Some rare and expensive bakery goodies......

[Brian Van Horn]

There are 34 of them on eBay so I don't think this is really outing an auction. It is a little hard to miss 34:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1917-D-UNC-Merchants-Bakery-E-135-Style-109-Armando-Marsans-BVG-4-/261574402277?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item3ce70ca0e5

[ValKehl]

I'll be surprised if any of these cards sell at the asking prices, or anything close thereto. The 1921 Herpolsheimer cards, of which only 1 card is known of each, don't fetch anywhere near the prices the eBay seller is asking for these Merchants Bakery cards.
Val

[nolemmings]

Reminds me of the guy who has the high-grade Uncle Jacks on ebay for ridiculous prices like this common Bill Hallahan for a meager $6500--they've been there a loooong time:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1933-Uncle-Jacks-Wild-Bill-Hallahan-Graded-SGC-86-/360119808508?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item53d8d031fc

Of course, it's also real wise to flood the market with about three dozen of these at once--makes the buyers really feel like they're getting something scarce. :rolleyes:

[tiger8mush]

I'll be surprised if any of these cards sell at the asking prices, or anything close thereto. The 1921 Herpolsheimer cards, of which only 1 card is known of each, don't fetch anywhere near the prices the eBay seller is asking for these Merchants Bakery cards.
Val

Uh oh Val .... I saw a WaJo in there! Better start saving :)

[Brian Van Horn]

I'll be surprised if any of these cards sell at the asking prices, or anything close thereto. The 1921 Herpolsheimer cards, of which only 1 card is known of each, don't fetch anywhere near the prices the eBay seller is asking for these Merchants Bakery cards.
Val

OK. Here I go :rolleyes::

The 1921 Herpolsheimer's are fakes. 1916 is good. 1921 is bad.

I met the original owner at the Robert Morris show in one of the May shows in the late 1990s or early 2000s (2001 the latest) and saw the guy again at the Cleveland National. Although the date is fuzzy, the conversation is not.

I looked at the cards and asked the gentleman about the cards. He waived them off with his right hand above the plastic sheets and album they were in and stated, "They are not real." The prices scribbled on the back of the cards were the prices he was seeking on the cards. Not all of the cards had a price in pencil on the back.

The cards eventually ended up in the hands of a seller in Maryland who put them on eBay.

I feel so much better now. A good rant occasionally in the morning is as refreshing as a long walk :D.

[Leon]

The seller will either eventually lower those prices or have them as museum pieces forever. It's not like you could go for a set of them and there are only so many type collectors out here. I think I have handled most of them that were already known in the hobby (approx.5) and though they were lower grade they filled holes in type collections. I could see a few HOF collectors ponying up quite a bit but probably not close to the asking prices. Still, some pretty neat cards and goes hand in hand with the thread about what is truly scarce in the internet age. These Merchants cards barely make the grade now...though still cool cards.

[timn1]

Leon is right - there are only so many serious type card collectors wealthy enough to imagine paying those prices.

[paul]

I agree with Leon as well, but wouldn't be surprised if the Walter Johnson sold for close to the asking price.

[rhettyeakley]

OK. Here I go :rolleyes::

The 1921 Herpolsheimer's are fakes. 1916 is good. 1921 is bad.

I met the original owner at the Robert Morris show in one of the May shows in the late 1990s or early 2000s (2001 the latest) and saw the guy again at the Cleveland National. Although the date is fuzzy, the conversation is not.

I looked at the cards and asked the gentleman about the cards. He waived them off with his right hand above the plastic sheets and album they were in and stated, "They are not real." The prices scribbled on the back of the cards were the prices he was seeking on the cards. Not all of the cards had a price in pencil on the back.

The cards eventually ended up in the hands of a seller in Maryland who put them on eBay.

I feel so much better now. A good rant occasionally in the morning is as refreshing as a long walk :D.

Brian, I don't want to pick a fight but the guy you were talking to doesn't know what he is talking about, he may have thought them not real or fakes as the back had never been seen before.

I am looking at a Herpolsheimer's card as I am writing this and they 100% are on exactly the same paper as the other E121 like cards (Holsum, E121, Witmor, etc.) and the subjects are even consistent with the time-line of the Holsum Type 2 cards that has only become evident after years of me studying them. There were even subjects in that group whose images were not known on anything only to be found later on Holsum and Standard Biscuit cards.

The 1921 Herpolsheimer's cards are 100% real, have you ever examined one next to an original Holsum or E121 card? If you do there is no way to reproduce the paper and printing to make them exactly the same, there is always a way with fake cards to tell they were made later or at a different time. I was as skeptical as anyone when they first showed up but after examining the cards there is no way they are fake.

[Brian Van Horn]

Rhett,

There is no fight and no fight is intended. The guy stated they are not real. The prices on the backs were what he was seeking. They ended up in the hands of a guy from Maryland who put them on eBay. If the owner says they are not real, they are not real. Do I know if the guy had printing experience? No. Still, he was the owner and I can't get around his honesty. The cards are fakes.

The same paper is not an argument. Coming up with the same paper would not be difficult. Having knowledge of the cards and poses involved would take a little more research, but not impossible. Still these arguments are only peripheral. The guy did know what he was talking about when we spoke. With the exception of a poorly done Cobb on eBay a few years ago, no other examples have been found. Why? It's possible, just possible, the guy I spoke with may have only made one run of the cards. Here is a harder to find pose from the Standard Biscuit set that was in the grouping of the Herpolsheimers. The fact that it is harder to find, proves nothing, but if you guys want to use it as an example from this fake grouping, feel free:

[Leon]

In my opinion the 1921 Herpolsheimers are 100% real.. There is no doubt in my mind about it.

[rhettyeakley]

Brian, you never actually answered my question about actually looking at the cards closely and not from a distance in an album a decade ago. Did the guy you spoke to say he printed them himself or something? why was he so sure they are fake?

About the paper being easy to reproduce is silly, there is no way to match cardstock from 1921 perfectly and then after that duplicating the printing process perfectly. I think you are putting too much stock into the words of this person without actually looking at the cards themselves. Other than his words why are you so sure they are fake?

[Brian Van Horn]

Rhett,

When the explanation and the body language are indisputable it doesn't make any sense to argue with the gentleman. The cards are fakes. Paper for the cards of the era is not rare and, although I am not a paper expert, I would imagine finding similar paper to this day, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, next decade or next century would not be the most difficult of pursuits.

[rhettyeakley]

Brian, so you haven't actually looked at the cards then I take it as all you are talking about is what the guy said to you which IMO is not scientific and just the opinion of an unnamed person.

