T213-1s and T206 Carolina Brights (Fraud/Fakes) by Daniel Desmond

[SetBuilder]

I had to try it myself to see. I have a modern Epson inkjet photo printer.

I got an old trade card with a blank back and I sanded the back off with 150 grit sandpaper.



It had a pencil notation and it came right off. The back was noticeably more porous after sanding. I figured a stupid forger wouldn't re-size the back with gelatin or some other paper size before printing.

I got a high resolution image of a Cycle back and imported it into Photoshop. I had to make the background transparent or else it would print the background color: white if B&W or light brown.



This is kind of difficult to do without erasing tiny pieces of the border or the serifs. I had to play around with it for a while before getting a good result.

I finally printed it, and it came out like shit. Exactly how I predicted it.



Notice how dead it looks. The serifs are just blurs due to the feathering.

Now, how could the results have been better?

Instead of sanding, could the back be bleached?
If the back is bleached, it would glow under UV light. Probably a bad choice.

Instead of an inkjet printer, was a laser printer used?
A laser printer would produce crisper lines and most laser printers use oil based inks that wouldn't feather as much as the water based inks of inkjet printers. Laser is probably the way to go.

Does the printer leave a signature under magnification?
Yes, the inkjet dots are clearly visible. With a laser printer, probably less, but still visible.

[ullmandds]

impressive experiment!!!

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

I had to try it myself to see. I have a modern Epson inkjet photo printer.

I got an old trade card with a blank back and I sanded the back off with 150 grit sandpaper.



It had a pencil notation and it came right off. The back was noticeably more porous after sanding. I figured a stupid forger wouldn't re-size the back with gelatin or some other paper size before printing.

I got a high resolution image of a Cycle back and imported it into Photoshop. I had to make the background transparent or else it would print the background color: white if B&W or light brown.



This is kind of difficult to do without erasing tiny pieces of the border or the serifs. I had to play around with it for a while before getting a good result.

I finally printed it, and it came out like shit. Exactly how I predicted it.



Notice how dead it looks. The serifs are just blurs due to the feathering.

Now, how could the results have been better?

Instead of sanding, could the back be bleached?
If the back is bleached, it would glow under UV light. Probably a bad choice.

Instead of an inkjet printer, was a laser printer used?
A laser printer would produce crisper lines and most laser printers use oil based inks that wouldn't feather as much as the water based inks of inkjet printers. Laser is probably the way to go.

Does the printer leave a signature under magnification?
Yes, the inkjet dots are clearly visible. With a laser printer, probably less, but still visible.

[barrysloate]

I believe a good paper conservator can separate the back from the front, and reglue a new back to the original card. I don't think it's even hard to do.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I believe a good paper conservator can separate the back from the front, and reglue a new back to the original card. I don't think it's even hard to do.

I'm not sure about this. The cardstock has to be multi-layered in order to separate the card in two, or else it's really hard to do. I can separate bookboard in two for example. Because of it's thickness.

Cardboard is made the same way as paper. If it's really thick like bookboard, it's layered.

A T-206 card is sort of thin compared to cardboard. I think it's a single layer like a really thick piece of paper (high gsm).

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

I'm not sure about this. The cardstock has to be multi-layered in order to separate the card in two, or else it's really hard to do. I can separate bookboard in two for example. Because of it's thickness.

Cardboard is made the same way as paper. If it's really thick like bookboard, it's layered.

A T-206 card is sort of thin compared to cardboard. I think it's a single layer like a really thick piece of paper (high gsm).

And you would be wrong. Take a look at chapter 11 of Dave Jamieson's book Mint Condition. Called "A Visit to the Doctor", the author spent a day with a paper restorer (let's leave him nameless) who demonstrated how you separate a card in two, say a T206, and attach a new back to it. He did say it takes quite a bit of skill, but someone with practice can do it. I haven't read the book in several years, but as I recall as an experiment they sent one of the Frankenstein cards to a grading service and it came back with a numerical grade.

So I correct my statement that it is easy to do, but it can be done and has been done.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

And you would be wrong. Take a look at chapter 11 of Dave Jamieson's book Mint Condition. Called "A Visit to the Doctor", the author spent a day with a paper restorer (let's leave him nameless) who demonstrated how you separate a card in two, say a T206, and attach a new back to it. He did say it takes quite a bit of skill, but someone with practice can do it. I haven't read the book in several years, but as I recall as an experiment they sent one of the Frankenstein cards to a grading service and it came back with a numerical grade.

So I correct my statement that it is easy to do, but it can be done and has been done.

I will research this and try to split a card in two. I'll share the results.

[barrysloate]

That's fine, but without training and practice it might be genuinely hard to do. A paper conservator spends years working with paper, so he has a much greater skill level than you or I might.