T206 Drum Red Cobb on Ebay tonight

[HobokenJon]

Hi there. I'm a longtime reader, first-time poster. The reason I'm posting is there's a "PSA Authentic" T206 Drum Red Ty Cobb for auction on ebay tonight. The price is up to about $6,100, and there have been 31 bids.

I noticed that the card's unique identifiers bear a striking resemblance in
numerous respects to the "SGC Authentic" T206 Drum Red Cobb that Hunt Auctions sold a couple of years ago, which was fully disclosed at the time as trimmed. In other respects, the PSA-graded card looks significantly different, which leads me to wonder if this might be the same card, removed from the SGC holder, altered anew, and submitted to PSA.

Here's the link to the Hunt Auctions listing:
http://www.huntauctions.com/online/i...=646&lot_qual=

Here's the link to the ebay listing tonight:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/T206-Ty-Cobb...58125176228890

Note the similarities :
1) The shape of the dark splotch to the left of Cobb's second button
2) The size and shape of the various yellow marks around his head
3) The size and shape of the dark splotch on the right border across from
Cobb's ear
4) The seemingly identical shape of the rounding on the bottom corners
5) The seemingly identical pattern of the dark spots along the left, right and
bottom borders
5) Just about every other distinguishing characteristic on the lower 90% of the card's front.

Now note the differences:
1) In the PSA version, the card's top left corner is not sharp.
2) The top right corner of the PSA specimen seems to be rubbed so that part of what used to be red is rubbed off.
3) On the back top of the PSA version, the semi-circles in the border are
smaller than in the SGC version
4) Most importantly, there is no paper loss on the back of the PSA version. The SGC version appears to have significant paper loss on the right border next to the "s" in Cigarettes, which is rubbed off.

Now note this similarity about the two' cards backs: Just about everything else on the two cards' backs is identical, including the size, shape and location of each dark splotch.

The PSA listing also carried this interesting description: "This incredible
card is one of only two graded T206 DRUM Cobb’s in the hobby ..." Actually, SGC shows one graded Drum, and PSA shows two graded Drums. If the card for sale tonight indeed is the SGC-graded specimen that was previously sold in the Hunt auction, then the listing description is accurate. However, it also would raise the question: How does he know there are only two, when the population reports show three?

It seems to me there is a possibility that someone cracked open the SGC Drum Red Cobb, altered it to redraw the intricate curved detail in the back right border, re-trimmed the top border and rounded the corners to make them look more credible, submitted the card to PSA for regrading in hopes of getting a 1 or better, and got another "Authentic" grade. Only if this is the case, I have to wonder whether PSA should have called it Authentic.

Thoughts?

[atx840]

It's definitely the same card, been discussed a few time on here. Still a great card in my opinion, just shady consigners.

[HobokenJon]

So what does that say about PSA and its "authentic" grade, if the company is willing to call something authentic that has had obvious restoration done to it within the past two years? In this instance, for all we know, the card has been re-backed at least in part.

[steve B]

I think with all grading companies "authentic" means it's a real example of that sort of card that's been altered or has some other aspect that means they can't give it a number grade.

It's certainly a T206 Drum Cobb, and it's certainly been altered. SGC gave it an A for authentic when it was merely trimmed.

Personally I prefer the way stamp certificates word it. In this case it would be something like "It is genuine, trimmed, with partially redrawn back and fraudulently worn upper corners"

Much better than an A which could be altered, trimmed, recolored, rebacked, or simply a card that is original but undersize or one that has a cut that's too rough on one or more sides.

Steve B

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

I think with all grading companies "authentic" means it's a real example of that sort of card that's been altered or has some other aspect that means they can't give it a number grade.

It's certainly a T206 Drum Cobb, and it's certainly been altered. SGC gave it an A for authentic when it was merely trimmed.

Personally I prefer the way stamp certificates word it. In this case it would be something like "It is genuine, trimmed, with partially redrawn back and fraudulently worn upper corners"

Much better than an A which could be altered, trimmed, recolored, rebacked, or simply a card that is original but undersize or one that has a cut that's too rough on one or more sides.

