t206 with no name

[Runscott]

It's existence should be simple to figure out: if we start seeing more of these no-name T206's on ebay over the next year, we'll know that some industrious fellow read your post and went on a mission.

I vote that we let Johnny taste-test any new ones that show up.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

It's existence should be simple to figure out: if we start seeing more of these no-name T206's on ebay over the next year, we'll know that some industrious fellow read your post and went on a mission.

I vote that we let Johnny taste-test any new ones that show up.

haha, or they just read this thread and saw how much more than can get for one and found another solution that can indeed do it.

I really agree with other comments. IF any solution can clean/erase ink off a t206 it wouldn't be able to discriminate and only clean the ink without cleaning other residue of aging.

[drcy]

A few thoughts.

You could do tests on cheap Topps cards with white borders. They're lithographs too.

There are chemicals to dissolve printing inks-- and they've been known of. You can look them up--, but dissolving an ink and removing it clean from the surface without leaving anything or any damage is a different story. Duly note that dissolve doesn't mean making the ink invisible-- you can still see it.

I'd be interested to see how soaking or adding any chemical to the surface of a card changes its gloss and surface texture and shape. And what chemical residue is left behind. There are advanced, non destructive tests that can identify the chemicals. On the other hand anyone can smell bleach.

A question is did the original printers ink soak, if even just a bit, into the surface of the card, which would make it that much harder to remove without altering the surface. Again, dissolving doesn't mean making the ink invisible, and it would seem any sort of bleaching would be obvious.

Removing text can be done by anyone. It's removing it without leaving any signs of alterations that would be hard. After all, you can erasure off text, but that that can be seen with the naked eye. Forensic scientists tests inks on documents, but that involves physically removing small pieces (including paper stock) from the document and that can be seen on the document. If highly trained forensic scientists with masters degrees could remove a portion of the ink for testing without damaging the original document they would. They'd very much prefer not to damage the document and, if they could do it, would use it in their advertising that they have methods to remove ink without damaging a document.

If inks can be removed via solvent and wiping (or whatever) it could be duplicated by others. Meaning, duplicated by honest people seeing if it can indeed be done and report that it can be done if it can. Then, we'd see how this removal altered the card and what signs (such as chemical residue, damage to surface, other) give away the removal.

[mrvster]

T206 , I'm hungry

[Runscott]

If you are going to go to the trouble of finding solvent, setting up a test, etc., you might as well spring $15 (or less) for a real T206, since that's the card most likely to get the 'missing letters' alteration. To you and me a cheap Topps might be the same as a T206, for testing purposes, but it won't be to the guy buying a T206 error.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by drcy

A few thoughts.

You could do tests on cheap Topps cards with white borders. They're lithographs too.

There are chemicals to dissolve printing inks-- and they've been known of. You can look them up--, but dissolving an ink and removing it clean from the surface without leaving anything or any damage is a different story. Duly note that dissolve doesn't mean making the ink invisible-- you can still see it.

I'd be interested to see how soaking or adding any chemical to the surface of a card changes its gloss and surface texture and shape. And what chemical residue is left behind. There are advanced, non destructive tests that can identify the chemicals. On the other hand anyone can smell bleach.

A question is did the original printers ink soak, if even just a bit, into the surface of the card, which would make it that much harder to remove without altering the surface. Again, dissolving doesn't mean making the ink invisible, and it would seem any sort of bleaching would be obvious.

Removing text can be done by anyone. It's removing it without leaving any signs of alterations that would be hard. After all, you can erasure off text, but that that can be seen with the naked eye. Forensic scientists tests inks on documents, but that involves physically removing small pieces (including paper stock) from the document and that can be seen on the document. If highly trained forensic scientists with masters degrees could remove a portion of the ink for testing without damaging the original document they would. They'd very much prefer not to damage the document and, if they could do it, would use it in their advertising that they have methods to remove ink without damaging a document.

If inks can be removed via dissolvent and wiping (or whatever) it could be duplicated by others. Meaning, duplicated by honest people seeing if it can indeed be done and report that it can be done if it can. Then, we'd see how this removal altered the card and what signs (such as chemical residue, damage to surface, other) give away the removal.

