Duplicity on many levels, a lesson to share

[conor912]

Originally Posted by xplainer

Are you Ron Jeremy?

Thanks for sharing. Lesson to be learned.

Other than for your PC, I really am torn with the soaking of a card. Not sure where I stand.
I've done some Lavenders ( my PC ) and have had good results. Except 1914 Polo Ground - don't do it.

I think that having his name come up on net54 on a Google search would be the last of Ron Jeremy's worries 😀

[T206Collector]

"Someone re-backed this card with a Piedmont 350 back. Worse than that, and this is just a guess, is that the person that re-backed it sold it, and someone that bought it realized it was re-backed. Then, instead of just sucking up that they got taken, they glued it to more paper, to disguise the re-backing of the card, and then passed it on as a 'paper addition.'"

I can't imagine that someone would choose to re-paper a card because they were concerned about it being a re-backed card. Just seems silly.

[arc2q]

I know little about the science of soaking, but isn't an alternative explanation possible? Maybe this really was a P350 back. The glue used to adhere it to an album caused the paper to deteriorate to the point that the multiple layers of the card's cardboard separated once soaked. It does not leap off the page to me as an obvious sign of duplicity. Seems like a lot of effort to conceal a re-backed card, which wouldn't really be necessary as most collectors wouldn't even notice.

I don't doubt such chicanery goes on, but there seem to be possible multiple explanations here. Unless you found the original back also underneath the re-back.

[edjs]

Originally Posted by arc2q

I know little about the science of soaking, but isn't an alternative explanation possible? Maybe this really was a P350 back. The glue used to adhere it to an album caused the paper to deteriorate to the point that the multiple layers of the card's cardboard separated once soaked. It does not leap off the page to me as an obvious sign of duplicity. Seems like a lot of effort to conceal a re-backed card, which wouldn't really be necessary as most collectors wouldn't even notice.

I don't doubt such chicanery goes on, but there seem to be possible multiple explanations here. Unless you found the original back also underneath the re-back.

You surely may be right, but I have never read of anyone soaking a T206 and the entire back coming off ( I could be wrong, but I have read most of the threads on here about soaking cards). Here is a new thread where a collector BOILED 600 cards in a pot with no mention of anything like this happening:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=217206

As far as my hypothesis that someone would re-paper a card that they discovered had been re-backed being silly, people have done much more ridiculous things to sell a card:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-311-Mickey-Mantle-Authenticity-PSA-/161949549689?_trkparms=aid%3D333008%26algo%3DRIC.M BE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140122152441%26meid%3Decb952 ca98f44fa59a820ca686c39241%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D4 %26rkt%3D10%26mehot%3Dpp%26sd%3D111856396090&_trksid=p2047675.l2557&nma=true&si=6VR9LUIfW64neSkcf6JudKvixj0%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

This is a Lundgren Chicago we are talking about here. Right now there is one Piedmont 150 card on e-bay that is under $150, and the only Piedmont 350 is priced at $4500. I know that e-bay prices are high, but this is a pricey card if it is a 350 series, so yeah, I can see why someone would re-back the card in the first place, and why someone would try to recoup some money they lost by hiding a re-backed card. I am just trying to share an experience with you guys. You can believe it or not, but please answer this question:

Why was a re-backed card glued to paper? Do you have a better explanation?