Steve B

The 'Authentic' grade sans detail is nonsense. It's for people who have no clue what they are buying, or for those who just want a pretty slab to match all their other ones.

John D sent a very fun link to an old thread where we discussed the first such miscreant case of this very bad idea. It's worth another read:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/15365...+Jesse+Burkett

[steve B]

I agree. They can put the reason on a slip when you opt not to slab as "A" so it should be possible to include the reason on the slab.

Steve B

[Abravefan11]

The flip on the Cobb should look like the flip below.

[honus94566]

The card sold for 8889.00

Congrats to the buyer, I guess... But I agree, it sure looks like to consignor tried to pull off something shady.

[Blunder19]

Agreed... looks like the cognisnor tried to slip this in a psa 1 case... but its still an authentic Cobb drum back.. it wasnt re backed... just further trimmed to try and round the corners off...

I think it went for a reasonable price.. considering the psa 2 MK went for almost 4 times that... and this is the only other known example...

Jamie

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Blunder19

Agreed... looks like the cognisnor tried to slip this in a psa 1 case... but its still an authentic Cobb drum back.. it wasnt re backed... just further trimmed to try and round the corners off...

I think it went for a reasonable price.. considering the psa 2 MK went for almost 4 times that... and this is the only other known example...

Jamie

Jamie, as the new owner, you would always know what it used to look like before a modern scammer worked it over. Could you enjoy owning a card like that?

[Blunder19]

The ultra rare 1 of 1's. Or 1 of 2's You take however you can get in my opinion. It's a Cobb drum back. That's a pretty cool card. As long as it's not rebacked or color added. Which I don't think that one was. Just trimmed and someone tried to round the corners.

What would it have sold for if it was a psa1? I'd guess probably around 15-16k?
Jamie

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Blunder19

The ultra rare 1 of 1's. Or 1 of 2's You take however you can get in my opinion. It's a Cobb drum back. That's a pretty cool card. As long as it's not rebacked or color added. Which I don't think that one was. Just trimmed and someone tried to round the corners.

What would it have sold for if it was a psa1? I'd guess probably around 15-16k?
Jamie

You don't consider a partially re-drawn back to be the same as 'color added'?

The main thing is that you have no idea what is behind the 'Authentic' designation....but I've already said that

Hopefully you won't some day find yourself with a pile of '1vof 1' or '1 of 2' cards and every single one of them has an 'authentic' designation and every card in your pile has been trimmed, the edges rebuilt, color added or backs re-drawn, etc., etc. - I seriously think such a collection would actually make you nauseous.

[Leon]

FYI, I received a call earlier today from the consignment company, JustCollect, concerning this auction. They told me they contacted the buyer to make sure he is still comfortable with the card given it's past or they could cancel the sale. The JustCollect exec also feels more information could/should be put on the flips. We are in agreement .


.

[sb1]

The back has not been redrawn or color added, it simply had a piece of paper crud soaked off of it, probably from another card stuck to it.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

FYI, I received a call earlier today from the consignment company, JustCollect, concerning this auction. They told me they contacted the buyer to make sure he is still comfortable with the card given it's past or they could cancel the sale. The JustCollect exec also feels more information could/should be put on the flips. We are in agreement .


.

Cool.

By the way, I acquired an 'AUTH' SGC card as part of a large lot, and I stuck it on ebay. I have mixed feelings about it. It's a low-value card and it's obviously been trimmed - a designation of 'TRIMMED' would be completely appropriate in my opinion. For the red Cobb, the flip should say, 'MA' for 'multiple alterations'.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sb1

The back has not been redrawn or color added, it simply had a piece of paper crud soaked off of it, probably from another card stuck to it.

I didn't realize that you had seen it. You can't tell from the scan, and we have multiple 'former' board members who have proven themselves capable of such alterations (or have access to such resources)...and PSA, GAI and SGC have all had such cards passed by them to end up in numbered slabs.

