View Full Version : 1914 T222 Fatima
bbcemporium
11-05-2009, 03:21 PM
Does anyone know if there are many know reprints or counterfeits of these cards? Thanks in advance
Anthony S.
11-05-2009, 03:46 PM
I don't know about official reprint sets, but some clown out of Florida whose Ebay ID was "Marketkingman" created some T222 fakes in early 2008 and was trying to sell them on Ebay. He even went so far as to paste them into an old scrapbook. I couldn't tell you the numbers, but I remember seeing at least 3 or 4 different T222's.
Vintagecatcher
11-05-2009, 03:51 PM
One of the problems regarding T222 fatimas is that some have been soaked which removes the photo's gloss. The grading companies, including SGC, still have graded them, when they should be considered altered from the way they were issued/produced.
Patrick
bbcemporium
11-05-2009, 04:50 PM
Not the best scans, but thoughts anyway?
http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp164/bbcemporium/FatimaCard11.jpg
http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp164/bbcemporium/FatimaCard2.jpg
Hard to tell from the scan but the paper should be just like photographic paper on the front. Very glossy paper. I see little bits of crackling which is good unless it's a copy of a good one.
Personally I haven't seen the ones that have been soaked but it sounds reasonable that it would remove the gloss.....
ethicsprof
11-05-2009, 09:32 PM
Nice Johnson.
It looks good to me; Leon's cautions make sense to consider.
i've compared it as best I can with the Lapp T222 that i have in hand and the
ostensible lack of gloss on the Johnson is the only thing that might make me a bit careful.
best,
barry
bbcemporium
11-05-2009, 10:37 PM
Thanks guys, I appreciate the input.
The T222s are thin paper photos. As they are photos not ink and printing press prints, there is no printed dot pattern in the front image, nor on back. They are usually glossy or glossier on front and matte on back.
Jim VB
11-06-2009, 07:18 AM
Nice Johnson.
I have to say Barry, this is not something you often hear on a baseball card board. (Not that there's anything wrong with that!!!)
jrog007
11-06-2009, 08:05 AM
Barry,
I think he got you there. Glad the Lapp could help with someone else's Johnson.
Jim
ethicsprof
11-06-2009, 11:05 AM
Two Jims with two gems.
i've got to be more careful with my language!
thanks for the laughs, ole buddies.
best,
barry
FrankWakefield
11-06-2009, 03:50 PM
Maybe this is so obvious that no one's mentioning it...
Have you actually seen this Johnson Fatima card in person? They have color to them, kinda sepia. I could envision a monochrome fake that looks like that one, and such a fake might fool someone. The wear looks typical for the issue. It looks like a B&W scan of a real one. And a copy would look like that, too. If you look at the back of the card (not that scan of the card but the card itself) there should be no toning where it looks like the paper isn't flat.
These Fatimas are quite thin. Thin photographic paper.
If you haven't seen that Johnson Fatima in person, ask the guy to send you a color scan.
jrog007
11-06-2009, 04:43 PM
I thought the same thing about the color when I saw it. It does look more black and white than sepia.
I assumed it was a black and white digital image-- as the background is black and white too. As others have said, the Johnson looks pretty good except it's black and white. Fatimas have a bit of color to them, usually a sepia or brownish tint. The originals often have front surface cracks like with the Johnson.