Card doctoring...

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Coming from a guy with 30 years experience... right? If the corners are rebuilt with modern paper, those will flouresce under a black light. However, ones built using donor T206 cards would not, based on the article above. Under a high power microscope, it might be easy as well. But to the regular Joe buying cards, it's not really a thought I have when purchasing cards. I just assume it hasn't been done and probably won't look for it.

Not to mention someone that knows what they are doing can recreate stock from 1909...its amazing. How do you think maps/artifacts from 200-500 years ago are restored? This is standard in other collections, juts not ours...scary shit.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Some of what he does I guess you could argue about, but he admits he takes out wrinkles.

Some people, myself included, don't feel that removing creases is considered doctoring a card. If you read Julie's response in the article that Leon posted from the Old Judge, Spring1986, she says, "If ironing out creases is successful, fine." I was collecting in 1986, that was nearly 32 years ago. I felt that way then, I still feel that way today. Lipset himslef even goes on to say, "It is our assumption that Julie's feelings would mirror the great majority of the card collecting hobby." I think he was right.

Flash forward 31 years later, Andy Broome wrote a nice article in the June 2017 issue of Beckett's Vintage Collector titled "Altered States." It's about card doctoring - everything from trimming, soaking, re-coloring, power erasing, pressing, rebuilding, etc and leaves it to the reader to determine what is acceptable and what is not. He does say, "My personal belief is if nothing is added or taken away from the physical card and there is nothing left behind, then it it more likely acceptable."

As collectors, we each have to determine what is acceptable and what is not.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

Not to mention someone that knows what they are doing can recreate stock from 1909...its amazing. How do you think maps/artifacts from 200-500 years ago are restored? This is standard in other collections, juts not ours...scary shit.

Such restoration can be identified.

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by drcy

Such restoration can be identified.

No it cant...tell me how? Blacklight, nope. Loupe, nope. Fiber weaves, nope. Printing, yes but a lot of borders don't have printing. Tell me how...same stock as used a hundred years ago. As long as the color is correct you could never tell.

[drcy]

There are numerous ways it is identified. In part because the two parts don't seemly fuse together and, even if original paper stock is used, foreign substances have to be used to affix or integrate it to the card. Cut a single sheet of raw paper or card stock, cut it in half and try and put it back together using any method you can think of.

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by drcy

There are numerous ways it is identified. In part because the two parts don't seemly fuse together and, even if original paper stock is used, foreign substances have to be used to affix or integrate it to the card. Cut a single sheet of raw paper or card stock, cut it in half and try and put it back together using any method you can think of.

That's not necessarily true...and even if they do they would need to be identified. Fun chat, but I think you are wrong...

[drcy]

I will quit this friendly debate, but I'm not wrong. There are net54 lawyers, accountants and physicians whose opinions I rightfully defer to, but this is my field.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Some people, myself included, don't feel that removing creases is considered doctoring a card. If you read Julie's response in the article that Leon posted from the Old Judge, Spring1986, she says, "If ironing out creases is successful, fine." I was collecting in 1986, that was nearly 32 years ago. I felt that way then, I still feel that way today. Lipset himslef even goes on to say, "It is our assumption that Julie's feelings would mirror the great majority of the card collecting hobby." I think he was right.

Flash forward 31 years later, Andy Brooke wrote a nice article in the June 2017 issue of Beckett's Vintage Collector titled "Altered States." It's about card doctoring - everything from trimming, soaking, re-coloring, power erasing, pressing, rebuilding, etc and leaves it to the reader to determine what is acceptable and what is not. He does say, "My personal belief is if nothing is added or taken away from the physical card and there is nothing left behind, then it it more likely acceptable."

As collectors, we each have to determine what is acceptable and what is not.

I don't know how to do a poll, but I will make you a gentleman's bet that if someone starts one with the question, is it acceptable to take creases out of cards, a strong majority will say no.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know how to do a poll, but I will make you a gentleman's bet that if someone starts one with the question, is it acceptable to take creases out of cards, a strong majority will say no.