I'm not sure why you feel so strongly about this based only on the word of someone. About the paper... You are absolutely wrong if you think it would easy to reproduce a particular cardstock to make a reprint set.

Could it be, just maybe that the guy you spoke to didnt know what the heck he had? Everyone that has ever looked at these cards in person can attest to their being authentic. The cards are NOT fake!

[rhettyeakley]

Here is a card I own from the Herpolsheimer cards on ebay that I own...
http://www.starsofthediamond.com/herpolsheimerhenry.JPG

Unknown pose of Henry that was not produced elsewhere showed up in that collection then just recently a card with the same image was found with... Holsum Type 2 back (a set that parallels the Herpolsheimer and Standard Biscuit D350-3 set). That would be some serious forethought on the part of the fake card maker to use an unknown image only to have one eventually be found that was authentic (but only after the Herpolsheimer's came to light).

http://catalog.scpauctions.com/1921-HOLSUM-BREAD-JOHN-HENRY-VG-EX-PSA-4-(1-1)-LOT28455.aspx

[Brian Van Horn]

Rhett,

The guy knew what he had and he stated, "They are not real." He knew of what he spoke. The guy after him who put it up on eBay may have had other intentions, but the guy I spoke to was honest and there is no getting around that point.

The paper of the time was not expensive and could not be for a caramel maker to cut and put into its products. Cost ratios.

I have never put a card from the set up against another set from the early twenties because I have no interest in the cards. We are not talking rocket science here, but simply inexpensive paper for print.

Now for one opinion which can be taken or left and is strictly peripheral to this discussion. As for the pattern on the back of the card which frames the advertisement, it has always been my opinion that someone simply saw a retro type design on either a table a door on a hutch or an advertising piece, thought that would be a good frame for the back of a fantasy card and took out a piece of paper to draw up the design. For all I know they may have seen a similar pattern on an old Pathe film and got the idea. Still, that is my opinion and nothing more.

What counts here is that the gentleman knew about the cards and knew that they were not authentic.

[Brian Van Horn]

Rhett,

The Henry card and the Davenport card I posted are in the same vein. It simply means the person who ran a sheet, maybe two, in a one run production knew of the sets. Both cards were in the grouping at Robert Morris.

[darwinbulldog]

I think I have handled most of them that were already known in the hobby (approx.5) and though they were lower grade they filled holes in type collections.

Are there more where these 34 came from, or are we just around 39 known examples now? I may have to edit that other thread again.

[Brian Van Horn]

Well, on the Merchants Bakery, there is what Leon has and what is on eBay. I don't know if any prior to this listing got by Leon.

[Brian Van Horn]

Now, maybe this will put things to rest. We have a grouping of cards, which with one exception-that being a very poor and, in my opinion, amateurish Ty Cobb on eBay a few years ago, all came from one collection. No other card of the same quality has surfaced. The guy who had the monopoly on the cards stated to me "They are not real." Gentleman, in my opinion, the horse is dead.

Still, if you would like to debate, I am properly caffeinated and up for any length of discussion you desire.

[rhettyeakley]

Rhett,

The guy knew what he had and he stated, "They are not real." He knew of what he spoke. The guy after him who put it up on eBay may have had other intentions, but the guy I spoke to was honest and there is no getting around that point.

The paper of the time was not expensive and could not be for a caramel maker to cut and put into its products. Cost ratios.

I have never put a card from the set up against another set from the early twenties because I have no interest in the cards. We are not talking rocket science here, but simply inexpensive paper for print.

Now for one opinion which can be taken or left and is strictly peripheral to this discussion. As for the pattern on the back of the card which frames the advertisement, it has always been my opinion that someone simply saw a retro type design on either a table a door on a hutch or an advertising piece, thought that would be a good frame for the back of a fantasy card and took out a piece of paper to draw up the design. For all I know they may have seen a similar pattern on an old Pathe film and got the idea. Still, that is my opinion and nothing more.

What counts here is that the gentleman knew about the cards and knew that they were not authentic.


I'm trying not to be mean (I really am) but your logic is not making any sense. All you are basing your opinion on is the opinion of someone else and not the actual evidence in front of you, at least it is there if you actually care to see it.

The amount of work to reproduce cards from 1921 and make them look like they are exactly the same as another set from 1921 is astronomical if one were trying to do it today. If you don't think this is the case then why aren't good fakes out there of T206 or other cards?

There are countless reasons that point that the Herp 1921 cards are real...just an example of what I am speaking of...

You stated... "As for the pattern on the back of the card which frames the advertisement, it has always been my opinion that someone simply saw a retro type design on either a table a door on a hutch or an advertising piece, thought that would be a good frame for the back of a fantasy card"

actually lets examine that back...
http://starsofthediamond.com/herpolsheimerback.jpg

Here are two different Herpolsheimer cards I own (Weilman and Faber). Notice how the meander pattern on the back actually isn't identical on the two cards (pay close attention to the corners and how the pattern meets up with each other.)

Now, here are two Holsum Bread cards (Type 2's) that also have a meander pattern on back (albeit different), notice how they do not meet up exactly the same at the corners and make each card slightly different. The same is found on the D350-3 Standard Biscuit cards and other cards made by the same manufacturer in the process of printing the cards.

http://starsofthediamond.com/holsumbacks.jpg

[Brian Van Horn]

Rhett,

The two things we can't get around are:

1. The guy's honesty.
2. Every single example out there, save the amateurish Cobb that was on eBay a few years ago, came from this guy's collection.

If the guy says they are fakes, they are fakes. He may have had two sheets in his run and they may have been of different tone. I do not know. I did not ask him. His honest straightforward statement was all I needed in the conversation. The handwriting on the card on the left was the $2.00 he was asking and the $1.00 on the right was the amount he was asking for that card.

As for the back design, I still think it is a retro look, but that is my opinion.

[timn1]

Brian,

These "two things we can't get around" make no sense to me--

1. Maybe you can't get past your opinion of the guy's honesty, but why you think anyone else should be so completely convinced by this I can't imagine. Not that I disbelieve the conversation took place, but all conversations are open to interpretation, and I see no reason to buy your account as the only way to read this guy.

2. I don't find it hard to believe at all that every known card 100 years later, or almost every one, could come from the same little hoard. I believe every M101-4 Burgess-Nash I've seen comes from one of two small groups.

I think Rhett's point is compelling: if it were so easy to create convincing fakes on old paper, surely someone would have done it with T206s long ago-

The nice thing is that we don't all have to agree on this, and it won't create any problem.

Rhett,

The two things we can't get around are:

1. The guy's honesty.
2. Every single example out there, save the amateurish Cobb that was on eBay a few years ago, came from this guy's collection.

