 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#101
08-18-2014, 08:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
. "A life is not important except in the impact it has on others lives" - Jackie Robinson “If you have a chance to make life better for others and fail to do so, you are wasting your time on this earth.”- Roberto Clemente 
|
|
#102
08-19-2014, 12:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'll post the photos or send them to Pete asap. They're on a different computer and I have to get them first. I'll try to do it by today.
The only thing I was amiss about is I just ordered a new battery for my infrared camera, and didn't do that text. But that's minor I think. To be honest, I think the normal naked eye, loupe and black light examination is normally sufficient. Some of the other stuff can sometimes be overkill, other than easing the mind and they're easy to do and evidence for others to look at. As I said to Scott, one usually knows whether something is authentic or fake quickly, and taking microscopic and infrared photos is mostly to document and explain it for others in a tangible way. In a court dispute, it's not enough for an expert to say something is a reprint, he has to explain and show to the others how that was deduced. A newbie collector might want to be shown hot to tell something is a reprint, rather than just told it is. Obviously, on a collecting and information board like this, others want to look at the photos for themselves. This nice thing with a digital microscope and digital infrared camera, I can show online and send through the email the exact images I was looking at. And Pete, the card owner, can have the images to show anyone. For me, it's a potential service to just make and provide the images of collectibles for others. I don't even have to comment on them, just produce and provide them. Many would appreciate that the images were made by an independent party not offering opinion (other than explaining what the images mean, say to someone unfamiliar with infrared light or black light) or who has a vested interest in the conclusion. I can be paranoid about making a final conclusion, especially in writing, but there's nothing to sweat about in providing data. Plus, when I incorporate and rent my corporate fifth floor office, I can hire Pete, a dentist, to take all my X-ray photography. I actually was once considering buying an X-ray machine and the guy I asked about it was my dentist. As I was in the dentist's chair, I asked if you needed a license to own one and he said "Not that I know of." It's all digital these days, so you know, and he said you can buy a portable battery powered one. He said traveling Peace Corp doctors in Africa use those. But I also know from personal experience that, with all the expensive equipment one can buy, nothing beats a $10 pocket microscope and $7.99 black light. When asked, I don't recommend a collector buy an infrared camera, unless they have a specific and overriding purpose or want to also take infrared art photography, because the practical use won't justify the cost. The most curious instrument I've owned? A glossmeter. Looks like a pencil sharpener and when you place it on something it gives you a numerical reading of the gloss. Was designed to be used industrially in the quality control of paints, but it works great on anything, including baseball cards and photos. Made in China. The most glossy substance according the the glossmeter? A mirror. Last edited by drcy; 08-19-2014 at 02:02 PM.
|
|
#103
08-19-2014, 06:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'd agree with all of that.
I think I have a pretty good feel for what's actually old when I can hold it. Paper stuff usually, ceramics and glass not as well. The day is coming when some very serious science will be available for a reasonable price. Depending on your budget and what's "reasonable" a lot of it already is. Steve B
|
|
#104
08-19-2014, 07:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The original testing I did with a 5x yielded the same results as the high-powered microscope. Generally I can say with confidence that with a 5x (sometimes without), it takes 3-5 seconds to spot a fake or a card that has been tampered with. Honestly, I expected to spot some sort of 'evidence' without needing a more powerful microscope. I am more of a 'nay-sayer' when it comes to T206 oddities that involve missing letters,etc., so I questioned everything I saw, but each imperfection in the white border was in line with similar imperfections in the baseline examples. No evidence of scratches, etc.
After the 5x results, I looked even more carefully under higher-magnification, convinced that something would show up, but it really just showed larger images of the imperfections in the white border. One of those things that is necessary, but just gives you a bit more confidence in what you already have found. It is interesting to try to imagine how it would be possible to remove all traces of letters. But all you can really do is say that you can't find any evidence of such work. I had a microscope when I was a teenager and looked at everything I could get hold of...things I can't really mention publicly.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|
|
#105
08-19-2014, 07:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have to agree with Scott...in that my cursory evaluation which I did through my dental loupes at work...which are less than 4x magnification...combined with my cheapo vivitar illuminated magnifier...totalling maybe 12x magnification...I was confident the card did not appear altered in any way. I also have an illuminated/black light loupe that kevin saucier was advocating on the board a few years back which I use regularly.
|
|
#106
08-19-2014, 10:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
First three photos of are where text would be on the card in question,
the fourth is of a the right vertical side white border on the same card for comparison and the fifth is the bottom text on on a different T206 I have other shots, but figured this would be enough to illustrate. One detail of note is there is a vertical wrinkle on the bottom of the card and crossing where text would be (seen in one of the images), which, at first blush, would seem to make it that much harder to remove text.     
