View Single Post
  #43  
Old 03-25-2007, 02:58 PM
Archive Archive is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58,359
Default Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......

Posted By: davidcycleback

Here's my problem with having laboratory paper/ink analysis of the card. By profession I deal with identifying, dating and authenticating art, including stuff like Rembrandt and Salvador Dali, and my technical guides on art have been required texts for university courses (I don't say this to boast, but to note that I'm not ignorant on the subject). I'm familiar with the scientific analysis, which if properly done gives effective information.

If someone came to me with a baseball card and asked how to get an independent authenticity opinion, I wouldn't recommend he not send it to Grade A paper lab or the Louvre, but to an expert in baseball cards. A baseball card expert would include someone like Rob Lifson, SGC, PSA, Bill Mastro. If you want two opinions, send it to two baseball cards experts.

I'm not saying lab analysis is a bad idea or that it should not be done, but I would not appoint a lab as the only voice on whether or not a baseball card is authentic. A supplemental voice offering important information?, sure, but not the pre-ordained only voice to drown out all other voices.

My dad was a famous science professor who was literally doing this type of lab analysis before I was born. I asked for his opinion on this subject and, as a scientist/non-collector, he agreed that it appeared to make most sense to send a baseball card to a baseball card expert, as the baseball card expert would be more knowledgeable about baseball cards.

From a common sense standpoint, say you send in a 1968 Topps Nolan Ryan card and the lab says the card dates to the 1930s. You aren't going to say the card is from the 1930s. You're going to say the lab made an error ... Say the laboratory accurately if inexactly says, from analysis of ink and paper, the card dates somewhere from 1940-1970. You aren't going to offer the card on eBay as a 1940-70 Topps Nolan Ryan rookie. You're going to offer it as a 1968 Ryan, while proudly noting that lab analysis says the cardboard and ink is consistent with the 1968 and results show the card isn't modern. Even though the lab results support that you're beloved Ryan card is authentic, you are going to use non-laboratory information to pinpoint date the card-- such as the copyright date and Ryan's 1967 stats on back and that Beckett checklists the card as being from 1968. Here's a case where the lab test was useful and you are glad you had it done. However, that doesn't mean you act brain dead and cut and paste the lab printout into your eBay listing. Because if you list a beautiful authentic untrimmed Ryan's rookie as being from 1940-70, people laugh at you.

Reply With Quote