If the guy says they are fakes, they are fakes. He may have had two sheets in his run and they may have been of different tone. I do not know. I did not ask him. His honest straightforward statement was all I needed in the conversation. The handwriting on the card on the left was the $2.00 he was asking and the $1.00 on the right was the amount he was asking for that card.

As for the back design, I still think it is a retro look, but that is my opinion.

[rhettyeakley]

Rhett,

The two things we can't get around are:

1. The guy's honesty.
2. Every single example out there, save the amateurish Cobb that was on eBay a few years ago, came from this guy's collection.



Wrong, I am perfectly comfortable "getting around" the two things listed above...

1. The guy had no idea that the cards were actually real but he thought they were fake!

Obviously, no evidence I provide can overcome this "honest" unnamed persons opinion in your mind as there is apparently no way the guy could possibly have been mistaken so I guess I will let it go but I hope you are never on a jury in a major case and are presented both evidence and an "honest guys" opinion as I wouldn't want to be the defendant in that case. ;)

[ValKehl]

Brian,
You keep referring to this guy's "honesty." What makes you so darn certain about his honesty? Did you personally know him well? Or?

And, please tell us what sort of credentials you believe (or know) this guy had insofar as being knowledgeable and experienced re vintage baseball cards? Was he a long-time dealer and/or collector of vintage cards? Is/was he known within the hobby?

My guess is, that while this guy may be as honest as the day is long, he was ignorant with respect to what he had, and therefore he assumed the Herpolsheimers were not legit and wrote his selling prices on the backs of the cards.
Val

[Brian Van Horn]

Brian,

These "two things we can't get around" make no sense to me--

1. Maybe you can't get past your opinion of the guy's honesty, but why you think anyone else should be so completely convinced by this I can't imagine. Not that I disbelieve the conversation took place, but all conversations are open to interpretation, and I see no reason to buy your account as the only way to read this guy.

2. I don't find it hard to believe at all that every known card 100 years later, or almost every one, could come from the same little hoard. I believe every M101-4 Burgess-Nash I've seen comes from one of two small groups.

I think Rhett's point is compelling: if it were so easy to create convincing fakes on old paper, surely someone would have done it with T206s long ago-

The nice thing is that we don't all have to agree on this, and it won't create any problem.

Tim,

I appreciate the input, but how can I get around the statement "They are not real."?

Also, how can I get around that no other card has surfaced, other than a poor imitation Cobb, in a hobby in which there are nearly countless collectors.

This is one heck of a mental gymnastics act to go through to get around what actually happened. I am not trying to be stubborn, but I am not going to come up with revisionist history. The cards are fake.

[Brian Van Horn]

Brian,
You keep referring to this guy's "honesty." What makes you so darn certain about his honesty? Did you personally know him well? Or?

And, please tell us what sort of credentials you believe (or know) this guy had insofar as being knowledgeable and experienced re vintage baseball cards? Was he a long-time dealer and/or collector of vintage cards? Is/was he known within the hobby?

My guess is, that while this guy may be as honest as the day is long, he was ignorant with respect to what he had, and therefore he assumed the Herpolsheimers were not legit and wrote his selling prices on the backs of the cards.
Val

Val,

This guy had cards at a show and was selling them from one to three dollars with many, but not all, having the price written on the back of the card. If he were dishonest would he not ask for more?

Further, when asked about the cards, if he was dishonest, would he state "They are not real."?

This is a pretty hard hand to beat on an honesty angle.

As for his knowledge, there are no other examples, save the amateurish Cobb, that are out there. If the guy says they are fake and he had, and, frankly, still has the monopoly from a lineage of ownership standpoint on the cards, they are fakes. It would tend to indicate, through this monopoly, that he had knowledge of their origin.

If the guy has all the cards known and says they are fakes, they are fakes. In view of the conversation, this guy was not ignorant to what he had.

[Leon]

Brian- you keep saying there are no other examples. That is 100% wrong. I had and sold 3-4 other examples, in very poor shape, a few years ago. Now what?

Proof- we lost the scan but here is one I sold....

http://b-lauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=1777

[darwinbulldog]

I don't see how honesty has anything to do with it, unless there's some rule I don't know of whereby being honest precludes someone from making a mistake, but that's clearly what happened. Is it more likely for an honest person to have real cards and believe them to be fake (I've done this myself at least once) or for someone to have invested tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to create convincing fakes using appropriate images whose appropriateness would not have been known until several years into the future; and, having already demonstrated himself capable of reproducing the printing and cardstock that would have existed in real cards, to modify them sufficiently to convince two people that they weren't real, all the while having no intention of doing any of this for a profit but being motivated instead by the fun of investing years of income on a lark that quite likely no one else in the world would ever have found out about? Honest (and self-injurious) mistake or time-traveling spendthrift? You decide.
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/b8/b89e2488fff7b41f4e61fb9b73183084dffe9263f84302b0d7 3a843e9385c4c5.jpg
But good luck persuading the guy who missed the chance to pick them up for a few bucks.

[Brian Van Horn]

Leon,

Wait a minute. What I said was there are not other examples of the Herpolsheimers other than the one amateurish Cobb. On the Merchants Bakery, I stated there are the ones listed on eBay and the ones you got the last time they were listed on eBay. I also stated I didn't know if there were any Merchants Bakery cards that got past you. Just a clarification.

The link you posted is for a Merchants Bakery. Just trying to keep the two topics clear and separated.

[Brian Van Horn]

I don't see how honesty has anything to do with it, unless there's some rule I don't know of whereby being honest precludes someone from making a mistake, but that's clearly what happened. Is it more likely for an honest person to have real cards and believe them to be fake (I've done this myself at least once) or for someone to have invested tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to create convincing fakes using appropriate images whose appropriateness would not have been known until several years into the future; and, having already demonstrated himself capable of reproducing the printing and cardstock that would have existed in real cards, to modify them sufficiently to convince two people that they weren't real, all the while having no intention of doing any of this for a profit but being motivated instead by the fun of investing years of income on a lark that quite likely no one else in the world would ever have found out about? Honest (and self-injurious) mistake or time-traveling spendthrift? You decide.
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/b8/b89e2488fff7b41f4e61fb9b73183084dffe9263f84302b0d7 3a843e9385c4c5.jpg

But good luck persuading the guy who missed the chance to pick them up for a few bucks.

LOL on the last line.

If the gentleman is making a clear, honest and declarative statement that "They are not real." and he has all of the examples then and now, save the amateurish Cobb, the cards are fake. He knew of what he spoke and he was being honest. He was not mistaken.

