Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>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

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>It seems to me that there are two choices here.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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). <br /><br />At least to me.<br /><br />I vote overprint, with some unknown reason that the black ink did not clearly and fully cover the red ink in areas of overlap.<br /><br />Joann<br /><br />Edit for spelling

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>"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."<br /><br />That this is the answer is so obvious to me I am surprised there are credible arguments to the contrary. <br /><br />Someone stamped the card after it was removed from a scrap book. <br /> <br /><br><br>_ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ _ <br /><br />Visit <a href="http://www.t206collector.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t206collector.com</a> for Net54 T206 archive, signed deadball card galleries, articles and more!

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>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. <br />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.<br /><br />Daniel<br /><br /> <br /><br />Edited to get the name right in my response.<br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>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.**********"<br /><br />Do you think one of his roosters just told him what he wanted to hear in order to save his own life?

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Lordy, has this saga been entertaining. Can't beat it. lol<br /><br />J

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Dave F</b><p><br /><br />LOL-<br /><br />Jeff, Elkins could be getting that advice from Peter C. <br /><br />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.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Shawn</b><p><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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...<br /><br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Jeff, quit being an ass. This thread should not be about the seller. It should be about the card.<br /><br />King Yao<br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>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.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>DD</b><p>(with apologies to anything factual)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Even if the spikes were clean, I would take the money either way.<br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>"King as his listing included me in it, this thread will be about him as well. "<br /><br />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. <br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>jay wolt</b><p>The card had no takers at $1500 or best offer a couple of<br />days ago, and now its listed at $150K? What am I missing?<br />The sellers claim hasn't changed from day 1, only the price.<br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Jantz</b><p>I do find this thread a interesting read, but I think this situation could be easily resolved with a little experiment. I'll explain.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Maybe this could clear up some of the mystery about the card with the United Cigars stamp.<br /><br />Anyone else think this might work? Maybe Kevin S. would willing to try it. I, for one am curious to see the results.<br /><br />Thanks, Jantz<br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>DD</b><p><img src=http://www.honuswagner.com/viewpic.php?pic=2554>

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>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. <br />-Rhett

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>DD, ok, that's the second funny post of yours on this thread.<br /><br />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.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p><i>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.<br /><br />Maybe this could clear up some of the mystery about the card with the United Cigars stamp.</i><br />____________________________<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br /><img src="http://www.alteredcards.com/images/51_liftedpic.JPG"><br /><br /><br /><i>By the way, how's Kevin's company doing?</i><br /> <br />It was only a thought that I decide not to do. To date I have never charged a penny to examine a card. <br /><br /><br />Kevin Saucier<br><br>------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.AlteredCards.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">www.AlteredCards.com</a> - in-depth education on advanced card doctoring techniques & detection with detailed examples<br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>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.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Kevin Saucier</b><p><i>if this is an underprint, how can anyone possibly explain how it happened? if we are to assume that kevin is right</i><br /><br />______________________________________<br /><br />It is and I am.<br /><br />Seems that this will need to be taken a step further. If this is not convincing enough, then I don't know what else to say or do.<br /><br />I decided to try and duplicate what a printed image would look like under a Sweet Cap print. I removed the ultra-thin layer from the back of a T206 card (please don't ask how, I don't want to hurt anyone).<br /><br />Keeping in mind this is still much thicker than what is depicted on the card in question, I placed it over a couple blue printed backgrounds and removed the corner to imitate paper loss. As you can see the results are all but unquestionable (impressive, I know <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>).<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/5127/madeoverprint1fi2.jpg"> <img src="http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5338/madeoverprint2ct1.jpg"><br /><br /><br />Kevin Saucier<br><br>------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.AlteredCards.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">www.AlteredCards.com</a> - in-depth education on advanced card doctoring techniques & detection with detailed examples<br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>david</b><p>kevin<br />I don’t get how placing the thin layer of the back of a card over a printed image proves anything other then you ruined a t206. And I assume the printed image was the exact same ink, applied to t206 stock and used the application method as the united cigars stamp, correct? You know the types of controls that make experiments valid. The believers in this card still have not provided a rational explanation as to how the stamp appears OVER the back damage. Am I really suppose to believe that a rouge printer/paper maker randomly stamped the back of a thin layer of paper which was then used to make the paper stock of a card which then just then happens to be on the fully printed back of a t206, stamp fully shown. This is not a printer’s scrap or a proof, for such random acts to be plausible. There are no proof lines and the card is not hand cut. There are too many 'just' statements for this to be a plausible scenario.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Well this is a disappointment - getting up in the morning to find that no new 0's have been added to the BIN price. Boooooring. Yawn.<br /><br />J<br /><br />(I still vote overprint, without knowing the mechanism for no black-over-red.)

