Microscope Pays Off
 

Posted By: <b>Billy Martin, Jr.</b><p>I finally got my microscope in today. I gotta tell ya folks.... I love it. I bid on, and won one of those QX3 off of ebay. These things retail for almost $100. I got it (with shipping to an APO) for $40. It's a digital microscope that uses your USB port on your computer. The images are viewed via your computer screen at 10x, 60x and 200x. <BR><BR>Anyway, I had just won a lot of '39 Play Ball cards and I felt that at least one was circumspect from visual observation alone (I'm by no means an expert, but I have about 140 of the '39s, about 20 of the 40's and half the 41's now to compare to). I withheld judgement until today though, but now I know it is definitely a fake.<BR><BR>Below I've included 3 images. The first is a picture of the front of the card...A 1939 Play Ball Donald McNair #105 (10x magnification). On the right you can easily see the sawtooth border. This should be a solid border.<BR><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1057744314.JPG"> <BR><BR>Next we see the lettering on the back of the card where it says "Bats: Right" we see the "ght" of the fake (60x magnification)<BR><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1057744341.JPG"> <BR><BR>And finally, the back of a real '39 Play Ball Paul Derringer #15 for comparison. We see the "ght" (60x magnification)<BR><BR><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1057744328.JPG"> <BR><BR>You can quickly and easily see the difference between the two.<BR><BR>Unfortunately this is all after the fact. Fortunately, the McNair only cost me about $5. I'm going to chalk this one up to experience though, and I'm going to keep the card as a future tool and reference piece. I'm also not going to make any disparaging remarks against the seller as I believe this was an oversight in a large lot of cards that otherwise has been great, but I've emailed them and am waiting to see how they might handle the situation.<BR><BR>Anyway, I just thought this might be of interest to some, and I welcome the opportunity to contribute, and hopefully provide a little education.

Microscope Pays Off
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>Billy,<BR><BR>The 1939 Play Ball #105 Don McNair that you have is an original, not a reprint. I pulled one and it exhibits the same characteristics as yours.<BR><BR>Keep in mind that the contrast on different 1939 Play Ball cards of the same player can vary quite dramatically. Light printing on this issue can deceive some collectors. <BR>

Microscope Pays Off
 

Posted By: <b>Billy Martin, Jr.</b><p>Hey MW thanks for that news. Well I guess I had it all wrong. I didn't think I was being too paranoid, but obviously I still have a lot to learn. You would certainly know better than me in any case.

Microscope Pays Off
 

Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>The '39's all (or most) have variations in the case of the type of the names, which to me would mean at least a second printing. This would seem to account for the variation in ink that you showed.<BR> MW- have you noticed one or the other being rarer or more collected? Do the "sample card" overprints occur with both variations, or just one?<BR> When I was a kid (early 70's) there was a card shop in Hollywood, Adco. Every '39 any of us ever got had the overprint on it. Wonder if this was a regional thing?

Microscope Pays Off
 

Posted By: <b>julie</b><p>he knows all about it.<BR><BR> --someone with a 100x microscope.

Microscope Pays Off
 

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>Now that I know someone has a microscope:<BR><BR>First, I must note that I haven't owned a single Play Ball from any year (unless you count a Dover reprint) for many years, so this discussion of 'rim' printing does not neccesarilly apply to Play Balls.<BR><BR>Under high magnification (100x power or so) the halftone dots on many early cards and related will have an apperance like below:<BR><BR><img src="http://www.cycleback.com/printsexamination/ten_files/image004.jpg"><BR><BR>There will be a dark rim or edge around the dots and printed graphics, and the little isolated dots will that those little crosses in them. If you look in the image above (about 100x power magnification), it almost looks like someone took a dark marker and traced around all the borders of the ink pattern.<BR><BR>Further, the lettering and order designs away from the half-tone image, will also have a dark and noticeable rim around the ink.<BR><BR>This type of rim under high magnification is most noticeable when the printing surface is smooth or glossy. On the rough back of a card, or on newsprint, it may not be noticeable.<BR><BR>Vintage cards and related prints that have this type of 'rim' printing, including 1913 National Game, 1947 Bond Bread, Sporting Lifes and Sporting News, most (not all) premium prints issued by magazines and newspapers. Also (alluding to the previous question about the World Series program), most Pre-1950 magazines and programs.<BR><BR>The key to the presence of this rim under high magnification is that this type of printing has not been used for cards, magazines or such for many decades. So, while the presence of the rim does not prove in and of itself that a card was from 1912 or 1915, for example, the printing is consistant with the period and would not be used on a modern reprint or coutnerfeit.<BR><BR>So, if you're in an antique store with your microscope, and you see a 1920 magazine premium that tickles your fancy. Check it out under your microscope. If it has the dark rim around the ink under high magnification, and there are no other problems with the item, you can be assured that it's vintage.<BR><BR>Lastly, there were other forms of antique printing used on cards (which will be discussed at a later time), so the lack of the rim doesn't prove it's a fake (unless it's known, like in the above examples, that the original were made with this type of printing). For example 1950s Topps and Bowman cards were not made with this type of printing.<BR><BR><a href="http://www.cycleback.com/quicktips.html" target=_new>http://www.cycleback.com/quicktips.html</a>

Microscope Pays Off
 

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