N403 Yum Yum Welch Pitching

[Leon]

A larger scan of the Welch before grading. However, this or a 10x, is not what helped BVG make their final determination, from what I know. There were a few factors but science was the first one. And that bar was passed when it was determined this is, according to BVG, an albumen photo of a wood engraving, which is what these are supposed to be. They put it under a microscope and saw the albumen hairs under the "dirt" on the front. The dirt isn't really on the card as much as it is part of it.
There are also hairs that are split where the deterioration is. These were some of the things they mentioned to me about it in grading it the way they did.
Then we should also look at how and why this would have been done for fraudulent reasons. As far as anyone I have spoken with, including this board, no one can recall a fake albumen vintage baseball card. There might be one but I haven't heard of it yet.
Also, this particular photo has some different nuances than the one in the LOC. For there to be a fake you would think there had to be one it was made from? Unless we are to think the "scammer" bookseller, who owns a brick and mortar shop, took an albumen photo of a wood engraving this would have been made from, found old paper, then printed it and distressed it to the way it looks. Then after that offer it for under 2k( but close to it)?

I thought it was good from my first feel test of it. Everything just checked out with the sellers story and the rest of the info.

[benjulmag]

Leon,

Did you ask SGC why they concluded the card is a counterfeit? They would be my grading company of choice for a card such as this, and I'd be interested to learn the basis for their conclusion.

[Leon]

If I recall correctly, They told me they didn't like the way the upper left corner and the printing looked. They might have said they didn't like the edges too, but I am not sure of that. But nothing was factual, in my mind, when I heard it. Or I would have returned the card to the seller, who told me to send it back for a full refund...

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Leon,

Did you ask SGC why they concluded the card is a counterfeit? They would be my grading company of choice for a card such as this, and I'd be interested to learn the basis for their conclusion.

[Leon]

Yum Yum Welch...

The First SGC holder is COU....the 2nd SGC holder was NO.....Beckett was a 1 and it has been verified by PSA as a 1. It is now in the PSA 1 holder headed to auction...

When I asked SGC the problem they gave me 100% conjecture and no proof or science. And they went from Counterfeit to NO (not knowing, I guess).... I have never thought it anything but real because it is.

To answer the question above, I did talk to Dave at SGC....he looked like a deer in headlights to me....

[x2drich2000]

Leon, did you cross that to PSA in the Becket holder, or crack it out first? I have no idea if it is real or not, however, I would much rather, I think it would be better as a business decision, for a TPG to get it wrong saying it is counterfeit when it is real, then saying it is real when it is not.

DJ

[Leon]

Originally Posted by x2drich2000

Leon, did you cross that to PSA in the Becket holder, or crack it out first? I have no idea if it is real or not, however, I would much rather, I think it would be better as a business decision, for a TPG to get it wrong saying it is counterfeit when it is real, then saying it is real when it is not.

DJ

It was sent to PSA in the BVG holder (I think but not sure). I didn't personally send it in an AH did. SGC should have put NO on it the first time not COU, imo. Their 2nd look was the NO...(guessing they just didn't know and back tracked off the COU)....
.

[BRoberts]

Which auction house? Heritage or REA?

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Leon

A larger scan of the Welch before grading. However, this or a 10x, is not what helped BVG make their final determination, from what I know. There were a few factors but science was the first one. And that bar was passed when it was determined this is, according to BVG, an albumen photo of a wood engraving, which is what these are supposed to be. They put it under a microscope and saw the albumen hairs under the "dirt" on the front. The dirt isn't really on the card as much as it is part of it.
There are also hairs that are split where the deterioration is. These were some of the things they mentioned to me about it in grading it the way they did.
Then we should also look at how and why this would have been done for fraudulent reasons. As far as anyone I have spoken with, including this board, no one can recall a fake albumen vintage baseball card. There might be one but I haven't heard of it yet.
Also, this particular photo has some different nuances than the one in the LOC. For there to be a fake you would think there had to be one it was made from? Unless we are to think the "scammer" bookseller, who owns a brick and mortar shop, took an albumen photo of a wood engraving this would have been made from, found old paper, then printed it and distressed it to the way it looks. Then after that offer it for under 2k( but close to it)?

I thought it was good from my first feel test of it. Everything just checked out with the sellers story and the rest of the info.

FYI, there have been numerous attempts at counterfeiting Old Judge cards in the past. We have a separate chapter on it in our book. I agree with Corey, why don’t you talk to Dave and ask him to take a look at the card. If he thinks it is good I would guess that SGC would regrade it.