Kevin Saucier Has Spoken

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Kevin Saucier
(Login only_child) Re: what do you guys make of this t206? September 10 2008, 1:39 AM


Hi all,

I have the card in hand and can say without any doubt that the "cigars logo" was printed first and is well under the Sweet Cap.

The section of thin paper loss just exposed the logo creating a bolder look. There are small parts of paper loss on the logo as well.

It's the real deal and a nice example in my opinion.


Kevin

------------------------------

www.AlteredCards.com - in-depth education on advanced card doctoring techniques & detection with detailed examples

[Archive]

Posted By: jay wolt

Will then...Would SGC re-grade it and list
it w/ the underprint?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I hate to throw doubt on Kevin's opinion.....

but I am still not buying it.



If anyone would like to send me that card -
to get a print professional's opinion on when / how ink was put down -
feel free to contact me.


If Kevin is reading....
please email me to let me know what the evidence is that removes all doubt ("without a doubt").
How exactly do you know the ink of the cigar logo came first?
I would love to hear that evidence.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Sure didn't (and still doesn't) look like an "underprint" to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

http://cgi.ebay.com/T206-SCHLEI-WITH-RARE-UNITED-CIGARS-AD-BACK_W0QQitemZ150293183591

More detail from Kevin:

"I received the card today and gave it a very thorough inspection, spending about an hour on it. It is more than obvious that that cigar logo print is under the Sweet Caporal printing. I can go one step further and say that the print is well under the Sweet Cap. I use the term print because it does not seem to be a stamp. If you take a very close picture at an extreme angle you may be able to display it more accurately.

I am no paper or printing expert but having dissected hundreds of T206 cards I can tell you that not only can the front picture be lifted off but the back can as well....although using a much different technique. The cigar logo print appears to be under the ultra-thin layer of paper (or printing layer). Because of this it has the color is lighter in the areas without paper loss. In the section where there is paper loss, the color cigar logo is darker or bolder as a result of being exposed.

The paper loss is deeper in the middle of the card and thins over the cigar print, leaving the print virtually intact but small sections also have minor paper loss. The cigar print logo does not show (even faintly) on the front of the card. My thought is that the front picture was applied after the print had dried.

I will be sending the card back with your check, since I have yet to charge any collector. I am also including a thin paper piece of a Sweet Cap card back I made so you can get a better idea of what I'm trying to explain. Hold this piece into a light or the sun and you can see the print in reverse. Believe it or not, I would consider it a thick piece.

Hope this helps you and/or everyone else who had question about the cigar logo with the Sweet Cap overprint. Feel free to post this email anywhere you wish.

All the best,

Kevin Saucier"

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

10k lol


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Even if it is an "underprint" someone said it best last week when they said,who cares,what does United Cigars have to do with t206's. If it is a "underprint" then technically its just a low grade t206 that was printed on used paper due to poor quality control at the factory. Leon has a card with about 10 "underprints" all having something to do with t206's (post a scan here Leon so we can see the messy card). If the united cigars card,which rightfully didnt get a bid at $1500 is now worth $10k then Leon's card is now worth close to $100k,Luckey him.

All I'm willing to concede at this point is that the card is a sweet caporal overprint on a black back card. Blank back cards are pretty rare among t206's as most people know, so to find one with a sweet caporal overprint like this card is more exciting to me and thats how I would market the card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Is it just me that sees the Croft candy logo similarity?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

For my money I would still like to get a printing expert's opinion, no offense to Kevin. The card had to have paper loss on it when the "stamp" was put onto it. Personally, I think it is worth even less with the cigar stamp...maybe $5-$10.....but only as a filler. Now, if we could get some fried chicken thrown in then the price would maybe go up to about $2000.00.....but only if it's extra crispy. Yummy!!

John- here is the overprint. I will sell it for 90k but if I have Kevin deem it legitimate I will have to ask about $1 million....

[Archive]

Posted By: jamie

you may not like his asking price but steve should be applauded for consulting a recognized and respected expert and getting a second opinion. there aren't a lot of sellers out there that listen to dissenting voices on their product and even fewer who would sink their own coin into validating their item.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

so that there be no confusion the card is not mine. Scott Elkins is the seller

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

Jamie,
The card belongs to a former board member, not Steve.