It would depend on if they are selling or buying.

[steve B]

The discussion about what can be identified and who can identify it is an interesting one.

My take on it is that there are some very skilled people on both sides of repairs.
Doing the repair isn't hard, doing it so it's hard to detect is. And as far as I know, most real conservators don't try to make a repair undetectable, just undetectable to most people giving the item a casual look. They also do some important stuff like deacidifying the paper, stabilizing fragile pieces and doing acceptable and reversible stuff to ensure the item has a good chance of lasting a lot longer. In some hobbies, like old posters, that's entirely acceptable, in others like ours, it's not generally accepted.

Detecting some alterations isn't easy. At the International stamp expo in 2006, they had thousands of square feet of displays of all sorts of amazing stuff. The one I spent the most time with was an assortment of altered stamps displayed by the Philatelic foundation (One of the stamp equivalents of PSA/SGC but in many ways better than either)
I couldn't spot the alterations on nearly everything they displayed. Which was a bit scary.
They showed pretty much every sort of "improvement" that can be done. Tears fixed so they were nearly invisible, missing corners, sides etc rebuilt and added, watermarks and other features of the paper itself added..
I thought I was pretty good until I spent an hour looking at that display. I've learned a lot since, but would still miss a decent portion of what I saw.

That's why a marginally trained person giving a card a minute or so of inspection really just isn't enough.

As far as the paper being possible to duplicate, I'll say that getting close is possible getting close enough even using original material will still be detectable. Might it be "possible" to duplicate it exactly? Yes, but it's very unlikely someone will do it any time soon. The detailed technical specs aren't even known in a general sense, and those more likely than not vary between sets and possibly even between print runs. And that's just the paper.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know how to do a poll, but I will make you a gentleman's bet that if someone starts one with the question, is it acceptable to take creases out of cards, a strong majority will say no.

I think someone should start a poll of what is acceptable and what is not, but include the following:

Soaking in water
Soaking in chemicals
Card stretching
Re-coloring
Removing creases
Power erasing
Trimming
Rebuilding
Removing wax stains
Anything else you can think of

I think you would have to qualify it by stating that for the sake of argument that the restoration/alteration would never be detectable, which would a buyer find acceptable and which would a buyer find not acceptable.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I think someone should start a poll of what is acceptable and what is not, but include the following:

Soaking in water
Soaking in chemicals
Card stretching
Re-coloring
Removing creases
Power erasing
Trimming
Rebuilding
Removing wax stains
Anything else you can think of

I think you would have to qualify it by stating that for the sake of argument that the restoration/alteration would never be detectable, which would a buyer find acceptable and which would a buyer find not acceptable.

Define never be detectable. By any means whatsoever? Then I will fight the question, because there is very little if anything that couldn't be detected with sophisticated enough equipment. I would prefer that the qualification be assume the card nonetheless gets slabbed by ordinary review, or something like that.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then I will fight the question, because there is very little if anything that couldn't be detected with sophisticated enough equipment.

I agree with this statement. I was thinking more about the creases and the argument I hear is that a crease could come back later. I can certainly understand that concern. But my reply to that is, if you can remove the crease the first time, just do it again.

But we could word the poll as you suggested. I just don't think the poll would be answered honestly. Julie wrote 32 years ago she's fine with a crease being removed. Lew even said that he thought most of the card community would agree. Where did he get this assumption? By talking to / surveying collectors. So, what's changed in the last 32 years that it was acceptable then, but not now?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I agree with this statement. I was thinking more about the creases and the argument I hear is that a crease could come back later. I can certainly understand that concern. But my reply to that is, if you can remove the crease the first time, just do it again.

But we could word the poll as you suggested. I just don't think the poll would be answered honestly. Julie wrote 32 years ago she's fine with a crease being removed. Lew even said that he thought most of the card community would agree. Where did he get this assumption? By talking to / surveying collectors. So, what's changed in the last 32 years that it was acceptable then, but not now?

