Recolored 1888 N162 Cap Anson from SGC 1.5 to PSA 4

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

This thread is a good example of why we shouldn't jump to conclusions or present speculation as fact. Without getting into the whole conservation vs alteration mess there is a difference in my opinion between removing excess paper or scrap book residue and recoloring a card, rebuilding a corner, trimming, etc.

We should be especially careful when making claims like this about cards that are live in current auctions.

The card sure looks like it's been re-colored to me. Look at the spot on the left of the card that I believe to be paper loss. Now see my pics below. The pic on the left is from the Heritage Auction. The pic on the right is from the PWCC auction. In the PWCC auction you can see what appears to me to be the same spot filled in with color. If you look real hard, you can still see the same pattern of paper loss even through the added color. You can also see what appears to be a small speck of white where the added color wasn't filled in all the way. It's there. Now maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me and it's really something else other than added color? That's a possibility. But there is definitely something there and I see it. If the owner of the card wants to conveniently overlook it, that's fine. He can also conveniently overlook the paper loss in the upper left corner and believe it's really a PSA 4 if he wants to.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The card sure looks like it's been re-colored to me. Look at the spot on the left of the card that I believe to be paper loss. Now see my pics below. The pic on the left is from the Heritage Auction. The pic on the right is from the PWCC auction. In the PWCC auction you can see what appears to me to be the same spot filled in with color. If you look real hard, you can still see the same pattern of paper loss even through the added color. You can also see what appears to be a small speck of white where the added color wasn't filled in all the way. It's there. Now maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me and it's really something else other than added color? That's a possibility. But there is definitely something there and I see it. If the owner of the card wants to conveniently overlook it, that's fine. He can also conveniently overlook the paper loss in the upper left corner and believe it's really a PSA 4 if he wants to.

I tend to believe the guy with the card in hand, even if his opinion is biased. As he is the one who owns the card it doesn't really matter what the rest of us think. And regardless of whether it's been soaked, recolored, or isn't altered at all it's a nice looking card that I wouldn't mind having in my collection.

[boneheadandrube]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The card sure looks like it's been re-colored to me. Look at the spot on the left of the card that I believe to be paper loss. Now see my pics below. The pic on the left is from the Heritage Auction. The pic on the right is from the PWCC auction. In the PWCC auction you can see what appears to me to be the same spot filled in with color. If you look real hard, you can still see the same pattern of paper loss even through the added color. You can also see what appears to be a small speck of white where the added color wasn't filled in all the way. It's there. Now maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me and it's really something else other than added color? That's a possibility. But there is definitely something there and I see it. If the owner of the card wants to conveniently overlook it, that's fine. He can also conveniently overlook the paper loss in the upper left corner and believe it's really a PSA 4 if he wants to.

It's probably small spots of paper loss where the stuck piece lifted some of the surface off with it when it was removed. The pattern could just be that the surface underneath was covered for so long that the color is darker from less exposure. Ever taken a sticker off of something that was outside for awhile and the surface underneath was un-faded?

The 19th century scrapbooks I've come across have had dozens of non-sport cards just like the Anson, pasted or glued in them. When you remove by soaking them there isn't always a clean separation from the pages. The card is 131 years old, if it had paper shards stuck to it for that long there's a good chance some of the ink surface fused with the glue and came off. I can't justify the grade at all but a couple people are really wanting this to be a color touch up when its likely not. If it was they sure did a crappy job leaving a bunch of tiny spots!

[D. Bergin]

I'm starting to lean towards the evidence that there was paper stuck to the front of the card that was removed, however that doesn't excuse the remnants of the glue stain on the back, and the back of the card also looking like the text was sandpapered over several times.

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The card sure looks like it's been re-colored to me. Look at the spot on the left of the card that I believe to be paper loss. Now see my pics below. The pic on the left is from the Heritage Auction. The pic on the right is from the PWCC auction. In the PWCC auction you can see what appears to me to be the same spot filled in with color. If you look real hard, you can still see the same pattern of paper loss even through the added color. You can also see what appears to be a small speck of white where the added color wasn't filled in all the way. It's there. Now maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me and it's really something else other than added color? That's a possibility. But there is definitely something there and I see it. If the owner of the card wants to conveniently overlook it, that's fine. He can also conveniently overlook the paper loss in the upper left corner and believe it's really a PSA 4 if he wants to.

I think there's a distinction in color in the area where the paper was compared to the rest of the card. I don't think it's due to recoloring, but, rather, the ink under the paper having not been exposed to the elements for the past ~130 years the way the rest of the card's front was. We're talking about a difference in color that's so slight that even having blown the image up, what, 10x?, it's still a case of some people see it and some don't. With such a subtle change I think my theory seems more logical than PSA missing multiple recolored spots.

[1880nonsports]

(no not the one Kawhi Leonard hit to win the seventh game at the last second) but based on all the scans posted I think it's almost a certainty that there was just excess paper removed. Possibly due to the sticky finger theory as many times that's the case with antique paper in the form of trade and insert cards that have been glued in a scrapbook by a child with six fingers BUT such a condition would likely result in the part of the layer underneath coming loose from the card when removing it.
Particular to this issue and quite a few other "N" cards is that they were glued into stock or company issued albums - often contemporaneous with their issue. The company issued album pages had a very porous texture and the inking on the N162's (and others) was layered on the surface. Over time small bits of paper fiber from an opposing album page might adhere to the front of a card as the items are exposed to aging and varying storage conditions - often while pressed together in a box with great great grandpa's stuff in the attic for generations. When the excess fiber is removed by soaking (NOT always possible) - the underlying inking may exhibit any number of differences - sometimes subtle on a micro level when compared to the unaffected surrounding neighborhood under scrutiny and at other times more obvious. That's pretty much what I see here. I have seen quite a few examples of this in my 20+ years of collecting this stuff.

SOAKING CARDS HAS BEEN AN ACCEPTED PRACTICE BY A WIDE MAJORITY OF HOBBY PARTICIPANTS at least as best I can judge since I started collecting. I would imagine more than 80% of 19th century tobacco cards were soaked from an album and likely significantly more. You would have a different hobby if soaking was verboten. If there's no paper loss from the machinations whether to the printing on the back or a depiction on the front - I find no issue. It's up to the consumer.

no guarantees whether written or implied

[vintagetoppsguy]

I'll concede the added color issue. I don't have the card in hand, so I can't say with certainty. That issue aside, does anybody believe the card merits a PSA 4? Before anyone answers, look at the top left corner again.

SGC graded it a 1.5. PSA graded it a 4. Which TPG got it right?