We may all need some of this, as who knows what he'll write in the next auction ad for the card.

http://www.silenceyourrooster.com/default.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=rooster&utm_content=AMC1826&utm_campaign=baseline1&SourceCode=AMC1826>

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

i respect kevin's opinion. but i'm having a hard time understanding the details of how this could have happened. to anyone's knowledge, did united cigars ever produce a set of cards in which that print appears on the back of? if so, i'm still having trouble understanding the placement of the print. why would it be there? also, if united did produce a set of trading cards of some kind, was it produced in the same factory that the sweet caporal cards were printed? these are fundamental questions that need to be answered before kevin's opinion can be taken into consideration.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

DD, you deserve kudos for "silence your rooster." Good stuff.

As for how the underprint occurred, I suspect some crazed cigar logo stamper was running around the printing presses that day in 1909 and stamped all the blank cardboard he could get his hands on. Yeah, that's the ticket!

And Kevin -- is it true you were spotted about town with a few scantily-cland roosters?

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

"And Kevin -- is it true you were spotted about town with a few scantily-cland roosters?"

Makes me think Jeff doesn't believe my initial post is actually from Kevin.

I copied it from the original thread and clearly the login, only_child is Kevin.

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

In all seriousness, it's amazing to me how some guy at a factory about 100 years ago most likely, inadvertently places that stamp on the card, and now a ridiculous price is on it.

I'm no expert, but at the simplest level, T206 backs have one color, not two. If it had part of a Hustler back, then I would be interested. Other than that, it's like trying to figure out who was behind Piltdown man.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Steve, you thought wrong. I think that post is from Kevin; I just disagree.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

"Before the war, i used to be a Saucier down in San Antone...I'm sorry, i just get excited about my food."

-Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder (playing Kirk Lazarus, whose playing Osiris)

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

Most surprising to me: There's been a thread mentioning Kevin on the board now for more than 3 hours, and Jim Crandell hasn't posted yet.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I'm guessing Jim has bigger fish to fry these days than pimping Kevin out. By the way, how's Kevin's company doing? (This is not a wiseass comment, I just recall about a year ago that he was starting a venture that would grade the third party graders' cards)

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

Jeff,
If you care to indulge your inner child for a moment, go the the link I posted, and play the game. When the rooster pops up, you get to chuck a pillow at it. You can use your imagination for the rest. I'm cracking up just writing this.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Gallo

I have no cock in this fight but I do wonder...

Has there been any images of this card in the SGC holder?

As far as I know SGC won't put a wet sheet transfer on the flip so I am not sure they would list a "random" stamp either.

Also although I too respect Kevin, I have a tough time with this one. I have some VERY limited experience with photographic pieces being reproduced and thought of as reall before some new imformation proved they were not.

That being said I am not sure anyone could prove without any doubt this was an underprint and even if they could the cost would likely be greater then the value of the card.

James G


Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: Red

The ink from the stamp doesn't look old. For it to be an understamp then the ink would have to be as old as the T206 and have properties consistent of ink from 1910. It doesn't look like it was printed on. The blotting on the right side looks like excess pressure from a stamp that was pressed down harder to also leave an impression in the recessed area where the paper was removed. The stamp is sharper there due to less pressure. The red ink is going to look it's floating on top of the stamp because the cardboard it's on top of is now stained a different color from the ink from the stamp. The watery stamp ink looks like it isn't the type that's going to adhere to the surface of the printed red ink. The stamp ink looks like it just flowed right through the red, got sucked up by the cardboard like a sponge, and turned the cardboard a different color. When the cardboard is stained a different color it's natural for the red ink to look like it's sitting on top of whatever color cardboard is under it. A T206 stained with something else will look the same way.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

<<...even if they could the cost would likely be greater then the value of the card.>>


No chance! Not if it keeps appreciating at this rate! You better buy it before the afternoon price adjustment!

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

See image #14

http://imageevent.com/exhibitman/freaksandgeeks

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

I still say the United Cigars logo is an optical illusion. I mean, if the black ink was put on thick enough to vertically leach into the lower layers of the card then WHY didn't it ALSO spread out horizontally??

