misprinted caramel cards

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

This is what happens when you don't collect something but find it kind of neat....if anyone wants to show some caramel print freaks they are fun to see....I picked this up a day or two ago from the Just Collect guys...(heck, it might have been last night....darn addiction)..BTW, I love the big borders...for all you newbies here's a hint...look for big borders (especially) on high condition cards....stay away from little teeny borders, slab or not... ..best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I nearly bought this one a while back but forgot to put in my snipe on it, cool card. And its all about the big borders, i dont trust those small crisp ones.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Will post the ghost of M. Brown when I get to my home computer tonight.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jim- that's still my all-time favorite caramel misprint card- it's just so weird and eerie looking!

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Dawson

Heck, that card looks normal when I look at it through my 3-D glasses -


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Bruce MacPherson

Here is a copy of my Stone. I have owned two of these cards and both showed the same offset printing. I wonder why since all of my other 92 Nadja's are fine.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

that's wierd! 2 almost identical stone printing errors! Wierd.

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

I dont have a scan but the only Nadja card i have is Stone and it looks just like those 2 cards which is why i bought it in the first place

[Archive]

Posted By: robert a

Bruce,

Could be nadjas were printed one player to a sheet and Stone's sheet was misaligned.

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: Bruce MacPherson

I bet you are right. I am just so used to seeing the uncut sheets from later years with multiple players, I didn't even think about the possiblity of a single player sheet. Leon, sorry to hijack the thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: Damian Anderson

I recently won the same card and it has a very similiar print to it. Sorry I don't have a good scan. I am betting this is a tought card to find in good focus. Here is the auction, my grade on it just popped from PSA today, obviously a 1.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=020&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT&viewitem=&item=300070764454&rd=1&rd=1

Be Well,
Damian

[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

picked this one up on the BST a few months ago

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

edited to add regular M. Brown

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Brown looks like he saw a ghost.......great card...

[Archive]

Posted By: BcDaniels

I had that card for 15 years Leon before I sold it to Koos raw for $85. Thing cracks me up! Of all the Nadja cards there are several Stones out there like that!

BcD

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin

"Brown looks like he saw a ghost.......great card..."

Won't go into details but I can almost guarantee you that is a doctored card. So much so I would bet money (a lot) on it.

Hope it didn't cost too much.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Kevin- how was it doctored?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill K

Boy, it sure is easy to come on to the board semi-anonymously and cast "doctored" accusations at cards. How about actually giving us some insight, or are you actually expecting someone to step up and bet you money that you are right?

Phenomenal card...kevin is a joke.

Bill

My personal collection - http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f176/fkm_bky/

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Here's that fine line between anonymity and being known. I personally feel that "Kevin" (hi Kevin) should come forward with definitive information as to why he is making that accusation, or his full name, or preferably both. I don't think, in this instance, I would mandate it as a rule. However, personally I take people more seriously when I know who they are. I am not saying "Kevin" is lying or is necessarily wrong, but we don't know who he is so that leaves room for skepticism. best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin

"Boy, it sure is easy to come on to the board semi-anonymously"

It's because of comments like this that I have avoided this board for so long (as have so many others) and will more than likely continue to avoid it.

I'm really not making doctored "accusations"...it's more or less fact based and "higly probable." Any insight would only lead to continued and unwanted comments and, as I said, I will not go into details.

"Phenomenal card...kevin is a joke".

Thanks again for your kind words.

Kevin Saucier

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

I think the majority of people here would want to hear your reasoning for saying the card is doctored. Because you don't like what Bill said you won't go into it???

And speaking of "this is the reason I've stayed away from this board so long".....well, you come out of nowhere and accused the Brown card of being altered. Do you expect people to just start agreeing with you? Of course most reply's are going to be "what in the world are you talking about" until you say what in the world your talking about...

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Just so you know my post was not a personal attack. Put yourself in the place of who owns the card. If someone, that wasn't known to the board, said that your card was most likely doctored wouldn't you want to know why, and who was saying it? It seems like you probably have some really good hobby knowledge. I hope you will continue to share in the future too....To me, half the fun of the hobby is the camaraderie....take care..

edited horrible spelling

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh Adams

Why does it matter what Kevin's last name is, if he has an opinion that the Brown card has been altered? So if Kevin posted his last name, along with any other identifying personal information, you would all take his word for it? But because he doesn't say his last name, the substance of his post is suspect? Doesn't make much sense to me.

However, I would like to know, how can you (Kevin) tell from the scan that the card is, in fact, altered?
A little more knowledge never hurt.

[Archive]

Posted By: robert a

Wouldn't matter to me if this card is altered.
This one's just for fun.

Kevin,

Hope you stick around to experience some of the positive aspects of the board.
This board doesn't have one collective personality. It's a bunch of people with many different opinions, philosophies, interestes, etc.

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

I know Kevin -- even met him once. He is very short, but not bashful.

