t206 with no name

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

personally...I believe that comparing vertical miscuts where there is very little bottom border...no names...to normally cut cards with large bottom borders with no names to be like comparing apples to oranges.

I posted the Schmidt because of its full border. I didn't do the side-by-side. It just happen to be listed that way in the original scan that I borrowed. The Ebay seller had them scanned together a few years back in his/her auction.


Jantz

[ullmandds]

that's cool jantz...the schmidt is an apple!!!! but others are posting oranges...which I believe are very different.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

that's cool jantz...the schmidt is an apple!!!! but others are posting oranges...which I believe are very different.

Peter has never been one to call a spade a shovel.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Peter has never been one to call a spade a shovel.

i would call a spade a type of shovel!

[drcy]

For the record, I'm no trading card alterations expert, at least compared to anyone else on this board. My forte is authentication, not looking to see if a Kobe Byrant rookie card has trimmed edges or scanning 1985 Topps Roger Clemens for erasure marks. I've never had any desire to be a baseball card grader-- sounds about as inspiring as being an accountant. However, I'm not ignorant on the issue, and alteration detection can be a part of authentication. And I have the scientific equipment, including an infrared camera and digital microscope that can record microscopic photos and even video onto my laptop. At the least, I can post forensic photos to the board for others to see and critique. Apparently, Peter is sending the card to a board member who lives near me and I will eventually have a peak.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Jantz

I posted the Schmidt because of its full border. I didn't do the side-by-side. It just happen to be listed that way in the original scan that I borrowed. The Ebay seller had them scanned together a few years back in his/her auction.


Jantz

Did you buy the Schmidt? That one seemed a lot more likely to be a no name. I bid, but not enough. I did get the Barry as you can see from the scans.

Steve B

[MacDice]

[ullmandds]

I would like to offer my thanks to David(Cycleback) and Scott Forrest(http://BelltownVintageCards.com)(runscott) for being kind and generous to evaluate my phillippe no name card.

The card passed the following tests for authenticity: gloss, black light, microscope (including 'raking light'). My card was compared to other T206 examples and no evidence of any letters ever having been present was detected. The imperfections in the border that were revealed by the microscope were all consistent with other examples with similar wear.

This evaluation went way beyond what any of the current TPG'ers currently do in evaluating our beloved cards...and I'd estimate that these techniques will be employed in the future of third party grading...perhaps as an additional level of service prior to slabbing.

Thanks again guys!!!

[drcy]

Raking light simply means light shined at sharp, nearing parallel angle to the surface. Used to reveal surface texture, imperfections.

I'm offering no official opinion on the card as I'm not a grader or alteration expert, just reporting what we saw (or, in this case, didn't see). We looked very closely and in different ways and saw nothing errant. Ordinarily, if the there are alterations it will fail at least one (and usually more than one) of the tests. And I think it would be darned hard to remove the ink without altering the white surface. I have the microscopic photos saved on a computer and said I'd foreword them to Pete. Scott and I were both of the the same opinion-- we saw no signs of alterations, and we were looking at microscopic blow ups of the card on a full computer screen, along with doing the normal tests of black light, looking at gloss in sunlight, comparing to other T206s (same gloss as the other T206s, no area of abnormal gloss), etc. Under the microscope, we looked at the card surface at different angles, including head on, and with different angles of light.

I considered my task to just examine the card objectively, report the scientific details we observed and leave the card theories and opinions to others. I think such a scientific report can be more worthy and reliable when the examiner is sticking to the facts and forgoing personal opinion.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I would like to offer my thanks to David(Cycleback) and Scott Forrest(http://BelltownVintageCards.com)(runscott) for being kind and generous to evaluate my phillippe no name card.

The card passed the following tests for authenticity: gloss, black light, microscope (including 'raking light'). My card was compared to other T206 examples and no evidence of any letters ever having been present was detected. The imperfections in the border that were revealed by the microscope were all consistent with other examples with similar wear.

This evaluation went way beyond what any of the current TPG'ers currently do in evaluating our beloved cards...and I'd estimate that these techniques will be employed in the future of third party grading...perhaps as an additional level of service prior to slabbing.

Thanks again guys!!!

Pete, if you attach these findings to your (encapsulated) card you shouldn't have a problem getting a nice return on your investment.

Originally Posted by drcy

Raking light simply means light shined at sharp, nearing parallel angle to the surface. Used to reveal surface texture, imperfections.

I'm offering no official opinion on the card as I'm not a grader or alteration expert, just reporting what we saw (or, in this case, didn't see). We looked very closely and in different ways and saw nothing errant. Ordinarily, if the there are alterations it will fail at least one (and usually more than one) of the tests. And I think it would be darned hard to remove the ink without altering the white surface. I have the microscopic photos saved on a computer and said I'd foreword them to Pete. Scott and I were both of the the same opinion-- we saw no signs of alterations, and we were looking at microscopic blow ups of the card on a full computer screen, along with doing the normal tests of black light, looking at gloss in sunlight, comparing to other T206s (same gloss as the other T206s, no area of abnormal gloss), etc. Under the microscope, we looked at the card surface at different angles, including head on, and with different angles of light.

I considered my task to just examine the card objectively, report the scientific details we observed and leave the card theories and opinions to others. I think such a scientific report can be more worthy and reliable when the examiner is sticking to the facts and forgoing personal opinion.

That's very nice work. I'm sure that the board would like to see these images.

Also, I look forward to future installments in your series of articles on antique printing processes on Sports Collectors Daily.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by 4815162342

Pete, if you attach these findings to your (encapsulated) card you shouldn't have a problem getting a nice return on your investment.



That's very nice work. I'm sure that the board would like to see these images.

Also, I look forward to future installments in your series of articles on antique printing processes on Sports Collectors Daily.

problem is SGC will not encapsulate it!