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Deleted as I decided my post was not appropriate.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>The fact that the seller is asking 150K is not a reflection of what he feels the piece is worth; he is just showing his anger and contempt to the board for questioning his integrity.<br /><br /><br /><br />Bingo.<br /><br /><br />Steve

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>He needs to raise his shipping price.<br /><br /><br />Steve

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>After reading through as much of this as I could...<br /><br />1. I like David's $15 assessment, I'd not pay that much for it either.<br /><br />2. I would pay $15 to not have to watch grown men encouraging roosters to fight.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Marty Ogelvie</b><p><P>A simple case of which came first... 'chicken or the egg'</P><P>If the value of this card is not substantially increased by either, then does it really matter which came first?&nbsp;&nbsp; Of course if its just a matter of PROVING that this seller is&nbsp;a FRAUD, then by all means, press on..&nbsp; </P><P>It seems most everyone has a fairly high opinion of Kevin and Kevin says its legit.. can't that be enough??&nbsp; It is for me.. </P><P>&nbsp;</P><P>martyOgelvie</P>

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>I understand there's bad blood with the seller, but I don't think the seller should have any bearing on people's judgement on this card. If anything, the seller has some pretty exceptional knowledge of the hobby.<br /><br />I'm hung on the card itself. It sure is interesting, and Kevin's photos are much more enlightening than the original scans. It sure does appear that the red print is above the black print.<br /><br />That said, Frank's assertion is also a good one, and Frank's got some pretty outstanding knowledge as well - more than most of us, I'd say.<br /><br />As Kevin is the only one of us who's actually held the card in his hand, he's probably got more insight than the rest of us. <br /><br />Then again, Occam's Razor would point to the United Cigars logo having been applied after the fact. It's the most simple and logical conclusion to draw. I still haven't even seen another card - non-sports or otherwise - containing that logo in that size in that color. So it makes absolutely no sense that it would somehow have appeared on a printer's scrap, nor does it make any sense that the printing technique of T206s would have included applying layers to the card paper - especially since we've seen no evidence of that kind of printing technique on other T206s.<br /><br />Although we've all seen multiple backs printed on the same T206, it is VERY rare to see printing on the back that doesn't belong on a T206 (i.e. a back that's not akin to the ads typically seen on T206s). We have, however, seen many different types of stamps on the back of a T206 card - whether it be Old Puts, or personalized stamps, or whatever. <br /><br />And yet it's hard not to trust your own eyes.<br /><br />Either way, I find it to be an incredibly interesting card. Not $150,000 interesting, or $10,000 interesting, or even $1,500 interesting, but interesting nonetheless.<br /><br />-Al<br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Red</b><p>When the top surface was peeled off the 1952 Bowman and T206 cards above did the lower layers show any ink from bleed through? I doubt it because ink applied in a printing process is going to behave and look different than ink applied from a watery stamp that's allowed to soak in and stain the card. The ink from the stamp isn't much different than if you soaked the card in grape juice. You'll have a purple T206 with the red printed ink looking like it's floating on the surface.<br /><br />Somebody on here has to have some T206's that have names or something stamped on the back. All you have to do is look at the cards at an angle under magnification and you'll see that the original T206 printing looks like it's sitting on top of whatever stamp was there, just like the photo above shows. The stamps were made with a thin water based ink that soaks into the card as opposed to the original T206 printing that's sitting on top of the card. The ink used in professional printing would sit on top of the card surface and not soak in. Even if way too much printing ink was used and it somehow seeped down to the lower layers you're not going to have a sharper reproduction of what the original stamp looked like in the lower layers after you ripped off a few layers of paper.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Shawn Chambers</b><p>I am still not swayed by Kevin's photos. I have many paper items at home (CD inserts come to mind) where red ink has a more 3-D effect than other colors (probably one of the reasons it is used in 3-D glasses! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Seriously, I have several red printed items where the red ink seems to "hover" over the surface. I think it is merely an optical illusion. When I started changing the contrast and saturation levels on his photos, it diminished this effect.<br /><br />I cannot buy into bleeding ink penetrating that deeply and clearly. <br /><br />Reading this thread again, still beats workin' !<br /><br />The other Shawn

