If $ were no object...

[Cardboard Junkie]

Originally Posted by Runscott

You couldn't reproduce a color lithograph card exactly, simply because of the dot patterns - the art was created by hand from photos, we don't have any original art, and even when we have real photo examples the art result would be obviously different under a loupe. I do think we could come so close that you'd have to use a loupe, but with a card like Wagner, you'd use much more than a loupe. Unless, of course, you simply put it in a slab - then it becomes real...like Pinocchio.

Of course, if the Cincinnati twins got hold of a close reprint like this, it would become a million-dollar 'variation'.

Aloha Scott, I'm not sure I understand. Why couldn't each "dot" and "pattern of dots" be reproduced exactly? Why would one need the original "art"? couldn't an original card suffice? I'm talking, (hypothetically of course) of duplicating them on a microscopic level for each and every card in the set. Dave. ps money no object.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

Aloha Scott, I'm not sure I understand. Why couldn't each "dot" and "pattern of dots" be reproduced exactly? Why would one need the original "art"? couldn't an original card suffice? I'm talking, (hypothetically of course) of duplicating them on a microscopic level for each and every card in the set. Dave. ps money no object.

Hi Dave, Find a T206 that has the dots in the background and look at them under a loupe. If you look at two examples of the same card, that dot pattern will still match up perfectly, subject to registration and amount of ink applied. Once you've done that, I think you'll agree with me. But maybe not. Steve might know a way of duplicating the patterns, but I know that the artists who did this were highly-skilled, since they had to mix different colors of dots to come up with a good image.

If you looked at the 1880's lithographs, you'll see what I'm talking about even moreso. I tend to talk 'T206' because that's an issue I know more about.

[Cardboard Junkie]

Hi again Scott, I just don't get what you are saying. I have almost 2,400 t206s and have looked at everyone with a loupe. Have seen many thousands more with a loupe. I have many different power loupes and even a microscope to zero in on paper fibers and edges. T206s (as you know) are comprised of areas of printing dots (matrix) and solid colors (fields). Each "dot" could be replicated. Each solid color could be duplicated. Inks wouldn't be a problem because all the chemicals and pigments can be reproduced. It would be painstaking and tedious work, but completely possible. It would be hard to do but theoretically it COULD be done. Unless I'm just not understanding what you are saying. Dave. ps why do you think the original art work would be necessary?

[Runscott]

I must not be explaining myself well - sorry. Typing from an iPhone but I will find a few good examples and post in a few days.

[travrosty]

it could be done with money NO object, billions spent on perfecting the technique, then i believe it could be done without anyone detecting it to be counterfeit. UNLESS, money was no object to the people in charge of detecting the counterfeit, then it could be possible to spend billions on a system/technique for detecting it as well. it would be a race.

case in point, north korean 100 dollar bill counterfeit notes. they have gotten so good at it, that even banks in the united states can't tell they are counterfeit, but the u.s. gov't itself has found a couple of very minute flaws that give them away, but they are scary good, and that is counterfeiting currency that has been designed to specifically thwart counterfeiting, not old cards with basically very little in the way of anti-counterfeiting measures other than the fact that you have to find old paper and ink, or a way of simulating old paper and ink.

in short, if the u.s. govt wanted to do it, and put endless resources, it could be done, we dug the panama canal, created hoover dam, put man on the moon, printing old cards??? i think so.

[Cardboard Junkie]

Originally Posted by travrosty

it could be done with money NO object, billions spent on perfecting the technique, then i believe it could be done without anyone detecting it to be counterfeit. UNLESS, money was no object to the people in charge of detecting the counterfeit, then it could be possible to spend billions on a system/technique for detecting it as well. it would be a race.

case in point, north korean 100 dollar bill counterfeit notes. they have gotten so good at it, that even banks in the united states can't tell they are counterfeit, but the u.s. gov't itself has found a couple of very minute flaws that give them away, but they are scary good, and that is counterfeiting currency that has been designed to specifically thwart counterfeiting, not old cards with basically very little in the way of anti-counterfeiting measures other than the fact that you have to find old paper and ink, or a way of simulating old paper and ink.

in short, if the u.s. govt wanted to do it, and put endless resources, it could be done, we dug the panama canal, created hoover dam, put man on the moon, printing old cards??? i think so.

I pretty much agree!

[EvilKing00]

yes it can be done BUT, I think the only way to coppy it exactly would be if you have the old printing machine, the same ink and the same cardboard. If you have enough money im sure you can find those 3 things.

The ink would be the hardest thing to come bye IMO

[Cardboard Junkie]

I wanted to add, I think it would take tens of millions of dollars maybe even hundreds of millions.........but not a billion.

[Runscott]

With early lithographs, it's like asking if a rare painting could be copied if money were no object. The problem would be that you could compare actual brush-strokes between the 'real' painting and the counterfeit. Same with dots in the lithographs. Dots are a bit easier to duplicate, but they are also easier to compare, and thus to detect flaws. I've louped a ton of lithograph cards and I'm certain about this, but I understand that my explanation isn't coming through well.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Cardboard Junkie]

With respect Scott, an original painting and a printed litho are 2 completely different animals. David.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

With respect Scott, an original painting and a printed litho are 2 completely different animals. David.

For the purpose of my example, they are not.

Again, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm really getting nothing out of this by arguing with you about it - I know these cards and I'm certain about what I'm saying. If you don't believe me, that's absolutely fine - you won't be the first. Rather than add unnecessary angst to a nice day, I'll respectfully exit this thread, and I sincerely hope that someone tells you what you already know and would like to hear repeated.