[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

In the discussion regarding the authenticity of the 1930 Ruth calendar card, a great question was posed -- if, as I and others have said, scientific testing can only establish what something is not, not what something is, how then does one authenticate a never-before-seen item? The answer is by corroborating evidence, which, depending on how much there is of it and its persuasiveness, may lead to a conclusions ranging from "I'm still really up in the air" (meaning a tremendous leap of faith is required to believe in the authenticity of the item) to "As a practical matter, there is no question the item is genuine".

Before I give some examples showing how this has come into play, let me very briefly explain what is meant when it is said scientific testing establishes only the negative, not the positive. Scientific testing looks for the presence of substances that were not in existence and/or commercially available when the item was purportedly made. If such substances are detected, then that must mean either the item cannot date to the period alleged (because the substance wasn't yet invented) or the item almost certainly does not date to that period (because the substance while invented was not yet commercially available). So in the case of a unique baseball card dating to, say, the late 19th century, even if the testing shows all aspects of its physical compostion are consistent with substances commercially available at the time of the card's alleged manufacture, an identical testing result can be achieved by a skilled counterfeiter making the card in his lab the day before the item is sent to the testing lab and using substances known to be commercially available in the late-19th century. However, if the testing detects the presence of a substance not even invented until, say, the mid-20th century, then one can say with certainty the card cannot date to the late-19th century. Hence the phrase scientific testing can only prove what something is not, not what something is.

Here are a couple of examples of how this comes into play pertaining to two never-before-seen items I actually own (thereby compelling me to deal with the issue of corroborating evidence) -- the Just So Young and an 1867 Trophy Bat. In the case of the Just So Young, that card is part of a known set and Young was member of the same team that depicts all the other known players. Accordingly, we are neither dealing with a never-before-seen issue nor a player not from the team that depicts all the other known players. If, instead of the player being Cy Young it turned out to be Amos Rusie (not a member of the Cleveland Spiders), then legitimate questions can be raised as what the heck is Rusie in a Just So issue and therefore maybe something fishy is going on. Second, the card came with six other Just So's and the provenance leads to an old-time family in the Cleveland area (where the issue was distributed). So putting this all together I had no practical questions as to the card's authenticity.

In the case of the 1867 Trophy Bat (given to the winner of the New England Baseball Tournament that year), the bat was described in a (i) 19th century book about Boston baseball written by someone with first-hand knowledge of the tournament and (ii) a period newspaper accounting of the tournament which specifically mentioned the presentation of the trophy bat. In addition, the bat was illustrated in a period piece of sheet music commemorating the winning team. Finally the bat had been owned for the past 50+ years by a woman who, besides having other period pieces pertaining to mid-19th century New England Baseball, was earlier in her life a caretaker for a person who was a descendant of one of the players who actually played in the tournament. So again the leap of faith required to believe in the genuiness of the item was de minimus. Had, on the other hand, none of this corroborating evidence existed, then regardless what scientific testing showed, quite possibly I would have regarded the bat as something too good to be true and either not purchased it or purchased it only at a substantially lower price.

So, getting back to the original question, authenticating unique items is as much an art as it is a science and sometimes, if there is no corroborating evidence, such items simply cannot be authenticated.

edited twice for grammar/spelling