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>DD</b><p>Let's say for a moment that the other stamp was applied first. And..... An interesting anamoly, for which nothing plausible can be concluded. <br /><br />It's clear that the one Leon has was part of a sheet used to test the printing press. Multiple times at that, but not more than once for each brand; would probably interfere with proper alignment, or something like that. A unique example of the actual T206 card manufacturing process at work, complete with a wet sheet transfer of Cy Young. Hence the hotly contested bidding.<br /><br />Imagine you had a 1927 Yankees team signed ball, and Charlie Gehringer signed it. He was around back then, but it doesn't mean his signature belonged on it. Could be a nice story behind it, or Charlie happened to pick up the ball and sign it, put it back in the box before you left for the World Series to get the rest of the ball signed.<br /><br />Point being, before or after doesn't matter. Unless F. Scott Fitzgerald or Howe McCormick owned this card, that back stamp is nothing but a curiousity, not something that will command a premium, or be collected for the stamp, and certanly not an addition to every known type set list it would belong on if it were a legitimate T206 back. <br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>I have yet to see a compelling argument -- either words or photos -- for this to be considered an underprint (sorry Kevin). None.<br /><br /><br />Just as an update... I have offered to view the card first-hand and give my opinion (as a printing professional).<br /><br />It seems this will happen (I will be viewing the card) - - but it will not be for months.<br /><br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p><i>look at the cards at an angle under magnification and you'll see that the original T206 printing looks like it's sitting on top of whatever stamp was there, just like the photo above shows. The stamps were made with a thin water based ink that soaks into the card as opposed to the original T206 printing that's sitting on top of the card.</i><br />_______________________________________________<b r /><br />I completely agree and thought of that initially. So far I haven't seen a stamped card that has such an even blend, they tend to be splotchy. Also the water based ink used on stamps seem to weaken and disrupt the fibers, making portions easy to rub off. They just don't have that clear look as seen in the Cigar Logo card side w/o the paper loss.<br /><br />Yes...if anything it is still interesting but in the end it just an opinion.<br /><br /><img src="http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/3756/stampedt2061nr4.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/8976/stampedt2062pt2.jpg"><br /><br /><br />Kevin<br /><br />------------------------------<br /><br /><a href="http://www.AlteredCards.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">www.AlteredCards.com</a> - in-depth education on advanced card doctoring techniques & detection with detailed examples<br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>robert a</b><p>Here's my opinion without commenting on what the card should be worth or sold for and without commenting on whether or not it's a stamp/underprint/overprint:<br /><br />The interesting aspect about the "united cigars" logo appearing on the card is that is might've been placed there close to the time of T206 production. The fact that United Cigars issued period non-sports cards is pretty cool as well. I don't know if it's significant in any way for us card geeks, but kind of neat.<br /><br />We T206 collectors are use to seeing a plethora of different stamps on the back of our cards, but I don't recall any that actually tie into a different card issue. <br /><br />Just trying to get the card aspect of the conversation flowing.<br /><br />Rob

