Would this kind of grading company interest you?

[D.P.Johnson]

If the new grading company could "prove" their system was able to determine authenticity and detect alterations I would be interested.

I think if the new company was able to show through side by side comparisons (or whatever) their system found altered cards the other TPGs couldn't that could be a huge selling point.

[vintagetoppsguy]

In 2019, machines can't even cut 2019 Topps product correctly, so you think machines can measure a card correctly? Cards can be stretched to a larger size then cut back down to normal size. What's the solution for that?

Here's a real solution. Quit relying on machines, TPGs or anything else and educate yourself on what alterations to look for. I'm proud to say I don't own an altered card in my collection. Never have, never will. I'm not saying I've never bought one, I think we all have. But those purchases were quickly identified and returned to the seller.

[barrysloate]

I believe some type of technology is inevitable, because what this debacle has proven is humans are not able to do this properly. Even if they could allot more time to examine each card, it's possible that the human eye is unable to detect these alterations, while some kind of infrared light might be able to do so quite easily.

Somebody needs to figure this out because the current system is unacceptable.

[marzoumanian]

I agree, DP Johnson. What it is going to take, in my humble opinion, is a multimillionaire who is also a big card collector, learning that he has been burned by the likes of Gary Moser. Perhaps multiple times. That individual is going to be SO angry that he will step up and offer/spend the start-up money needed to get the process started. It might take 3-5 years and, yes, he would have to prove that the technology works (perhaps by setting up a booth at the NSCC) by showing multiple examples. But that is the only way. The technology exists TODAY. I know it has already been stated that people with big bucks don't care about this issue because their cards have been slabbed and they don't want to admit that they have been duped. Maybe that's true. Maybe I'm naive. Time will tell. Who is going to step up? We shall see.

Thank you.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by D.P.Johnson

If the new grading company could "prove" their system was able to determine authenticity and detect alterations I would be interested.

I think if the new company was able to show through side by side comparisons (or whatever) their system found altered cards the other TPGs couldn't that could be a huge selling point.

I was thinking the same thing. Demonstrate conclusively how the new system is superior by catching alterations the other companies are currently missing.

Regarding the failings of people and the human eye, I'm thinking if you have 20 graders, at any given time one or two might be new at the job, or tired, or have eye strain at the end of another long day squinting at cards. Machines don't get tired so their performance won't degrade, or vary as, say, from one individual grader to another.

As to pressing before trimming, why not add measuring card thickness too, including thickness uniformity (is the card thinner at the corners.) And it might sound silly, and maybe it is, but even weighing cards might detect paper loss from trimming. Obviously, tolerances for various issues would need to be established, since cards were not produced with rigorous quality/consistency controls.

But yes, if a new grading company came along with the commitment to constantly look for new ways to improve their process, that is what's needed. Black light, or infrared, or whatever........

It might be some years from now, but I believe eventually there will be a tool one will be able to pass over a surface (like a baseball card) and the tool will be able to perform carbon dating without damaging the card at all. So if there is anything modern on a vintage card besides a human fingerprint, someday it should be detectable.

[Peter_Spaeth]

People love to talk about technology. Has anyone here seen a machine, computer, device, whatever, reliably authenticate and grade a card? Until that happens, with due respect, it just feels like feel-good talk to me.

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

People love to talk about technology. Has anyone here seen a machine, computer, device, whatever, reliably authenticate and grade a card? Until that happens, with due respect, it just feels like feel-good talk to me.

Where are those Microsoft engineers that patented a new automated grading process???

Maybe planning their emergence?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

People love to talk about technology. Has anyone here seen a machine, computer, device, whatever, reliably authenticate and grade a card? Until that happens, with due respect, it just feels like feel-good talk to me.

Tools that measure size, thickness, etc. are of course in existence. Other methods to determine foreign substances also exist. Think of what's been done in the areas of crime scene forensics.

And more advancements will be developed. You may have missed the first part of my quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

It might be some years from now, but I believe eventually there will be a tool one will be able to pass over a surface (like a baseball card) and the tool will be able to perform carbon dating without damaging the card at all. So if there is anything modern on a vintage card besides a human fingerprint, someday it should be detectable.

So, can I go to Walmart today and buy a card grading/alteration detection machine? No. Does technology exist to catch a lot of trimming, pressing, and other stuff? Yes. Will detection methods continually improve over time? Again, yes.

