half to an hour or so while the light is on as the UV light can impact our bodies and to be especially careful not to look directly at the bulb when it is shining as that can damage your eyes. Eyes are not built to see UV wavelengths. All we see are the wavelengths normally visible to us that these bulbs simultaneously generate. It is the reaction to the UV light that is important, even though we cannot see the UV light itself.
UV light bulbs that specifically generate only short-wave or long-wave UV light (without the wavelengths of other colors) can be obtained. Post offices use UV light sealed inside some automated mail processing machines to read the chemicals it has had printed on first class stamps (and some others). These chemicals are invisible to us under normal light but will react to UV light by "glowing" in various colors that the machines can read. Newer US stamps react to certain wavelengths of shortwave UV light, while the Canadian and British stamps react to longwave UV light. You have seen a similar effect if you have ever gone into a "dark" room at some exhibition where UV light was shining on rocks or minerals. They sure glow, don't they.
Why does it seem like I have been rambling with all of the above information? Actually, the information is provided to specifically address the authenticity of the Babe Ruth card shown in the previous post.
First, the card is in a card holder. UV light has to directly shine on the thing you want to react to it or you get no reaction. Even a thin T-shirt usually protects covered skin from sunburn. The plastic in PSA's holder would block the UV from reaching the card so there is no possibility of a reaction occurring. Even a simple card sleeve will block out UV light. Anything between the UV light source and the object will block out the UV light and thus remove the possibility of a reaction occurring.
If grading services would now start to shine UV light through their holders as the test for previously graded cards, that would no test at all. The ability of a paper reaction to UV light has been block by the holder. No reaction can occur even if one possibly could on direct contact with UV light. A preliminary UV light test for the age of paper is that newer paper will react to the UV light while vintage paper will not react. Perhaps, grading services will perform the UV light test in the future by shining the light through the holder and see no reaction. Thus they can claim to have "proved" the paperstock of the card in the unopened holder was vintage as there was no reaction to UV light at all. What would be the value of such a claim when no UV light had actually shined on the card? Keeping this Babe Ruth card in it PSA holder provides a tremendous example of the quality of grading company expertise.
I am no expert on Babe Ruth's autograph. If someone wanted my opinion on whether a Babe Ruth autograph was genuine or not, the first thing I would want to do is see if thing the purported autograph was on was something that Babe Ruth could have actually signed. I've been around long enough to know that vintage Babe Ruth cards are high enough in price and demand that they have been modified, reproduced and faked extensively, perhaps during Babe Ruth's time, but certainly thereafter.
A slight digression: In the 1980s, my son and I set up at a small card show at the Scottish Rites Temple in Oakland where Mickey Mantle had come to sign autographs to help raise funds for that financially troubled local chapter. I had a Topps Mantle rookie that was terribly beat up with damaged corners, numerous creases and a number "7" almost 1 inch high strongly impressed by pencil on the front. Back then, no one would have paid $5 for it. Most grading companies would have certainly graded it "A" for authentic, but I would have considered myself very fortunate if it received a grade of "1" (the lowest condition grade). Before the show, my son said he wanted to have Mickey autograph the card as that would give it some value. When we arrived to setup at the show, I told the person in charge what we wanted and paid the $10 fee for the autograph. I ultimately received the autographed card for my son. (How I did is a long story for another time as the show promoter forgot to have Mantle sign it while he was there.) In the past ten years, my son was offered over $750 for the ungraded card and was smart enough to sell it to confirm he was justified in his actions 25 years earlier. Looking at the extremes, is a Babe Ruth card worth 10 cents or 10 million dollars?
Actually shining a UV light on the Babe Ruth card outside its holder in a room with the normal lights off will show whether the card contains "brighteners" or not. No brighteners, no glow - - the initial sign of vintage paperstock. [That still does not prove the autograph authentic.] If a glow, the card was probably printed on paper made more recently than 1950. That analysis of the UV light results works most of the time and at least gives you a starting point. However, if vintage paper has been kept in direct contact with newer paper containing brighteners, in some instances some of those brighteners can transfer to the vintage paper. The biggest problem is when someone tries to clean a card, especially using some form of soap. Many cleaning products contain "brighteners" just as the boxes of Tide, All and other detergents tell you. Experiencing the difference in uniformity and splotchiness of such "glows" will help determine if that has occurred. At least the UV test is a good starting point to see if the paper was available at the time its autographer was alive.
A further digression: I recently sold a lot of graded 8 and 9 cards of rookies from the middle 1980's. The ideas highly promoted by various grading companies back then to get people use their services included: first, grading will make a card more valuable, and second, grading provides proof of authenticity. Back then, most grading services charged between $6 and $20 to grade a card (some also required membership). A look today at PSA's price guide on-line for PSA 8 and PSA 9 rookie cards from the middle 1980's shows most of these graded cards retail at prices lower than the cost of originally having them graded. Ungraded, perhaps a few of those rookies would sell today for a couple of dollars.
I am not suggesting the owner of the pictured graded and authenticated card labeled Babe Ruth take the card out of its holder for a UV light test, but until the grading card services are held to task financially (like by a court judgment) on the promises they made about the value of their services and the value that grading adds to a card, little will change.
Copyright 2020 by Michael Fried, Oakland, California, P.O. Box 27521, Oakland, California 94602-0521