T213-1s and T206 Carolina Brights (Fraud/Fakes) by Daniel Desmond
 

Are these real?

http://luckeycards.com/aut.jpg

i think so?

look good to me fwiw

EDIT: Wait, the front of the coupons font looks like T206. Either there's a type I don't know about or soething's weird here. I know there are black letters as well as blue, but even those don't look remotely the same as T206 printing.

EDIT 2x: OK just found a Hunter T213 with print that looks the same as T206.Apparently the T213-1's look this way. Super rare apparently, if real. Ignore my uninformed opinions please!

They absolutely appear to be real IMO.

So why do some Have Blue Lettering and Some Have Brown Lettering?

T213-1's have brown lettering, while T213-2 and T213-3 have blue lettering.

Steve

I'd be pretty suspicious given the recent fake backs being made of each. I'd have a lot of questions (first question is always "Where are all the Piedmonts?"). I don't love the CB. I'd want to see it in person and take some high res scans. The telltale with the fakes is the ink never sits quite right on the paper and just looks wrong up close.

Worries aside, they do look good. If I had to say good or bad just based on those scans, I'd say good.

I see.

So they were Released in Batches like 1952 Topps.

Can the Same Players be Found with Both Blue and Brown Lettering?

Or Does Each Player just have one Color or the Other?

Hi Leon

Here's my Chase (CB) and the one you show looks authentic.


. http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...psee2692e2.jpg
http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/...ps0ddc20c9.jpg


The 6 guys with 1910 COUPON are are confirmed....and, they look too beat to have been re-backed. They're good.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

If you compare Ted's Carolina Brights Chase (great cards btw) to the one in the original post, you can see what I am worried about. The ink on the back is not deep and dark like Ted's. It's possible the Chase in the OP is legit and it is just faded or has a lot of surface wear. But its also possible that it's a fake that never had the ink applied as fully as a real one. I'd have to see it up close to make a determination.

Type- 1s were produced around 1910 and have brown ink. Types 2 + 3 were produce in 1914 and 1919 and have blue ink.

Any players that were in the first and second sets would feature both colors of ink. The Evers in the first post is one example.

Great info and Thank You Sean.

I learn so much on this Site :)

Chase for sale???



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

No, I don't think so. They aren't mine.

Bummer, lol

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Leon....
 

be careful on the c. brights .......I would question it.....I agree with Luke, I thought the same thing!!..ink on back doesn't look right to me...their is someone mixing fake"rare" backs with coupons (ask bryan L) they are making great fakes apparently lately, only way to tell is in person or tpg , (hope this helps my friend:)

Well obviously I prefer the ones with darker strikes on the reverse I have also owned coupons and rare back t206 is with lighter backs so that is not a giveaway

Pete....
 

100 % agree with you....there are def some with lighter and faded ink ones....

its tough to tell from the scans without seeing in person, looks almost good in the scan to me, but I am suspect on this one...

someone, from what bryan L was saying, was taking real fronts and "lightly sanding the backs down" and re printing rare backs:eek::eek:

scammers are assholes!

Leon, are you in a position to touch the Coupons? Since they are much thinner than other cards, perhaps you can tell that way.

I own one Coupon Type-1. When I handed it to my girlfriend (who has handled hundreds of T206s) she immediately said "fake." I had to explain to her that it wasn't a T206 and was supposed to be thinner.

Yes I think it would be impossible to fake the stock of a type one coupon!

The same guy that was (is?) making the Carolina Brights fakes was also making some pretty good looking Type 1 Coupon fakes.

Loupe
 

A loupe would provide an answer pretty quickly, but if you don't have the cards in hand, that won't work, along with Sean's suggestion of checking the card stock.

I think they are OK, but it is a little unusual to come across this many Type I's that don't have the circle of paper loss on the back.

Coupons
 

Looking at the fronts and the backs... I can’t see the same type of creases on the backs. These are thin cards. I would be skeptical based upon this fact.

I am always skeptical.

If they are fakes, they are real good fakes. Also, why make fakes with paper loss on (rare) backs and/or crease the cards; I suppose this makes them look more “authentic” but at risk if seriously devaluing. Of the fakes made by “this guy”, did they typically have back damage and/or were/are they beaters?

Does anyone know the name of the counterfeiter?

its way more common for fakes to be beaters.

Both, weirdly. Some were really low grade and bad fakes, while others were nice looking VGish cards. Some were attached to thin paper in an attempt to kind of hide the backs. On the nice ones, the edges lined up perfectly even though the back was a fake printed on a different type of paper.

Are you sure Pete? I though all counterfeit cards are perfectly centered examples of super star players worth a lot of $. I suppose next you will tell me people forge autographs of common players.:eek:;):rolleyes:

Rounded corners?
 

Leon's examples also seem to have "rounded corners" which look very uniform between the examples which aren't present with Ted's examples.