Peter, what alternative do you propose? Sticking with table after table of people looking at cards, ignoring technological tools that could be of great assistance?

[Peter_Spaeth]

If and when the technology exists and it's proven to be reliable then fine, but it feels too futuristic to me to be a realistic solution to the current problem. I am glad to be proven wrong as we obviously are not in a good place.

[steve B]

The problem with using most technologies to authenticate cards and detect alterations, is that you also need the baseline information to compare to.

A card that's pressed and trimmed will be thinner, or thinner in the pressed areas. And measuring thickness is pretty easy, even without modern technology.
But the question becomes "what thickness should that card be, and how much could that naturally vary based on the papermaking technology at the time. in the 1880's (where I've seen studies of printed items specifically looking at the paper thickness of hundreds of copies) +/- .003 isn't unreasonable.
That spec may be a bit tighter by 1910, and should be much tighter for modern cards. I just measured a handful of modern cards - list on the postwar side - and didn't find much variation at all.

Other groups have studied the chemical makeup of the inks and seizing(sp?) of the paper. The equipment used is expensive, and requires a bit of interpretation of the results, but some interesting things have been learned.

As far as I know, there isn't anyone who has studied this stuff for cards. If it's in a database, I don't think it's been publicly available.
There also isn't one for any of the other things that would be of interest, like UV reaction. The only bit I know is out there is that the 1991 Topps backs have two different inks, one reactive the other not. Other Topps sets in the junk wax era also have the same issue, which I mentioned once, but haven't pursued yet, not even as far as dividing my sets. I collect a lot more that isn't really cataloged or known anywhere. (And yes, I really need to do at least a few posts on those)

If it isn't know exactly what a normal card should be, no entirely reliable comparison can be made.
Currently, someone with experience can tell. After years you get a feel for when something just isn't "right". But to have a machine do that you have to give it the knowledge.

[marzoumanian]

For decades I was a trade press editor covering the paperboard packaging industry (cardboard boxes and folding cartons) so I'm very aware that paper "breathes (expands and contracts)." Perhaps it will take someone offering a "reward" of, say, $5000 to a computer software wiz to develop that "base" and then test card alternations to see if the software can do its job. If PSA were smart it would develop a way to initially test a card by computer and THEN follow up with the human eye. Just some off-the-cuff ideas. This hobby is still so young but it has to grow and evolve or it will (slowly) die.

[lowpopper]

Sorry guys but this is nonsense.

A peripheral device authenticating cards? Aside from the storing of the image for
future comparisons, the only usable data that can be reliably extracted from
a scan are measurements for total size and centering. Even that can easily be
thrown off by a print defect or a slightly irregular cut.

As far as alteration detection, the only way to use imaging technology to
identify altered cards would be to have a massive database of card
"before images" to compare to. Even if compiling a database with millions
of entries was feasible, it could never be 100% accurate due to the amount
of cards that come off the same print runs and have virtually identical physical
qualities. There would be too many "perfect matches" to identify the true
original.

I know not everyone has a tech background so I understand the optimism
when a discussion like this starts. At best, implementing technology can ASSIST
us with card grading. It could never be done with perfect accuracy. There will
always be errors: human and mechanical. The best we can do is use before and
after pictures on currently graded or serial numbered cards. Anything beyond
that would not improve upon the accuracy of a human physically measuring and
inspecting a card.

Has anybody calculated the current accuracy rate of the current grading process?
I hear a myriad of complaints regarding the grades that were assessed wrong, but
how many are done correctly? I would imagine it is something very north of 99%,
no? Millions upon millions of graded cards out there and a few thousand are turning
up bad? As far as ratios go, that sounds irrefutably reliable for a paid service. Yes,
one could make the argument that the sample size is smaller because the focus
seems to be on the higher value pieces, but that should not render the lesser value
slabbed cards to be irrelevant here. There may never be a way produce a process that
is void of error, collusion, or dubious behaviors. However, the current grading process
as a whole IS accurate based on the numbers we are aware of.

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

People love to talk about technology. Has anyone here seen a machine, computer, device, whatever, reliably authenticate and grade a card? Until that happens, with due respect, it just feels like feel-good talk to me.

Nope. Not even possible.

[ullmandds]

I just don't think the financial investment in such a "device" that would/could grade cards is feasible to create to be cost effective?