Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards
My problem is false negatives from grading companies. I understand it, but not every rejected card is actually fake. The foil stamping process is not an exact science. You will get stronger and weaker stamps. Even the Boggs in this thread I wouldn't rule out 100% as it looks like an overly heavy stamp, but I see a lot of the correct details under all that excess foil. I have dealt with these quite a bit and they are a very frustrating set.
|
Scott's raises an interesting point about the embossing. What is the answer? I am really not sure - but some variability is likely.
Is there anyone on here familiar with embossing? If so it would be helpful to get their input.
One of the issues with discussing DS cards is that every time more information comes out on how to spot a fake, the fakes get better. So I am not going to discuss these issues. I am not an expert on DS cards but I have reviewed quite a few. And fakes are getting better all the time. And some fakes have been graded by every grading service.
My original reference samples come from one of the creators of the DS set. He was a Topps executive in charge of the initial set design and production. He would take home sample sheets of this and other sets, presumably to review before the sets went in to full production. I was told other Topps people working on the set, also took home sample sheets. Sadly, the Topps exec passed before I got much information about the production of the set. The set is believed to be printed in 1 limited print run early on in the printing process after some corrections were made (cards with corrections i.e. updated have a " * " on the back near the copyright logo) and they started adding brighteners to the ink.
To those not familiar with the background, I bought the DS samples in sheet form from the estate of the Topps exec. The estate had several thousand sheets and they were in the process of sending them to an auction house. I ended up purchasing 11 sheets total, almost 2 complete sets, about 1,500 cards total, including 2 Chipper cards.
It seems clear Topps was experimenting with different things throughout this process as they began experimenting with ink brighteners, which led to cards with "glow backs" as noted by 4Reals. The print run is thought to be very small and it is believed Topps made 1 print run after they corrected most of the major stat/name errors early on in the print run in an attempt to get cards printed and shipped overseas before Operation Desert Shield ended. You can spot some fake DS cards by these characteristics
The card characteristics noted in previous discussions are consistent from card to card on every sheet. The embossing is also very consistent. Embossing for the most part includes one style, one width for the lines, one font, same spacing between letters, same letter positioning, embossing that is in the exact same position on each card with the overall embossing being of consistent, clear quality. There are very few smudges or areas where the embossing didn't get transferred. There are very few cards where there is excess embossing.
It is likely the Topps exec pulled these sheets at the start of the print run to take them home and examine the sheets prior to full production. How consistent is the embossing process over an entire print run? Unsure. Some variability is likely - but just unsure of the answer to Scott's point above. Definitely a good point and worth discussing.
Thoughts?