How about a test on a cheap 89 Fleer card? Notice anything missing? This took me about 10 seconds to remove the bold black missing word. Total alteration including reglossing the area took less than 30 seconds.

This would be much harder on a T206 because of aging but if the card was altered in the 70's to 90's natural aging since then would help hide the alteration even more.

If the grading companys won't touch them there has to be good reason because their job is to part costumers from their cash.

I have not seen Pete's card in hand so I do not have an opinion on it but hopefully it is real.

[drcy]

The question isn't if text can be removed but if there are signs of removal left behind. I'm confident that any reglossing would be identifiable. For a starter, compare the gloss and black light fluorescence to other 1989 Fleer cards. The reglossing also suggests the person found that the original surface texture was altered in some way and reglossing was needed.

And I didn't even ask what the card smells like.

If cards have to be coated in something to hide the work, alterations will be easy to identify. The foreign surface coating would be straight foreword to identify.

Visa vie foreign substances added, I won't go into the theory of invisibility other than to say that physicists will tell you that, when something is invisible, it is only invisible at that wavelength of light. It can be seen at others. That's why soldiers wear night goggles (infrared viewers), doctors use X-rays use infrared detectors and and collectors use black light. They're looking at things invisible in the visible light range, but visible (or made visible) at other wavelengths. Military jets are cloaked or camouflaged and ground sensors jammed, but only at specific frequencies. In fact, in instances, a cloaked fighter jet can be visible to the naked eyes when it flies over, but cloaked at a non-visible wavelength, as the intent is to hide from, say, the enemy's infrared detectors. This cloaking involves cooling the outside surface of the plane, as infrared light comes from heat and is often called 'heat radiation.' A human can't see infrared light, but can feel it. Some animals, including snakes and geese, have different optical abilities than humans (a different range of light sensors in the eyes) and can see infrared or black light. Geese are famous for being able to navigate at night and rattle snakes identify prey and enemies by being able to see heat. What is invisible to humans can be seen by certain other animals. It's just that humans have invented instruments to detect and 'view' non-visible (to human) wavelengths. An infrared viewer translates infrared light into a visible wavelength that humans can see on the screen. We aren't literally seeing infrared light, just a translation of it. An x-ray photo is a visual translation of what is there but human eyes can't see. Interestingly, a black light works a bit different in that it uses invisible light (ultraviolet) to make materials give off visible light. The light adds energy to the atoms and, when the material fluoresces, it is giving back the energy in visible form. When you use a black light, you're actually testing the atomic makeup of the material-- even when you had no idea that's what you were doing. The different colors of fluorescence are the atoms giving back the energy in different wavelengths, with each color being a different wavelength.

From a more normal collector's angle, duplicating the original visual gloss is very hard. I think that's one of the hardest things for a counterfeiter to duplicate. Comparing gloss between questioned and known real cards is one of simplest ways to identify reprints and counterfeits and something even beginning collector can do.

[mrvster]

this is a great topic

[drcy]

I'd like to point out, if I hadn't already, that the card examination was done by Scott F. and I and he shot most of the images posted. It was my microscope, but he was working it 75% of the time. In fact, Pete sent the card to Scott not me and Scott provided the other T206s for comparison.

In particular as I have the habit of getting into my own idle theories and ideas that others don't want to be credited for or associated with (such as my talk of geese and snakes and cloaked jet fighters), and don't always agree with others, I am in the habit of speaking only for myself.

So Scott should get due credit for the photos, tests and conclusions posted-- and we independently came to the same conclusion. I've known Scott for a number of years and can testify to his knowledge and abilities. For those who don't remember, he had an article on T206 printing anomalies published in Old Cardboard.

But I take full and sole credit for the posted notes on snake and geese optics

[ullmandds]

I suppose that if something were removed...the whole card could be reglossed...thus creating varying thicknesses of gloss...which may be able to be detected microscopically or with a boley gauge of some sort?