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Dave F</b><p><br />"It seems this will happen (I will be viewing the card) - - but it will not be for months."<br /><br /><br /><br />For months Joe? Just checking to see if you care to elaborate.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Dave,<br /><br />While I do not mind looking at a card and offering an opinion at absolutely no charge - <br />Since the collector values the card at $150K - <br />and I am not insured to handle collectibles -<br />I do not want to shoulder any risk throughout the process. How could I? and Why would I?<br /><br />So instead of shipping the card back and forth - there is going to be an in-person meet / greet / view / opinion.<br />It seems that the first time available for this to happen is months away.<br /><br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Jerry Hrechka</b><p> I don't have the knowledge to add anything to this thread, but this is exactly why I lurk here and read the threads. Always something new to learn.<br /><br />Informative arguments on both sides.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Tim asked above what would it take for me to believe this is an "underprint." I suppose Joe D's opinion would do it for me. And some rational explanation as to how a single print would have been perfectly placed on a large, blank sheet of cardboard prior to it being run through a press.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>&lt;&lt;It seems that the first time available for this to happen is months away.&gt;&gt;<br /><br />Use that time wisely to train your own roosters, Joe. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Shawn</b><p>There is a ton of stuff on the web with the "United Cigar" logo PRINTED on it. I can find nothing with a stamp or reference to a stamp etc. Only printed material. I think the likelihood that the logo was printed on that paper is greater than stamped.<br /><br />Also, If someone were to try and fake something like this, what are the odds of someone choosing "United Cigar"? I would venture to say no one here on the board or anywhere else would think of this logo and say "yes, that is what I will use to make a fake".<br /><br /><br />Just a thought...<br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I've learned with dealing with memorabilia that common sense is a an essential guide, but there sometimes will be something that surprises you-- typically involving new information. For example, the first time I saw a T206 ghost print, it was such a strange thing and I couldn't exactly explain that I wondered about it's authenticity. I also believe they are legitimate and think I know how they appeared. Another thing is if there's a 99 percent chance a happened and 1 percent chance b happened, don't pretend a and b are equal possibilities (something some people do in arguments). Any kid can come up with an "alternative theory" for why the cookies are missing from the cookie jar when he was the only one at home, but that doesn't mean mom should or will buy it.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Shawn</b><p>Perhaps someone can contact this seller and buy this "United Cigar" card, then run a test on it? No way to really compare I guess, but would be interesting...<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.ca/UNITED-CIGARS-LOOK-FOR-THE-UNITED-SHIELD-PLAYING-CARD_W0QQitemZ360071045505QQihZ023QQcategoryZ986QQ cmdZViewItem" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.ca/UNITED-CIGARS-LOOK-FOR-THE-UNITED-SHIELD-PLAYING-CARD_W0QQitemZ360071045505QQihZ023QQcategoryZ986QQ cmdZViewItem</a>

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Dave F</b><p><br /><br />Shawn-<br /><br />What are the odds someone would pick United Cigar to use as a designed fake? Well, as good as anything else. <br /><br />There have been millions of T206's that have been through the hobby. Not one other T206 has ever been documented to have such a print along with it. I know per our phone conversation earlier you said there is just a good of a chance this is a legit print and that it could very well be the first one found...to that I say bull-crapo. <br /><br />T206's are the most common of any pre-war card out there. I just really believe by 2008 there would have been something else like this found before now. If this was a T208 we were talking about, then of course there is room for finding new evidence to that series...I just don't believe that same factor goes into play with T206's at this point, not to this magnitude. <br /><br />Shawn, I also don't buy your theory on the United Cigar print being able to leak perfectly through. I don't buy it was a "different printing process" than what the Sweet Caporal process would have been. Show me one scan of another card where there is paperloss but the print is still there beneath the top layer. This is cardboard, not paper.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Shawn</b><p>David,<br /><br />I am not claiming that it could not be a fake, but the odds are not "as good as anything else" as you said above. That would imply that all odds are even? <br /><br />There have been millions of T206s that have been through the hobby, yes but new things are constantly being discovered and for you to insinuate something new cannot not be found is kind of silly. As to you quoting me on the phone, I never said there is a good chance of anything... I said simply there is a chance. Nor would I say it may be the first one found? It may not be the first one found, It may not even be real!<br /><br />David, I never claimed that the United Cigar logo leaked perfectly through? I said it is possible for ink to leak through paper or cardboard etc... Without the paper that was removed from the back of the card how can one claim that it has leaked perfectly through as you think has happened? But for you to claim that ink cannot leak through a T206 or any other card is simply not true. I have seen printed material that ink has soaked through and still can be read or seen with little change or unnoticeable change.<br /><br />I could not agree more with what David Cycleback said above.<br /><br />"I've learned with dealing with memorabilia that common sense is a an essential guide, but there sometimes will be something that surprises you-- typically involving new information."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Dave F</b><p>"I have seen printed material that ink has soaked through and still can be read or seen with little change or unnoticeable change."<br /><br /><br />ok...i'll ask again. show me a scan of another t206 that has paperloss on the back but yet the print is still there.<br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Greg Theberge</b><p>Maybe it's me, but logic would suggest here that if someone really cared about finding out the truth, all they would have to do is simply lift up (you don't even have to remove it, it already looks like it can be lifted up)a small area of the backing at the edge of where the paper loss is and see if there is a continuation of the black print at this deeper level. <br /><br />This amazing ink that only bleeds vertically and not horizontally sounds about as legitimate as the infamous "magic bullet."<br /><br />And, by the way, I don't know the ebay seller from a hole in the wall, but his narrative is exceptionally childish, but that's just one man's opinion.<br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Part of the problem with the card is, in fact, Elkins. If it were a different guy selling it there wouldn't be such disbelief. (As others have pointed out, however, I don't think it really makes a difference value-wise whether it's an "under" print or an overprint; it's just not worth more than a few bucks) It is just too difficult to believe that a guy whose entire essence is so morally repugnant is capable of telling the truth about any matter. And I'm not talking about his collecting government handouts instead of working or living in a trailer; compared to evertyhing else about him those are his good points.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>hey jeff, a lot of families and people live in trailers because they have no other option. where you live or your economic status is not always an indicator of your character so maybe you should cool it a little bit.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>In the pictures that poster only_child has provided, tell me the "t" in "the" doesn't look like it is hovering over the "W"?<br /><br />For that matter, look at the "et" in "cigarette". Doesn't it look like, from the side angle view, they are hovering over the "O" in "NO"?<br /><br />Or the scrolled "f" looks like it is hovering over the purple ink?<br /><br />If you ALSO think that those letters are hovering over the stamped letters, then only_child has $300,000 dollars worth of cards which, I think, he/she/they should list on eBay IMMEDIATELY!!!!<br /><br />David

