Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn
Andy,
It is humorous. I have been laughing the entire time. Now to sharpen Occam's Razor:
3. The paper did not need to be vintage. The same paper has been used in printing for years. If you don't believe me, ask a printer. Have modifications be made over the years? I am sure they have, but the paper for the most part is the same. It is a cheap product and cheap products remain cheap because, in part, they are mostly not modified.
4. I never said the guy had vintage ink.
Clarification:
5. He printed and then brought to shows the cards from the sheets.
6. The guy knew the sets. The discovery of other images was in regard to this generation of collectors. Older collectors would have run across the Davenport or the Henry, etc.
The cards are fakes. Why? Not because of assumptions, but honesty.
|
Response to each "clarification"
3- It would have to be vintage. Vintage paper and modern paper are NOT the same. For just one example, modern paper has brighteners that wasn't introduced until the 40's this is a reason vintage card collector's use a black light. So you are coming up with a new assumption in place of the vintage paper one, and that is that no one bothered using a black light on one of these cards.
4- As stated with the paper, ink has changed over the years along with the printing process. This has not stated stagnant since 1921. So, again if you don't believe that he used vintage printing techniques than you are assuming no one that has seen them no how to tell a vintage printing from a modern printing.
both above assumptions can be researched more at
Judging the Authenticity of Early Baseball Cards by David Rudd Cycleback
5- That wasn't a clarification, that is pretty much what I said. That he brought these cards with the intention of only selling the 1 or 2 sets. Having worked in the printing industry I know for a fact that it would have cost more money to produce this set and the designing of it for just 1 or 2 sets.
6- So this older collector had access to these rare images and decided to add them to a set. This is still an assumption just replacing the other one.
And honesty only goes as far as your knowledge. You can honestly be mistaken which is where the counter argument comes from and since this is the only assumption on the counter argument it still wins when using Occam's Razor.