your opinion on this T206 Young
 

Posted By: <b>mike mullins</b><p>Hi all,<br /><br />I have owned this card for about 3 years and I believe it to be genuine. The type is the right size and color, the image is correctly printed (composed of little dots), and the card even smells old.<br /><br />However, I am slightly concerned by the condition of the card's backside. It seems a little "faint" or faded. I can make out the factory designation, but barely. Was this card soaked out of a scrapbook? <br /><br />I am sending it to SGC shortly so I'll know for sure, but until then...what do you think?<br /><br />Thank you!<br /><br />mm<br /><br /><a href="http://img260.imageshack.us/my.php?image=t206youngfront4fl.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/2700/t206youngfront4fl.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://img260.imageshack.us/my.php?image=t206youngback0hg.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/834/t206youngback0hg.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a>

your opinion on this T206 Young
 

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>For me, your scans make it a little difficult to tell. But I think it looks a lot like many of the other doctored reprints.<br /><br />As for "printing with little dots". If you look at a real versus a reprint T206 under a 30x loupe, both are printed with little dots. BUT THE DOTS ARE DIFFERENT.<br /><br />Brian

your opinion on this T206 Young
 

Posted By: <b>mike mullins</b><p>Thanks for replying.<br /><br />Did you click on the pics? They link to much larger images.<br /><br />I am suspicious, especially of the bottom of the back, where the "REPRINT" stamp would go. But, I think the card holds up otherwise. <br /><br />Any links where I can see examples of good vs. reprint vintage printing?<br /><br />Keep 'em coming!<br /><br />mm<br /><br />

your opinion on this T206 Young
 

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>I did not originally click the links. Now that I have, the larger jpegs make the card look a little more legit. I don't feel comfortable committing to either way now.<br /><br />If the card was in my hand and I had a loupe, I could tell for certain. <br /><br />Cycleback has some good info on detecting counterfits<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cycleback.com/baseballcardguide.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.cycleback.com/baseballcardguide.htm</a><br /><br />Brian

your opinion on this T206 Young
 

Posted By: <b>mike mullins</b><p>for taking another look. <br /><br />I am about 85% positive on this card, but I'll leave it to SGC to decide for certain. <br /><br />This card is definitely one that can benefit from encapsulation (if it turns out to be deserving). As a raw card, it raises some questions, especially if you aren't holding it in your hand. I have that advantage, which adds to my confidence, but a potential buyer wouldn't. Entombed from SGC eliminates most doubts (I hope!), making it a good low-grade (10-poor, I guess) addition to a collection.<br /><br />I will be sure to post the card's outcome when it returns from grading.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br />mm

your opinion on this T206 Young
 

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>You're probably right on the SGC 10. I twice submitted the card below to SGC in hopes of getting a SGC 20...I guess I will settle for the 10. <br /><br /><img src="http://www.geocities.com/engelhard1978/t206_cobb_red_sc350b_front.jpg"><br /><br />Brian

your opinion on this T206 Young
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>From the scan the front looks ok. The back has that fake, underlying, "white'ish" look though....good luck and let us know....