If people want to persuade themselves these cards are real, feel free. I will just smile knowing that the only 1921 Herpolsheimers that are out there, save one poor attempt, were from this gentleman who knew of what he spoke. They are fakes.

[Leon]

Leon,

Wait a minute. What I said was there are not other examples of the Herpolsheimers other than the one amateurish Cobb. On the Merchants Bakery, I stated there are the ones listed on eBay and the ones you got the last time they were listed on eBay. I also stated I didn't know if there were any Merchants Bakery cards that got past you. Just a clarification.

The link you posted is for a Merchants Bakery. Just trying to keep the two topics clear and separated.

Right you are on that point. I still stand by my thoughts on the Herpolsheimers being legitimate for all of the reasons stated. I find it a bit curious that you believe someone whom you have no idea of who they are except they had some cards they ignorantly wrote on. Just because they said they were honest (or you think they are and they might be, it doesn't really matter) doesn't make them an expert on cards. The cards are real.

[ctownboy]

Brian,

To me there is a difference between a guy saying the cards are "not real" because he has never seen them before and they are not checklisted and saying they are "not real" because he or someone he knows made them.

What is the reason in this case?

If he told you they are not real because he made them then I would say they are fake. If all he said was they were not real without any other reason then I would lean towards the cards being real and him saying they weren't because he hadn't found any others.

I have a 1928 Star Player Candy card of Buddy Myer. When a discussion of rare cards came about on the old board, I was a new member and said I had 15 of these cards and one was an uncatalogued Myer. People didn't believe it because the card wasn't known to exist. Then a scanned all of the cards. After that people not only believed it but the card was added to the checklist.

To me, if the Herpolsheimer's are one of a kind cards and they were found all together then I can see where a person would think they are "not real" and honestly say so. I mean, if the guy looked at every price guide and they are not listed, talked to a bunch of dealers and they never saw nor heard of these cards and did a web search and found nothing resembling them then he could honestly say they were "not real" and be wrong.

Just my two cents,

David

[Brian Van Horn]

Leon,

In all due respect, they are fakes. The guy for all I know may have been a printer and printed a couple of sheets of cards, one in one shade of paper and the other in another shade. This guy was honest. He knew of what he spoke and the cards eventually ended up with a guy in Maryland who posted them on eBay. Ask yourself, why have there been no other examples, save one homemade Cobb, which have surfaced? All of the cards have come from one source and that source stated "They are not real."

[Leon]

Leon,

In all due respect, they are fakes. The guy for all I know may have been a printer and printed a couple of sheets of cards, one in one shade of paper and the other in another shade. This guy was honest. He knew of what he spoke and the cards eventually ended up with a guy in Maryland who posted them on eBay. Ask yourself, why have there been no other examples, save one homemade Cobb, which have surfaced? All of the cards have come from one source and that source stated "They are not real."

Brian- I don't think empirical evidence will convince you more than a guy that knew so much about cards he wrote the prices on them. No sane person can argue with you on that.

On a related note here is a card with only one set known. I heard the guy that had these said they aren't real either. They must not be...
http://luckeycards.com/pwguncallegmcginn.jpg

[Brian Van Horn]

Leon,

I know nothing about this other set which you posted and have no interest in the set. I understand the point you are making with the comparison, but the man's honesty, his monopoly on the market and the fact that only a homemade copy of Cobb from the set has surfaced since our discussion all point to one thing and that is the cards are fake.

One thing I do worry about at this point is that there may be an unscrupulous printer who reads this post, acquires one of the cards and sets out to produce more cards circa 2014 with the price tag of a rare 1921. That is a nice little potential Pandora's Box. The one check is that he would need to have the same level of knowledge of the sets as the original creator of this fantasy set.

[ullmandds]

Brian- I don't think empirical evidence will convince you more than a guy that knew so much about cards he wrote the prices on them. No sane person can argue with you on that.

On a related note here is a card with only one set known. I heard the guy that had these said they aren't real either. They must not be...
http://luckeycards.com/pwguncallegmcginn.jpg

I was about to cite the same example. I have a hard time believing the herps are fake.

[Brian Van Horn]

Brian,

To me there is a difference between a guy saying the cards are "not real" because he has never seen them before and they are not checklisted and saying they are "not real" because he or someone he knows made them.

What is the reason in this case?

If he told you they are not real because he made them then I would say they are fake. If all he said was they were not real without any other reason then I would lean towards the cards being real and him saying they weren't because he hadn't found any others.

I have a 1928 Star Player Candy card of Buddy Myer. When a discussion of rare cards came about on the old board, I was a new member and said I had 15 of these cards and one was an uncatalogued Myer. People didn't believe it because the card wasn't known to exist. Then a scanned all of the cards. After that people not only believed it but the card was added to the checklist.

To me, if the Herpolsheimer's are one of a kind cards and they were found all together then I can see where a person would think they are "not real" and honestly say so. I mean, if the guy looked at every price guide and they are not listed, talked to a bunch of dealers and they never saw nor heard of these cards and did a web search and found nothing resembling them then he could honestly say they were "not real" and be wrong.

Just my two cents,

David

David and Pete,

I appreciate the input. I like the Allegheny set since I live in Pittsburgh which is in Allegheny County. I still have no interest beyond the local connection.

As for the gentleman, the discussion was quite simple. "They are not real." At that time that was all I needed. I did not need, and still do not need to find a sample from this set for comparison to another set from the 1920s. Here is one bit of conjecture:

Let's say this gentleman was a printer. He printed up a couple sheets, one white, one tan and then wrote on the back what he wanted for each card.

This is not conjecture:

I meet him at the Robert Morris show and ask about the cards. He states, "They are not real." He wrote what he was selling the cards for on the back of many, but not all of the cards.

No other cards, save the amateurish Cobb has surfaced. There are no duplicates. The monopoly was with-and is still traceable-solely to this gentleman.

He doesn't know what he is talking about? It is possible (conjecture) he was the creator of the cards. Did I ask? It would not have occurred to me at the time. I would also not have asked at the time and, frankly, would not ask now if presented the same scenario about how he knew because the statement was definitive, declarative, straightforward and honest. I also would not ask to compare the compare the cards to the stock of other card sets from the time because 1.) The honesty would have knocked that thought from my mind and 2.) Even if it did not knock the thought from my mind, I would have been insulting an honest man.

[packs]

Just putting this out there but if you bought one of these cards your opinions on the matter could be tainted. It would be best to view this objectively and as though you don't have something at stake.

[Brian Van Horn]

Just putting this out there but if you bought one of these cards your opinions on the matter could be tainted. It would be best to view this objectively and as though you don't have something at stake.

Thank you.

[ullmandds]

sounds like a job for the forensics team in seattle!