Patrick

i meant fakes like t213 I's!!! Although this issue is super prone to being found in bad creased condition. If they're fake...they're very good in appearance...but I cannot believe the thin stock can be faked very well?

I do have to say that the rounded corners argument isn't a perfect one. I recently bought a large lot of T206's with nearly perfectly and identically rounded corners. They were just fine. They had been rubber banded together for years and so had worn in what looked like a suspicious manner, but it made perfect sense.

Are they "Cracker Jack" Thin?

I don't know, I've never held a raw Cracker Jack. :confused:

1914 Cracker Jacks are almost paper thin similar to T213-1 Coupons. The 1915 Cracker Jacks and T213-2 and T213-3 Coupons were on heavier card stock.

At least one of these pictured IS real :) But can you tell which?
.

Leon, please tell me you changed the thread title and it didn't originally say T213-1 If it did I'm an even bigger boob than I originally thought

Title hasn't been changed. If it were changed (on any post) you would see a little "edit" tag at the bottom of the post.

I'm looking at these cards again but this time on my phone and realized I can actually zoom in better than on my desktop. I dont really like any of them with the exception of Lennox now that I have a closer look. But I'd be too skeptical of them all to want to buy Lennox.

Great, so I'm a huge boob.

Hi Luke, is it the fronts or the backs that concerns you? Or both?

The backs. The fronts look like real T206s. I've examined a few of these fakes and the fronts are always real.

Wow, I have a 1915 Cracker Jack that is Super Thin.

I didn't think Cards could get any Thinner.

I didn't know the 1914 was Thinner than 1915.

Thanks Leon :)

P.S. Are there any other Tobacco Sets that are "Thin" or are Most the Thickness of a T206 (Which is Still a lot Thinner than Post War Cards).

I like huge boobs

LOL, so I got that goin' for me, which is nice.

Yes, but if I told ya' I would have to kill ya'!! And relatively speaking I don't think T206 card stock is thin with respect to other cards of the period. Now if you get a T216 with a Virginia Extra back, that is a very thin one too.

They look okay to me. I remember reading a Lipset article from like 40 years ago that they all can be faked. They have fake Vermeer's in museums. These look okay to me fwiw. Are there any nice looking fake T213-1 Bob Rhoades for sale?

Do you prefer the fake to be a beater, or mid-grade? :)

LOL....get all you can and recoup!! The hobby doesn't care about fraud all it cares about is PWCC shipping cost, don't ya' know?

Hint- 2 of the 7 listed above are real, ALL have real T206 fronts, skinned (except the 2), with inkjet printer printed backs.

I'll guess Starr and Lennox are real

The fake backs lack crisp lines. From the scan, some of the lines look slightly blurred.

If they sanded the backs off, they destroyed the sizing layer in the process, making the paper porous, which would cause a slight amount of bleeding.

+1 - those were my guesses as well.

Cheers,
Patrick

So you can tell which two of the seven are real? Which two are they?

well
 

guessing starr and lennox as well - I had to kick out the one with black paper on the back - just because.

I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out which is the second real one. Only Lennox looks good to me.

I think Lennox and Evers might be real...the rest are fake, you can tell by the faded look. And as Leon pointed out, they are being skinned and inkjet printed. Scary, be cautious of faded looking backs.

i also agree w/lennox and evers.

Real scary.

The only other one I might call okay is Becker, but the o/c back on Starr kind of sells me on him

Leon, who is this Daniel Desmond that you referenced?

Only the Evers looks real to me. The serifs on the letters are nice and sharp and the color is dark. It's tough to tell if the blurriness is due to the scanner or the card. I'd have to examine them.

Are the TPG's catching the fakes, or slabbing them?

The Chase CB back was shown in a past thread about Desmond as a fake back in April. I'll guess that the Lennox and Evers are the real ones too.

s'more trivia
 

Round #2: Which two are real?
(if you KNOW because you've seen them sold in auction, please keep quiet :))

I had to try it myself to see. I have a modern Epson inkjet photo printer.

I got an old trade card with a blank back and I sanded the back off with 150 grit sandpaper.

https://image.ibb.co/gShHpy/cycle2_1.jpg

It had a pencil notation and it came right off. The back was noticeably more porous after sanding. I figured a stupid forger wouldn't re-size the back with gelatin or some other paper size before printing.

I got a high resolution image of a Cycle back and imported it into Photoshop. I had to make the background transparent or else it would print the background color: white if B&W or light brown.

https://image.ibb.co/jvjKKy/cycle1.jpg

This is kind of difficult to do without erasing tiny pieces of the border or the serifs. I had to play around with it for a while before getting a good result.

I finally printed it, and it came out like shit. Exactly how I predicted it.

https://image.ibb.co/cowwGd/cycleresult.jpg

Notice how dead it looks. The serifs are just blurs due to the feathering.

