Altered high grade E93s in Mile High?

[calvindog]

[pencil1974]

I guess I'm not seeing it either. The pic of the Cobb 5 is not even close to the 9 they would have to rebuild that bottom right corner so I would say that one is out. The 6 seems close but it has a diagonal line going from the edge to Cobbs shoulder area plus looks to be a black print dot beside his hat that is not on the 9 either.

Now the Wagner looks really close on the front with what we call in the print industry as a "hickey". Seems to be in the same place on the card but that can happen as I've seen them pull sheets in a run that the hickey is in the same spot of the first 20 sheets and is either fixed or fills in on its own as the run keeps going. There are a few spots on the back of the Wagner that are not on the example of the 6 (could be that the image quality is too bad but you should see it).

So if I'm understanding the comparisons correctly they seem close but not exact. Just my opinion though.

[calvindog]

They're the same cards.

[111gecko]

Oh my.......

[glchen]

For what it's worth, the Wagner cert #50082111 and the Cobb cert #50082116 no longer exist in the PSA cert database, which usually means the card has been cracked out, and the cert returned to PSA. (The Cobb cert #20082114 still exists.)

[Peter_Spaeth]

The two non-9 Cobbs are only two cert numbers apart. Different cards same sub presumably.

[e107collector]

Originally Posted by calvindog

They're the same cards.

OMG!!!

The Wagner has a black printing dot by his right ear on both cards.

Tony

[scottglevy]

Wow Jeff,

The similarities in the Wagner cards are striking. There are other minor printing defects that match up perfectly on the two cards.

It's sad to say but this sort of thing sours me on the hobby so much

Best,
Scott

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by scottglevy

Wow Jeff,

The similarities in the Wagner cards are striking. There are other minor printing defects that match up perfectly on the two cards.

It's sad to say but this sort of thing sours me on the hobby so much

Best,
Scott

totally agree!

[Bored5000]

Not that I could ever afford a mint caramel or tobacco Hall of Famer, but threads like this make me appreciate my mostly fair to very good pre-war collection.

[autograf]

So do you have the smoking gun or are you going on circumstantial evidence counselor?

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by calvindog

They're the same cards.

Jeff has made his opinion crystal clear. As to the (?) in the OP, I think that was his way of inviting conversation. I welcome such post before an auction ends rather than after.

[Econteachert205]

In the art world it is perfectly acceptable to remove old varnish and layers of dirt and nicotine using solvents. Holding baseball cards to a higher standard than masterpiece paintings seems a bit much.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

In the art world it is perfectly acceptable to remove old varnish and layers of dirt and nicotine using solvents. Holding baseball cards to a higher standard than masterpiece paintings seems a bit much.

These pieces of art are 1 of a kind original masterpieces...so without preservation they would be gone...whilst most baseball cards were mass produced...kinda like artist lithographs...which would not be as acceptable to clean/preserve in my opinion.

A vintage bb card that is a one of a kind would likely receive less scrutiny if restored/cleaned...like the just so young.

[Cozumeleno]

Maybe it's just me, but ...

To be honest, I don't see soaking in water as any different than using another chemical. The ultimate intent is to remove something you don't want on the card for whatever the reason - for it to sit in your collection, for financial gain, etc. What does it matter if it's a chemical instead of water?

I'm willing to concede that some chemicals may cause harm to the card over the years, but that's another discussion. If we're talking about altering cards for deceitful purposes (assuming there's no disclosure), aren't soaking in water and chemicals pretty much the same thing?

Is soaking/chemical removal okay? That's up to each individual person to decide. But frankly, I just don't see the difference since the intent is exactly the same - to improve the quality of the card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

These pieces of art are 1 of a kind original masterpieces...so without preservation they would be gone...whilst most baseball cards were mass produced...kinda like artist lithographs...which would not be as acceptable to clean/preserve in my opinion.

A vintage bb card that is a one of a kind would likely receive less scrutiny if restored/cleaned...like the just so young.

It's all a question of what is considered acceptable in the community. Probably for the reasons Pete says, restoration that is undisclosed has never been considered acceptable, and originality is of paramount importance, in the card community.