Kevin Saucier Has Spoken

[Archive]

Posted By: Shawn

Walter,

Hope I did not offend you by posting the info... And not giving reference as to the origin. I meant not harm.

[Archive]

Posted By: Walter

Shawn,

No offense at all. Just the opposite. I'm happy I could contribute some information and thrilled that someone actually found my site and quoted from it.

Walt

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

[Archive]

Posted By: Clint

I thought this was interesting.

Clint

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff W.

Clint

What does that mean? I am not a pro by any means, but what does your picture prove?

Just curious?

Jeff

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

I think what we are seeing hear is more and more evidence that this is actually an underprint. To me interesting but would not go out of the way for it, but the way printer scraps are bought up this seems to be a truly unique item.

Now you folks can go back to bashing Scott and Kevin, in my opinion, they seem to be justified in this case.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: Clint

Jeff, I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. I just stated I thought this was interesting. I'm by far not a pro when it comes to cards but it looks to me like the cigar stamp is under the other. I couldn't tell you if any of the stamping is legitimate for that matter.

Clint

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff W.

Thanks Clint

I was just curious what that photo meant. It seems that in these threads, if you can get past the rhetoric, we can learn some interesting stuff.

Jeff

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Yes, poor Scott Elkins.

http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/abuse_connection.php

"According to a 1997 study done by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and Northeastern University, animal abusers are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against people and four times more likely to commit property crimes than are individuals without a history of animal abuse."

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

And for what it's worth, myself along with plenty of others thought this "underprint" claim was a fraud well before we knew that the seller was Elkins.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim

Jeff-

What would it take for you to believe the card is not a fraud?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

No need to spin anything. Elkins deserves far more bashing than he gets and no one was bashing Kevin as much as just disagreeing with him. I am still not sure I am sold on this....and if it is an "underprint" I think the value could go all the way up to $20,in my mind.....but to each their own.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Shawn

Pulled this off of Wiki... Hopefully no one here is related to Washington or Jefferson. That would be tragic!

United States

Cockfighting club in Puerto RicoCockfighting has a tradition in some American cultures and history. It is said that some founding fathers participated in cockfighting including Washington and Jefferson.[16] With the influx of immigrants from Central America and Asia, they have each added new forms of cockfighting.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

according to that study, the founding fathers probably committed violent crimes against people!

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Some of those were probably into slavery too.....Cruelty to animals is cruelty to animals no matter when, where, or who does it. It's not really debatable. I hope you aren't defending cockfighting?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Ok, you're right. Matt, smart comeback -- since Jefferson had slaves I guess that's ok too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Jeff - not condoning any of that - it's certainly disgusting and inhumane; just thought the study was a bit out of place; the study really has no relevance here.
Now if someone was accusing a known cock-fight-advocate of physically abusing people, the study would be in play.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Actually, the whole point of the study is to predict future behavior of those that abuse animals.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

for what purpose? Are we in a Tom Cruise movie?

edited to add - Jeff, I'm happy to discuss this offline with you since it's not really contributing to the thread and I do value your opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Matt, I guess I'm just not intelligent enough to discern the humor in that last comment. I'm sure it was quite hilarious and filled with conspiracy theories. Oh well.

[Archive]

Posted By: Shawn

Certainly not defending any such acts, but man we are really into some serious baseball talk here... Perhaps we could go into the ethics of Grey Hound racing and betting?

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

To those indicating that this is a witch hunt, I disagree. I hold no contempt for Kevin or Scott. I believe the scrutiny and critique of Kevin's assesment is a benefit to the future owner and will help all collectors. In this high-dollar game, a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary with these anomalies. Kevin, If you agree., Would you mind addressing the issues in my prior post? Thanks, Steve F

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

1st time Ive seen this thread.

To me it looks like the stamp was put on the card well after the card was removed from a scrapbook (damage from glue).

The black ink only sticks (soaks into) the paper fibers and doesn't stick to the red ink (Sweet Caporal).... thats why the red ink look on top of the black ink.

IMO

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I wouldn't support any activity that abuses animals...that being said I do eat meat so don't claim to be holier than thou and don't want to be hypocritical either. It seemed as you had copied the Wikipedia blurb to defend cockfighting. But you are right; this is a vintage baseball card forum so we should get back to that.

The above flourescence scan does seem to show the "underprint" but that still doesn't explain the paper loss not being in the black part of the "underprint" and also not going through to the front. That seems very strange.....but alas I don't claim to be a paper or print expert. The print just doesn't "look" like it was put on first due to the aforementioned black areas of paper loss.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim

I completely agree that this should not be a witch hunt and the highest degree of skepticism should be expected. But in this case it seems that due to the source there is no room for debate. And rather than take the opportunity to see if this card holds any new information, it’s simply dismissed.

It would just make sense to me that the card be discussed and given even a little bit of a chance to be what it was advertised as. Scrutinize all theories, but give it a chance. And then if it’s found to be a fraud chastise the seller for yet another black eye on his reputation.