What I am trying to say is, if the United Cigars logo was put on a blank back first and THEN the red ink was added later, then WHY did the ink, if put on REALLY heavy, only bleed straight down? Why didn't it also bleed outwards?

I think the card was printed like most other T 206's and THEN the logo was added later.

I think the logo was only lightly stamped on the back of the card (if it were stamped heavily enough for the ink to go into the lower layers, it would have left and indention in the back). Because of the smooth, flat surface of the back of teh card and the fact there is probably some surface dirt and oil (from people's hands) on the card at the time the logo was added, the ink didn't adhere very well. Because of that, it looks faint.

Now, where the paper loss is, the surface is rough and hasn't had as many years to accumulate dirt and oil so, the ink was able to adhere to that area better and that is why it is brighter or bolder.

Either way, I wouldn't spend $15 dollars on that card.

If the seller THINKS he has something rare and valuable, then all he has to do is consign it to Mastro, REA or some other large auction house (I would say B & L but we KNOW that wont happen). But to do this, he would first have to get them to accept this is as a legitimate underprint and then they would have to think this was a card with some value to it.


Just my two cents,

David

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony S.

I think it's a hologram.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

We know that, right now, there is one person who thinks this is a $10,000 card. All he has to do is convince one (with the BIN format) or two (in an auction) other people that he's correct.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Haas

Why hasn't Kevin commented on this post and further explain his theory on why it is an underprint? Hello Kevin.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

I think the argument would be settled if we just tore away a little area next to the paperloss (where is no current paperloss) and see if the United Cigars stamp is underneath this "fresh" paperloss.

======================================
For the premier online souce of information on baseball-related cigarette packs, visit http://www.baseballandtobacco.com

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

i'd like to see kevin's response as well. i respect his opinion and his work with alterations but i just don't see how any rational person, much less an expert, could conclude that the stamp is an underprint and penetrates so deep into the card that it remains after paper loss. if it is a true underprint some portion of it would have been removed when the paper was lost. i know of no such ink that will penetrate so deeply but not appear visible on the front of the card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

So the $5 card went from $1500 to 10K, huh? Normally I'd be surprised at the shamlessness of Elkins but when you consider that he lives in a trailer and molests poultry I suppose nothing is beneath him. Even this.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Has there been any images of this card in the SGC holder?



James

Yes (see the auction)


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

It's an interesting card, for sure.

Does anybody have any information about United Cigars non-sports cards? I've never seen any.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Shawn Chambers

Count me as a total disbeliever. You can go to any store and buy a bottle of the blackest india ink and a stamper of Bugs Bunny and stamp any paper item you want and I fail to believe the ink will penetrate to any real depth and still retain such clarity after the topmost layer is pulled away.

Furthermore, the ink on the paperloss area seems darker to me which I would expect from a stamp applied AFTER the paperloss. The interior of paperstock has a rougher more absorbant texture without the same smooth finish as the outermost layer. If you've ever used a marker on a cardboard box you know the general look of the how the ink "sticks" differently to the place where tape or a sticker was ripped off. I would only expect the ink on the paperloss to be darker if it were applied after the fact.

How could ink penetrate to that depth and still be clear and dark with the outermost layer pulled away? I just don't think it could be!!

Shawn

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

the card is slabbed by sgc who labeled it as a sweet cap. not even a mention of the stamp on the slip. i believe it got a 10.

[Archive]

Posted By: Shawn

Not sure if this contibutes anything at all? But... Here are two photos, check out the stamp on the left side of the add. The other is a photo of one of their stores.




Man standing on a corner in front of United Cigars at 25th Street and 52nd Avenue] Chicago Daily News, Inc., photographer

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

SGC doesn't even acknowledge blue vs. black backs on M116s - that SGC has not acknowledged the stamp on the flip has no bearing on whether or not it is legitimate.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I feel you are absolutely wrong in your last statement. This idiotic card we are talking about is a farce and piece of crap. SGC will in fact label legitimate overprinted cards.....they won't label pieces of crap though...best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