I am sure he will be back with details.

Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: andy becker

didn't kevin saucier play for the tigers in the early 1980's?

the card is obviously altered.....it is "skinned" on the front. what amazing technology the card doctors have these days.....the ability to "peel" a picture.

fantastic card jimb....

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I would agree that it's more important to know why someone thinks something is altered than who they are. Knowing who someone is can give more credibility though.....but again, my main thrust would be the "why" part...

edited to say I just wanted to say "thrust"...

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Kevin- I know the owner is very proud of his M. Brown card, and if you do think it is doctored, which is something that has never come up before, it would only be fair to back up your claim. Anyone can throw around that this or that card has been doctored.

And if in fact you have made it a point to stay away from the board, why make your first post one that is both negative and likely to be met with some skepticism? Hardly the best way to introduce yourself, and I don't think it was unreasonable for board members to take you to task.

A Kevin Saucier played in the majors from 1978-82, mostly with the Phillies. Is that you?

[Archive]

Posted By: andy becker

i believe that kevin saucier's 1981 topps card pictures him with the tigers. i really don't remember him other than the 81 topps.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin

It may just be a futile point. Any opinion made with "this particular" card would probably still be met skepticism...as expected. As long as the owner is pleased with it, that's all that matters.


I've posted a few times here recently and may have been outted on this thread near the bottom:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1170334983/last-1170575364/Collector%27s+Association


Kevin

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I politely disagree. If you give the facts/thoughts behind your statements it will go a long way towards acceptance and thwart much of the skepticism. Just saying that you believe a card is altered WILL be met with skepticism as it should, imo. No different than if I make a statement with no corroborating facts, and I am fairly well know to the board. Also, in all fairness, you weren't really "outed" in the thread you posted unless I missed something. I never saw your last name (and no, I don't really care about that) nor did I see more details of your statements except you asking Jim C to email you for details. Please take my thoughts in the utmost respectful way as I am not trying to demean you. My guess is you know more than I do and have been doing this longer than me...not that that matters too much..Thanks again for participating. It's this sort of debate that makes this board most interesting.....kind regards

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Kevin- I wouldn't worry about being met with skepticism. Worst that could happen is someone will disagree with you. I for one would like to hear what has been done to this card, and I will listen to what you have to say with an open mind (though I may have a different point of view).

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill K

Kevin,

Saying you were a joke was wrong...my apologies for that, it's not acceptable behavior, but I do still question the manner in which you threw out the idea that the E93 Brown was altered. Giving a blanket statement such as that, on top of asking for bets will only garner you skepticism. If indeed you are renowned for your skills at detecting altered cards please educate us. Everyone here wants to learn (well, most everyone).

Sincerely,

Bill

My personal collection - http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f176/fkm_bky/>

[Archive]

Posted By: andy becker

hi kevin,
i too probably owe an apology. sorry if i misjudged your intent.
i would really like to hear more regarding the altering of the card.
regards
andy

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Kevin posted a card which he explained had been put through the proverbial wringer, including heavy bleaching. Glue/residue had been removed, as well as general staining, creasing, etc., and the card had then been slabbed by PSA.
Kevin made the point that he had done this as an experiment of sorts, many times over, and that the grading community was not up to catching the alterations.
I'm wondering if through this experience Kevin you found layers of ink were removed seperately, leaving ghosted images, and this is the basis of your post?
If so, undoubtedly all would be interested and would have much to learn about your findings.


Sincerely
Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

If in fact this is true, and the whole central portion including the name has been bleached, how does one explain that the belt is still visible?

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

I was trying to work out the missing colors etc. and any other clues.
Clearly the Yellow is completely absent - leaving a cyan'ish background, and also I thought the red missing....but then I noticed on the top rim outline of his cap, there indeed lies a little red outline - as can be seen in the correct image too. These t206's were black and white 'photo style' images upon which color was laid down, correct? So it would seem possible at least, that perhaps the correct (even if just stumbled upon) solvent would remove that initial b&w image more easily than perhaps the other colored inks used, and that the cyan somehow held on more tenaciously, with just a smidge of magenta too...i think perhaps Barry - the belt (and his cap) is simply cyan with a little magenta thrown in to darken it. There is also a toned 'wash' seemingly on the card that may have been residue of a chemical peel...

Just conjecture on my part, but problem solving even an incorrect hypothesis can be fun.

Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

If all that is true, that is some pretty major work. I have never seen the card in person, only a scan of it. I would be interested to hear how Jim B. responds to this, since he at least has the ability to look at the card under a loupe and see if any of this makes sense.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I will grab it out of the safety deposit box and look closely. Will report back later. So far, all there is is an utterly unsubstantiated accusation. My first though is that if this were a scam someone is doing to make money, then (1) why have we not seen more of them? and (2) Why not do it on T206s where people pay crazy money for printing freaks? I got this card relatively cheaply in a Lew Lipset auction.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Maybe no scam Jim, maybe just someone screwing around altering cards who then decided to dump it on the market....

