Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
There are a number of people still among us, including some with great expertise, who have seen it unslabbed. Has any one of them suggested it didn't look like an authentic T206? This is aside from the issue of being sheet cut trimmed blah blah.
Unsubstantiated rumors of 1950s reprints do not for me shift the burden of proof here. But Corey, how in your estimation would one forensic test it without damaging it?
|
well, I'll have a go at how I'd examine a potential Wagner.
Paper thickness- Is it within the range of known good T206s. (From my small sample I checked, it's a very small range, very consistent thickness. )
Other paper aspects -
The stock is often coated, is it coated stock or not, and is that consistent with the specific back it has? (and preferably with another known Wagner with the same back.
Does the fiber length/type match other T206s. (a bit tougher, but looking at one closely enough the cardstock is distinctive, It's clearly different from a similar modern cardstock (Both craft store acid free cardstock, and comic book backing boards which are similar. ) The actual scientific test would destroy some of the cardstock, but a simple look with a microscope will actually get you most of the way there.
UV light - Does the cardstock react or not. Not a certain thing, as many modern acid free cardstocks also don't react. But if it does, it can almost 100% be eliminated as genuine.
Inks and printing-
Lots that can be seen with just a good magnifier. If I had a known Wagner to compare to. even the exact halftone pattern could be compared. For that matter a very high res scan would allow the same comparison, but I haven't seen one of a Wagner. (LOC has them available for most of the set)
Again, UV. I haven't done this yet, but how the different inks react should match a good T206.
The better tests
X-ray refraction spectroscopy would identify the exact composition of the paper, paper coating if any and the inks.
Even if someone did spectacular work and worked off a real Wagner, this is where it would all come undone.
There's been some work on Stamps only in the last 10 years or so. Some of the discoveries have been
very interesting. Like for well over 100 years we all "knew" that the inks used on the first US stamp used rust as a colorant making a nice red brown, but also being abrasive and leading to premature plate wear. Checked, and the XRF says..... No Iron whatsoever!
I think the reasons this sort of stuff hasn't had a good track record with sports collectibles is that the people doing the examining, even if they have a machine like the VSC machines PSA and SGC have is that the data they give needs to be interpreted properly.
Like.... I'd guess your office has a lot of law books. I could come in and read a bunch of them, and I would probably know more than when I started. But that wouldn't get me anywhere near being as good as a genuine lawyer. And I'd put money on being just plain wrong a LOT.
It doesn't help that so many incompetent or dishonest autograph "authenticators" have claimed to be "forensic document examiners".