Mystery Of The T206 Honus Wagner Uncut Proof Strip

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

In the days before scanners customers would always ask me for photocopies of cards and I would take them down to my local photocopy center which had a particularly good color machine. Let me say that to the naked eye this produced exact replicas of the actual card. All the machines do is copy what they see, they don't change anything. But as David Rudd pointed out, under high magnification you may notice some minute differences.

[Archive]

Posted By: david

Scanners copy the exact image, but modern printing machine drastically change the dot matrix as Cycleback has stated.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I assume that even though you use the term "drastically" it is still something that is visible only under magnification. Because the color photocopies I used to get were so true to form that I used to joke that I could sell them as real cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Genaro

I had asked a friend of mine whom is a tech at the crime lab here in Jacksonville. He said even if a press was even to exist the exact paper could not be reproduced. He also said the inks are also impossible to reproduce. A person could make a good fake to the naked eye but never pass any test under a microscope even a cheap one. I had showed him my best t206 card a card I think would grade to at least a seven he said it was almost impossible to separate the card to get the printing off to over print using original stock. He said it may be easier to counterfeit money from 10 years ago because a 20 dollar bill would never go through the scrutiny of a 6 figure baseball card.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott ingold

David,

Just reduce the file size.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Duly note that collectors who specialize in an issue can identify most reprints and counterfeits even if the collectors don't have a microscope or blacklight. If you've been collecting 1971 Topps since you were a kid and have a box of them in your closet, you'll be able to identy 1971 Topps reprints with no trouble. The reprints simply won't look right.

For the collector or dealer, a microscope is used to double check issues you are familiar with and check out issues you aren't as experienced with or have never handled before.

And, of course, collectors also can use good provenance/second opinions, which can include buying from knowledgeable sellers, getting cards checked out by a reputable grader and getting opinions from folks on this board.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

...evening! basically hoping Cycleback can respond to this, but all comments more than welcome since I can't seem to find out much more about this piece: I have been to an experienced printer, and know for sure the process that was used to make the one I scanned and used for ebay that is above. He said "It was definitelly done with the silkscreen process, and not done with an ink jet/laser printer." As I know the T206's were done with lithography, I still can't seem to get any info on reprint production (how many, where, who did it, were they authorized, the printing techniques used, etc.) I have also done black light testing on this, and there are no floresence in the ink or paper. I have searched eBay everyday for the last forty days, and all I came across was a larger reprint that was being advertised as a small poster. His auction was not stopped, so I am also wondering why they stopped my aucton a while back, even though I clearly stated this was a reprint? Any ideas guys? Do you know anyone who has this reprint, or knowledge of the original? Thanks for your help.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

Reproductions dont need to be authorized, most are not. Quality and printing processes will vary. Anyone can make a reprint.

Your piece really doesnt have any collector value, just a novelty piece for the wall at best. I dont pay too much attention to the reprint Wagner strip, but Ive seen many reprints of it on eBay over the last few years. There is only one authentic piece.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Is this guy related to the guy with Thorpe card?

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

I am not asking for a value here. Some people feel the need to tell me it's a worthless piece.....that's not the question. I have been researching the reprints, and that's all. I am not questioning the fact there is only one original, and was just wondering if any one out there had more answers about the reprints. Thanks!

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

Since anyone anywhere at anytime can make a reprint, there will never be a history of where all reprints came from unless the guy who made it recognizes it as the one he made and tells you about it. And since a printer has told you how the print was made, there is no further information about this print available from anyone else.

Given the above, most of us are still concerned that you are really not researching the history of the reprint, but instead trying to find out if there is some way in h*ll that what you have is somewhat original or of any value. And, as you know, those questions have also been answered.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

....my main point is that my auction was ended early because ebay said there were trademark/copyright issues. I clearly stated it was a reprint, yet someone was obviously offended. I wondered why this was, because you say anyone can make a reprint and its only value is to the owner. I agree with this, but was also curious which of the few owners of the original decided to make as many reprints as those in this forum say there are. Also, and finally, with silkscreen printing, it is a bit more complicated process than just running down to the local copy store.......someone went through some effort, and I wanted to find out who, as a hobby curosity. I see nothing wrong this, but you seem a bit offended also. There is nothing wrong with questioning origins, thats what makes this fun. Thanks for your time...
-David

p.s. This research has been well worth it thanks to Cycleback, I have learned a ton about early 1900's print identification, and also the use of blacklights. Kudos to him!

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...just skeptical. I am happy you were able to find out about early 20th Century printing techniques and how to use black lights. The more education the better. No one is questioning that more education about reprint techniques is a good thing, absent the motive to commit fraud. And no one is questioning your interest in your own reprint, absent the motive to similarly commit fraud. It is your motive in each case that is in question.

