N403 Yum Yum Welch Pitching
 

Sometimes opinions can differ. This currently resides in the Beckett 1 holder. It came from a bookseller who said it fell out of a book. I first sent it to SGC and was stunned when they said it was counterfeit. The seller said he would refund me and I said no, let's wait until Beckett can look at it. I thought it was good from the little bit I know. Beckett confirmed my suspicions. They said that under a microscope it is an albumen photo, with the telltale hairs showing, of a wood engraving just as it should be. They also compared it to another Yum Yum albeit that one was in a holder already. In hand I thought it was good when I first got it although the front printing is out of focus. BTW, there is only one other known card like this and it is in the Library of Congress. Thoughts?

That’s funny I just seen a picture of the Cap Anson and wondered how tough these really are. Neat cards, sorry I can’t help with authenticity on it.

I think the "be your own judge" applies today as well as it ever has. Obviously the graders have been shown to have issues here and there. What's more scary if it's authentic just how many eyes did it pass through at SGC that all said no it it? This wouldn't have fell in the typical $100 value range...we are talking upper grading fees which should require multiple eyes and levels of scrutiny.

Without holding it and inspecting it, I would venture to guess the card is real.
If it it is real, it's RARE. I had a Yum Yum similar to that (hand drawn) years ago.

In general I would trust SGC's experience over Beckett's. I am not familiar enough with the issue to make a call either way but if you are good with it and Beckett is good with it, seems like a 2 to 1 vote. Nice pick up.

That's pretty crazy that one TPG thinks it's real and the other fake. Usually the difference in opinion is whether a card is trimmed or not. Maybe send it into PSA?

Edited to add: presuming you don't mind not getting the card back for a year.

I agree with Jeff...send it to PSA...Compared to these exemplars...I don't like yours so much?

Here is a side by side comparison of Leon's and the one in the Library of Congress. These are the only two examples that I know of. Obviously the quality of the one from the LOC is much better than the other, but we have all seen the exact same Old Judge cards that have completely different looks to them based on how they have deteriorated over the years.

I doubt I send it to PSA grading for their opinion. The science and the evidence make me feel it's fine. I think it would have been better if SGC gave it a ? instead of COU. They are still my grader of choice and I generally like their grading, but opinions can be different on things. And I thought this card was good so wanted another opinion.
Also, SGC has been known to review cards so I might have them look at it again in the future. No one is perfect. I could be wrong and BVG could be too. But I am leaning the way I am for now. The printing is definitely out of focus. But being in a book, or other mfg or elemental issue, could cause that. From my little experience I thought it was good when I first got it. Again, I could be wrong. Also, I had a good opportunity to return it to the seller for a refund and chose not to.

Ps..thanks Kevin for posting those.

Based on the side to side images I think SGC may be right, but I would have to have it in hand to know.

To me sounds like Beckett went the extra step putting it under a microscope to verify paper composition where SGC didn't. Also with the fading and wear, could be some chemical reaction between elements of ink and paper in the book and with the card... Also where the book was stored for over 125 years may factor in also...

I absolutely no faith in Beckett knowing anything about 19th century cards. SGC has graded enough of these cards so that they should know what they are talking about.

If I had a history of sending a lot of cards to SGC for grading, before I accepted a counterfeit ruling, I'd want to hear from them why they graded it that way. It sounds as though Beckett applied some science to their determination. Certainly, for the amount of money and business that you give SGC, an explanation could be warranted in a unique case like this.

How do you know that SGC did not "go the extra mile"? Even if they did not "go the extra mile" it would shock me if they got it wrong on a counterfeit 19th century card. I assume they have graded more than PSA. I would guess this is the first Beckett has graded. Not saying they are wrong but SGC is the expert in this area.

It doesn't look good to me. I hope I'm wrong.

It's a good thing it wasn't a signed card.... SGC's got a great track record of "authenticating" signatures on older cards.... :p:eek:

Edited to add - it looks like the pictures/scans are not the same but we've seen where different scanners and settings provide a different image of the same type of cards.

Leon - have you considered letting an authenticator of documents review it? I would think that they could give you a more professional analysis of the stock and ink. Baseball cards are infants in the realm of ink on paper. http://www.cohascodpc.com/appraisal.html

Eric, in this case it's an albumen photo adhered to stock.

Right.

Leon-Bring it to the National. I will be able to tell you if it's good.

What book did it fall out of? I ask because the more information one has as to how it was stored, the more intelligent the assessment one can make as to whether the paper/ink composition of the book pages could cause an albumen photo to deteriorate that way. An experienced paper/photo conservator armed with such info might be able to provide additional insights.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=26057

I have quite a few Yum Yums. I went through them and while the vast majority of the line drawings look like the Welch on the right, I did find one that resembles the one on the left.
It is a Fogarty. Most of the players have one line drawing pose, but this is a second line drawing pose for Fogarty (Leon's Welch is a second line drawing pose for him as well).
The toning is the key difference, perhaps due to a different quality of paper stock?