Last edited by drcy; 08-19-2014 at 10:43 PM.
|
|
#107
08-19-2014, 10:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Nicely done guys!
__________________
T206 gallery
|
|
#108
08-20-2014, 05:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
david....
great job!
the fear with the "no names"(I have heard, just hearsay) is that I have heard that a certain chemical allows the name to "slip" right off the bottom border if applied right....tpg's are scarred to death of them  but I think with the proper scientific approach, the card could be forensically examined someone has to experiment
|
|
#109
08-20-2014, 05:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
MY FRIEND HAS A JOSS WITH NO NAME...BUT IT IS OBVIOUS(TO ME) THE NAME WAS REMOVED WITH BLEACH AS THE BORDERS LOOK PASTY AND PART OF THE BROWN/BLACK FRAME HAS ALSO BEEN REMOVED IN THE PROCESS CREATING A BROKEN/NON-CONTINUOUS LOOK TO THE BORDER. Last edited by ullmandds; 08-20-2014 at 05:31 AM.
|
|
#110
08-20-2014, 05:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
it would have be applied with a q tip i guess??
just to the caption area???.....very light......but I would suspect a chemical smell or something would be left behind??.......bleach
 ........pete.....you should sacrifice a beater T206.....apply a tiny bit of bleach on a qtip to the caption area....try a few different chemicals on a few $5 beaters maybe....see if a smell is left behind also???kevin saucier is the expert on card alterations ......is he still around????
|
|
#111
08-20-2014, 05:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
pete....just saw your post at the bottom....
oh.......I didn't see what you wrote about the joss.....
.........I have never even soaked a T206 or any card....but I would be curious to what the experts like kevin would have to say.....your card looks good......wish we could slab it ourselves 
|
|
#112
08-20-2014, 05:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't know if Kevin S is still active in the hobby in any capacity anymore. I was going to play around with some bleach last weekend...but decided against it as I'd presume the damage would be obvious. Additionally I don't think there is such thing as a $5 common t206 anymore...now $10-15!!!!!!
 It'd be interesting to formulate a panel of "experts" like Dick Towle and Kevin Saucier to discuss such "chemicals" and ways to detect them...if any?
|
|
#113
08-20-2014, 06:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
pete....
great idea!! I have always wondered about this.....we need to do research.....Erick summers! calling Erick!
......there are a few others here that would be able to greatly help......id love to slab your card as my first T206 no name......this would be a great thread, experiment! you should've followed your instinct and try that bleach! true about the $5 beater also....I have been under pricing them sometimes
|
|
#114
08-20-2014, 06:25 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#115
08-20-2014, 06:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
When I was still in the printing field (left a year ago yesterday) there was a solution used to clean the heads of the printer. It went into the printer like the other ink cartridges but was used to clean out all of the hoses and heads of ink.
I opened a canister of it and pour the solution into a container and would use that to clean up prints after they were printed by using a thin soft tipped (similar to a qtip) and the ink would pick right up without any trace. I always wanted to see what would happen on a t206, but I just didn't have the stomach to try it because I couldn't bring myself to ruining a t206 even a beater.
__________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bn2cardz/albums
|
|
#118
08-20-2014, 11:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
There are additional tests that can be done to cards or to mounted photos, but for most of them expense and possible damage to the item has to be considered. A good example is the infamous cdv that Saco auctioned, that was discussed here extensively. I was able to show that an albumen photo could be soaked off of a period mount and then reapplied to another, using the same glue from the original print, and leaving no evidence of tampering....other than water content in the item. Such a test would be worth conducting for a high-value item such as the aforementioned cdv, but not for less expensive items. Chemical testing for T206's is probably less-expensive of a test, but not worth doing for low-value items, unless someone knows something I don't, and that's very likely.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|
|
#119
08-20-2014, 11:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Of course, I'm just using common sense - nothing scientific
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|
|
#120
08-20-2014, 11:50 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Of course the type of printing we did was not similar to a t206, but I did try the solution on other things and it worked really well. Of course I am not saying it was used on this card, I am only saying I have been curious to see what it could do but never curious enough to put it to the test.
__________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bn2cardz/albums
|
|
#121
08-20-2014, 12:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's existence should be simple to figure out: if we start seeing more of these no-name T206's on ebay over the next year, we'll know that some industrious fellow read your post and went on a mission.
