T213-1s and T206 Carolina Brights (Fraud/Fakes) by Daniel Desmond

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

The fake backs lack crisp lines. From the scan, some of the lines look slightly blurred.

If they sanded the backs off, they destroyed the sizing layer in the process, making the paper porous, which would cause a slight amount of bleeding.

So you can tell which two of the seven are real? Which two are they?

[1880nonsports]

guessing starr and lennox as well - I had to kick out the one with black paper on the back - just because.

[Luke]

I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out which is the second real one. Only Lennox looks good to me.

[MVSNYC]

I think Lennox and Evers might be real...the rest are fake, you can tell by the faded look. And as Leon pointed out, they are being skinned and inkjet printed. Scary, be cautious of faded looking backs.

[ullmandds]

i also agree w/lennox and evers.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Scary, be cautious of faded looking backs.

Real scary.

[judsonhamlin]

The only other one I might call okay is Becker, but the o/c back on Starr kind of sells me on him

[Sean]

Leon, who is this Daniel Desmond that you referenced?

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

So you can tell which two of the seven are real? Which two are they?

Only the Evers looks real to me. The serifs on the letters are nice and sharp and the color is dark. It's tough to tell if the blurriness is due to the scanner or the card. I'd have to examine them.

[barrysloate]

Are the TPG's catching the fakes, or slabbing them?

[CobbSpikedMe]

The Chase CB back was shown in a past thread about Desmond as a fake back in April. I'll guess that the Lennox and Evers are the real ones too.

[tiger8mush]

Round #2: Which two are real?
(if you KNOW because you've seen them sold in auction, please keep quiet )

[SetBuilder]

I had to try it myself to see. I have a modern Epson inkjet photo printer.

I got an old trade card with a blank back and I sanded the back off with 150 grit sandpaper.



It had a pencil notation and it came right off. The back was noticeably more porous after sanding. I figured a stupid forger wouldn't re-size the back with gelatin or some other paper size before printing.

I got a high resolution image of a Cycle back and imported it into Photoshop. I had to make the background transparent or else it would print the background color: white if B&W or light brown.



This is kind of difficult to do without erasing tiny pieces of the border or the serifs. I had to play around with it for a while before getting a good result.

I finally printed it, and it came out like shit. Exactly how I predicted it.



Notice how dead it looks. The serifs are just blurs due to the feathering.

Now, how could the results have been better?

Instead of sanding, could the back be bleached?
If the back is bleached, it would glow under UV light. Probably a bad choice.

Instead of an inkjet printer, was a laser printer used?
A laser printer would produce crisper lines and most laser printers use oil based inks that wouldn't feather as much as the water based inks of inkjet printers. Laser is probably the way to go.

Does the printer leave a signature under magnification?
Yes, the inkjet dots are clearly visible. With a laser printer, probably less, but still visible.

[ullmandds]

impressive experiment!!!

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

I had to try it myself to see. I have a modern Epson inkjet photo printer.

I got an old trade card with a blank back and I sanded the back off with 150 grit sandpaper.



It had a pencil notation and it came right off. The back was noticeably more porous after sanding. I figured a stupid forger wouldn't re-size the back with gelatin or some other paper size before printing.

I got a high resolution image of a Cycle back and imported it into Photoshop. I had to make the background transparent or else it would print the background color: white if B&W or light brown.



This is kind of difficult to do without erasing tiny pieces of the border or the serifs. I had to play around with it for a while before getting a good result.

I finally printed it, and it came out like shit. Exactly how I predicted it.



Notice how dead it looks. The serifs are just blurs due to the feathering.

Now, how could the results have been better?

Instead of sanding, could the back be bleached?
If the back is bleached, it would glow under UV light. Probably a bad choice.

Instead of an inkjet printer, was a laser printer used?
A laser printer would produce crisper lines and most laser printers use oil based inks that wouldn't feather as much as the water based inks of inkjet printers. Laser is probably the way to go.

Does the printer leave a signature under magnification?
Yes, the inkjet dots are clearly visible. With a laser printer, probably less, but still visible.

[barrysloate]

I believe a good paper conservator can separate the back from the front, and reglue a new back to the original card. I don't think it's even hard to do.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I believe a good paper conservator can separate the back from the front, and reglue a new back to the original card. I don't think it's even hard to do.

I'm not sure about this. The cardstock has to be multi-layered in order to separate the card in two, or else it's really hard to do. I can separate bookboard in two for example. Because of it's thickness.

Cardboard is made the same way as paper. If it's really thick like bookboard, it's layered.

A T-206 card is sort of thin compared to cardboard. I think it's a single layer like a really thick piece of paper (high gsm).

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

I'm not sure about this. The cardstock has to be multi-layered in order to separate the card in two, or else it's really hard to do. I can separate bookboard in two for example. Because of it's thickness.

Cardboard is made the same way as paper. If it's really thick like bookboard, it's layered.

A T-206 card is sort of thin compared to cardboard. I think it's a single layer like a really thick piece of paper (high gsm).

And you would be wrong. Take a look at chapter 11 of Dave Jamieson's book Mint Condition. Called "A Visit to the Doctor", the author spent a day with a paper restorer (let's leave him nameless) who demonstrated how you separate a card in two, say a T206, and attach a new back to it. He did say it takes quite a bit of skill, but someone with practice can do it. I haven't read the book in several years, but as I recall as an experiment they sent one of the Frankenstein cards to a grading service and it came back with a numerical grade.

So I correct my statement that it is easy to do, but it can be done and has been done.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

And you would be wrong. Take a look at chapter 11 of Dave Jamieson's book Mint Condition. Called "A Visit to the Doctor", the author spent a day with a paper restorer (let's leave him nameless) who demonstrated how you separate a card in two, say a T206, and attach a new back to it. He did say it takes quite a bit of skill, but someone with practice can do it. I haven't read the book in several years, but as I recall as an experiment they sent one of the Frankenstein cards to a grading service and it came back with a numerical grade.