But putting aside all concerns about your motivation, the person who created your reprint was probably acting illegally, in terms of copyright, right of publicity and/or fraud laws. For these reasons alone the person who created your reprint does not want to be known. And for these reasons if you ever found out who it was, that person might not be particularly happy with you. But maybe that is your point because you are trying to find the person so that you can sue him to recover whatever you paid for it.

I guess at the end of the day it is hard for me to buy that you are interested in the technology of reprints just for the greater good of growing your own mind. But if you are then I certainly did not mean to offend you either.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

David knows more about printing than I do, but isn't the silkscreen process used to make t-shirts? I've never heard of card or anything else being printed with a silkscreen process.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

I am definitely interested in growing my own mind about counterfeits when there are so many different variations out there......how else would I ever know I am bidding on the real thing? So yes, it's an absolute necessity these days to know the difference. Also, I am not out to sue anyone.....I think the piece is pretty cool, and bought it cheap.
And to Jay, that's exactly what I thought. The reason I was so confused when this thread was first started is that, under a microscope, the print didn't match anything I was seeing on cards......early lithography-modern/or laser, ink-jet dot matrix like most people in this forum were telling me it was. So, it led me to question further why someone would go through the more complex process of burning plates and, "what not" for silk screening. If anyone has any ideas, please let me know.

p.s. I did learn that the 1930's Goudeys were made with "inexact" silkscreen process.....interesting, huh? Anyone know more about this? Someone must of had some pretty "interesting" equipment to make the T206 Honus Reprint I have. There's no doubt about this...

Read article at:http://www.psacard.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=3910&universeid=314

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Here's relevant information for your research.

1) I do not know, but I was under the impression one of the owners of the original strip made repints and sold them. If so, I guess it would be his way to promote it or make some extra bucks.

2) Offhand, it would would seem unlikely that yours is a screenprint. They do use screenprinting to make posters and prints, but it's relatively expensive and I don't know why someone would choose this process to make baseball card reprint ... And, no, an original 1909 strip would not have been a screenprint.

3) Lithography used to make modern cards could be called a 'screen process,' as it uses screens to make all those little dots.

4) If your reprint is a lithograph and if #1 is true, than it likely originated from #1. Due to expence and required print run, the average eBay reprinter wouldn't make lithographs.

Unless it's something like a serial numbered Topps insert edition or the cover to the Hall of Fame dinner menu, a modern reprint of a T206 Wagner or 1933 Goudey has minimal value on the market. Trying to find the source of a reprint can be good clean fun, but will likely have little effect on it's market value. Several official organizations have reprinted the T206 Wagner-- including Wagner's estate, for the promotion of the PSA8 card and Fan Fest (I think)--, and these cards are worth a few bucks on the market.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

There are no, "dots," on my piece that resemble any piece of printing or card I have. I do not have any Goudeys, so I have not been able to compare the two. The color schemes seem very similar.
I know it would seem likely that my piece was made with an inexpensive process, but it appears to be the screenprint, not the screen process of dots. Any ideas of why they would go through the expense of this procedure? And if they did, wouldn't they have made many "reprints" to even make it worth their time? Something is not adding up. Any more ideas Dave? Should I go back to the printer I talked with about this piece and find out exactly the process used in more detail (Steps and complications?) All theories welcomed. You can see now why this has been stumping me....


Additional Goudey History:
http://www.psacard.com/articles/article3886.chtml>

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Maybe it's a Warhol. If you look in the auction catalog you will see that Barry Halper owned a Warhol screen print of the 1985T Pete Rose baseball card. Plus, Warhol was a native of Pittsburgh.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

...or are you just being sarcastic. Its hard to tell in this forum sometimes.
That would be quite interesting...

[Archive]

Posted By: David

...the fact that under a black light, the ink, nor paper give off any florescence like the Honus reprints I have, or many other cards I have? I have been using a 1912 colliers for some comparisons also...thanks Dave.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

1912 Colliers? Whats that? Just wondering. It isnt one of the cut out pages from a magazine "pseudocards" is it?

[Archive]

Posted By: David

1912 Colliers is the entire magazine. It does have nice of all the top players of the time. I was just using it to see an example of paper that old under a blacklight...

[Archive]

Posted By: martin dalziel

David,
Has no one helped you re you posting scans of your strip? Thats not like this group.