Now, how could the results have been better?

Instead of sanding, could the back be bleached?
If the back is bleached, it would glow under UV light. Probably a bad choice.

Instead of an inkjet printer, was a laser printer used?
A laser printer would produce crisper lines and most laser printers use oil based inks that wouldn't feather as much as the water based inks of inkjet printers. Laser is probably the way to go.

Does the printer leave a signature under magnification?
Yes, the inkjet dots are clearly visible. With a laser printer, probably less, but still visible.

https://image.ibb.co/cwpfRd/cycledots.jpg

impressive experiment!!!

I believe a good paper conservator can separate the back from the front, and reglue a new back to the original card. I don't think it's even hard to do.

I'm not sure about this. The cardstock has to be multi-layered in order to separate the card in two, or else it's really hard to do. I can separate bookboard in two for example. Because of it's thickness.

Cardboard is made the same way as paper. If it's really thick like bookboard, it's layered.

A T-206 card is sort of thin compared to cardboard. I think it's a single layer like a really thick piece of paper (high gsm).

And you would be wrong. Take a look at chapter 11 of Dave Jamieson's book Mint Condition. Called "A Visit to the Doctor", the author spent a day with a paper restorer (let's leave him nameless) who demonstrated how you separate a card in two, say a T206, and attach a new back to it. He did say it takes quite a bit of skill, but someone with practice can do it. I haven't read the book in several years, but as I recall as an experiment they sent one of the Frankenstein cards to a grading service and it came back with a numerical grade.

So I correct my statement that it is easy to do, but it can be done and has been done.

I will research this and try to split a card in two. I'll share the results.

That's fine, but without training and practice it might be genuinely hard to do. A paper conservator spends years working with paper, so he has a much greater skill level than you or I might.

A forger would as well, no?

Anyway, I found a fancy lab tool called a microtome. It's used to slice tissue extremely thin for microscope analysis.

It can slice something about 3 micrometers (μm) thick, which is amazing. Plastic saran wrap is 10–12μm thick!

I had no idea this machine even existed.

Circa 1999 - 2000, a bunch of T206's were in circulation that were being sold on Ebay (and at Shows) that were FAKES.
These T206's were very professionally altered, and these cards fooled many collectors. These FAKES were so good that
Grading Company's (PSA & SGC) graded them. However, for the most part these FAKES didn't fool a number of us, who
instantly recognized that these cards had impossible T206 front / back combos.
Fortunately for us T206 collectors, this scammer was not knowledgeable regarding the complex structure of the T206 set.

Here is an example of one of these FAKES.....

http://i.imgur.com/JiH0X.jpg
Courtesy Chris Brown

Off the top of my mind, here is a list of other FAKE examples which were in circulation back then......

Matty (portrait) with a red HINDU back (PSA and SGC graded)

Matty (portrait) with a SOVEREIGN 460 back (PSA graded)

Green Cobb with a red HINDU back

Green Cobb with a CYCLE 350 back

Johnson (pitching) with BROAD LEAF 350 back

There were many more of these fakes in circulation.


Most in the hobby called these altered T206's "re-backed". I choose to call them "RE-FRONTED" DRUM's, red HINDU's, LENOX's, etc.
A professional paper restorer told me how it was easy to interchange the front / back combo of a T206. By first removing (erasing)
the front of a common T206 image from a card whose back was rare (i.e., DRUM, HINDU, LENOX, UZIT, etc.) Then, very precisely
appliqueing the desired FRONT onto the card with the rare back. He said there are glues that are undetectable for this process.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Whatever they're using to skin the card (if they don't want to ruin the front), it has to be a machine of some sort.

Doing it by hand is too much of a risk with such a thin card. One small slip of the hand and you'll rip through the paper.

But what you said is genius, now that I think about it. By sanding off the front of a high back value card, you reduce the thickness 50% to make room for a new front, and then you reduce the thickness 50% on the other card by sanding off a worthless Piedmont back, you create a new card with the appropriate thickness.

Manny

It's a single-sided process. The original (rare) back is not tampered with. Only the FRONTS are modified.
1st....the FRONT is erased from a common T206 subject whose back is a rare T-brand.
2nd.....the FRONT of a star card (whose back is a Piedmont or Sweet Cap) is very carefully removed and
"trans-planted" onto the "front-less" card with the rare back.

It's as simple as that, and any professional paper restorer can accomplish this.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

You mentioned that they use the appropriate glue. I assume that you mean a glue that won't allow the card to split apart when soaked, which would give away the con. It must be some modern PVA glue, that is not soluble in water, like wheat paste or some other natural adhesive.

I never had one of these FAKE T206 cards. And, if I did it most likely would have been in a PSA or SGC holder.

Perhaps, some one on this forum will chime in here who had one of these cards and tried to soak it.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.