[bn2cardz]

I find the Herp conversation humorous.

Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Using Occam's Razor here is what we are left with.

Facts: A gentleman has them for sale and when asked he states they are not real.

Brian's assumptions:
1)They guy knew what he had
2)The guy had a printer
3)The guy had access to vintage paper
4)the guy had access to vintage ink
5)the guy only printed 1 or 2 sets to sell at a single show
6) this guy knew about other images to use that weren't known to the rest of the hobby until future discoveries in other sets

The counter assumptions:
1) The guy didn't know that the cards were real and thought they were fake

Using Occam's Razor it is easy to go with the fact the cards are real.

[packs]

Just wondering about the Allegheny cards. Has there ever been a patent found for the game? I'm wondering what dates them to the period other than insight from hobby veterans. I know the cards have the registered date printed on them, but is there evidence that supports the fact that the game was registered in 1904?

[the-illini]

maybe I missed this, but a person that you know well enough to unequivocally vouch for his honesty has a bunch of interesting cards and says "they are not real" and you didn't bother to ask why?

[rhettyeakley]

Thank you.

Says the guy being completely non-objective and basing his opinion on one guys "honest" (subjective) opinion.

To packs' point I assumed they were not real because by default I am skeptical of new "unknown" sets and purchased none of the cards the first time they were offered on eBay. Only after looking at a handful of the cards in person after the fact and comparing them to known E121-like cards have I come to the conclusion that the cards are original.

Brian, just to be clear there are no "tan" cards... The only reason the two above look different is because one was laying directly on the scanner bed and the other is in a PSA holder.

[ullmandds]

maybe I missed this, but a person that you know well enough to unequivocally vouch for his honesty has a bunch of interesting cards and says "they are not real" and you didn't bother to ask why?

Agreed!

[Brian Van Horn]

I find the Herp conversation humorous.

Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Using Occam's Razor here is what we are left with.

Facts: A gentleman has them for sale and when asked he states they are not real.

Brian's assumptions:
1)They guy knew what he had
2)The guy had a printer
3)The guy had access to vintage paper
4)the guy had access to vintage ink
5)the guy only printed 1 or 2 sets to sell at a single show
6) this guy knew about other images to use that weren't known to the rest of the hobby until future discoveries in other sets

The counter assumptions:
1) The guy didn't know that the cards were real and thought they were fake

Using Occam's Razor it is easy to go with the fact the cards are real.

Andy,

It is humorous. I have been laughing the entire time. Now to sharpen Occam's Razor:

3. The paper did not need to be vintage. The same paper has been used in printing for years. If you don't believe me, ask a printer. Have modifications be made over the years? I am sure they have, but the paper for the most part is the same. It is a cheap product and cheap products remain cheap because, in part, they are mostly not modified.

4. I never said the guy had vintage ink.

Clarification:

5. He printed and then brought to shows the cards from the sheets.

6. The guy knew the sets. The discovery of other images was in regard to this generation of collectors. Older collectors would have run across the Davenport or the Henry, etc.

The cards are fakes. Why? Not because of assumptions, but honesty.

[bn2cardz]

Andy,

It is humorous. I have been laughing the entire time. Now to sharpen Occam's Razor:

3. The paper did not need to be vintage. The same paper has been used in printing for years. If you don't believe me, ask a printer. Have modifications be made over the years? I am sure they have, but the paper for the most part is the same. It is a cheap product and cheap products remain cheap because, in part, they are mostly not modified.

4. I never said the guy had vintage ink.

Clarification:

5. He printed and then brought to shows the cards from the sheets.

6. The guy knew the sets. The discovery of other images was in regard to this generation of collectors. Older collectors would have run across the Davenport or the Henry, etc.

The cards are fakes. Why? Not because of assumptions, but honesty.

Response to each "clarification"

3- It would have to be vintage. Vintage paper and modern paper are NOT the same. For just one example, modern paper has brighteners that wasn't introduced until the 40's this is a reason vintage card collector's use a black light. So you are coming up with a new assumption in place of the vintage paper one, and that is that no one bothered using a black light on one of these cards.

4- As stated with the paper, ink has changed over the years along with the printing process. This has not stated stagnant since 1921. So, again if you don't believe that he used vintage printing techniques than you are assuming no one that has seen them no how to tell a vintage printing from a modern printing.

both above assumptions can be researched more at Judging the Authenticity of Early Baseball Cards by David Rudd Cycleback (http://www.cycleback.com/baseballcards/)

5- That wasn't a clarification, that is pretty much what I said. That he brought these cards with the intention of only selling the 1 or 2 sets. Having worked in the printing industry I know for a fact that it would have cost more money to produce this set and the designing of it for just 1 or 2 sets.

6- So this older collector had access to these rare images and decided to add them to a set. This is still an assumption just replacing the other one.


And honesty only goes as far as your knowledge. You can honestly be mistaken which is where the counter argument comes from and since this is the only assumption on the counter argument it still wins when using Occam's Razor.

[slidekellyslide]

Is Brian being for real? This just comes off as a complete troll thread. :confused:

Vintage paper is not easy to come by, nor is vintage ink. The most likely scenario is that this "honest" fellow came across these cards in a collection, could not find them in a book or online and assumed they were fantasy cards and priced them as such.

[Brian Van Horn]

maybe I missed this, but a person that you know well enough to unequivocally vouch for his honesty has a bunch of interesting cards and says "they are not real" and you didn't bother to ask why?

One, the guy was definitive, direct and honest in his response.

Two, the cards, for the most part, had the prices written on the back.

Three, I had an issue with the frame of the advertisement on the back which I thought was retro in look.

Add these together and I would not ask why.

[slidekellyslide]

One, the guy was definitive, direct and honest in his response.

Two, the cards, for the most part, had the prices written on the back.

Three, I had an issue with the frame of the advertisement on the back which I thought was retro in look.

Add these together and I would not ask why.

So you're going to take the word of this guy who you really do not know because he seemed honest and forthright to you over Rhett, Leon and other people who have these cards in hand and have decades of experience with vintage cards???

[Brian Van Horn]

Says the guy being completely non-objective and basing his opinion on one guys "honest" (subjective) opinion.

To packs' point I assumed they were not real because by default I am skeptical of new "unknown" sets and purchased none of the cards the first time they were offered on eBay. Only after looking at a handful of the cards in person after the fact and comparing them to known E121-like cards have I come to the conclusion that the cards are original.

Brian, just to be clear there are no "tan" cards... The only reason the two above look different is because one was laying directly on the scanner bed and the other is in a PSA holder.

