![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
That's what I thought too, but it is far from the truth. Restorers can take fibers, analyze them and get the identical compounds that were originally used in the card stock and just make "new" stock and do whatever they want to with it. Micro-weave of these "parts" are also possible so creating a new card would seem kinda easy...
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
If you wanted, you could radiometric date a baseball card. The most commonly known form of radiometric dating is carbon dating, but they test different chemicals to detect items from different time periods. For example, they do lead dating for paintings. They have confirmed the date of famous paintings (Vermeers, Rembrandts, etc) and identified forgeries by lead dating the paint. Radiometric dating is based on the known half-life of chemicals and is explained in the following article: (The Science of Forgery Detection). But, it's all much easier than that. At the printing level, it's virtually impossible to counterfeit a known baseball card that both looks good at the naked eye level and at the microscopic level. And, further, there are microscopy tests that identify when cards were made from the same printing plate-- so a card that wasn't made from the original printing plate would be easily identified. I think many of those who are worried about future undetectable counterfeits are applying Doctor Who theories to the real world. Last edited by drcy; 05-04-2017 at 12:05 PM. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Where is the printing plate material located? Last edited by rainier2004; 05-04-2017 at 12:03 PM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Counterfeits are easy to identify, because not only to they have to use the original printing technology, but there are tens and tens of things and details they have to exactly duplicate. A forgery of a brand new (made up/fantasy) item could be different, because it doesn't have to perfectly match anything and there's no original for direct comparison.
The future perfect counterfeit of a T206 Wagner or Plank is of no concern to me, because I don't think it can happen. When I think of a hard to identify as fake future forgery, it would be of something like an '1800s' ad poster or trade card, where they forger used the original lithography techniques to make it. But, beyond that they usually look bad to the seasoned collector, i can say that 99.9% of counterfeits, reprints and forgeries of Pre-WWI cards and baseball memorabilia are definitely identified because they are printed with the wrong (modern) printing. Last edited by drcy; 05-04-2017 at 12:39 PM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
A lot of simple, easy to look for qualities helps identify counterfeits. For just one example, one of the hardest things to duplicate on a reprint or counterfeit is the original gloss.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Stuff produced after the change to aluminum might be marginally harder, but there isn't much difference between the 30's and 80's. Steve B |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hobby history: Card dealers of the 1960s: James T. Elder (+ hobby drama, 1968-69) | trdcrdkid | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 12 | 03-08-2017 05:23 PM |
Make some extra money via your hobby! | Sean1125 | Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk | 2 | 08-03-2015 08:48 AM |
Hobby Newsflash! Re: Top 250 Cards In Hobby | MattyC | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 10 | 01-17-2014 04:08 PM |
Not always...but sometimes, you should take the money | Leon | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 14 | 10-27-2011 10:39 AM |
When you have no money.... | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 24 | 11-11-2005 10:28 AM |