Or of course, this could all just be C@*P and the card is actually as reported - a printing error


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: martin dalziel

Kevin,
In the other thread that you referenced you said

"IMHO having the knowledge will lead to making an educated decision based on clear objective findings but will not be a cure all. In fact it just may complicate matters. Nonetheless the info needs to get out there."

I won't speak for others but I absolutely want to make educated decisions based on clear objective findings. I collect a lot of odd-ball stuff and would appreciate your getting whatever info you might have out there (here).

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Well I have inspected the card closely under 10X loupe and black light. I see no indications of alteration at all. Unless Kevin can provide any supporting evidence for his unsubstantiated claim, I personally, will disregard it. With all the experts on this board who love to chime in on altered cards, the fact that nobody else sees anything glaring seems to support my conviction that it is an unaltered printing error.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin

Different year, different card, different country, but you get the picture. Plus, keep in mind, this was a rush job.



Unlike many here, I'm no expert..but IMO a blacklight is of little use to examine these and many other alterations. It has a purpose but it's limited to just a few type of inspections.

Problem with card doctors is they don't think outside of the box.

Enjoy!

Kevin Saucier

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Since the 1800s, there have been color progression proofs, which are used before final printing to test all the colors combinations for a card (red/blue, yellow/black, etc). Below are progression proofs for a 1975 Hostess card that came from the Topps Archives. The cards have no text. While rare, bizarre color combinations can happen due to intentional proofing or misprinting.



Other than for personal experiment, I don't know why someone would intentionally remove Brown's facade, as it presumably lowers the value. Most paying collectors prefer Brown to be all there. Also, it appears the background of the finished card is made up of two inks-- olive and yellow. I don't believe it would be possible to remove one color ink while leaving the other. Anything you do to remove one ink is going to remove the other inks at the same area. For the background of Jim's card, it appears only one ink was printed-- which is consistent with other parts of the card not being printed.

It's an out of the ordinary card, no doubt, but it seems to me unlikely a forger looking for money would intentionally make a card to look like that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Interesting example Kevin...

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin

"I don't believe it would be possible to remove one color ink while leaving the other. Anything you do to remove one ink is going to remove the other inks at the same area."


Yes it is.

No it won't.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

In physically altering a card (as opposed to digitally altering with a graphics program), if a baseball card from 1909 or 1950 has a background area overlapping in two colors of ink:

1) One cannot remove one printer's ink in the area while leaving the other ink unaffected. The two inks are dissolved by the same substance, and if the substance dissolves one ink it will dissolve the other. The liquid used to dissolve lithographic ink is nasty stuff. Telling it to dissolve one color but not the other is like tossing a ham and bologna sandwich into a lion's den and telling the lions to only eat the bologna.

2) Even if it could be done, I have no idea why someone would want to remove the yellow from Jim's card, while leaving the olive. Even if the person was trying to make a forgery, it makes no sense to go to what would be the great technical effort of removing just the yellow ink from the background for a potential buyer who wouldn't care or likely even notice that the background is olive instead of green. It's like a single person eating a motorcycle in 24 hours (and living). I don't believe it could be done and, even if it could, I don't what would possess someone to take his Thursday off to eat a motorcycle.

If you're talking about making a modern digitally altered reprint, that would be a different story. Even Topps came out with a blue T206 Honus Wagner.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

David, I know Kevin well enough to tell you that the english soccer card he showed is NOT a digital reprint.

You stated : "1) One cannot remove one printer's ink in the area while leaving the other ink unaffected."

I think Kevin has done just that, although I don't know how he did it.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The soccer card has had quite a few inks removed, including in the background. Erasing all the overlapping color inks from a point is different that intentionally removing only one of multiple overlapping inks at a point. It two paper targets are side by side, it's easy to shoot one and miss the other. If the targets are placed touching one directly in front of the other, like pages in a closed book, it's nearly impossible to shoot one and miss the other. Similarly, with overlapping inks at a point, one can easily remove all the inks or none of the inks, but one can't intentionally remove just one while leaving the others behind. That is what I am saying is not possible. As most card collectors know, printers often intentionally overlapped two color inks to make a third color. From observation or knowing what 'primary' colors were used by the printer, a collector can determine where on a Pre-War card inks physically overlap to create an intentionally different color.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin

"one can't intentionally remove just one while leaving the others behind"

Sure it can...I've done it many times but it does depend on the colors. Look closely at the soccer player, it has the same pre-war baseball card printdots that are blended and overlapping, yet the yellow on the bottom has been removed leaving the dark green/olive and black behind...just like the e93 Brown.

btw...some proofs and progressive proofs can be made as well.

As mentioned "It may just be a futile point" even when examples are shown.

Just imagine what is not being shown