Altered high grade E93s in Mile High?

Peter_Spaeth · #1 07-11-2015, 12:52 PM

Again, I see specks on the 8.5 but not the 9, along the top border and in the upper left quadrant. Maybe it's the scan. But I see them.

poorlydrawncat · #2 07-11-2015, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Again, I see specks on the 8.5 but not the 9, along the top border and in the upper left quadrant. Maybe it's the scan. But I see them.

Of course they're different, but that's not the point. It's their similarities that are significant.

I mean, imagine if the 8.5 didn't have those little specks. It would look exactly the same as the 9, you would swear they were the same card. They have nearly everything else in common. Same registration, centering, printing defects (hickey), etc. I would have thought that two cards with unique provenances from the e93 set could not possibly have so many features in common.

But they aren't the same card. And if Wagner already has one (nearly) identical twin, who's to say the 6 just isn't another card with the same registration, centering, printing defects etc. as the 8.5 and the 9?

Peter_Spaeth · #3 07-11-2015, 01:22 PM

In your prior post you said they looked "identical." Sorry but I am now confused as to your point.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 07-11-2015, 01:26 PM

Also, my assumption is that Lichtman is relying on more than scans to suggest the 6 and 9 are the same card.

1880nonsports · #5 07-11-2015, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Also, my assumption is that Lichtman is relying on more than scans to suggest the 6 and 9 are the same card.

this thread reminds me a bit of the telephone game. Not quite sure what anyone is saying at this point - some of the argument seems to be lost in the translation and between too many cards............

poorlydrawncat · #6 07-11-2015, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In your prior post you said they looked "identical." Sorry but I am now confused as to your point.

Ok, let me clarify. People were saying "look how many similarities there are between the psa 6 and the 9, they must be the same card! Look at the registration! The centering! Look at the printing defect next to Wagner's head! They must be the same card!"

But all the similarities people are pointing out are also shared by the 8.5 and the 9, making all the similarities meaningless if you're trying to use them as evidence that the 6 and the 9 are the same card since we know that the 8.5 and the 9 are unique, individual specimens.

Must the 6 and the 9 be the same card because they share the same centering, registration, hickey etc? NO, because the 8.5 also has all those same features and but is not the same card. Therefore it would be faulty logic to assume that on the basis of their similarities the 6 and the 9 must be the same card, because the same similarities are shared by the 8.5 and the 9, which we know for a fact are not the same card.

That being said, I know you're saying there might be more evidence somewhere, but without it there seems to be absolutely no basis to assume they are the same card. It is however, entirely possible that they are of course and that someone doctored it. My only point is that their physical similarities are not enough to justify that claim alone. Which surprises me, because I would have though that two cards from the e93 set that shared so many similarities would have to be the same card, but the 8.5 and the 9 proves that that assumption is just not true.

Peter_Spaeth · #7 07-11-2015, 01:48 PM

Well I would assume PSA would have caught recoloring, so the 8.5 CAN'T be the same card as the 9, whereas there is no inconsistency between the 6 and the 9.

But to your broader point, I guess I was considering as part of the evidence the confidence with which the thread was posted, knowing it could potentially hamper the then-active auction of a card that had sold in 6 figures. And not just the scans.

poorlydrawncat · #8 07-11-2015, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well I would assume PSA would have caught recoloring, so the 8.5 CAN'T be the same card as the 9, whereas there is no inconsistency between the 6 and the 9.

I agree, PSA definitely would have caught that. But when the 8.5 and 9 were printed, they were printed identically. Before someone scuffed the front on the 8.5, those cards were indistinguishable from one another. At that point it doesn't take a huge leap of faith to imagine that the 6 and the 8.5 and the 9 were at one time indistinguishable from one another, right when they were made at the factory. We know the 8.5 was scuffed and the 9 survived pretty well. It could just be the case that the 6 was a third identical card that wound up with some caramel stains from being packaged.

I guess most people would say, "well duh." But I actually think it's surprising, since I've never seen cards from that set (or other sets from that era with low populations) that have examples of cards with IDENTICAL printing patterns/defects/etc (differences in condition aside).

And yea, I totally see the reason why someone wouldn't want to disclose the evidence. I just really want to know, because despite all my doubts I cannot deny that the 6 and the 9 being the same card is certainly plausible. The cynic in me would even say it's likely, given the shadiness of the hobby.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FS 51 Cards 1970 Topps All High Numbers High Grade!	Northviewcats	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	12-12-2014 02:53 PM
1956 Mickey Mantle PSA 7 Rare HIGH END HIGH Grade	CollectiblesNJ	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	49	07-18-2013 02:31 PM
For Trade My High Grade T206s for Your High Grade Cobb Portraits	RGold	Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T	3	11-28-2012 07:37 PM
Mile High- T 209 Set	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	14	10-02-2008 02:13 PM
High-grade E93s Wanted	Archive	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	0	01-20-2006 09:22 AM