t206 with no name

[ullmandds]

awesome jantz...the story goes that my great grandfather was offered a baseball contract...but his mom wouldn't let him play because baseball was for bums. had she...there may have been an ullman t206...for real...and I would be likely hoarding them!!!!!

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

awesome jantz...the story goes that my great grandfather was offered a baseball contract...but his mom wouldn't let him play because baseball was for bums. had she...there may have been an ullman t206...for real...and I would be likely hoarding them!!!!!

Wait, wasn't there an Ullman I recall hearing about...uh...I think Troy, no...wait...Tracy...right? No-no - that's not right...she just had a bum.

[drcy]

I'll post the photos or send them to Pete asap. They're on a different computer and I have to get them first. I'll try to do it by today.

The only thing I was amiss about is I just ordered a new battery for my infrared camera, and didn't do that text. But that's minor I think.

To be honest, I think the normal naked eye, loupe and black light examination is normally sufficient. Some of the other stuff can sometimes be overkill, other than easing the mind and they're easy to do and evidence for others to look at.

As I said to Scott, one usually knows whether something is authentic or fake quickly, and taking microscopic and infrared photos is mostly to document and explain it for others in a tangible way. In a court dispute, it's not enough for an expert to say something is a reprint, he has to explain and show to the others how that was deduced. A newbie collector might want to be shown hot to tell something is a reprint, rather than just told it is. Obviously, on a collecting and information board like this, others want to look at the photos for themselves. This nice thing with a digital microscope and digital infrared camera, I can show online and send through the email the exact images I was looking at. And Pete, the card owner, can have the images to show anyone. For me, it's a potential service to just make and provide the images of collectibles for others. I don't even have to comment on them, just produce and provide them. Many would appreciate that the images were made by an independent party not offering opinion (other than explaining what the images mean, say to someone unfamiliar with infrared light or black light) or who has a vested interest in the conclusion. I can be paranoid about making a final conclusion, especially in writing, but there's nothing to sweat about in providing data.

Plus, when I incorporate and rent my corporate fifth floor office, I can hire Pete, a dentist, to take all my X-ray photography.

I actually was once considering buying an X-ray machine and the guy I asked about it was my dentist. As I was in the dentist's chair, I asked if you needed a license to own one and he said "Not that I know of." It's all digital these days, so you know, and he said you can buy a portable battery powered one. He said traveling Peace Corp doctors in Africa use those.

But I also know from personal experience that, with all the expensive equipment one can buy, nothing beats a $10 pocket microscope and $7.99 black light. When asked, I don't recommend a collector buy an infrared camera, unless they have a specific and overriding purpose or want to also take infrared art photography, because the practical use won't justify the cost.

The most curious instrument I've owned? A glossmeter. Looks like a pencil sharpener and when you place it on something it gives you a numerical reading of the gloss. Was designed to be used industrially in the quality control of paints, but it works great on anything, including baseball cards and photos. Made in China. The most glossy substance according the the glossmeter? A mirror.

[steve B]

I'd agree with all of that.

I think I have a pretty good feel for what's actually old when I can hold it. Paper stuff usually, ceramics and glass not as well.

The day is coming when some very serious science will be available for a reasonable price. Depending on your budget and what's "reasonable" a lot of it already is.


Steve B

[Runscott]

The original testing I did with a 5x yielded the same results as the high-powered microscope. Generally I can say with confidence that with a 5x (sometimes without), it takes 3-5 seconds to spot a fake or a card that has been tampered with. Honestly, I expected to spot some sort of 'evidence' without needing a more powerful microscope. I am more of a 'nay-sayer' when it comes to T206 oddities that involve missing letters,etc., so I questioned everything I saw, but each imperfection in the white border was in line with similar imperfections in the baseline examples. No evidence of scratches, etc.

After the 5x results, I looked even more carefully under higher-magnification, convinced that something would show up, but it really just showed larger images of the imperfections in the white border. One of those things that is necessary, but just gives you a bit more confidence in what you already have found.

It is interesting to try to imagine how it would be possible to remove all traces of letters. But all you can really do is say that you can't find any evidence of such work.

I had a microscope when I was a teenager and looked at everything I could get hold of...things I can't really mention publicly.

[ullmandds]

I have to agree with Scott...in that my cursory evaluation which I did through my dental loupes at work...which are less than 4x magnification...combined with my cheapo vivitar illuminated magnifier...totalling maybe 12x magnification...I was confident the card did not appear altered in any way. I also have an illuminated/black light loupe that kevin saucier was advocating on the board a few years back which I use regularly.

[drcy]

First three photos of are where text would be on the card in question,
the fourth is of a the right vertical side white border on the same card for comparison
and the fifth is the bottom text on on a different T206
I have other shots, but figured this would be enough to illustrate.
One detail of note is there is a vertical wrinkle on the bottom of the card and crossing
where text would be (seen in one of the images), which, at first blush, would seem to
make it that much harder to remove text.