Money in the hobby

[drcy]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

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...

No.

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.

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by drcy

No.

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. It's virtually impossible to counterfeit a known baseball card that 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.

Ok,, maybe I got a little a head of myself as reproducing those micro printing marks would be pretty tough and art restorers wouldn't be able to replicate that as part of their job description. But the same compounds are available today as were 100 years ago, they would still be able to reproduce the stock.

Where is the printing plate material located?

[wondo]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

Ok,, maybe I got a little a head of myself as reproducing those micro printing marks would be pretty tough and art restorers wouldn't be able to replicate that as part of their job description. But the same compounds are available today as were 100 years ago, they would still be able to reproduce the stock.

Where is the printing plate material located?

My belief is that even though detection technology is readily available, it is not economically sensible for most pieces. In other words, I'm not gonna spend $1000 to verify a $500 card. At some point it would, but that market is likely very small. BTW, I, of course, used up made up numbers for the example. I have no idea what the costs would be, but you get the idea.

[drcy]

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.

[wondo]

Originally Posted by drcy

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 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.

This reminds me of how we like conspiracy theories or CSI super technical explanations. In fact, simple, straightforward anomalies are the easiest to detect. Thanks.

[drcy]

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.

[Bpm0014]

How did tobacco companies, over 100 years ago, create cards that cannot be duplicated today (with our modern technology)? What did they do then, that we can't do now?

[darwinbulldog]

No doubt fraud follows money around, but I imagine most of the perception that these [NM-MT pre-war] cards just weren't around in the 70s and 80s is because people were looking at all of the cards that could fit on the tables in a hotel ballroom or the counter of a 500 square foot card shop as opposed to all of the cards that can fit on the internet. I'm sure it was different for some of you guys, but I think I saw maybe one T206 a year in the 80s, compared to hundreds of thousands of Topps, Donruss, and Fleer cards. Now I can easily view 1000 or more T206s every day. If 0.1% of them survived in NM or better condition into the 80s then I would probably have encountered none of them at that time (and I didn't) but would see them quite often now (and I do).

[Beastmode]

Originally Posted by drcy

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.

none of this matters unless TPG's want to find fakes. And based on some previous threads, it appears some TPG's are enabling forgeries. PSA can't even tell if a card has been chemically treated for gosh sakes. Let me clarify, PSA may not care that a card has been chemically treated; or counterfeited.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

Ok,, maybe I got a little a head of myself as reproducing those micro printing marks would be pretty tough and art restorers wouldn't be able to replicate that as part of their job description. But the same compounds are available today as were 100 years ago, they would still be able to reproduce the stock.

Where is the printing plate material located?

Depending on the set, the "plate" would be the easy part. Lithographic stones are still available for art printers, and there are enough vintage ones out there that I wouldn't say they're hard to find.

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