So despite the existence of all these documented fakes, from the same time period this otherwise non-existent combo is real?

All the fakes were impossible front/back combos, the Cobb (bat off) has
always been possible with a black Lenox back.

Hi Peter
 

You ask a very good question....and before I try to answer it regarding this particular Cobb / LENOX card, what is quite "scarry"
in my mind is what is the probabilty that these "re-fronting dudes" also created T206's with legitimate front/back combos ?

The probabilty of this occurence ranges from 0 - 50 %. I would bet that there are re-fronted T206's with legitimate front/back
combos in circulation in the hobby that will never be discovered as fakes.

Now, to answer your question. Art M. has provided a history of this Cobb / black LENOX card; and, that is that it was first seen
years ago prior to the period (circa..2000) that the rash of the re-fronted T206's first came into circulation.
Furthermore, none of the re-fronted T206's that have been detected were in the condition this Cobb is in. To my knowledge, all
the re-fronted T206's that were exposed were in VgEx to ExMt condition (and, some Authentic as graded by PSA or SGC).


TED Z
.

Just to play devil's advocate: It is certainly possible that this card could be both re-backed, and not done by the same person who did the others that you are telling us about. It wouldn't even need to have been done in order to deceive. That card is in rough enough shape that it isn't hard to imagine someone creating a new card from a Lenox back with front damage and a Cobb with back damage.

I understood your post to say Art had dated it to 15 years ago, which is the same time period as the fakes?

"Art told me that this Cobb first appeared at least 15 years ago."

My understanding is that this Cobb card preceded the timeline of the re-fronted fakes.

T-Rex TED

The Cobb showed up on ebay 12 1/2 yrs ago, and if I recall correctly, was in similar condition and look to the one being discussed. There is almost a 100% new regime at Beckett now..

http://net54baseball.com/showthread....kett+fake+cobb


.

How many other examples are there of front-back combos where only one is known to exist and the card is believed to be legitimate?

Jaime has the one and only Cobb red/ Broadleaf 460 known.

Peter
 

This T206 Herzog that I have had for a number of years (David Hall owns it now) may be the only one known.

And then, I could be proven wrong on this. Let's see if some one on this forum can produce another Herzog / UZIT ?


http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan7...erzogSGC45.jpg . http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/t...ogUZITx50b.jpg


Note......
To those of you who are already checking-out the PSA and SGC POP reports, you will find this card in the SGC listing (SGC 45).

And, you will also find this same card in the PSA listing (PSA 3)....since David Hall crossed it over.

So, they these two listings are of one in the same card.


TED Z
.

There are likely a large number of cards that fall in the one only category
with scarce backs like Broadleaf 460, Drum, Brown Lenox and uzit.

Was the rebacked Plank that Doug Allen had commissioned a 1/1 or just a relative rarity?

Hey Peter....let's try this again.

I'm repeating this prior post, since I responded with an meaningful example to your inquiry. So, why aren't you interested in following up on this conversation ? ?

Inquiry
Response

Ted, I understood your response and also Pat's response so as far as I was concerned there wasn't really anything to follow up on, so I was asking another question as I remember one of the things Doug had admitted to doing was having a Plank rebacked.

Ted,

I have great respect for you but I think you need to get your money back. I was the one who helped identify the bogus T206 Red Hindu Mathewson (and removed it from the market) and this card (the Cobb in question) bears many of the same signs of being re-backed. In fact, I would say the job that was done was quite sloppy. Look closely and you'll see evidence on both the right and left edges on front that the reverse side is larger and overlaps the obverse in several areas. Also, the artificial wear that was added is ridiculous. No legitimate T206s, even those with advanced wear, have edges like that.

Peter,
This is the Plank that was supposedly re-backed.

quick question: the $200.

paid, not paid or now in litigation?

edit: (not that it even should get paid out necessarily, but you know...charitable donation or something)

I can definitely see what you mean on the lower right corner.

I'll tell you where I'm coming from on this subject....I have never seen a black LENOX back on this Cobb ; and, I have been collecting T206's since Bill Heitman published
his famous book "The Monster". Furthermore, more than a dozen long-time serious T206 collectors tell me the same.

Yet, certain websites claim this Cobb front/back combo has been "confirmed".