Rhett,

Thank you for that clarification. So we have cards that are of the same tone. The number of cards now may have only been on one sheet. I was basing my extrapolation on the way they appeared in your scans. Please note one and all I would not remember two different tones from a conversation from 2001 at the latest.

Again, thank you for the clarification.

[glchen]

Is it possible that the original owner had genuine blank backed W575-1's and put a fake Herp stamp on back of the cards? Therefore, when he stated that the cards were not real, he meant that it wasn't real b/c the Herp back wasn't genuine? (Complete conjecture)

[the-illini]

One, the guy was definitive, direct and honest in his response.

Two, the cards, for the most part, had the prices written on the back.

Three, I had an issue with the frame of the advertisement on the back which I thought was retro in look.

Add these together and I would not ask why.

Number 1 is an opinion.

Number 2 - we all have seen a lot of cards that are 100% real that had a collectors sale price on the back

Number 3 is an opinion

Sorry, these three reasons don't support the absolute statement you are making. I have no stake in proving these cards to be authentic, but you haven't offered any real proof other than your opinion.

[darwinbulldog]

Presumably if people are biased by whatever beliefs would be self-serving then those who have bought them may be subject to some bias of overconfidence in the cards' authenticity and those who have not bought them may be subject to some bias in the opposite direction. Most of us fall in the latter camp. Let's exclude everyone else, though, in the interest of a very conservative sense of the board's opinion. Is there a single person other than Brian here, among the hundreds of us who have not bought them, who believes they are fake? I don't mean that as a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely curious about it.

I too would have assumed it was just trolling, but I've seen Brian posting on here for a long time, and he always seemed like a reasonable person.

[nolemmings]

I own one of these, and am quite confident it is real.

Brian, I don’t doubt you heard what you state and that the man who told you that the cards were not real honestly believed it–I’m just convinced he was wrong. Sure he would have an incentive to investigate and would want to sell them for more if real, but that doesn’t mean he can;t be wrong. As others have said, unless he made them himself, instructed that they be made or witnessed their production, his is really little more than an opinion.

I can easily see a scenario where he did not know what he had, and consulted with known resources-- all the catalogues and his fellow dealers-- to come to his conclusion. Please remember that fake Henry Johnson’s and Kendigs were circulating during this time–cards that use the very same fronts as these Herpolsheimers/W-575s/E121s. It was even a bit of a hot button, BOLO type situation within the hobby-- I remember some bad HJs emanating from a Festberg auction and posting about it here if not the old Full Count board back around 2000-2001. I even called Lew Lipset at the time and he spoke of these cards being faked. It could very well be that the consensus of those dealers at the RM show was to conclude that these were not genuine basically because no one had seen them, they were not catalogued and other fakes with the same fronts were then circulating. Add to that any dealer with cock-suredness or bravado barking authoritatively to your guy that he “knew” these to be fake and there you have it. Fake it is.

I do not believe it would have been insulting to ask this man how he acquired these cards or if he knew anything about their history–anything to give you more information. These questions are asked all the time with no disrespect. Of course I do not fault you for not asking, but to place so much weight on such a terse statement is misplaced, IMO.

[frohme]

These cards - in their various guises and ACC numbers/names/categorizations - were used for advertising purposes across a wide variety of product spaces (food, entertainment, clothing etc...) and time - the images were certainly used into the 20's (licensed or otherwise)

As such, they likely went through a variety of steps before they ever made it into distribution, some of which might see the content being generated by an honest-to-goodness print manufacturer using that (licensed?) content for the express purpose of making advertising material in the form of "cards".

For example ...

Back in 1921, Joe Jr (son of the owner of Joe's Auto Body) had a run of advertising material requested, featuring an ad for his Dad's shop on the back of the cards. The ad company ran the "for approval" copies off and gave them to Joe Jr. Dad said we don't have the money for that ... and the advertising campaign died right there, never making it to production. Joe Jr kept the promos, and never considered them "real" because that print run - effectively customer "proofs" - were never acted on, but kept for whatever reason .. Joe Jr - or maybe Joe III sometime later - found them and brought them out.

If they were printed on appropriate equipment at that time, for the express purpose marketing/advertising like other cards of the generation, with licensed images, etc... they're real (to me). If they were printed years later on different printing hardware with different ink, using old images simply as "fantasy" cards, sure, they're fake... I think the empirical evidence says that's not the case.

Maybe some other printer put the time/$$ into a project for reward and it got axed due to use of unlicensed content or some other legalities. Does not change the above statements much, IMO.

I think even the honesty of the guy selling them, but calling them "not real" is sort of moot, if you did not question him as to what he meant by "... they're not real ...", the above example being a case in point... :

If you asked him, and he said "they were a licensed advertising run we were having made by printing company X for our family's clothing store but grandpa decided not to use it..." would you call it a promo, a proof, or simply "fake"?
If you asked him and he said "my dad worked at a printing company - we printed them for the advertising company, but their customer decided not to use them ..." dad kept them because he thought they were neat, but we never printed any more... would you call them "promo", "scrap", "fake" ...
If you asked him and he said "my dad was best friends with an ad/printing company owner and they gave my dad the stuff because they were going to throw it away, but they knew he was into beisbol ... "
If you asked him and he said "dad lived next door to an advertising company and went through the trash... "


Not having any context except your memory about the conversation and no further details makes this a "he-said" conversation. Not that it is not worthy of discussion, but your insistence on that as the key point as to the fakeness makes me wonder if there is not a middle ground somewhere that is more like reality... one in which the cards - for all intents and purposes - are ones that were licensed and printed for a legit reason and qualify as real under most definitions, but were considered as "not real" by the holder because he knew that they never saw the light of day for their "intended" purpose.

Yes, there are equally stories on the "fake" side, I'm just trying to make the point that under the circumstances, outcomes from natural events that might explain both: the quality/reality of the cards, and an involved(?) person's contention to the contrary are not at all implausible.

[slidekellyslide]

Herpolsheimer's in Lincoln...I always wondered if there was any connection, but I think there was one in Detroit too which is more likely where they originated.

[rhettyeakley]

You're killin' me Brian! I consider you a hobby friend but your stance on these cards is completely baffling to me! I just don't think there is anything that will convince you that the guy was mistaken and that these are original. You have no evidence that they are fake other than the guys word which for some reason is enough for you even though ALL evidence points to him having been wrong! I like you so I don't want to beat a dead horse but I hope someday you will actually hold one of these cards and look at it objectively for what it is and you will come to the same conclusion as the rest of us...

[Brian Van Horn]

So you're going to take the word of this guy who you really do not know because he seemed honest and forthright to you over Rhett, Leon and other people who have these cards in hand and have decades of experience with vintage cards???