A few beater t206's are on the way to my North...LArge Ass and I look forward to the results from Portugal!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

I've known Scott for a number of years and can testify to his knowledge and abilities. For those who don't remember, he had an article on T206 printing anomalies published in Old Cardboard.

Thanks David. The 'Errors' article was published in VCBC. I have never been published in 'Old Cardboard' other than my bio in the last issue

[steve B]

Originally Posted by drcy

A few thoughts.

You could do tests on cheap Topps cards with white borders. They're lithographs too.

There are chemicals to dissolve printing inks-- and they've been known of. You can look them up--, but dissolving an ink and removing it clean from the surface without leaving anything or any damage is a different story. Duly note that dissolve doesn't mean making the ink invisible-- you can still see it.

I'd be interested to see how soaking or adding any chemical to the surface of a card changes its gloss and surface texture and shape. And what chemical residue is left behind. There are advanced, non destructive tests that can identify the chemicals. On the other hand anyone can smell bleach.

A question is did the original printers ink soak, if even just a bit, into the surface of the card, which would make it that much harder to remove without altering the surface. Again, dissolving doesn't mean making the ink invisible, and it would seem any sort of bleaching would be obvious.

Removing text can be done by anyone. It's removing it without leaving any signs of alterations that would be hard. After all, you can erasure off text, but that that can be seen with the naked eye. Forensic scientists tests inks on documents, but that involves physically removing small pieces (including paper stock) from the document and that can be seen on the document. If highly trained forensic scientists with masters degrees could remove a portion of the ink for testing without damaging the original document they would. They'd very much prefer not to damage the document and, if they could do it, would use it in their advertising that they have methods to remove ink without damaging a document.

If inks can be removed via solvent and wiping (or whatever) it could be duplicated by others. Meaning, duplicated by honest people seeing if it can indeed be done and report that it can be done if it can. Then, we'd see how this removal altered the card and what signs (such as chemical residue, damage to surface, other) give away the removal.

The Topps cards were probably printed with slightly different inks. Some modern inks dry less than others. Like the "green" vegetable oil based inks used for many magazines which comes off on my hands.

Soaking will typically change the thickness of the stock for several reasons. The way people press the cards between books will make up for some of that, but it's possible the surface texture could change. The difference is usually very small, beyond the abilities of most people to accurately measure at home. Having a home machine shop I have some decent measuring equipment, and it's become inexpensive. Digital calipers that can in theory measure to 50 millionths of an inch can be had for $20 if you look, under 50 for sure. As a practical matter even measuring accurately to tenths of thousandths is very difficult. Holding a metal part for a minute or two will heat it and change the dimension.
I have a badly water damaged T206 I need to make some detailed scans of.
The entire front surface has cracked and begun flaking off.

The original ink shouldn't have soaked in on the fronts. The stock is coated with a clay like substance that limits soaking in, improves gloss and overall quality by giving a more consistent surface. The backs are uncoated. You can actually see this layer in the microscope pictures. You can also see how that surface isn't really all that perfect. There's a bit of pitting, probably original, and usually some very fine cracking and scratches which are aging and wear.
Plus the ink is more like grease and less like pen ink. Very thick stuff.

Looking at a couple light damaged T206s I bought (Some from the same lot have since been graded as missing color - Not by me.) Was not conclusive. I was expecting to see the gloss still present. One had it the other didn't. 40X magnification, and the cheap version of oblique lighting - holding it just so under the desk lamp.

I'm still figuring out some stuff with modern cards, like whether the glosscoat can be absorbed by the stock coating. An effect I've seen on some Topps cards. If it's absorbed, they've simply aged. If it can't be, then they were printed with different gloss layers. (Some more glossy ones definitely were)

As far as making a color invisible you should check out towards the end of the blue 58 Aaron thread over in postwar vintage. One of the guys selectively faded a 58 with a green background, removing nearly all the yellow.
If the brown used for T206s is a synthetic dye then it might be possible to fade it using his method - Not described in detail for obvious reasons. But from what he told me even modern inks used by Topps varies in its lightfastness.

Steve B