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Ali, I agree -- I specifically mentioned that Elkins' living in a trailer was one of his relatively good points. However, his proud history of animal abuse is more indicative of his character.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I would imagine many trailers are more luxurious and spacious than many Manhattan condos. That the Manhattanite paid 100x more for his quarters doesn't necessarily make him appear smarter. There are trailer parks, which I assume is where you rent space. However, a fair number of rural trailer owners own the land and aren't poor. They may not be rich, but they're not poor.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>greg.... great post.<br />"This amazing ink that only bleeds vertically and not horizontally sounds about as legitimate as the infamous "magic bullet."<br /><br />yes... the lack of horizontal bleeding is incredible.<br />even more amazing is that it bleeds through so clearly from the back of the card to the innards.... but magically it cannot be found bleeding through to the front of the card.<br />this super-powerful bleed-through ink must have also have had a conscience and decided the picture of schlei was too nice to ruin - so it stopped its own vertical bleed momentum from going any further within the card - so as not to harm the front. (edit: realizing we are assuming this super powerful ink was the first to touch the paper.... not only did it have a conscience but it also had ESP.)<br /><br />Kevin does mention this and has somewhat of an explanation....<br />"The cigar print logo does not show (even faintly) on the front of the card. My thought is that the front picture was applied after the print had dried."<br />I have to ask Kevin.... other than some super cool disappearing ink - when has he ever seen blue ink dry colorless?<br />The lack of color on the front does not mean the blue ink dried and is gone when they printed the front.... I can tell you that blue ink dries blue. And no matter how long you let it dry you will see it as.... blue.<br /><br />I am not trying to pick on you Kevin... because I do enjoy your posts immensely. But this portion of your explanation leaves a lot to be desired. <br /><br /><br />jeff.... I agree... I don't think it matters one way or the other (value-wise) if this is an underprint or an overprint. At least it doesn't for me. <br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Shawn</b><p>Perhaps I am not being clear... How can someone know if the ink has spread, without comparing it to the original logo? The top layer above the ink is gone! I think it is interesting how some folks expect to see some mass ink spread. It could be that the ink has spread but such that it is to hard to tell with the eye. The ink did not have to spread horizontally at some huge bulging quantity. Nor does the theory that ink would supposedly soak through something to infinity. It has to stop at some point. The fact that it did not soak through all the way to the front does not mean that it is a stamp. Ink is not some insane super acid that eats through every thing it touches.<br /><br />Just my thoughts

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>it is an underprint, what are the odds that when the sweet cap paperloss happened on the left of the shield that it didn't take any of the underneath printed shield with it? No way underprint, stamped over in my professional opinion. Dan Mckee