Even if it proves to be what it’s said to be, many will still view it as worthless. But I have seen other anomaly cards touted as worthless on this forum and then sell for five figures. The market will dictate its value as it does with any card.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

From a practical standpoint, you'd guess that even if the Cigar rubber stamp were legitimate, it would be placed on the card after not before the card was printed. It's safe to assume that genuine 'Old Put' rubber stamps were stamped on finished cards rather than blank uncut sheets. Overprint literally means printed over the other printing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Frank's explanation makes total sense. Try coloring with a magic marker on top of a pre-printed label surrounded by white paper; the ink from the marker sinks into the white paper and the pre-printed ink is not affected by the marker's ink. The result would appear as if the ink from the marker is below the pre-printed label -- which, of course, it is not.

Edited to add: Tim, I agree. But Frank's (and others') explanation combined with the sheer illogic of an initial cigar stamp on a sheet of blank paper, only to be run through a press blindly leaving the resultant card, is persuasive enough for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

I think the photos Kevin showed in his 6:32 p.m. post are interesting. I'm not smart enough to know what they mean.

Because this is the first time I've seen those kind of detailed photos that feature a card with a stamp, I think it would be even more interesting to see the same type of photos of a card with an Old Put stamp, which is accepted as having been placed after the card's printing. That would provide something to compare the United Cigars card with.

Just a suggestion.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Is there ANY other photo of something with the United Cigars logo in black?

In Shawn's photo, the United Cigars logo on the poster is in red ink. Above Kevin's photos of the card, the United Cigars logo is in red ink. If the company was going to put a stamp "under" something, wouldn't they ALSO use RED INK?

If THAT were the case, then if United Cigars was a subsidiary of the ATC, then WHY wouldn't the stamp be in red ink on a Piedmont (blue ink) or Soverign (green ink) back??

Why would someone use a black ink stamp on the back of a card with red ink?

Just curious (and I am still sticking to my thought that this is nothing but an optical illusion).

David

[Archive]

Posted By: Shawn

Here is a link from the net54 non-sport forum with a United Cigar back. It's not exactly the same, but I thought I had seen another one in the non-sport forum that was a better match? I cannot find it now?

http://www.network54.com/Forum/526604/message/1172159664/T38

[Archive]

Posted By: Shawn

Here is another...

http://www.network54.com/Forum/526604/message/1201457065/2nd+January+Pickup+thread

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

No doubt, to me, the stamp has been seen before. I am still not convinced of the story....If it comes out that it is definitely what the seller says it is, I will say I was wrong. No major deal with that. I am just not convinced yet....and true too, if we can take the seller out of the picture, then a better debate can take place......since he has rubbed many, including me, the wrong way...many times. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

It seems to me that there are two choices here.

1) The stamp is an overprint, in which case you have to explain why the red ink in the SC logo does not appear to have the black ink over top.

2) The stamp is an underprint, in which case you have to explain how the black ink managed to migrage down through several layers of paper so that it would still appear as an intact logo even with paper layers peeled away.

To me, no way no how can I comprehend the second one - that somehow the black ink not only got onto the card prior to the SC print during the printing process, but also did so in such a unique way as to penetrate perfectly vertically down through paper. I just can't get past that one.

On the other hand, there are several viable theories as to why the red SC ink would not be blatantly covered with the black stamp. The suggestion above that the black ink simply didn't stick is a good one. Or maybe it is just light and not that obvious.

The only factor supporting underprint is the dominance of the red ink. Everything else screams overprint. It's much easier to mentally accommodate the lack of black-over-red (even without understanding the exact mechanism) than it is to mentally accept the two way wierd things that would have to be true for it to be an underprint (that the stamp got there at all prior to the SC printing, plus penetration through layers).

At least to me.

I vote overprint, with some unknown reason that the black ink did not clearly and fully cover the red ink in areas of overlap.

Joann

Edit for spelling

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

"The black ink only sticks (soaks into) the paper fibers and doesn't stick to the red ink (Sweet Caporal).... thats why the red ink look on top of the black ink."

That this is the answer is so obvious to me I am surprised there are credible arguments to the contrary.

Someone stamped the card after it was removed from a scrap book.



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Visit http://www.t206collector.com for Net54 T206 archive, signed deadball card galleries, articles and more!

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

I don't agree Paul, It's not necessary for it to 'stick', it merely has to not "run-off" so completely as to appear that no ink ever landed in that spot.
In fact, I can't fathom how some ink could NOT lie, seep, and dry over the red ink and leave a grayed out effect in that spot. It's not as if the red ink seals the paper fibres so that nothing can ever seep through again like a space age polymer, and while it might be much tougher to saturate the same space once dyed with ink, inevitably the inks will overlay and muddy eachother or create new combined colors where they overlap.

Daniel



Edited to get the name right in my response.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Elkins just changed the BIN on his POS to 150K "********AFTER SPEAKING WITH A T206 EXPERT TONIGHT, I WAS TOLD TO CHANGE MY STARTING BID AND NOT LET THIS FIND GO FOR SUCH A LOW PRICE.**********"

Do you think one of his roosters just told him what he wanted to hear in order to save his own life?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Lordy, has this saga been entertaining. Can't beat it. lol

J

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

LOL-

Jeff, Elkins could be getting that advice from Peter C.

