What is the origin of Frank Thomas NNOF?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by West

Hey Steve,
Thank a lot for the response. Always like hearing from someone with printing experience.

The line (plate scratch) you are talking about - are you referring to the dark line below where the "F" in "Frank" should be? Nearly all the regular NNOFs have this scratch, if that helps at all.

You mentioned the number of impressions (population) of the NNOF. One person with 35+years in the printing industry said that the error was likely caught at the printers after 10 minutes. He speculated that this would have created 700-1000. He said that if it were a small number caught, say 100, then the sheets would have been pulled and sent to the bailer.

What is consistent with this count is the former Topps employee told me that QC pulled uncut sheets every 1000 or so to check for mistakes and print quality.

I would add that IMHO there is no way to alter a regular Frank Thomas card to look like the one you posted. I am no expert but did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

It would be a very cool card to look at under a microscope and see what is going on with it.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I would add that IMHO there is no way to alter a regular Frank Thomas card to look like the one you posted. I am no expert but did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

It would be a very cool card to look at under a microscope and see what is going on with it.

There's always a way. I've seen people remove the back from a non-baseball tobacco card and attach it to a T206 so well that PSA couldn't tell it was rebacked. If there's enough money to gain, nothing is impossible.

Just because we can't imagine how, doesn't mean the how doesn't exist.

Arthur

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by HasselhoffsCheeseburger

There's always a way. I've seen people remove the back from a non-baseball tobacco card and attach it to a T206 so well that PSA couldn't tell it was rebacked. If there's enough money to gain, nothing is impossible.

Just because we can't imagine how, doesn't mean the how doesn't exist.

Arthur

Rebacking a card is easy if you know how. Removing a layer of black ink without doing anything to the ink below/around it in that specific year/brand card would be impossible in my expert opinion.

This card could be many different things but it is not a real 1990 Topps Frank Thomas card that was altered by just removing some black ink.

PSA has put many altered/counterfeit cards in slabs. Getting something by them is really not that hard. They are better than nothing but far from perfect.

EDIT: To ask, Arthur who are those people you watched reback cards?

[Sierra79]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Rebacking a card is easy if you know how. Removing a layer of black ink without doing anything to the ink below/around it in that specific year/brand card would be impossible in my expert opinion.

Agree 100%...minus any authoritative experience on my part. If it could be done then why not just completely remove the ink and send in a gem 10 example for grading. Removing an entire layer of ink would have to require altering the ink underneath/on top/and around it. Whether someone used a blank front, added ink on an existing NNOF, or removed ink from a regular card, under magnification (or frankly the naked eye) I just don't see it possible to hold up when examining each print dot. I can't even imagine the FBI being able to pull something off like that...unless they had the original printing plates.

If anyone can pull off something like that then please post some pictures.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

Originally Posted by bnorth

EDIT: To ask, Arthur who are those people you watched reback cards?

It wasn't nefarious. They were doing it to prove a point, as well as altering the ink in numerous fashions on other cards and getting them into PSA slabs, again, to prove a point. They changed colors, removed text, just about everything you can think of. This is why I say that not being able to conceive of a procedure isn't the same as the procedure not existing.

All of those cards were cracked out of PSA slabs.

Arthur

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by HasselhoffsCheeseburger

It wasn't nefarious. They were doing it to prove a point, as well as altering the ink in numerous fashions on other cards and getting them into PSA slabs, again, to prove a point. They changed colors, removed text, just about everything you can think of. This is why I say that not being able to conceive of a procedure isn't the same as the procedure not existing.

All of those cards were cracked out of PSA slabs.

Arthur

Thanks for the response Arthur. I have done pretty much the same thing and posted pictures on this forum. I done it to help myself and others from buying altered cards.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Thanks for the response Arthur. I have done pretty much the same thing and posted pictures on this forum. I done it to help myself and others from buying altered cards.

Ben is the guy I asked about fading black. I already knew black was often impossible to fade, since it's usually a carbon pigment. I thought some of the modern dye inks might be different and Ben has tested a few different years and colors.


Rebacking is pretty easy, not easy to do well, but not hard.

Removing certain specific colors from an older card shouldn't be a problem on some sets, more difficult on others. T206 is probably pretty easy to take the caption off, Crackerjacks are probably very hard to change except for fading the red.


On a modern card like 90 Topps, you'd have to do that through the glosscoat, or remove the gloss and regloss the whole thing after. Maybe not impossible, but not simple.

[lowpopper]

Any conclusive update on this card with the faded/added name?