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>"Nor does the theory that ink would supposedly soak through something to infinity. It has to stop at some point. The fact that it did not soak through all the way to the front does not mean that it is a stamp. Ink is not some insane super acid that eats through every thing it touches."<br /><br />Sean... you are correct... ink is not some insane super acid that eats through everything it touches.<br />And... it shouldn't soak through to infinity.... this is also 100% correct.<br /><br />The puzzling part is the dramatic soak through and clarity of ink on the inside (under the paperloss).... coupled with the amazing halt of soak through when it comes to the front.<br /><br /><br />To be clear... the whole soak through theory is from the underprint camp. It is so far the only explanation for the image still being there in the paperloss area if this is an underprint.<br /><br /><br />Another explanation would be.... a stamp was applied, like countless other stamps we have seen, after the printing and after the paperloss.<br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Shawn,<br /><br />What is amazing to me is that on the surface where there is no paper loss, the black ink is faint and has run together (you can barely make out the "e" and "d" in "UNITED") while where the paper loss is, the ink is darker and has NOT run together. <br /><br />To me, this suggests that the logo was lightly stamped on the paper. Because not much pressure was applied, the ink ran and pooled on the slick surface while it adhered much better to the rough surface and DID NOT run or pool. Thereby, the darker and cleaner look to the ink on the left and the lighter and blotchier look to the right.<br /><br />David<br /><br />PS. For those who think this truly IS a rare and valuable underprint, why don't you just take a risk, BUY the card and find out for yourself if it IS real AND valuable. Then, when you prove it IS real and sell it for T206 Honus Wagner money, you can come back to these boards and GLOAT.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>ROBERT ADAMS JR</b><p>If anyone wants a half-ass history of this card , I won on Ebay about 10 months ago thinking it was a stamp for $12 and turned it around as an underprint for $38 . If someone gets $150,000 for it I,ll S**T ! In fact , I put it up on a Recent Pickup thread at that time as an underprint and no one batted an eye .

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>1st, I still wouldn't pay $15 for it.<br /><br /><br />But if it is an underprint... if someone did stamp the back of a big blank uncut sheet of cards with T206 images on the front, then the sheet was printed on the back and this card cut from it, WHAT is the big deal with that?? It seems to me a messed up card. Not a rarity, but rather a mistake. <br /><br /><br />And if it isn't an underprint, no big deal there, either. I think if Robert won it for $12 (which is in line with my estimation of the card, good buy, Robert!!) and he then sold it for $38 (fantastic sale, Robert!!!), then that is as big a deal as it is.<br /><br /><br />If what was suggested here was that T206s were issued by United Cigars and that would be a new T206 brand, then THAT would be a big deal... <br /><br />If you put a United Cigars stamp on a pig, it's still a pig. Just to quote some Obama, McCain, and Cheney logic, since those guys like (or used to like) that saying.<br /><br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>ROBERT ADAMS JR</b><p>Thanks Frank . I was kinda expecting $60-80 but was not too disappointed . I thought it was an interesting card under or over print but not worth more then $100 on a SUPER bidding day .

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Scott B.</b><p><br />I couldn't believe this thread and go this far... it just doesn't make sense the stamp was an underprint. <br /><br />Anyways, IMO, it was bad to have Kevin Saucier involved in this matter. Before this card shows up (at least to me) Kevin was known to be a expert on detecting alterations and paper expert on this board. But now this United Logo card is taking his reputation and creditability away.<br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I think that's drastic. I don't believe making a single mistake undermines someone's reputation, as there isn't anyone who hasn't made a mistake. Even Sherlock Holmes made a mistake in deduction once or twice.<br /><br />It is kind of funny that there's such a brewhaha over a silly little stamp and whether its under or over the line. Though an understamp would mean it would have to be vintage, so the issue is more than just technicality. Beyond knowing the normal/general order of colors or having proofs, determining the chronological order of the inks on an undamaged print is very hard, and even top experts may disagree on the exact order. Obviously, a key tidbit with this print is there is a gouge in the stock.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>So it's a $12-$36 card that a lowlife put on ebay for $1500 hoping to make the score of his lifetime and got not a single offer. What next?

