Fake Signed T206 Cards (Too Many to List in the Title, See First Post for List)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Charles, Charley, and Charlie all on one card, that's pretty good.

[swarmee]

Too bad we can't access SGC's old cert lookup tool, because that would help us find other candidates subbed at the same time. Or to look for gaps in how many in the submission failed authentication at the time.

[Fred]

Wouldn't it draw the suspicion of auction houses or TPGs if one person kept making submissions of signed T206s, 1933 Goudeys, 1952T etc? Am I missing something? Was the person selling this stuff ungraded and then the buyers were having the cards authenticated by TPGs?

Wouldn't the TPGs see this huge influx of signed cards as a possible indication that something's wrong?

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by Fred

Wouldn't it draw the suspicion of auction houses or TPGs if one person kept making submissions of signed T206s, 1933 Goudeys, 1952T etc? Am I missing something? Was the person selling this stuff ungraded and then the buyers were having the cards authenticated by TPGs?

Wouldn't the TPGs see this huge influx of signed cards as a possible indication that something's wrong?

From what I hear, they don't even keep scans of the cards they grade. Talk about a lack of transparency. They should be scanning and uploading each autographed card to a searchable online database. That way the hobby can connect the dots if something is wrong.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Charles, Charley, and Charlie all on one card, that's pretty good.

Some collector I am!

I didn't even notice that, Peter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by irv

Some collector I am!

I didn't even notice that, Peter.

You may have to Chuck the card now.

[Orioles1954]

There's still a few living players from the 1952 Topps set. Not nearly as difficult as pre-war cards.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

From what I hear, they don't even keep scans of the cards they grade. Talk about a lack of transparency. They should be scanning and uploading each autographed card to a searchable online database. That way the hobby can connect the dots if something is wrong.

Soooo, they don't research the cards, they only reference what "known examples" they already have in their data-base, and they don't keep scans of newly submitted autos to grow said database for reference. How can you get better if you don't collect new data points? Oh, wait...you don't.

For all we know, they're comparing newly faked autos with previously faked autos...."yup, that's a match...slab it!"

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by conor912

Soooo, they don't research the cards, they only reference what "known examples" they already have in their data-base, and they don't keep scans of newly submitted autos to grow said database for reference. How can you get better if you don't collect new data points. Oh, wait...you don't.

For all we know, they're comparing newly faked autos with previously faked autos...."yup, that's a match...slab it!"

My theory is that once 1 fake gets through, it becomes an exemplar. After 2 fakes get through, that's 1 more exemplar, and so on...after a decade or two, the exemplar file will be completely contaminated and no one will know what's real and what's not.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You may have to Chuck the card now.

Originally Posted by irv

Good one!

Chuckle worthy

[conor912]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

after a decade or two, the exemplar file will be completely contaminated and no one will know what's real and what's not.

...or after 3-4 years.....starting 3-4 years ago

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

My theory is that once 1 fake gets through, it becomes an exemplar. After 2 fakes get through, that's 1 more exemplar, and so on...after a decade or two, the exemplar file will be completely contaminated and no one will know what's real and what's not.

This is likely the scary truth for some subjects, although I would guess that any autographs of the most popular athletes (and others), such as Mantle, Williams and the ilk, have many verifiable examples to use as the baseline.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Fred

Wouldn't it draw the suspicion of auction houses or TPGs if one person kept making submissions of signed T206s, 1933 Goudeys, 1952T etc? Am I missing something? Was the person selling this stuff ungraded and then the buyers were having the cards authenticated by TPGs?

Wouldn't the TPGs see this huge influx of signed cards as a possible indication that something's wrong?

You would think that the TPA's and AH's would get suspicious.
But money trumps all else,,,,,, stuff, ethics, integrity, etc.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Too bad we can't access SGC's old cert lookup tool, because that would help us find other candidates subbed at the same time. Or to look for gaps in how many in the submission failed authentication at the time.

Somebody else had mentioned about forgers possibly sending in 20 examples and if they got one passed, it made up for the losses and then some. But TPGs have to have a system in place where the failed authentications would raise a red flag, right? None of these TPGs could possibly get 20 submissions (or more) from one submitter (either of the same auto or the same set, etc.), fail 19 and authenticate one without raising submissions, right?!? That seems downright crazy...

[jad22]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Somebody else had mentioned about forgers possibly sending in 20 examples and if they got one passed, it made up for the losses and then some. But TPGs have to have a system in place where the failed authentications would raise a red flag, right? None of these TPGs could possibly get 20 submissions (or more) from one submitter (either of the same auto or the same set, etc.), fail 19 and authenticate one without raising submissions, right?!? That seems downright crazy...

They wouldn't necessarily send them in themselves. They might send them off to multiple Auction Houses that way it gets spread out.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

Somebody else had mentioned about forgers possibly sending in 20 examples and if they got one passed, it made up for the losses and then some. But TPGs have to have a system in place where the failed authentications would raise a red flag, right? None of these TPGs could possibly get 20 submissions (or more) from one submitter (either of the same auto or the same set, etc.), fail 19 and authenticate one without raising submissions, right?!? That seems downright crazy...

It would seem so, but that could happen a few different ways.


Like if someone bought a bunch of autos from some random flea market guy and one was actually real.

Or they inherited a collection and started sending them in a few at a time.


If someone is constantly buying bad stuff and paying me to tell them it's bad I'm not sure I'd want them to stop. I'd probably tell them after a while, but that's in the "I feel bad for them but kinda don't "category.

[atx840]

Heads up these cards were bought by the same buyer, not sure if there are known signed copy.
March 8, 2015


August 22, 2015


August 21, 2015

[Promethius88]

[QUOTE=atx840;1831683]Heads up these cards were bought by the same buyer, not sure if there is a known signed copy.


If there's not, there will be soon!!

[jad22]

[QUOTE=Promethius88;1831685]

Originally Posted by atx840

Heads up these cards were bought by the same buyer, not sure if there is a known signed copy.


If there's not, there will be soon!!

https://huntauctions.com/phone/image...162&lot_num=10

[Shoeless Moe]

What if his Ebay ID is:

T206Forger

Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass!

[drcy]

Originally Posted by steve B

If someone is constantly buying bad stuff and paying me to tell them it's bad I'm not sure I'd want them to stop.

Auction houses ask me for opinions and it's always hard stuff where they don't have the answer. I'd like sometimes for them to send me a scan and I get to reply "It says reprint right there at the bottom."

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Too bad we can't access SGC's old cert lookup tool, because that would help us find other candidates subbed at the same time. Or to look for gaps in how many in the submission failed authentication at the time.

Beat me to it! Lol.