Icon Authentics

[steve B]

That test would be nearly worthless for all but a handful of items.
Maybe on a dated item like a contract, or perhaps a multi signed item with signatures that rule out any date but pre 35 for all the signatures. but not on some memorabilia.

With the new pigment.
Pre 35 item dated - ok, but only exclusionary.

pre 35 item undated - means nothing. For example a 33 Goudey signed in 1940 could have the new pigment. On something like a team ball, if one signature had it but others didn't that would be suspect, but not certain proof that one signature is fake.

Without the new pigment
Pre 35 dated - looks good, but a faker at the time like a clubhouse guy or wife would have used old ink too.
Post 35 item - means less the closer the assumed date is to 35. Old ink stocks, inks that don't use that colorant etc.

As an ink pigment, there were plenty of inks that didn't use it even into the 1960's. (as determined by the Postal inspection service who presumably knew what they were doing. )
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwe...2&context=jclc

since pthalo blue is mostly lightfast, it's very likely that blue inks without it are still used today.


should autograph experts add some science to their "toolbox"? Probably. Is that science expensive? sort of, I looked at machines for non destructive spectroscopy, and it seemed like a minimum of $30K and I couldn't find one with a generalized database - databases specific to metals or other narrow fields yes, generalized ones no. Not a deal breaker, but that would force a user to interpret the raw data themselves, and not everyone knows the chemistry well enough.

[SetBuilder]

Steve,

With prices of autographs doubling every 5 years in the hobby, it's surely going to attract a whole new level of forger. Probably from the art or antiquities world. New tools will be needed in the toolbox, even if only marginal.

The ink test would probably be most useful to filter out inks that couldn't have been used during the player's lifetime. For instance, Parker "Quink" ink, which came out in the 1950's with a special drying solvent. If you've ever used Quink, you'll see that it has a distinct gold chemical sheen to it when you tilt the paper sideways near a light or under magnification. Dead giveaway that it's modern. Old ink would have contained a primitive pigment like indigo.

Like you said, it's not perfect. But forgers make mistakes.

For example, one of the most successful art forgers, Wolfgang Beltracchi, was only caught because he used a white paint containing titanium white. He forged a Heinrich Campendonk painting, and titanium white wasn't available when Campendonk died 1914.

As far as the cost of spectrometers and other equipment, it will probably come down over time. There's already prototypes of mini-spectrometers that can be plugged into a smartphone. I imagine that the authenticator of the future will carry one around in their pocket.