I can't speak for Julie or Lew, but I have been collecting as an adult for nearly that long and have always felt that taking out creases was unacceptable and I believe most of the people I have known feel the same way.

[rainier2004]

I would guess the only item that is debatable is the soaking with water to remove things/items that were not originally on the card. All other "improvements" would not be acceptable.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I can't speak for Julie or Lew, but I have been collecting as an adult for nearly that long and have always felt that taking out creases was unacceptable and I believe most of the people I have known feel the same way.

If you read the thread that John linked in post #94, Dick Towelle thanked the 15 new Net54 members that used his service. I infer new as to mean there were other previous Net54 members that have used his service as well. Spooning out a crease was acceptable by most 32 years ago, it's acceptable by most today. Here's the problem. With social media/message boards, everyone wants to brag how moral and upstanding they are to make themselves look good, so most won't admit to it. That's why I said your poll wouldn't have honest results.

Heck, here's a thread where Dan McKee admits to spooning out creases. It's a very interesting read. Oh, and wait for it...the most overused Net54 term..."Dan's a good guy." Sure, it says so in post #29. It's right there in black and white, you can read it for yourself. My point is that it happens a lot, most people just don't admit it. At least Dan admitted it...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ght=Green+cobb

Dick Towelle got banned for removing creases.

[Beastmode]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Define never be detectable. By any means whatsoever? Then I will fight the question, because there is very little if anything that couldn't be detected with sophisticated enough equipment. I would prefer that the qualification be assume the card nonetheless gets slabbed by ordinary review, or something like that.

++This. Where there is a will....

Cardstock is made from pulp, which comes from trees. If, for example, you examined two 1939 Dimaggio cards, one altered and one unaltered, under intense magnification, I can only assume that the DNA of the chemically altered card would leave some sort of fingerprint. You wouldn't even have to take the cards out of the slab.

The day of reckoning is coming for slabbed altered cards. When a credible Forth Party Grader comes along to "out" these slabed altered cards, the game is over. The real question is will anyone care.

I think the poll question should be this: If there were a foresnic cardstock lab that could determine if your slabbed vintage card was altered, would you pay to have it re-certified?

[glynparson]

David actually has been trained in this area. Arguing with someone who is actually an expert in this field shows how little you know on the subject. Coming on here and arguing with false information against someone who actually knows what they are doing shows you to be a fool. David may be to nice to point this out I am not.

The Mastro statement about every prewar 7 or better being altered is complete BS. He was trying to justify his greed. Are many, hell yeah, is everyone of them? Absolutely not.

Every company has made errors saying I use a or b company so i know all my cards aren't altered is also a statement that makes one look the fool. Are some better than others? Absolutely they are, but they are all run by humans therefore they are all going to make mistakes sometimes.

My suggestion is go out to shows and hang on boards talk to people get educated about the hobby. There are a lot of honest good hard working people in this hobby. There is also a lot of scum. It really isn't hidden as well as some make it out to be.

[steve B]

Not all cardstock is made from wood pulp. T206s and many other sets of that era are on cardstock that's probably cotton and linen fibers. It's also pretty close to modern acid free cardstock, magazine backing boards are very close. (But not the same thickness, so don't even think about it...)

DNA can be seen, but the process isn't simply sticking it in a microscope.


And it can't be seen all that well.
Plus, the pulp could have bits of multiple trees, or other plants. An old papermakers trick if the pulp was too watery was to throw in a bale of straw. That would absorb water as it got ground up in the pulp mixer.

Originally Posted by Beastmode

++This. Where there is a will....

Cardstock is made from pulp, which comes from trees. If, for example, you examined two 1939 Dimaggio cards, one altered and one unaltered, under intense magnification, I can only assume that the DNA of the chemically altered card would leave some sort of fingerprint. You wouldn't even have to take the cards out of the slab.

The day of reckoning is coming for slabbed altered cards. When a credible https://www.newscientist.com/article...rst-time/Forth Party Grader comes along to "out" these slabed altered cards, the game is over. The real question is will anyone care.

