Fake Signed T206 Cards (Too Many to List in the Title, See First Post for List)

[swarmee]

Autopen machines can be detected. There have been a couple of Panini scandals (Dak Prescott, Florida Georgia Line), plus Reese Witherspoon signed Barnes and Noble books this year.


2016 Panini Prizm - Rookie Autograph - Prizm #RA-DPS.2 - Dak Prescott (Autopen - No Sticker on Back) [Rerelease]
Courtesy of COMC.com


2014 Panini Country Music - Authentic Signatures - Blue #S-TH - Tyler Hubbard (Autopenned Signature) /149
Courtesy of COMC.com

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showth...1254399&page=2

[phikappapsi]

he has 2 '39 Play balls's as well, L Waner and Durocher neither of which sit right with me; but the Waner was just recently won in a Probstein auction - same cert #.

The winner of the Probstein auction was f***s(13,549) for $104.38 now for sale by Vitagecollections1(745) for $350

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Autopen machines can be detected. There have been a couple of Panini scandals (Dak Prescott, Florida Georgia Line), plus Reese Witherspoon signed Barnes and Noble books this year.

Where did this info come from about the Witherspoon books? Someone mentioned this on the autograph side last month, but I went back to the store and checked all of her signed books, I think they still had 5 of them and every single one had different characteristics. They were clearly not autopenned.

[smokelessjoe]

Interesting on this guys Amazon account... I went back to the earliest feedback (9-24-2008) - He was selling autographs back then and was getting some Negative "FAKE Auto" feedbacks even then...

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Where did this info come from about the Witherspoon books?

My post that you quoted had the link to blowout showing autopen. It wasn't every copy, but seemed to be all the ones signed "X - Reese"

[slidekellyslide]

Thanks. Doesn’t look good. Looks like she started out by signing some of them, then got bored enough to use the auto pen. Last year B&N pulled all of their Brian Wilson books before Black Friday because they learned they were autopenned.

[cor3y7]

Just want to throw in my two cents regarding something I keep seeing repeated over and over - carbon dating is not applicable to ink.

For one, the amount of scientific uncertainty is too great to distinguish between decades, let alone years. We run many samples at work (I'm an archaeologist) and results are generally +/- hundreds of years. And second -- and perhaps most importantly -- carbon dating only applies to (formerly) living beings that took in carbon from the atmosphere.

Now, chemical analysis ("forensic analysis") can be performed on ink, as some people have alluded to. A mass spectrometer or x-ray fluorescence can be used to analyse the ink, but this does not date the ink. Instead, it determines the chemical makeup which can be directly compared to another sample. So, while useful in comparing 2 samples, it would have little practical use for authenticating a signature unless the composition of ink has varied significantly over the years. Someone had mentioned that this method would be destructive -- not necessarily.

Sorry, a bit off-topic but thought folks may find this interesting. Sadly the "forensic" future for autograph authentication looks grim. If anything, I feel like a good old fashioned microscope may be off some use to see how the ink interacts with the paper. I would imagine that ink that's been on paper for 100 years would look differently and react with the paper base differently than ink that's been applied a few months ago.

Interesting topic to think over, especially in light of these recent developments. Great detective work to everyone involved. I have no dog in the fight with the T206s (thought did consider bidding on a few recently), but am hoping my 33 Goudey collection is unscathed.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by cor3y7

Just want to throw in my two cents regarding something I keep seeing repeated over and over - carbon dating is not applicable to ink.

For one, the amount of scientific uncertainty is too great to distinguish between decades, let alone years. We run many samples at work (I'm an archaeologist) and results are generally +/- hundreds of years. And second -- and perhaps most importantly -- carbon dating only applies to (formerly) living beings that took in carbon from the atmosphere.

Now, chemical analysis ("forensic analysis") can be performed on ink, as some people have alluded to. A mass spectrometer or x-ray fluorescence can be used to analyse the ink, but this does not date the ink. Instead, it determines the chemical makeup which can be directly compared to another sample. So, while useful in comparing 2 samples, it would have little practical use for authenticating a signature unless the composition of ink has varied significantly over the years. Someone had mentioned that this method would be destructive -- not necessarily.

Sorry, a bit off-topic but thought folks may find this interesting. Sadly the "forensic" future for autograph authentication looks grim. If anything, I feel like a good old fashioned microscope may be off some use to see how the ink interacts with the paper. I would imagine that ink that's been on paper for 100 years would look differently and react with the paper base differently than ink that's been applied a few months ago.

Interesting topic to think over, especially in light of these recent developments. Great detective work to everyone involved. I have no dog in the fight with the T206s (thought did consider bidding on a few recently), but am hoping my 33 Goudey collection is unscathed.

Thanks for sharing

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Thanks. Doesn’t look good. Looks like she started out by signing some of them, then got bored enough to use the auto pen. Last year B&N pulled all of their Brian Wilson books before Black Friday because they learned they were autopenned.

I told you weeks ago that a lot of the Witherspoon were autopenned and also some of the fields. But you blew me off like I had no idea what a autopen signature looks like.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

I told you weeks ago that a lot of the Witherspoon were autopenned and also some of the fields. But you blew me off like I had no idea what a autopen signature looks like.

If you say so. I went back to the store and looked at all of them and every single one was different. If you had presented the information the way it was presented at Blowout or even posted a link to where you got the info I would have responded the same way I did here. You didn't even respond after I told you I went back and looked. I had no idea you were butthurt over it. I'll try to avoid hurting your feelings in the future.

Link to the thread where Brock thinks I blew him off like he had no idea what an autopen signature looks like.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=262175