With all due respect to Rhett, Leon and others, yes.

Why?

He was the point of origin.

[ullmandds]

You're killin' me Brian! I consider you a hobby friend but your stance on these cards is completely baffling to me! I just don't think there is anything that will convince you that the guy was mistaken and that these are original. You have no evidence that they are fake other than the guys word which for some reason is enough for you even though ALL evidence points to him having been wrong! I like you so I don't want to beat a dead horse but I hope someday you will actually hold one of these cards and look at it objectively for what it is and you will come to the same conclusion as the rest of us...

+1

[slidekellyslide]

With all due respect to Rhett, Leon and others, yes.

Why?

He was the point of origin.

You know this how? You stated more than once you never asked about the origins of them. There seems to be a real cognitive disconnect here that leads me to believe you're putting us on.

[Brian Van Horn]

Is Brian being for real? This just comes off as a complete troll thread. :confused:

Vintage paper is not easy to come by, nor is vintage ink. The most likely scenario is that this "honest" fellow came across these cards in a collection, could not find them in a book or online and assumed they were fantasy cards and priced them as such.

LOL to the point of hiccupping.

Yes, I am being real.

Guys, the only cards from this set came from this guy. Does this not set off an alarm?

[nolemmings]

Brian, you do not know him to be the point of origin, and apparently he did not even claim to be the point of origin. He simply said they are fake. He even could have bought them earlier in the day from another dealer from all we've been shown.

I believe the Herpolsheimer story was posted before, but I’ll give it another go. 1920 was the 50 year anniversary of the patriarch William Herpolsheimer’s involvement in the dry goods business, so it might have been a good idea to revive the baseball card idea from a few years prior. Unfortunately, the old man died in February, 1920. His son then died in April. It would not be unreasonable to assume that the tumult caused by these deaths, or simply the business decisions of those who took over led Herpolsheimer to scrap the whole idea such that a prototype set was never completed or was never distributed. That would explain why no others have surfaced.

I hope our researcher sleuths with access to old newspapers will look into the Grand Rapids papers of the time. These Herpolsheimers make reference to the Boys Fashion Shop being on the Second Floor of the store– a fact missing from the 1916 m101-4/5 Herps. If it turns out that is the correct floor than it is even more likely that these are real, unless the creator of the fakes also went to the trouble of great research some 15+ years ago (with fewer internet resources) to add an esoteric and largely irrelevant fact. Even without this info, though, I simply cannot believe these are fake. The paper is spot on. The photography too, and fakes of that era are usually either muddy or washed out. The gloss matches–very hard to do. And of course the backs look like they were printed by the same company as the Holsums and the Shotwells, with similar patterns, fonts and spacing. Finally and as pointed out, the grouping contained players not then known to even exist in the Holsum or E121 sets. Just way too much here to by rebutted by a simple declaration otherwise.

[Brian Van Horn]

Presumably if people are biased by whatever beliefs would be self-serving then those who have bought them may be subject to some bias of overconfidence in the cards' authenticity and those who have not bought them may be subject to some bias in the opposite direction. Most of us fall in the latter camp. Let's exclude everyone else, though, in the interest of a very conservative sense of the board's opinion. Is there a single person other than Brian here, among the hundreds of us who have not bought them, who believes they are fake? I don't mean that as a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely curious about it.

I too would have assumed it was just trolling, but I've seen Brian posting on here for a long time, and he always seemed like a reasonable person.

I think I still am :D.

[chernieto]

But we can all agree the prices for those listings on Ebay are way too high whether the cards are real or not?

[brianp-beme]

With all due respect to Rhett, Leon and others, yes.

Why?

He was the point of origin.

This seller could have stumbled across the hoard, found absolutely no hobby references concerning them, and concluded, quite inaccurately, that they were not real.

I see this as the most plausible answer since we have the various knowledgeable collectors who have actually looked at the cards and determined them to be genuine.

Brian (not the original poster, but instead poster child)

[Brian Van Horn]

You're killin' me Brian! I consider you a hobby friend but your stance on these cards is completely baffling to me! I just don't think there is anything that will convince you that the guy was mistaken and that these are original. You have no evidence that they are fake other than the guys word which for some reason is enough for you even though ALL evidence points to him having been wrong! I like you so I don't want to beat a dead horse but I hope someday you will actually hold one of these cards and look at it objectively for what it is and you will come to the same conclusion as the rest of us...

LOL. I don't mean to kill you, Rhett :D, but the horse is dead. It has gone to the knackers factory. The cards are fake. It is not impossible to fake cards. Do I know first hand? No, but this hobby is strewn with fakes and that all of the cards be tracked back to this one man and he states, "They are not real." That is a hard poker hand to beat.

Now, that I have summoned an English term, and I am in an impish state of mind, imagine not a dead beaten horse (sorry SPCA for the brutal mental image), but imagine a dead parrot. I did not buy the parrot, but imagine me coming in with that same impish grin and making my argument. Now for a selection from my sense of humor reference library:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE

[Brian Van Horn]

But we can all agree the prices for those listings on Ebay are way too high whether the cards are real or not?

Paul,

Just to clarify, the cards on eBay are Merchants Bakery and are real. The ones we are discussing are 1921 Herpolsheimers which are fake. It is not a popular sentiment as you can see from this post which I have made stray from its original point.

[ullmandds]

But we can all agree the prices for those listings on Ebay are way too high whether the cards are real or not?

People are getting mixed up here...there are 2 different issues being discussed here...the 21' herps(claimed to be fake)...and the merchants bakery(on ebay...and yes...overpriced)!

[ctownboy]

Point of origin?

Does that mean he was the guy who printed them or he was the guy who sold the original lot?

Again, two different scenarios with the answer to each giving a different meaning to the cards. If he was the point of origin means he printed the cards then, yes, they are "not real". If point of origin means he was the seller of the lot then this means the cards very well could be authentic and "not real" means the guy didn't know what he owned.

In 1994, I bought my Star Player Candy cards from an ephemera dealer at a paper show in Louisville, KY. He wrote his asking price on the back of each card in pencil. He told me the cards were originally collected by his Father who had lived in central Michigan as a child. The dealer didn't know who produced the cards (I didn't either. It took me a half an hour looking through the big SCD price guide in my car to find the cards and know they were real).

Now, what if this dealer did NOT know where the cards came from and he had access to a price guide and knew exactly what the cards were. What if he priced 14 of them as real and priced the Buddy Myer as fake and the ONLY reason he did this was because the Myer wasn't listed in the price guide?