I think the poll question should be this: If there were a foresnic cardstock lab that could determine if your slabbed vintage card was altered, would you pay to have it re-certified?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If you read the thread that John linked in post #94, Dick Towelle thanked the 15 new Net54 members that used his service. I infer new as to mean there were other previous Net54 members that have used his service as well. Spooning out a crease was acceptable by most 32 years ago, it's acceptable by most today. Here's the problem. With social media/message boards, everyone wants to brag how moral and upstanding they are to make themselves look good, so most won't admit to it. That's why I said your poll wouldn't have honest results.

Heck, here's a thread where Dan McKee admits to spooning out creases. It's a very interesting read. Oh, and wait for it...the most overused Net54 term..."Dan's a good guy." Sure, it says so in post #29. It's right there in black and white, you can read it for yourself. My point is that it happens a lot, most people just don't admit it. At least Dan admitted it...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ght=Green+cobb

Dick Towelle got banned for removing creases.

Plus everyone touts they buy the card not holder. but they always sell the holder not the card if they asking for more than what the card would go for if 'fairly graded'



Still this type of thread is done over and over. This thread and 'card values are falling' and 'what cards are the best value to buy now' type threads........

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glynparson

David actually has been trained in this area. Arguing with someone who is actually an expert in this field shows how little you know on the subject. Coming on here and arguing with false information against someone who actually knows what they are doing shows you to be a fool. David may be to nice to point this out I am not.

The Mastro statement about every prewar 7 or better being altered is complete BS. He was trying to justify his greed. Are many, hell yeah, is everyone of them? Absolutely not.

Every company has made errors saying I use a or b company so i know all my cards aren't altered is also a statement that makes one look the fool. Are some better than others? Absolutely they are, but they are all run by humans therefore they are all going to make mistakes sometimes.

My suggestion is go out to shows and hang on boards talk to people get educated about the hobby. There are a lot of honest good hard working people in this hobby. There is also a lot of scum. It really isn't hidden as well as some make it out to be.

Two thoughts. One, I hope that we are only talking about mistakes and nothing worse. I wonder sometimes. Two, it's hidden a lot better in this day and age where internet sales dominate than it was when it was a show and shop and phone business.

[drcy]

People were nice in their debate. I wasn't offended.

However, as someone trained in museum sciences, I can tell you that people here would be amazed at the advanced science that is used in examining art and artifacts. There are instruments that examine the very molecular structure of material using x-rays, gamma rays and other radiation, and can not only identify what chemicals and substances are in it but their exact concentrations. They can not only identify a diamond, but, from the chemical structure, tell you where the diamond originated from.

My research areas and expertise are in authenticity, not condition or grading. However, many forgeries in art and artifacts involve alterations-- everything making a common print into a rare variation to reconfiguring an ancient vase--, so identifying later added material, such as when rebuilding the corners of a trading card, is an integral part knowledge of someone in the area.

If you want to read about the area: Authenticating Art and Artifacts: An Introduction to Methods and Issues

Interestingly, the sports memorabilia hobby does not use many of the advanced methods used by museums. But for a $9.99 holiday special for a one minute look at your 1957 Topps, that's not to be expected. However, all the looking at scans, researching history and finding issue dates that is done on this board is all good stuff. Many collectors are legitimate historians and experts on their particular cards. As I say in the book, a veteran collector can often identify something as a reproduction before the university nuclear physicist can plug in his x-ray spectrometer.

[Runscott]

It is very interesting to see Steven tell David he is wrong. David, of course, is right.

Also would like to note that I agreed with Glyn on something - it might be the first or second time ever, so it's worth mentioning.

Peter - some of the missed alterations are unforgivable while I'm sure some are accidental. Others exist because, while the technology to detect the alteration exists, it is too expensive to be practical;i.e-we couldn't afford to pay the TPA to do such checks. Numerous examples have been discussed here in the past, such as dryness of the item (water content). There are also some very nifty alterations that can currently be done to 19th century items without detection - I wrote an unpublished paper about these and ran it by some of the 19th century cardboard collectors here and they were almost unanimous in agreement that I should keep it unpublished. The tests were super-fun to run and I'm sure that if I have thought of them, others with financial incentive have not only thought about them, but have implemented them to the tune of many thousands of dollars. (don't think too much about it).