All I'm saying is, it's not unheard of for such a card to actually get by the graders and end up with a numbered flip, so you figure just about anything could end up in an 'AUTH'.

[sb1]

I have seen the before and after, that's all I need.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sb1

I have seen the before and after, that's all I need.

I would only need to see the 'after', but without the plastic. At my age, I'm finding that the plastic can hide a lot.

[sb1]

While I can't say with certainty, I would venture there is a pretty good chance that the buyer knew the past of this card and bought it with that knowledge, maybe not, but probably, he may be a board member for all I know.

I may be in the minority but I prefer the later version rather than the former, the corners "look" more natural and the paper on the back is gone. The card is trimmed either way and there's not much room to go lower on the grading scale than AUT, but the eye appeal has been improved in my opinion. Now, would I have spent a chunk of change on it, probably not, but if the price were right I would not condemn it to the uncollectible status.

As they say "it is what it is".

[sando69]

JustCollect...contacted the buyer to make sure he is still comfortable with the card given it's past

incredibly altruistic (or is it audacious? ) to do so AFTER the sale, when there were numerous prior opportunities to fully disclose it's recognized alterations (trimmed & artificial wear).

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sando69

incredibly altruistic (or is it audacious? ) to do so AFTER the sale, when there were numerous prior opportunities to fully disclose it's history.

Its history? Who cares - it is what it is. But I'll try, since some of you have waxed nostalgic over the history of these little pieces of cardboard.

Even as Ty was becoming a modern-day legend up north in Detroit, a young man in North Carolina pulled this shiny, perfect card from a Drum [pack?]. He thought about giving it to his son, who he was certain would be thrilled, but was fairly sure the boy was actually the postman's, so instead stuck it in his wallet and took a drag off his cigarette, well on his way to lung cancer. The card had a wonderful life fitting for any board member's imagined fantasy nostalgia story, as the young man sat on it repeatedly for about a year, before he was finally pick pocketed while on a trip to New York City, by a Giants fan who had no appreciation for Ty Cobb.

This man glued the card into a scrapbook that contained paper items from wallets he had pilfered over the previous years. The scrapbook was lying in a box full of other worthless items, in the corner of a small closet in a rented apartment, when he left for his next prison stay. The box ended up in the basement of his brother, where it sat for decades as the house was passed from the indigent brother to his son, etc.,etc., each new owner of the home being as lazy as the last, additional boxes piled on top of this one as the years went by.

The house eventually ended up in the hands of two barren sisters who finally died with no heirs. The entire contents of the home were purchased at auction, the card discovered by the new owner, who had purchased the estate to get at a huge stash of liquor stored in the basement. After drinking a bottle of Evan Williams, he dug through the piles of boxes, found the scrapbook, ripped out the card and several days later, cut the top off with a pair of scissors, thinking it would look better and get more money on ebay.

The next owner opened the package, sighed in relief that it was real, and immediately consigned it to a major auction house.

At this point, the facts become hazy. But we do know that the card was then nostalgically sanded down at the top, soaked, put in a plastic slab, and nostalgically returned to ebay.

I'm getting teary-eyed with nostalgia.

[Blunder19]

I'm sorry.. but thats funny... and deserves a reply...
"Long Live the Ty Cobb Drum Back of the Barren Sisters"

[Bigb13]

If it is the same card how did the back get repaired? I take it that it was in the SGC holder first then PSA holder. Rob

[Blunder19]

the back had paper stuck on it originally... the paper was removed through a soaking process I gather.

I have another drum back that had paper stuck on it at one point... the seller told me he was able to get the paper off. The card looks alot better with the paper off it then on.

[sb1]

it appeared to be the clay coated paper of another card stuck to it, probably from storing in a moist environment or humid climate for many years, not uncommon at all to find T206's with remnants of the front of another card stuck to them due to someone pulling them apart when finding them. Usually soaks right off and absolutely looks better. The ever so slightly bright spot is where the excess paper was adhered and did not tone/age as the rest of the 100 years exposed paper did.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sb1

it appeared to be the clay coated paper of another card stuck to it, probably from storing in a moist environment or humid climate for many years, not uncommon at all to find T206's with remnants of the front of another card stuck to them due to someone pulling them apart when finding them. Usually soaks right off and absolutely looks better. The ever so slightly bright spot is where the excess paper was adhered and did not tone/age as the rest of the 100 years exposed paper did.