I vote that we let Johnny taste-test any new ones that show up.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|
|
#122
08-20-2014, 12:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I really agree with other comments. IF any solution can clean/erase ink off a t206 it wouldn't be able to discriminate and only clean the ink without cleaning other residue of aging.
__________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bn2cardz/albums
|
|
#123
08-20-2014, 12:49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
A few thoughts.
You could do tests on cheap Topps cards with white borders. They're lithographs too. There are chemicals to dissolve printing inks-- and they've been known of. You can look them up--, but dissolving an ink and removing it clean from the surface without leaving anything or any damage is a different story. Duly note that dissolve doesn't mean making the ink invisible-- you can still see it. I'd be interested to see how soaking or adding any chemical to the surface of a card changes its gloss and surface texture and shape. And what chemical residue is left behind. There are advanced, non destructive tests that can identify the chemicals. On the other hand anyone can smell bleach. A question is did the original printers ink soak, if even just a bit, into the surface of the card, which would make it that much harder to remove without altering the surface. Again, dissolving doesn't mean making the ink invisible, and it would seem any sort of bleaching would be obvious. Removing text can be done by anyone. It's removing it without leaving any signs of alterations that would be hard. After all, you can erasure off text, but that that can be seen with the naked eye. Forensic scientists tests inks on documents, but that involves physically removing small pieces (including paper stock) from the document and that can be seen on the document. If highly trained forensic scientists with masters degrees could remove a portion of the ink for testing without damaging the original document they would. They'd very much prefer not to damage the document and, if they could do it, would use it in their advertising that they have methods to remove ink without damaging a document. If inks can be removed via solvent and wiping (or whatever) it could be duplicated by others. Meaning, duplicated by honest people seeing if it can indeed be done and report that it can be done if it can. Then, we'd see how this removal altered the card and what signs (such as chemical residue, damage to surface, other) give away the removal. Last edited by drcy; 08-20-2014 at 01:59 PM.
|
|
#125
08-20-2014, 01:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
If you are going to go to the trouble of finding solvent, setting up a test, etc., you might as well spring $15 (or less) for a real T206, since that's the card most likely to get the 'missing letters' alteration. To you and me a cheap Topps might be the same as a T206, for testing purposes, but it won't be to the guy buying a T206 error.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|
|
#126
08-20-2014, 01:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This would be much harder on a T206 because of aging but if the card was altered in the 70's to 90's natural aging since then would help hide the alteration even more. If the grading companys won't touch them there has to be good reason because their job is to part costumers from their cash. I have not seen Pete's card in hand so I do not have an opinion on it but hopefully it is real.
|
|
#127
08-20-2014, 02:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The question isn't if text can be removed but if there are signs of removal left behind. I'm confident that any reglossing would be identifiable. For a starter, compare the gloss and black light fluorescence to other 1989 Fleer cards. The reglossing also suggests the person found that the original surface texture was altered in some way and reglossing was needed.
And I didn't even ask what the card smells like. If cards have to be coated in something to hide the work, alterations will be easy to identify. The foreign surface coating would be straight foreword to identify. Visa vie foreign substances added, I won't go into the theory of invisibility other than to say that physicists will tell you that, when something is invisible, it is only invisible at that wavelength of light. It can be seen at others. That's why soldiers wear night goggles (infrared viewers), doctors use X-rays use infrared detectors and and collectors use black light. They're looking at things invisible in the visible light range, but visible (or made visible) at other wavelengths. Military jets are cloaked or camouflaged and ground sensors jammed, but only at specific frequencies. In fact, in instances, a cloaked fighter jet can be visible to the naked eyes when it flies over, but cloaked at a non-visible wavelength, as the intent is to hide from, say, the enemy's infrared detectors. This cloaking involves cooling the outside surface of the plane, as infrared light comes from heat and is often called 'heat radiation.' A human can't see infrared light, but can feel it. Some animals, including snakes and geese, have different optical abilities than humans (a different range of light sensors in the eyes) and can see infrared or black light. Geese are famous for being able to navigate at night and rattle snakes identify prey and enemies by being able to see heat. What is invisible to humans can be seen by certain other animals. It's just that humans have invented instruments to detect and 'view' non-visible (to human) wavelengths. An infrared viewer translates infrared light into a visible wavelength that humans can see on the screen. We aren't literally seeing infrared light, just a translation of it. An x-ray photo is a visual translation of what is there but human eyes can't see. Interestingly, a black light works a bit different in that it uses invisible light (ultraviolet) to make materials give off visible light. The light adds energy to the atoms and, when the material fluoresces, it is giving back the energy in visible form. When you use a black light, you're actually testing the atomic makeup of the material-- even when you had no idea that's what you were doing. The different colors of fluorescence are the atoms giving back the energy in different wavelengths, with each color being a different wavelength. From a more normal collector's angle, duplicating the original visual gloss is very hard. I think that's one of the hardest things for a counterfeiter to duplicate. Comparing gloss between questioned and known real cards is one of simplest ways to identify reprints and counterfeits and something even beginning collector can do. Last edited by drcy; 08-20-2014 at 04:12 PM.