[rainier2004]

Alright, it sounds like David knows much more than myself but I do not think TPGs are using the equipment that he is referring to...maybe I'm wrong, but I've never seen anyone use more than a 80x loupe, black light and some computer technology. So in that regard, with those tools, I will stand by my statement that good restorers can make it undetectable to TPGs...maybe not museum folk, but TPGs simply aren't museum folk.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

Alright, it sounds like David knows much more than myself but I do not think TPGs are using the equipment that he is referring to...maybe I'm wrong, but I've never seen anyone use more than a 80x loupe, black light and some computer technology. So in that regard, with those tools, I will stand by my statement that good restorers can make it undetectable to TPGs...maybe not museum folk, but TPGs simply aren't museum folk.

I agree, and that's kind of what I've said throughout the thread. However, black light, opacity (see through effect) and gloss examination are simple but effective methods for identifying alterations such as built up corners. Simple methods combined be more powerful that one advanced test.

[jimjim]

While I have been in the hobby for over 30 years, I am a born-again card collector. I haven’t seriously collected cards since the early 1990s. During my break from cards, I focused on autographs and memorabilia. When I started collecting cards again last year, I started to buy graded cards not because I like them, but because I was looking for the security of them not been altered. This thread is extremely depressing to me. I really don’t care if the card is graded or not, as I just want a nice looking card. I actually prefer raw cards. I mainly buy graded cards for financial security in case somebody has to sell them in the future from my family. I don’t want them to get ripped off. If the market comes tumbling down, then I guess it was all for not!

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jimjim

While I have been in the hobby for over 30 years, I am a born-again card collector. I haven’t seriously collected cards since the early 1990s. During my break from cards, I focused on autographs and memorabilia. When I started collecting cards again last year, I started to buy graded cards not because I like them, but because I was looking for the security of them not been altered. This thread is extremely depressing to me. I really don’t care if the card is graded or not, as I just want a nice looking card. I actually prefer raw cards, because that is how I collected as a youngster. I mainly buy graded cards for financial security in case somebody has to sell them in the future from my family. I don’t want them to get ripped off. If the market comes tumbling down, then I guess it was all for not!

My guess is it won't come tumbling down anytime soon. Chances are they will need to get then into the latest greatest slab though.

I feel way safer buying raw cards. With the Mexican guy with the fake cards in PSA slabs, the cracked and resealed PSA slabs, and the fact it is harder to actually see/inspect the card through the layer of plastic.

Another twist to this card doctoring thread. Like Scott I have experimented with sending a bad card to the grading companies, has anybody else and would you share the results?

Here are mine, I send the same counterfeit card to the big 3.
Beckett-Rejected on only attempt.
SGC-Rejected on all 3 attemps
PSA-Slabbed on all 5 attempts.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

My guess is it won't come tumbling down anytime soon. Chances are they will need to get then into the latest greatest slab though.

I feel way safer buying raw cards. With the Mexican guy with the fake cards in PSA slabs, the cracked and resealed PSA slabs, and the fact it is harder to actually see/inspect the card through the layer of plastic.

Another twist to this card doctoring thread. Like Scott I have experimented with sending a bad card to the grading companies, has anybody else and would you share the results?

Here are mine, I send the same counterfeit card to the big 3.
Beckett-Rejected on only attempt.
SGC-Rejected on all 3 attemps
PSA-Slabbed on all 5 attempts.

I hope it wasn't a Jordan RC.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bnorth

My guess is it won't come tumbling down anytime soon. Chances are they will need to get then into the latest greatest slab though.

I feel way safer buying raw cards. With the Mexican guy with the fake cards in PSA slabs, the cracked and resealed PSA slabs, and the fact it is harder to actually see/inspect the card through the layer of plastic.

