Things are getting a little scarier for collectors

[tbob]

I remember when it was so easy to spot the counterfeit cards, the replicas, the reprints, the copies, the forgeries- whether it be the gloss or colors or paper stock or font, etc. I saw this card on eBay tonight and granted the seller does list it as a reprint but somehow you get the feeling this card could sell to an unscrupulous soul and wind up selling as the real deal. You don't usually see that many reprinted or fake caramel cards (the E90-1s with the number on the back which is always erased when they are tried to be passed off as real cards are the only exception I can think of) but this one makes me pause...

[familytoad]

Wow...that card looks good Bob, someone is a real artist if that's a fake. Its not perfect as you can sense when you look closer at the image, but dang, that would pull some bids!

Edit to say...its not a "fake", I guess a reprint is not exactly the same as a counterfeit, but the theory remains

[E93]

Definitely scary! Here is the real thing for comparison.
JimB

[caramelcard]

Jim,

Not a good example to post as comparison. "Normal" E93s don't look like that.

Yours is probably the nicest I've ever seen...so nice that it looks fake!

Great card.

Rob

[chaddurbin]

good home-made fakes are out there, you just need a good scanner and printer. but i bet in hand it will become more obvious. i expect the stock to be stiffer, hard to replicate 100 yr old cardboard.

[Matthew H]

I've collected ancient coins for the last 15 years and I can tell you that's a market that has almost been completely ruined by fakes and alteration. People have figured out how to fake a decent looking patina and have scared many many collectors out of collecting. I bought a coin last month, for $50, that I couldn't get for less then 300-400 ten years ago.

Lithographed cards have always scared me the most. Couldn't someone make a great fake using screen printing methods?

Like Quan stated above, it'll be the cardboard that won't be replicated. From issue to issue its too different.

What if a method was developed to remove all ink from a common card, then a more valueable card was printed... Whoa, scary. Hopefully Steve B will chime in and tell us it's impossible.

Originally Posted by Matthew H

What if a method was developed to remove all ink from a common card, then a more valueable card was printed... Whoa, scary. Hopefully Steve B will chime in and tell us it's impossible.

I believe one of our board members (Kevin S?) has a card that has had the front removed and attached to another. Like a 206/205. I guess anything is possible now days

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

What if a method was developed to remove all ink from a common card, then a more valueable card was printed...

Money counterfeiters have been doing that for years, bleaching singles and turning them into $50 and $100 bills. My guess is it would be easier to do with cards.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

I've collected ancient coins for the last 15 years and I can tell you that's a market that has almost been completely ruined by fakes and alteration. People have figured out how to fake a decent looking patina and have scared many many collectors out of collecting. I bought a coin last month, for $50, that I couldn't get for less then 300-400 ten years ago.

Lithographed cards have always scared me the most. Couldn't someone make a great fake using screen printing methods?

Like Quan stated above, it'll be the cardboard that won't be replicated. From issue to issue its too different.

What if a method was developed to remove all ink from a common card, then a more valueable card was printed... Whoa, scary. Hopefully Steve B will chime in and tell us it's impossible.

Not much good news I'm afraid.

Screen printing won't produce a decent copy. Plus the look of each type of printing is different.

Making an exact duplicate of most old cards is possible but would be expensive and require a lot of skill in more than one area. Plus a good original to work from or a very high res scan.

Removing all the ink from a card can be done, it's much tougher on the back than the front. The back is usually the raw cardboard but the front is coated so it will accept the ink in a different way, making the colors brighter.
The problem is finding a solvent that will work well without leaving obvious odors. The only one I know that fits that has been essentially banned since the late 90's to protect the ozone. (111Tricloroethane )

I've seen a couple really amazing fakes. One was a 51 Bowman Mantle. It looked amazing, but everyone that held it had the same reaction - "nice card, too bad it's fake" But nobody that saw it could figure out exactly why they felt it was fake. This was in 1982!
The other is a Joe Wood E121. If it wasn't for the fake overall stain and a back mismatch it would probably get past most people. I bought that one in 1978.