If you'd post a scan i think people would be able to help you much more than now, as we're all flying blind. As Jay said eons ago, its also why people still wonder about your motives.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

yes, please just post a scan and that will help solve the "mystery"

[Archive]

Posted By: scott ingold

A few of us have asked throughout this post. I don't think we will see any though.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

.....you keep asking for a scan, when I have said many times, the one posted within this thread is my scan from ebay. Another memeber put it in here, after he recorded it. Everytime I attempt to put in another scan, it says the file size is too big......and that is scanned at 72 dpi.......can I scan for high dpi and then shrink the file to post here?
I mean, it is intersting my motives are being so questioned, when the scan above is mine from ebay???
However, if you can help....I'll get you as many scans as you want. Just researching the reprints.....of which mine is a very interseting one, for many reasons stated above. Let me know, thanks....-Davidhttp://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1142747998.JPG

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

This thread is a moot point. The reprint pictured above is just an average reprint of average quality, nothing special. Its most likely homemade and made from a scan of the authentic piece. It has that foggy look to it when compared to the authentic piece. I have seen it listed dozens of times on eBay, but not recently. Mostlikely wont see anymore unless the guy makes more.

This thread should be dead

[Archive]

Posted By: David

Why you got to be like that? I am researching the reprints......it wasn't made like you say it was, and thats what I find interesting. I am not saying it is the authentic piece, I just had some questions on why this one is different? I know why it is, and if you have a problem, maybe you're the one forging them.
If you can't help, don't comment and be a jerk.

p.s. If you think you know how the one shown in this thread was made and who, tell me wiseguy? I would love to know.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Assuming it's printed, normal size and on carboard, what way it was printed will have little effect on it's value. Whether it's a computer print, lithograph or screen print, a modern reprint of the stip is worth a few bucks at most.

If it's a well done 30x16 inches oil painting reproduction, then it would be worth more.

If the theory is that it's some 'special' old time reprint, I'll bet a reprint of the strip didn't exist before the 1999 Sotheby's Halper auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Nice job killing your own thread dumb-a**.

You did all right getting some info and answers for 78 posts, even while you appeared to ignore valid questions by long-time board members. You even managed to beat it back to life a few times for more comment.

Then you go and imply that Frank Ward is a forger. Way to go, dust.

Joann Kline

[Archive]

Posted By: David

Thanks Cycleback, thats what I was thinking also. But what if it was made before that time? Just finding it interesting why they would choose the printing process they did, post 1999.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I doubt the strip pictured above is a screen print.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

I am just going to tuck away for a bit, until I can set up a more detailed interview with an experienced printer and he can look at it under 60-100x. Until then, it will look fine on the wall! Thanks for your help. I'll contact you if i find out anything new, or interesting. Thanks for your time Cycleback!

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

Oh well,
David, I was surprised this post got more than 10 responses in the first place. For it to last a month and a day is even more surprising, and even a bit funny. Then your last response topped them all


My question, Are you going to bump this worthless post back to life again in 2 weeks?

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

i wonder who reprints the nicest 52 mantle?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Frank, I, and I think others, didn't realize until today that the strip pictured near the top was the strip in question.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

Only if I find something interesting Frank. I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else. Another one of my main points/questions, was to find out why ebay stopped the listing after 5 days, when I put it was a reprint. i was just wondering whose copyright I was infringing upon. I didn't make the thing, so I asked the question of where it did come from. Thats all. Thats what started me asking questions. And I won't know anything new until a knowledgeable printer can have a look. I know what I see under a 60-100x microscope, and its not like anything else I have. No big deal, like I said before, I learned a lot in the process, and believe I could identify the true T206's because of the research I did on this piece. So, a lot gained as I see it. As far as the orginal goes, and this thread going 80+, most of it is all speculation, and no one seems to know the true story...

[Archive]

Posted By: scott ingold

Sorry to bump this worthless thread BUT........am i the only one who thinks there are 2 authors playing David ?

Why you got to be like that? ( From his response to Frank)

Just thought it didn't fit with the rest ?

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

Try scanning your fake strip and then uploading it to photobucket.com, a free image hosting service. Then copy the URL tag and paste the tag into your next post on this thread. That way you can get a nice sized scan into the thread without having to deal with the limitations of uploading through Net54.

[Archive]

Posted By: Keith O'Leary

I don't care what size it is, I'll get it posted.

 

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

This is a forum for vintage baseball cards...not discussing the printing process of a common reprint from the last 5 years...Leon, please lock this thing...

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: robert a

No way, this thread's hilarious!

I like the part where the reprint guy called Frank a forger.

I've learned a lot here.

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

....I don't think anyone reading this thread thinks that David was serious when he suggested that Frank might be a forger. He has been getting attacked from all sides on this one for no good reason and you guys are surprised when he lashes out? The surprise is that it took so long.

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

"Mystery Of The T206 Honus Wagner Uncut Proof Strip"

The only "mystery" here is how this thread survived a month and why it is approaching 100 posts.

I second the motion to lock (and preferably delete) this thread, due to what appears to be questionable motives by the OP.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

It's apparent to most of us that the originator of the thread owns an inexpensive reprint, but from what I've read he's been polite and curteous. I'll take him at face value in that he's curious about a item he owns.

Today's laser computer printers can sometimes make unusual ink patterns that I can imagine someone could mistaken for a screen print with viewing under a magnifying glass.