Another twist to this card doctoring thread. Like Scott I have experimented with sending a bad card to the grading companies, has anybody else and would you share the results?

Here are mine, I send the same counterfeit card to the big 3.
Beckett-Rejected on only attempt.
SGC-Rejected on all 3 attemps
PSA-Slabbed on all 5 attempts.

Beckett and SGC are very good at grading pre-war and vintage. PSA, not so much, imo. Most of that has to do with experience of the vintage graders....again, imo.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Beckett and SGC are very good at grading pre-war and vintage. PSA, not so much, imo. Most of that has to do with experience of the vintage graders....again, imo.

Many people report Beckett grades, or at least has graded, sheet cut cards.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Many people report Beckett grades, or at least has graded, sheet cut cards.

Yes, and the earth used to be considered flat too. I have had lengthy discussions about those sheet cuts. To me that particular incident doesn't take away from them having one of the best vintage graders in the business and consistently grading cards correctly when others won't or can't. Again, just my experience.

[Peter_Spaeth]

We had this discussion a while back.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...hlight=beckett

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Many people report Beckett grades, or at least has graded, sheet cut cards.

I thought at one time they openly acknowledged grading sheet cut cards? I have no problem with it, just as long as they state it on their website. I just looked, but couldn't find it.

[murphy8276]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I thought at one time they openly acknowledged grading sheet cut cards? I have no problem with it, just as long as they state it on their website. I just looked, but couldn't find it.

I am not sure Leon and you are referring to the same thing, otherwise I am confused as well. People send them all the time and they are slabbed so not sure where they stopped ever. I know for certain the Bird Magic sheet cuts get holdered there to this day.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by murphy8276

I am not sure Leon and you are referring to the same thing, otherwise I am confused as well. People send them all the time and they are slabbed so not sure where they stopped ever. I know for certain the Bird Magic sheet cuts get holdered there to this day.

I was referring to a card cut from a sheet outside the factory, as what I think you're referring to with the Bird Magic card.

I've never cut a sheet. But if the same tools and methods are employed in someone's basement as they use at the factory, how is any grading company supposed to distinguish between a sheet cut card and a factory cut card if you can't tell the difference (ie the grain of the cut)?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I was referring to a card cut from a sheet outside the factory, as what I think you're referring to with the Bird Magic card.

I've never cut a sheet. But if the same tools and methods are employed in someone's basement as they use at the factory, how is any grading company supposed to distinguish between a sheet cut card and a factory cut card if you can't tell the difference (ie the grain of the cut)?

You can't tell the difference of time "when" a card is hand cut. Ask a grader.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

You can't tell the difference of time "when" a card is hand cut. Ask a grader.

PSA apparently can, and I presume SGC, because according to my information the sheet cutters all use Beckett.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by jimjim

While I have been in the hobby for over 30 years, I am a born-again card collector. I haven’t seriously collected cards since the early 1990s. During my break from cards, I focused on autographs and memorabilia. When I started collecting cards again last year, I started to buy graded cards not because I like them, but because I was looking for the security of them not been altered. This thread is extremely depressing to me. I really don’t care if the card is graded or not, as I just want a nice looking card. I actually prefer raw cards, because that is how I collected as a youngster. I mainly buy graded cards for financial security in case somebody has to sell them in the future from my family. I don’t want them to get ripped off. If the market comes tumbling down, then I guess it was all for not!

I am a firm believer that being knowledgeable and having one's eyes open makes for a superior collecting experience.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Leon

You can't tell the difference of time "when" a card is hand cut. Ask a grader.

I have a card SGC refused to grade because they said it was cut off a sheet/strip.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by jimjim

I actually prefer raw cards, because that is how I collected as a youngster.

You said it, not me.

[ALR-bishop]

Ungraded Cards are not “raw”, they are cards in their natural state

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Ungraded Cards are not “raw”, they are cards in their natural state

Sort of like strippers and steak tartare.

[ALR-bishop]

Yes, in the sense that those things would look worse encased in plastic as well.