I'll clarify - in my experience, SGC has been reluctant to add anything additional to a flip, unless it is a well established hobby reality. I wouldn't expect them to blaze the trail here with this stamp, even if it is legit. Therefore, the lack of acknowledgment on the flip doesn't sway the argument one way or the other, other then to say this isn't a well known and documented stamp, which we already knew.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Matt....I can agree with what you just said....though I still think the card in question is a piece of sh**, but that is just my opinion.....warm regards

and since your edit I will again disagree with you if you think it's a legit stamp....I don't....I do agree SGC is reluctant to take the lead on these kinds of things....and for a good reason, imo. Regardless, I would also bet if we had them look at it they would agree it's not a legit "underprint"....whatever the heck that is supposed to be...

edited as I have been told I should play nicer.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

lol - I think we're on the same page.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I think David Smith's last point is excellent and correct. Liquid tends to soak down and increasingly outward into a substance, not just straight down. Besides, if the ink had soaked halfway or two thirds of the way through the card without losing any darkness or clarity, one might expect that it would have soaked all the way through to the front. If halfway through, the ink had become very light-- or nonexistent, as with the Sweet Caporal printing-- then one would understand why it didn't bleed through.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Assuming this is an "underprint" I'm confused as to why the stamp is not in some of the areas of paperloss. For example, see the circled spots below.



Assuming that this stamp was printed first and is deep into the cardboard, why is it not apparent in those circled spots (and other spots)? It seems to me that the likely reason for this would be due to the fact the uneveness of the paperloss would cause the stamp not to apply correctly. As such, that would have to indicate the stamp was done after the paperloss (and after the printing process ended).

======================================
For the premier online souce of information on baseball-related cigarette packs, visit http://www.baseballandtobacco.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Shawn

The United Cigar Co. did have non-sports cards such as the T38 Aviators..

I also found this info on the web, of which could connect United to the t206?


Printing Theories
AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. was incorporated under the laws of New Jersey January 20, 1890.

On October 19, 1904, an agreement of merger was executed merging the American Tobacco Company, Consolidated Tobacco and Continental Tobacco into a single corporation. American Tobacco formally owned approximately 2/3 of the capital stock of British-American Tobacco Company, a major portion of the common stock of P. Lorillard Company, the corporation of United Cigar Stores, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, The MacAndrews & Forbes Co., Conley Foil Co., The Amsterdam Supply Co., and a majority of the stock of American Snuff Company. On Monday, May 29, 1911, the company was declared a monopoly in restraint of trade and ordered to disintegrate. In accordance with the plan of disintegration, the trust was separated into thirteen separate and independent organizations. Chief Justice White began reading the Court’s decision at 4:30 PM.

Just putting it out there...

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin

Here are some pictures that should help relieve all doubt...then again it may not. Perhaps many here are judging the owner of the card and not the card itself. I also do not think it's a stamp but appears to be print scrap from the normal design.



This first picture clearly shows the logo is under the Sweet Cap print. The last picture displays how the area of top paper loss exposes the logo even more.









Kevin Saucier

------------------------------

www.AlteredCards.com - in-depth education on advanced card doctoring techniques & detection with detailed examples

[Archive]

Posted By: Shawn

That certainly gives things a different perspective.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Kevin, I see what you're suggesting, but wouldn't a very thin ink penetrate through the red ink and not necessarily pool atop the red? It's obvious that the red ink is dark where contacting the black.

Also, in Jon's photo above -where the black ink didn't absorb indicate that the old adhesive was once there or at least suggest that permeability was impossible in those spots due to the adhesive absorbed into the fibers prior to the cigar stamp?

Phenomenally clear pictures by the way. Steve F



Edit to add brightened picture to show that the red ink is far more concentrated with pigment.

[Archive]

Posted By: Walter

As I understand it, the United Cigar Stores were the retail division of the American Tobacco Co. In true Trust fashion the ATC controlled everything from the raw materials to the final retailing of their product. The following is from page 214 of "Tobacco Tycoon"

"There were, in addition, eighty-two other subsidiary concerns in the United States, Cuba and Puerto Rico. Among them were plants manufacturing everything from briar pipes and licorice pastes to insecticides and fertilizers, as well as tin foil, bags and boxes [and] machinery."

Thanks to Shawn for finding my site, which is linked below.


Always looking for T59 Flag cards and T113 Types of Nations.
http://www.t59flags.com