|
|
#129
08-21-2014, 01:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'd like to point out, if I hadn't already, that the card examination was done by Scott F. and I and he shot most of the images posted. It was my microscope, but he was working it 75% of the time. In fact, Pete sent the card to Scott not me and Scott provided the other T206s for comparison.
In particular as I have the habit of getting into my own idle theories and ideas that others don't want to be credited for or associated with (such as my talk of geese and snakes and cloaked jet fighters), and don't always agree with others, I am in the habit of speaking only for myself. So Scott should get due credit for the photos, tests and conclusions posted-- and we independently came to the same conclusion. I've known Scott for a number of years and can testify to his knowledge and abilities. For those who don't remember, he had an article on T206 printing anomalies published in Old Cardboard. But I take full and sole credit for the posted notes on snake and geese optics
Last edited by drcy; 08-21-2014 at 02:03 PM.
|
|
#130
08-21-2014, 05:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I suppose that if something were removed...the whole card could be reglossed...thus creating varying thicknesses of gloss...which may be able to be detected microscopically or with a boley gauge of some sort?
A few beater t206's are on the way to my North...LArge Ass and I look forward to the results from Portugal!
|
|
#131
08-21-2014, 08:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Soaking will typically change the thickness of the stock for several reasons. The way people press the cards between books will make up for some of that, but it's possible the surface texture could change. The difference is usually very small, beyond the abilities of most people to accurately measure at home. Having a home machine shop I have some decent measuring equipment, and it's become inexpensive. Digital calipers that can in theory measure to 50 millionths of an inch can be had for $20 if you look, under 50 for sure. As a practical matter even measuring accurately to tenths of thousandths is very difficult. Holding a metal part for a minute or two will heat it and change the dimension. I have a badly water damaged T206 I need to make some detailed scans of. The entire front surface has cracked and begun flaking off. The original ink shouldn't have soaked in on the fronts. The stock is coated with a clay like substance that limits soaking in, improves gloss and overall quality by giving a more consistent surface. The backs are uncoated. You can actually see this layer in the microscope pictures. You can also see how that surface isn't really all that perfect. There's a bit of pitting, probably original, and usually some very fine cracking and scratches which are aging and wear. Plus the ink is more like grease and less like pen ink. Very thick stuff. Looking at a couple light damaged T206s I bought (Some from the same lot have since been graded as missing color - Not by me.) Was not conclusive. I was expecting to see the gloss still present. One had it the other didn't. 40X magnification, and the cheap version of oblique lighting - holding it just so under the desk lamp. I'm still figuring out some stuff with modern cards, like whether the glosscoat can be absorbed by the stock coating. An effect I've seen on some Topps cards. If it's absorbed, they've simply aged. If it can't be, then they were printed with different gloss layers. (Some more glossy ones definitely were) As far as making a color invisible you should check out towards the end of the blue 58 Aaron thread over in postwar vintage. One of the guys selectively faded a 58 with a green background, removing nearly all the yellow. If the brown used for T206s is a synthetic dye then it might be possible to fade it using his method - Not described in detail for obvious reasons. But from what he told me even modern inks used by Topps varies in its lightfastness. Steve B
|
|
#132
08-21-2014, 10:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|
|
#133
08-21-2014, 12:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Nice work David & Scott!
And nice card Pete! I always knew deep down there was a T206 "freak" collector inside of you. Don't deny it! If you haven't sold the card yet and you are still holding it...you're a collector. Jantz
|
|
#134
08-21-2014, 12:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#136
02-09-2025, 07:47 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hard to believe it has been over 10 years since i outed this card on EBay. I didn’t know any better and got roasted for it 😁. I believe Ullmands made the money from my mistake.
What ever became of the no name Phillippe?
|
|
#137
02-09-2025, 09:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Brian
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Selling T202 Donlin Out At First Gibson/Philippe PSA 6 | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 05-10-2008 10:24 PM |
Linear Mode