Scott, does soaking work on any pre-ward issues other than T206s? I tried T205s once with disastrous results. The gold had already worn off due to years of handling, but the actual inked letters on the back fell away.

I recently acquired a T206 that looked soakable and was not. If the non-water based glue was used, there's nothing that can be done other than send it to a conservator or chip at it, but you'll never get it all off.

[Fred]

"If the non-water based glue was used, there's nothing that can be done other than send it to a conservator or chip at it, but you'll never get it all off.
"

Scott, I'd beg to differ, I've gotten non-water based glue off of cards before, the only problem was that part of the card went with it...

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Fred

"

Scott, I'd beg to differ, I've gotten non-water based glue off of cards before, the only problem was that part of the card went with it...

Fred- I think scissors would do that too . For the record, since Scott made the revelation (and I agree) that the back was only soaked and not re-drawn, I am more comfortable with the end product card. I would still prefer not to have the faked aged corners though. I think this most recent buyer actually got a pretty decent deal all things considered.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

Fred- I think scissors would do that too . For the record, since Scott made the revelation (and I agree) that the back was only soaked and not re-drawn, I am more comfortable with the end product card. I would still prefer not to have the faked aged corners though. I think this most recent buyer actually got a pretty decent deal all things considered.

Yeah, I agree on all counts.

I't interesting for sure. If a card has its corners 'aged' manually over a span of minutes, even if it duplicates almost exactly what occurred on the other corners over a period of 100 years, it's tough to accept.

Is this any different from hand-cutting a Joe Jackson strip card in 2011, vs a kid cutting it out 100 years ago?

Malicious intent seems to be the key here.

[sb1]

Scott,

As to soaking, I have encountered very few card issues, other than photographic(i.e. Old Judge, T200, etc) that cannot be soaked without damage. I can't say what happened with the T205 you mention but that certainly sounds strange. All of the T and E issues of that era would have been produced with the same types of ink and paper.

You are correct though that not all types of glue are soakable, especially the dark brown horse glue. I won't go into all of the ins and outs of soaking as it's been tossed around in multiple threads before, but it's not rocket science and one certainly does not need a paper conservator or other online guru to soak 99% of the tobacco and caramel cards of that era. Most advisable to start with a dog and give it a try. Collectors have been soaking stamps and other scrapbook items for nearly a century with no ill effect on most. It's a whole lot better than the dummies that try to peel the cards out of an old time album and end up creasing them and removing part of the back. I cringe everytime I see one of those and just wish someone had the foresight to take the pages and just give'em a light bath.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by sb1

Scott,

As to soaking, I have encountered very few card issues, other than photographic(i.e. Old Judge, T200, etc) that cannot be soaked without damage. I can't say what happened with the T205 you mention but that certainly sounds strange. All of the T and E issues of that era would have been produced with the same types of ink and paper.

Thanks - very good to know. Not sure what I did wrong with the T205 - it happened to one of the first ones I attempted to soak, so I never tried it again.

[Runscott]

Regarding 'AUTH' qualifiers, I just found this one. Now this is funny...but a good idea - it's the same qualifier I will have later tonight during pool league:

T206 slabbed 'AUTH' Wagner

[atx840]

My one and only time I soaked a card.

[Abravefan11]

Wow Chris, that's a huge difference.

[atx840]

I read what a few board members recommended and with a little help from some tweezers the paper floated right off.

[fkw]

on the card Chris showed it probably needed to be completely soaked, same with cards still stuck to an album page. But on cards that only have a small area with paper added, I just use a wet tissue and dab the added paper until its thoroughly wet, then it usually lifts right off with tweezers or a toothpick.