![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. Last edited by drcy; 08-20-2014 at 04:12 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
this is a great topic
![]() |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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 ![]() Last edited by drcy; 08-21-2014 at 02:03 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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! |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Nice work David & Scott!
And nice card Pete! I always knew deep down there was a T206 "freak" collector inside of you. ![]() Don't deny it! If you haven't sold the card yet and you are still holding it...you're a collector. ![]() ![]() Jantz |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
not true!!!! I bought it to resell!!! But i do like freaks...after all...i am one!!!
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Pete, your card has had no reglossing or similar added foreign material. That's something that was specifically checked.
Last edited by drcy; 08-22-2014 at 03:24 AM. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Selling T202 Donlin Out At First Gibson/Philippe PSA 6 | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 05-10-2008 10:24 PM |