I'd say that's proof that some are fake. Thanks for doing the experiment.
I also understand not telling how. For what it's worth you might share that with the big three grading companies. fwiw I'd be very interested in knowing, from a technical standpoint. I was the sort of person to fake stuff I'd have done it long ago. Having the technical knowledge includes the responsibility of not using it the wrong way.
Did the process leave any clues behind? It looks like the cards logo didn't have the yellow entirely removed. But I'm wondering if whatever was done left chemical residue, or changed how the card reacts to UV. If there's a way to tell an actual missing color card from an altered one that would be the best outcome.
Without that, I'd have to say that any Topps card with missing yellow should be suspected of being altered.
Besides the cards that would be obvious like green backgrounds, there should be commons with less obvious missing yellow if it's actually missing. (And of course, they'd be just as easy to fake)
Steve B
Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth
After a little "testing" in my home lab I would say that at least 99.9% of the blue 1958 Aaron cards are fake. I would say all of them, but there is a slim chance 1 or 2 might be real. If it was just not the Aaron that shows up blue in this set I would give it a little more chance of being real. Since there are no other blue cards showing up I stick with most are fake/altered.
Not wanting to chance hurting a 58 Aaron card I picked card #451 Joe Taylor as my test subject from the 58 Topps set. I know it has a different shade of green background, but in science green is green.
Here are the before after pictures and before anyone asks no I will not tell you how it is done.
|