If this Cobb that Art M. has posted is as you (and some others) suspect a "fake", then my original contention questioning the existence of this Cobb is justified.

In any event, I have a better understanding now as to why this Cobb with a black LENOX back is claimed to exist.


Incidentally,
I really appreciated Art showing us this Cobb. He and I have been trading T206's since back in 2006, and this time he just got a generous advantage on our latest trade.


Take care, and my regards to Brian


TED Z
.

One wonders if PSA and/or SGC deemed it altered before it ended up in a Beckett holder.

Ted,

I think we're on the same page here. If there's a legitimate black Lenox Cobb out there, I'd like to see it. My feeling is that this card is the one that has been catalogued by a number of websites.

I still don't see how anyone can say the Cobb is re-backed based on the scans.
The card is in rough shape and shows wear that is consistent with many
cards in that condition. Here's a card in better condition that shows similar
wear on the corner and edges.

No, it clearly does not. The edges on your card simply do not compare.

Part of my opinion was based upon the thought that a tpg could easily see a re-backed or re-fronted card in hand with a loop, but y'all have stated that they have already had many slip past them.
This card still looks like a beater with border chipping from the small scan to me, but Leon and Michael may very well be correct. Seems like the would-be forgers would have wanted to make one in better condition if they wanted to make one, but who knows in this hobby..Take care, Rob.

The three main reasons I think it is re-backed are:

1. The left edge - (it looks like the left edge was scraped across concrete or something, which is what you would do if you wanted to hide the fact that the front and back were different pieces of cardboard, and didn't align perfectly).

2. The back has a number of spots of staining, all near the edges. It looks to me like some spots have staining where the back had more wear and as a result the paper is thinner. The adhesive used to bind front to back may be showing through the thinner spots on the back, leaving a stain.

3. The wear just doesn't look natural. The edges on the back look like they were artifically worn with sandpaper or something to make them too rough to detect if they are two separate pieces of paper.

I'm by no means an expert on the topic, but that's what it looks like to me.

For the record
 

I as per usual agree with Mr. Wentz. I am not 100% sure but pretty close to it. would love to see in hand. Also for the record I do not think BVG/BGS is even remotely in the same league as SGC or even PSA at catching advanced alterations and even non advanced trimming. Just my opinion, I still respect Leon, but I think his friendship with the guys at Beckett color his opinion on their skill level.

Hi Rob

It's been approx. a dozen years since these re-fronted T206's surfaced into circulation.....so, many have forgotten about them. One of the
most memorable fakes was the T206 Matty (portrait) with a Red HINDU back. It was a "beauty" and it was graded by SGC.

Here's another re-fronted "beauty"....the Green Cobb with an impossible CYCLE 350 back. This fake was sold in Auction for $3000.


http://i.imgur.com/hUpXc.jpg


I could go on (and on) with a number of these fakes....but, I will leave you with how this RE-FRONTING process is usually done......

A friend of mine, who is a professional paper restorer, described to me the process of creating such "fakes" that are virtually undetectable
strictly from their physical appearance. Simply, the front of the card is very carefully removed from its back. And, the desired front image
from another card is appliqued onto that blank front of that card. Then basic paper restoring measures are used to restore the edges.



TED Z
.

It seems that in this hobby, anyplace there is demand, there is a card doctor (or purveyor of fake autographs/memorabilia) to fill it. Sad.

Peter

In the last Century (1970's - 1999), the "card doctors" were Lo-Tech using paper cutters....but then most of these little cardboard gems were valued only in 2 or 3-digit$.

In the 21st Century, with 4, 5, or 6-digit$ values, the card doctors have become Hi-Tech....as is evident in the examples of the re-fronted T206's.

Now, what we T206 dudes have to fear is that these con-artists have become knowledgeable on the correct front/back permutations !


TED Z
.

Ted yeah, except low tech was good enough to get the Wagner into an 8 holder in 1991.

Peter

As I was typing my first sentence in that post, that exact thought entered my mind. But, I told myself not to go there :)

But, you did......c'est la vie.


TED Z
.

Yeah and I was typing about the Wagner, I was thinking of the Robin Williams line (translated from "jive" to English:)) "these and many many more."