Very, very, interesting...

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Some examples:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...doctored+cards

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...doctored+cards

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...doctored+cards

David
I have been on this board longer than anyone except the person who started it. You can't show me a thread on the memorabilia side or card side that I haven't read. Except for one person I have more than 2x as many posts as anyone else. I agree with everything you said. I have had many hours of conversations with Dan Markel and was all set to testify in court when it was settled. I am not sure what else I can say except you haven't said anything I haven't already known for years and years. I know there are a ton of altered high grade cards in holders etc etc......I am a preacher of that issue. After one of our discussions on the board, several years ago, I had someone call me and his introduction was literally "Hi Leon, I am a card doctor and I want to let you know more about the things your board members are saying."

[David Atkatz]

I don't understand, Leon. First you ridicule me for suggesting that doctored/altered/restored cards get graded and slabbed, and now you say "Of course they do. I've known that forever."

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

I don't understand, Leon. First you ridicule me for suggesting that doctored/altered/restored cards get graded and slabbed, and now you say "Of course they do. I've known that forever."

First of all David, sorry if you think I was ridiculing you. That wasn't my intention. I am only having a friendly debate. What I have a problem with is when folks that don't know cards too well lump them all together. My whole thought is that the lower grade cards have far fewer altering problems and that is what I collect. If I collected only PSA 8 and above, then I wouldn't feel so good. If I collected autographs, and taking into account what I have read and seen on this board, I wouldn't feel so good either (unless I was an expert and could authenticate them myself) Sorry if I miss communicated.

[David Atkatz]

I agree with you, too, Leon. Perhaps we each misunderstood the other. My contention was not that low/mid grade slabbed cards have been altered, but rather that raw mid-grade cards are altered to produce high-grade cards, which are then slabbed.

[insidethewrapper]

David: Must have used better ink back then ( or are they forged), but my 1960's are faded and they have rarely seen the light of day. Maybe something else is destroying these signatures. But color movies from around the late '60's and '70's are also very faded and look terrible.

[David Atkatz]

They did use better ink back then. Museums and archives are full of 1000+ year old documents. as dark and bold as the day they were written.

[base_ball]

Originally Posted by Leon

After one of our discussions on the board, several years ago, I had someone call me and his introduction was literally "Hi Leon, I am a card doctor and I want to let you know more about the things your board members are saying."

Did this person tell you anything worth sharing with this board? Or with law enforcement?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by base_ball

Did this person tell you anything worth sharing with this board? Or with law enforcement?

I have shared everything I know with law enforcement. In different threads and posts I have also shared many details. I am not a card doctor so don't know it all. Most things are actually common sense and have been rehashed on the board over and over.

[Frozen in Time]

Let me start by saying that I don't really know anything about grading cards or determining whether or not a Ruth autograph is authentic. But, aside from the comparisons to known "real" autographs of Ruth, I would think that the surface properties of a vintage ball would change enough over a period of 70 or 80 years that a modern forgery might display some disparities in the interaction of the ink with the ball surface that could be examined and quantitated.

If this were true, some type of physical measurement (e.g., refractive index or absorption spectrum) would at least remove some of the subjectivity out of the process.

Does anyone know if this kind of approach has ever been used?

[David Atkatz]

As a physicist, Craig, I'm sure that 60+ years of ink-leather interaction must have some measurable effects. The key, of course, would be to measure them non-destructively.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

As a physicist, Craig, I'm sure that 60+ years of ink-leather interaction must have some measurable effects. The key, of course, would be to measure them non-destructively.

Along these lines, wouldn't fresh ink on 60 year old leather feather or spider-web to some degree?

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Along these lines, wouldn't fresh ink on 60 year old leather feather or spider-web to some degree?

Obtaining old ink is easy.
I can remember being at the Atlantique City show some years ago.
Turned a corner and in a corner booth a dealer had a pyramid of old ink in those little bottles. A forgers wet dream come true.
I actually thought of "slipping" into the pyramid, and damaging all the bottles, but I knew it would mean trouble .

[TexasLeaguer]

There's an interesting documentary called "The Man Who Forged America" about a guy named Mark Hoffman who was a master forger. It's not about sports memorabilia at all, but it's worth watching because it shows a number of forgery techniques he used that are definitely relevant to a number of the things people here might collect. His story also has a crazy and unfortunate ending after he gets caught in his web of lies...

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=YORKKIAT
(hit play, close pop-up window, hit play again)

[David Atkatz]

"Old" ink is still "fresh" ink. It's liquid, and would feather when applied to a porous medium.