On the good side, modern printing is done from computer direct to the press with the plate made on the press itself. And that will usually look about like the product of a nice computer printer. The skills to do stuff the old way are going to become less common as time goes by.

Steve B

[Matthew H]

That's interesting, Steve, that the better fakes you've seen were created 30+ years ago.

Thanks for your input.

[Clutch-Hitter]

The Fro Joy Babe Ruth cards were counterfeited in the 70's, but the counterfeits were not of the factory cut singles, instead from counterfeit singles. People cut the fake sheets and sold the cards as singles (still do) or sold the entire sheets as if they were authentic. Some of these, with the dotted cut lines, perfect centering, poor image, etc can be found on ebay now. They're poor reproductions at best, but they're from the 70's, so do give an appearance of "old."

Then along came repli-cards, which were much better reproductions. Anyone familiar with how to spot a fake sheet or single cut from a fake sheet could still be ripped off with these and may have led some people to believe a printing plate still exists. But upon closer inspection, although they did a good job of printing the dark sections of each card, they did a poor job of printing the lighter areas. Take the #3 and #4 cards for example, fake next to a real card pictured below (scanned side by side with the same settings before extracting specific areas for comparison):

[tedzan]

One of the best BB card reprductions occurred in 1982....the counterfeit 1963 Topps rookie card of Pete Rose.

A very talented guy produced this fake. An excellent reproduction, it initially fooled many dealers at several shows. But, it was discovered at a California
show in 1982, simply because the guy "walked-in" to this show with 100's of these fake Rose rookies. And, in no time the dealers became very suspicious.

The real Rose rookie was very "hot" in the early 1980's....in '82 it was selling for approx. $250.

Anyone here venture a guess as to which of these cards is a fake ?






TED Z

[packs]

Is it the one on the right? I see a lot of Topps cards with the "bubbles" like the one on the left has. That yellow spot on Pedro.

[vintagerookies51]

Originally Posted by packs

Is it the one on the right? I see a lot of Topps cards with the "bubbles" like the one on the left has. That yellow spot on Pedro.

I was thinking the same thing. Do you know what those bubbles are caused by? I used to have a Mantle with one on it and I've always been curious.

[tedzan]

Both of these 1963 TOPPS rookie cards are counterfeit. I acquired the card on the left at the St. Louis National (1982) for $5......before the police
confiscated the fakes and stamped their backs








Follow-up question....how do you identify these fakes from the real Rose rookie cards ?


TED Z

[Peter_Spaeth]

Fakes have a black line around his cap, or a more pronounced one anyhow.

[tedzan]

Bingo.....you got it, buddy.

The real 1963 TOPPS #537 rookie card does not have a faint black trace line around Rose's cap....as is noticeable on these two counterfeit cards.


TED Z

[ullmandds]

wow...that's it? slight...but noticable!

Good to know...thanks for the knowledge!

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

wow...that's it? slight...but noticable!

Good to know...thanks for the knowledge!

Since 1982, I have had these two fakes with me at every BB card show I have set up at. And, if I had charged a $5 fee to the numerous customers
that have asked to see these fakes (in order to note the difference, or compare their Rose rookie), I would have had enough $$$$ to buy me a 1933
Goudey #53 Babe Ruth card (PSA4) to upgrade my set


TED Z

[steve B]

Originally Posted by vintagerookies51

I was thinking the same thing. Do you know what those bubbles are caused by? I used to have a Mantle with one on it and I've always been curious.

They're called fisheyes, or at the shop I worked for hickeys.

They're caused by a bit of debris on the offset blanket.

Short of it-
The inked plate prints the image to a rubber sheet that prints the image to the paper. If there's a piece of something on the rubber sheet it gets dented and the result is a spot of color with a blank ring around it. If there's another color in that area the other color will show.

The debris can fall off after one sheet, or hundreds. Once it's gone the problem is too.

Usually the debris is just a bit of dust or something like that. Once in a great while it's something identifiable like a moth. I haven't found one of those on a card yet, but someday.....

Steve B