T205 Blank Back concerns.

A few yrs back I was contacted by Dick Towle regarding a lot of T205's he believed to be blank back scraps. After several calls and emails I got scans and knew right away my dreams or getting the largest BB T205 find was not gonna happen. I discussed a lot of info with him and also passed the warning once these hit the hobby they would surface again and fraud could be at play. I am not saying it is deliberate by any means since we all have had our cases of misidentified cards. The first buyer sells a few, next guy sells some from that group, cards go off radar, someone buys a few being led to believe they are BB, then bam I am almost 99.999999% sure the T205 BB on the BST is one of them. I don't have my old computer that had scans of the group anymore. Maybe Mr Towle will still have them.

BB are not thin enough to see the front through
You can see scuffing of paper on the upper back boarder
Separation chipping on the bottom
Front top edge looks frayed from being soaked and removed like the others

I am not trying to stop a transaction(great buy BTW. card worth several thousand for $500) but I believe I am right about this one. I may also be wrong so I would like to hear feedback in regards to this.

[Misunderestimated]

I have no desire to get into a dispute but I guess I need to respond. I am the person who sold (selling) the T205 in question -- I gave the buyer an option of returning it if is found to be skinned. He's sending it to SGC or something and he can return it if he likes.

I have had the card for more than a few years (over 5) and I have collected T205s for many years -- before the nice ones came incarcerated in plastic . Aside from that I don't specifically recall when or where I got it.

While I have a lot of experience with T205s in general my experience with blank back T205s is not that great. I have noticed over the years is that this particular player -- otherwise a true common -- was the "subject" of several of the blank backs I have seen. Perhaps this may account for your
"almost 99.999999%" certainty ....


I'll leave it at that and apologize if I am over-reacting. Leon (or whomever) please feel free to remove or redact any or all of this. Otherwise I hope this is it for me in this thread.
If the author of the previous post would contact me I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further ...

[canjond]

I don't have a ton to add to this thread but I can say that I used to own an O'Leary blank back (which I believe has since been slabbed by SGC) and I recall I could see the front image through the reverse. Perhaps not all of the paper thicknesses were the same? Regardless, I would argue that being able to see the image is not, in and of itself, determinative.

[Jaybird]

I purchased the card. My feeling is that I will be able to tell when I have it in hand. As a point of reference, I show this card with a back printed on it that also shows some of the front coming through. Look closely. I think when they are blank, it is more noticeable. Again, not saying anything for certain til I have it in hand but I'm obviously optimistic.

[sb1]

I have a blank back Parent that may be from the same sheet as this McConnell. The front is only very very faintly visible if you really look hard. The card shows absolutely no sign of back tampering, it is exactly the same thickness as two other blank back T205's I have as well.

One can not simply soak the back off a card, a skinned card is peeled apart and will leave visible signs.

My feeling based on the scans and having several in hand is that the card is legit.

Scott

[marcdelpercio]

I was the buyer of the large, skinned lot that surfaced a few years ago. Not sure if it is the same lot that Andrew is referencing. In my opinion, the card in question here is 100% not part of that lot. I believe it is a genuine blank back. The skinned cards all had a rough paper surface, both in texture and coloration, and were obviously extremely thin. This card appears to have a smooth, uniformly colored surface and has none of the qualities of the cards of the skinned lot. Regarding the "see through" front image, it is very possible that this is a light wet-sheet transfer of some sort as, even with the paper-thin skinned cards, it was impossible to see the front image showing through unless they were held up to a light.

I have seen a couple of genuine blank backs and a LOT of skinned cards and, to me, this one is far more reminiscent of the true blank backs.

[Jaybird]

Here's another image of the card in question next to an SGC authenticated card. SGC card on left. Card in question on right.

Marc that is the exact lot I am talking about. Did you get them all? There was over 100 of them. I know there were several that were very nice and could have easily passed as a BB.

I stand corrected about the BB I questioned. I wish Jason the best and congratulate him on an amazing buy. Show us some scans when it's back from SGC.


Btw does anyone have a theory on why the ink bleeds through but isn't visible for any back printed cards normally?

[atx840]

Great pickup J!

[ullmandds]

YEah JAson...nice PU...you just beat me to it!!!!!!!

[judsonhamlin]

I like either Elberfeld, Olmstead, Street or Tannehill for the wet sheet transfer. Hat and centering seem to match up reasonably well.