In fact this reminds me of a Peter C type question. Would it be more fun to sell this card for 150k, or to get spiked at second base by a drunken Hal Chase with a bad case of ringworms? Explain.

[Archive]

Posted By: Shawn

1. I am not sure how allot of people have come to the conclusion that the "United Cigar" logo is a stamp and not printed on the paper. I am not claiming either one, but it is possible that the SC logo was printed on United Cigar stock.

2. As to the ink bleeding theory, I could not disagree more. I have seen many things of which ink has soaked through paper and still kept its integrity in relation to its shape. Also, if the top layer of paper is missing, then how can you tell whether or not the ink has spread?


I have not been sold on any of the ideas and would not make a definitive answer as to how the card was made until I actually had the card in my hands.

I am wondering if it is possible that the card was meant all along to be a "United Cigar" card but has a t206 front and sweet caporal back. It would not be any more odd than Leons multiple over-stamp card above? Just another theory...

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Jeff, quit being an ass. This thread should not be about the seller. It should be about the card.

King Yao

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

Taking nothing away from Kevin's opinion I think this is a printing issue and as Joe D. suggests should be resolved by an expert in that field.

In the original thread I opined that the card is legit. I still think so but $150,000, I'm sorry, but that's ludicrous.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

King as his listing included me in it, this thread will be about him as well. Somehow I think the discussion about the card will survive.

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

(with apologies to anything factual)

I believe the drunken Hal Chase probably stepped in his own regurgitation frequently, thereby transferring the ringworms to the floor surface. The very same floor surface he stepped in on his way to the dugout. The spikes, or nails as they were called then, later would infect the person he spiked, both from the rust, and the worms themselves.

Even if the spikes were clean, I would take the money either way.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

"King as his listing included me in it, this thread will be about him as well. "

I did not realize that, apologies. I did not read the listing (still haven't), I've just looked at the very interesting scans and pics.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay wolt

The card had no takers at $1500 or best offer a couple of
days ago, and now its listed at $150K? What am I missing?
The sellers claim hasn't changed from day 1, only the price.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jantz

I do find this thread a interesting read, but I think this situation could be easily resolved with a little experiment. I'll explain.

Maybe someone could go to their local hobby store and purchase a rubber stamp, ink and a small brush. I think a rubber stamp of a rooster would be befitting (sorry, had to).

Next, get a beater T206 (possibly a double in your collection)and apply the ink liberally to the rubber stamp with the brush. Then stamp the back of the chosen T206. Now let it dry thoroughly. The last step would be to skin the back of the card with a razor blade.

Maybe this could clear up some of the mystery about the card with the United Cigars stamp.

Anyone else think this might work? Maybe Kevin S. would willing to try it. I, for one am curious to see the results.

Thanks, Jantz

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

I'll second what Jon said many posts ago (at least I think it was Jon, but I'm not about to reread them all) when he said to simply peel up the topmost layer of paper on a portion of the "intact" back (where the United logo is present) and see if the stamp is as bold under the top layer of paper as the area of paper loss. The card already has a large spot of back damage, so it wouldn't technically lower the condition at all. A good area would be right at the border of the paper loss on back at the bottom of the "N" in the "United" logo. If this is done it would help clear the air.
-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

DD, ok, that's the second funny post of yours on this thread.

I think this card could be the next million dollar card in our hobby. In fact, Elkins has probably already raised his BIN to that as I type.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Saucier

Next, get a beater T206 (possibly a double in your collection)and apply the ink liberally to the rubber stamp with the brush. Then stamp the back of the chosen T206. Now let it dry thoroughly. The last step would be to skin the back of the card with a razor blade.

Maybe this could clear up some of the mystery about the card with the United Cigars stamp.
____________________________

That would certainly be easy to do and would have made this easy to understand and comprehend from the start...a no-brainer. Everyone seems to be under the impression the Cigar logo is a stamp.

It's my strong opinion that this is not a stamp but an actual print...a blank back with a United Cigar logo printed first. Not a nice clean print but more of a scrap. The Sweet Cap was then printed over that for some reason. This is what makes the back of this card so unique and interesting.

Many cards, to include the T206, have front and/or back ultra-thin layers. Either can be skillfully and methodically removed. Here is a nice example of the back-side of a 1951 Bowman card front (which I still consider thick).




By the way, how's Kevin's company doing?

It was only a thought that I decide not to do. To date I have never charged a penny to examine a card.


Kevin Saucier

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

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

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

as i said before, i don't think the under/over print argument can even be made until some essential questions are answered. if this is an underprint, how can anyone possibly explain how it happened? if we are to assume that kevin is right, then somehow 100 years ago ONE SINGLE T206 was for some unknown reason stamped with a United Cigars logo on a whole sheet of other blank cards. can anyone explain why one single rectangle of a whole sheet of paper was randomly stamped or printed only one time? is there a whole single sheet of these cards with the United Cigars logo on the back then? until these questions are explained away there is no reason to believe this is a legitimate variation because it's origin cannot be explained rationally.