So I correct my statement that it is easy to do, but it can be done and has been done.

I will research this and try to split a card in two. I'll share the results.

[barrysloate]

That's fine, but without training and practice it might be genuinely hard to do. A paper conservator spends years working with paper, so he has a much greater skill level than you or I might.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

That's fine, but without training and practice it might be genuinely hard to do. A paper conservator spends years working with paper, so he has a much greater skill level than you or I might.

A forger would as well, no?

Anyway, I found a fancy lab tool called a microtome. It's used to slice tissue extremely thin for microscope analysis.

It can slice something about 3 micrometers (μm) thick, which is amazing. Plastic saran wrap is 10–12μm thick!

I had no idea this machine even existed.

[tedzan]

Circa 1999 - 2000, a bunch of T206's were in circulation that were being sold on Ebay (and at Shows) that were FAKES.
These T206's were very professionally altered, and these cards fooled many collectors. These FAKES were so good that
Grading Company's (PSA & SGC) graded them. However, for the most part these FAKES didn't fool a number of us, who
instantly recognized that these cards had impossible T206 front / back combos.
Fortunately for us T206 collectors, this scammer was not knowledgeable regarding the complex structure of the T206 set.

Here is an example of one of these FAKES.....


Courtesy Chris Brown

Off the top of my mind, here is a list of other FAKE examples which were in circulation back then......

Matty (portrait) with a red HINDU back (PSA and SGC graded)

Matty (portrait) with a SOVEREIGN 460 back (PSA graded)

Green Cobb with a red HINDU back

Green Cobb with a CYCLE 350 back

Johnson (pitching) with BROAD LEAF 350 back

There were many more of these fakes in circulation.


Most in the hobby called these altered T206's "re-backed". I choose to call them "RE-FRONTED" DRUM's, red HINDU's, LENOX's, etc.
A professional paper restorer told me how it was easy to interchange the front / back combo of a T206. By first removing (erasing)
the front of a common T206 image from a card whose back was rare (i.e., DRUM, HINDU, LENOX, UZIT, etc.) Then, very precisely
appliqueing the desired FRONT onto the card with the rare back. He said there are glues that are undetectable for this process.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Circa 1999 - 2000, a bunch of T206's were in circulation that were being sold on Ebay (and at Shows) that were FAKES.
These T206's were very professionally altered, and these cards fooled many collectors. These FAKES were so good that
Grading Company's (PSA & SGC) graded them. However, for the most part these FAKES didn't fool a number of us, who
instantly recognized that these cards had impossible T206 front / back combos.
Fortunately for us T206 collectors, this scammer was not knowledgeable regarding the complex structure of the T206 set.

Here is an example of one of these FAKES.....


Courtesy Chris Brown

Off the top of my mind, here is a list of other FAKE examples which were in circulation back then......

Matty (portrait) with a red HINDU back (PSA and SGC graded)

Matty (portrait) with a SOVEREIGN 460 back (PSA graded)

Green Cobb with a red HINDU back

Green Cobb with a CYCLE 350 back

Johnson (pitching) with BROAD LEAF 350 back

There were many more of these fakes in circulation.


Most in the hobby called these altered T206's "re-backed". I choose to call them "RE-FRONTED" DRUM's, red HINDU's, LENOX's, etc.
A professional paper restorer told me how it was easy to interchange the front / back combo of a T206. By first removing (erasing)
the front of a common T206 image from a card whose back was rare (i.e., DRUM, HINDU, LENOX, UZIT, etc.) Then, very precisely
appliqueing the desired FRONT onto the card with the rare back. He said there are glues that are undetectable for this process.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Whatever they're using to skin the card (if they don't want to ruin the front), it has to be a machine of some sort.

Doing it by hand is too much of a risk with such a thin card. One small slip of the hand and you'll rip through the paper.

But what you said is genius, now that I think about it. By sanding off the front of a high back value card, you reduce the thickness 50% to make room for a new front, and then you reduce the thickness 50% on the other card by sanding off a worthless Piedmont back, you create a new card with the appropriate thickness.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

But what you said is genius, now that I think about it. By sanding off the front of a high back value card, you reduce the thickness 50% to make room for a new front, and then you reduce the thickness 50% on the other card by sanding off a worthless Piedmont back, you create a new card with the appropriate thickness.

Manny

It's a single-sided process. The original (rare) back is not tampered with. Only the FRONTS are modified.
1st....the FRONT is erased from a common T206 subject whose back is a rare T-brand.
2nd.....the FRONT of a star card (whose back is a Piedmont or Sweet Cap) is very carefully removed and
"trans-planted" onto the "front-less" card with the rare back.

It's as simple as that, and any professional paper restorer can accomplish this.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Manny

It's a single-sided process. The original (rare) back is not tampered with. Only the FRONTS are modified.
1st....the FRONT is erased from a common T206 subject whose back is a rare T-brand.
2nd.....the FRONT of a star card (whose back is a Piedmont or Sweet Cap) is very carefully removed and
"trans-planted" onto the "front-less" card with the rare back.

It's as simple as that, and any professional paper restorer can accomplish this.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

You mentioned that they use the appropriate glue. I assume that you mean a glue that won't allow the card to split apart when soaked, which would give away the con. It must be some modern PVA glue, that is not soluble in water, like wheat paste or some other natural adhesive.

[tedzan]

I never had one of these FAKE T206 cards. And, if I did it most likely would have been in a PSA or SGC holder.

Perhaps, some one on this forum will chime in here who had one of these cards and tried to soak it.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.