To Kevin Saucier

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

Thank you very very much for all of your work and posting to this Board. As I and many others have already said, the information is of tremendous help.

I was hoping you might be game for this question:
In your experience and opinion, what 3 sets/issues are most frequently altered? (or instances of alteration found) -(either because of ease or potential for profit -or both)

pre- and post-war?

Thanks!
Jason L

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Saucier

You are very welcome and I'm thankful I can help. I am also glad we are past the "honeymoon" stage" (aren't we?) . Here is the answer to your question. It's fairly easy:



Aside from the typical reprints (Ruth candy etc.) the three most commonly seen altered cards in my opinion are:

T206's - The thin stock is easy to work on and hard to detect without basic equipment...which many unfortunately don't have. They can come in a variety of sizes which offers no real consistency. Every part of the card is vulnerable.

Goudey's - The thick flat-edge stock, white borders and availability make these a prime target for trimming and whitening. For the most part they are much easier to detect but often slip by the graders. A favorite of many card doctor's.

Any pre-war HOF'er - Regardless of the issue these are a target simply because of the value.

Post war - 1955 Bowman's




On the funny side...the three most seen altered cards are:

All of Jim Cradell's collection

Probably most of Mastro's cards

The T206 Wagner(s)




Kevin Saucier

[Archive]

Posted By: Dustan Hedlin

I'll add onto the thanks. I'm just starting to get into T206's(have 14 cards of the set), and it's nice to know a few things to keep an eye out for.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I have to admit Kevin, that in a recent thread in which all of us were trying to help Brad Green to evaluate his apparently fake w-517 card, your assessment appears to have been right on the money:

Kevin Saucier
(Login only_child) Re: Calling All W517 Experts... July 18 2007, 12:44 AM


I think you guys are thinking too much....LOL.



Now that the dust has settled a bit, it appears that we had given the faker of this card far more credit than was due him. Of course we still could be wrong, but our current thinking is that antiquated equipment and a poorly thought out approach was employed here. Not the sophisticated, insightful, but still flawed technique orignally attributed to the faker. Nor the "maybe its real" because of ... which some of us initially embraced, or considered strongly.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Not funny Kevin.