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>David Goff</b><p>Jeff<br /><br />Maybe he was hoping to get alot of money for the card and then use that money to bet on some horses. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Jerry Hrechka</b><p>Or roosters.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I wonder if the underfoot of a rooster might resemble this stamp. Maybe a chicken got out and stepped on the card? I think this is a low life scumbag trying to defraud the public. It is probably indicative of an animal torturer's nature to also try to be a scammer. Maybe he is trying to subsidize his welfare subsidies? Maybe he should get a job like the rest of America and quit abusing animals, the system......I guess some scumbags just don't want to work and want a free handout....Scott Elkins is a low life scumbag....but you didn't hear it here first...<br /><br /><br />edited a few typos

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>Well, it's rec'd an offer.<br /><br /> Unless it's a shill or prank, which I highly doubt (from digging up this high $ buyers credible history). He's made many sensible vintage, non-sport purchases over the years on the Bay. <br /><br /> Wow, this hobby sure is fickle. Kevin does some amazing research for the benefit of the hobby. But, by being aloof in refusing to address specific flaws with this card (mine and others), I must remain highly skeptical. If Kevin prooves to be correct, as tough as that may be, I'd be the first to acknowledge my accusatory tone.<br /><br /> Incidentally, How Scott's listing didn't shoot himself in the foot, in regards to frightening away offers eludes me. Steve F

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Shawn</b><p>I actually like this ad... I like the "no look cigar grab" by the guy in the middle.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.billiardmemorabilia.com/images/framed/m385cigar.jpg"><br /><br />WALTER,<br /><br />I believe Sweet Caporal produced some T59 Flags of all nations and United Cigar produced the T38s, have you seen T59s with United Cigar backs or the reverse?

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Again, I hate to beat a dead horse, but am I the only one that sees a similarity between the United logo and Croft logo? Seems this would have some sort of link between tobacco and candy issues.<br /><br /><img BORDER="5" src=http://www.cincitec.com/images/ebay/54/pinnew.JPG>

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>yes I noticed the resemblence as did a few others.<br /><br />The 'logo' is basically one that is normally used with the American flag.<br /><br />It prolly was used by more then just these 2 companies as well.<br /><br /><br />Steve

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>but I find your continued and increasingly personal attacks on the seller to be disappointing and inappropriate. The fact that he is banned from responding and defending himself here makes it all the more unimpressive, but apart from that, it was completely unnecessary--the thread had plenty of legs and interesting points on the subject matter.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>Todd, <br /><br />It's hard to take sides unless you have read a couple of years back in board history.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>why in every other instance is the united cigars logo in red ink and this one is in black? can anyone produce a single example of an authentic united cigars logo in black ink?

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Shawn</b><p>Ali,<br /><br />Check some of the links I posted above... Some of them are of black ink. I have seen many others online also.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>thanks, but I've been here since this board started, and was on the one before that. I know the history just fine. I stand by my remarks.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Well, Elkins could always respond on the board he started -- woops, he was banned from there as well. Lucky for him ebay still allows him to personally attack individuals in his baseball card listings. Let's see for how much longer.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Thanks for your opinion. My remarks stand also. <br />warm regards

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>shawn, do you have something invested in this card or are you a friend of the seller? i saw the images you linked to earlier but they are entirely different from the stamp on the back of the card in question. first, the stamp is missing the copy right information listed on the bottom of the united cigars logo in this example: <a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/526604/message/1201457065/2nd+January+Pickup+thread" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/526604/message/1201457065/2nd+January+Pickup+thread</a>. what's more is that in the aviator examples you posted the logo is printed in the same color and consistency as the card, and the logo is extremely small. the stamp on this card is very large and in an independent ink from the rest of the card. it is an entirely different style than the 2 examples you linked to. so i am curious to see a common example of the print. i haven't seen one yet.

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Shawn</b><p><br /><br /><br />Ali,<br /><br />I do not have anything invested in this card. Nor will I ever have anything invested in this card. I had not even seen this card until this thread. As to the seller, I do not believe I have ever heard of him until this thread. Though I may remember something about cockfighting on the forum years ago? I have zero concern of who how or what this seller is. I am just someone who is extremely interested in "baseball stuff" that I have never seen or heard of. Especially if no-one has ever seen it or heard of it... The "United Cigar" company history is extremely interesting to me and I would not have known about it if it were not for this thread.<br /><br />I do agree with you as far as the similarites (or lack there of)in the logo. I think I have seen some really close to the one on the back of the SC. I will see if I can find them. I believe my point in posting the logos was more about the fact that this was a massive company of its time and PRINTED huge amounts of material. I do not believe this was some small outfit that stamped the back of certain items. That logo was PRINTED on millions of paper items.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

Kevin Saucier Has Spoken
 

Posted By: <b>Dave F</b><p><br />Shawn-<br /><br />You must have missed my request before. Show me a scan of another T206 or any pre-war card with the paper missing from the back which still has the print visible.