Welch
 

A larger scan of the Welch before grading. However, this or a 10x, is not what helped BVG make their final determination, from what I know. There were a few factors but science was the first one. And that bar was passed when it was determined this is, according to BVG, an albumen photo of a wood engraving, which is what these are supposed to be. They put it under a microscope and saw the albumen hairs under the "dirt" on the front. The dirt isn't really on the card as much as it is part of it.
There are also hairs that are split where the deterioration is. These were some of the things they mentioned to me about it in grading it the way they did.
Then we should also look at how and why this would have been done for fraudulent reasons. As far as anyone I have spoken with, including this board, no one can recall a fake albumen vintage baseball card. There might be one but I haven't heard of it yet.
Also, this particular photo has some different nuances than the one in the LOC. For there to be a fake you would think there had to be one it was made from? Unless we are to think the "scammer" bookseller, who owns a brick and mortar shop, took an albumen photo of a wood engraving this would have been made from, found old paper, then printed it and distressed it to the way it looks. Then after that offer it for under 2k( but close to it)?

I thought it was good from my first feel test of it. Everything just checked out with the sellers story and the rest of the info.

http://luckeycards.com/yum600dpi.jpg

Leon,

Did you ask SGC why they concluded the card is a counterfeit? They would be my grading company of choice for a card such as this, and I'd be interested to learn the basis for their conclusion.

FYI, there have been numerous attempts at counterfeiting Old Judge cards in the past. We have a separate chapter on it in our book. I agree with Corey, why don’t you talk to Dave and ask him to take a look at the card. If he thinks it is good I would guess that SGC would regrade it.

If I recall correctly, They told me they didn't like the way the upper left corner and the printing looked. They might have said they didn't like the edges too, but I am not sure of that. But nothing was factual, in my mind, when I heard it. Or I would have returned the card to the seller, who told me to send it back for a full refund...

Yum Yum Welch...

The First SGC holder is COU....the 2nd SGC holder was NO.....Beckett was a 1 and it has been verified by PSA as a 1. It is now in the PSA 1 holder headed to auction...

When I asked SGC the problem they gave me 100% conjecture and no proof or science. And they went from Counterfeit to NO (not knowing, I guess).... I have never thought it anything but real because it is.

To answer the question above, I did talk to Dave at SGC....he looked like a deer in headlights to me....

Leon, did you cross that to PSA in the Becket holder, or crack it out first? I have no idea if it is real or not, however, I would much rather, I think it would be better as a business decision, for a TPG to get it wrong saying it is counterfeit when it is real, then saying it is real when it is not.

DJ

It was sent to PSA in the BVG holder (I think but not sure). I didn't personally send it in an AH did. SGC should have put NO on it the first time not COU, imo. Their 2nd look was the NO...(guessing they just didn't know and back tracked off the COU)....
.

Which auction house? Heritage or REA?

Leon-Did you have Richard compare it to the ones in his collection?

Thanks Ricard...

...and this bump is for Jay (*hey Jay) since you asked.

Seems a second line drawing pose might be something concerning the registration....

Great card Leon and will be looking forward to the auction its in.

Thanks, and good luck with the auction.

Yum Yum
 

SGC has graded 107 Yum Yums

PSA has graded 5

Even though you are showing a Beckett example, the Beckett Pop Report doesn't show any cards. I searched under N403, 1888, Yum Yum, and Yum Yum Welch, but nothing comes up.

It doesn't look good to me, and Beckett has shown time and time again that they don't have the knowledge and expertise to grade obscure Pre-War cards.

Albumen photos are photos, there's no registration involved.

Thanks for your opinion.

.

It looks counterfeit to me because of the much poorer quality of the picture.

Good luck with the sale.

No secret I did not think this card was a real Yum Yum from the start. I do not agree that verification of the type photograph alone can authenticate a card, it can 100% disqualify a card but it is possible to duplicate old photos. Remember we live in a world where an "artist" duplicated Ruth and Gehrig game used bats. Using the same tools Bat authenticators use with ash and old shellac. Fooled the best graders and auction houses.
You will notice I did not use the phrase I dont like this card" of course I like Yum Yum's and Smiling Mickey Welch is a great player. But we live in an age where tech is far ahead of the capacity for collectors to detect it. I hope I am wrong but in 45 years of collecting I came across 3 very rare cards that "fell out of books" two were bad and one was graded but did not sell well because of the cloud if doubt.