I bought all of the cards for what the dealer was asking and only later, when I had time to look through all of them, did I find out that the Myer was an uncatalogued card. Did I think the Myer card was fake because it was unlisted? No. That was because it looked the same as the other 14 cards and was on the same paper.

So, unless the guy you bought these cards from specifically said he or someone he knew printed these cards and that they were blatant fakes, I find it hard to believe, with all of the other evidence presented, that these cards are fake.

David

PS. I don't own any of these Herps, I have never owned any of these Herps and I have never even held one of these cards in my hand. I DO remember when they were on eBay and the conversation about them on the old board when they were listed.

[slidekellyslide]

Leon and Rhett's opinion >>>>>>>>>>> unnamed dealer.

[chernieto]

Paul,

Just to clarify, the cards on eBay are Merchants Bakery and are real. The ones we are discussing are 1921 Herpolsheimers which are fake. It is not a popular sentiment as you can see from this post which I have made stray from its original point.

Thanks Brian- my mistake-guilty as accused.
I'll take a step best and wish you good luck in this discussion & horse beating.

[Brian Van Horn]

But we can all agree the prices for those listings on Ebay are way too high whether the cards are real or not?

Paul,

That is one thing I think we can all agree.

[Brian Van Horn]

Thanks Brian- my mistake-guilty as accused.
I'll take a step best and wish you good luck in this discussion & horse beating.

Thank you, Paul. I am moving us on to dead parrots.

[Brian Van Horn]

LOL.

I apologize for the delays in response, but there is a ballgame on.

Gentleman,

All of the cards out there are from one guy. I met the guy. He said they were not real. Why? Mistaken? Nope. Who goes to a show with "original" cards and sells them for $1.00 to $3.00 and says they are not real. Then, after the fact, no further examples, save a poor attempt at a Cobb are found. The parrot is dead. The troll is still alive.

Hello, Polly!

This is turning into a classic thread ;):rolleyes:

[bn2cardz]

I just can't understand how "those aren't real" can make the jump to he printed them... and knows EVERYTHING about their history.

Honesty does not equate to never wrong. Ignorance and honesty are two separate issues as this thread has proved (because both sides of this debate have honest people and at least one side is wrong).

To produce the cards to look the exact same as the other cards from the set is a lot harder than you realize and seem to think through. Have you seen the "void" on a check that is written using small dots? That is because if you try and copy this design the scanner can't reproduce that accurately when reproduced. This is, in essence, what the problem with trying to produce the fronts of these cards is. The halftone used to produce the cards can't be replicated by copying the front of another card and then reprinting it. You would have to have the original of every photo to even begin to replicate these. This is also the same reason why other fakes have been easy to spot.

The only "plausible" explanation that keeps these cards "fake" is the stamping idea someone mentioned, but even that one should be easy to figure out based of the ink used and is easy to prove.

[packs]

Isn't it too difficult to distinguish between authentic and reprinted Fro Joy cards? It is my understanding that the Fro Joy cards are no longer being graded because it is too difficult to distinguish between some reprinted and authentic examples.

[nolemmings]

The only "plausible" explanation that keeps these cards "fake" is the stamping idea someone mentioned, but even that one should be easy to figure out based of the ink used and is easy to prove.

The card backs are not stamped, they are printed,which means they were affixed to the back when the cards were on a sheet. As mentioned, the cost of setting this up would be excessive and far disproportionate to any gain achieved by creating one such sheet.

[benchod]

Brian
I really question your recall of the entire story.
You have stated multiple times that they were sold on eBay by a seller in Maryland. That's is incorrect. They were sold by an antique shop in Grand Rapids Michigan. If you have this basic fact wrong maybe you don't remember the other details clearly.

[Brian Van Horn]

Brian
I really question your recall of the entire story.
You have stated multiple times that they were sold on eBay by a seller in Maryland. That's is incorrect. They were sold by an antique shop in Grand Rapids Michigan. If you have this basic fact wrong maybe you don't remember the other details clearly.

Sir,

My apologies because I do not mean to offend you, but it is you that has your facts incorrect. Herpolsheimers had a shop in Grand Rapids, MI. The cards that this gentleman had were eventually sold on eBay by a seller in Maryland.

[brianp-beme]

This seller could have stumbled across the hoard, found absolutely no hobby references concerning them, and concluded, quite inaccurately, that they were not real.

I see this as the most plausible answer since we have the various knowledgeable collectors who have actually looked at the cards and determined them to be genuine.

Brian (not the original poster, but instead poster child)

Hey Brian...everyone gets a response from you. Except me. I feel a little left out. Don't you see me waving my arms wildly at the back of the classroom?

Brian (part of the Herpes are for real lynch mob)

[Brian Van Horn]

Brian,

My deepest apologies, but there was nothing intentional. This thread is keeping me both busy and endlessly amused with timeout for laughing spurts.

Professor Wagstaff here has seen you and can only answer that this particular dealer was clear in his explanation, "They are not real." That tells me he knows about their history and the handwriting on the cards-I did not ask this either-I presume was his. I know. I know.

So, if the guy states "They are not real," he writes what price he wants for the cards and displays them at his table, it says to me the origin is something he has a clear knowledge of and has priced his cards accordingly. Ask yourself this question: If this guy has so little knowledge of his product, how is it he had every "legitimate" (cough, cough) that has ever been known to the hobby?

[Bicem]

The only thing I don't understand about this thread is why Brian won't even consider that just maybe, the guy was mistaken and didn't know what he had (as others have stated). Like it's not even remotely possible. This honest gentleman (selling fake cards :confused:) could have easily acquired them, had never seen or heard about them before, and thus assumed and truly believed that they were not genuine.

There's zero possiblity of that because he said they were fakes?

[nolemmings]

Brian,
I believe Benchod believes these were sold from Grand Rapids Mi based upon the following post from (former?) member Jeff McKee, who was an active bidder when these first appeared on Ebay ten years ago:

Posted By: <b>Jeff McKee</b><p>Hi Leon <br /> You guys (and Julie) could have wrote to me, I know a lot of you know my ebay handle. I was one of the 2 infamous bidders who ran the first set of these auctions up in price, I think the other is a lurker here as well. Hopefully by me posting it will not upset anyone who may have been thinking to bid on any of these cards listed in the future. I did not post about this last time it was brought up because I am in no position to tell most people on this board anything about cards and I also did not have the card I won to post about. When the Cobb(Manager), Johnson (Washington) and Stengel (Philadelphia) were first listed I was as skeptical as everyone else because the backs of the cards are not like regular 1916 Herpolsheimer's cards and there is no number on the fronts. These were being listed as 1930's cards. When the seller listed the other 3, Kid Gleason(Manager), Milton Stock (St.Louis) and Chester Thomas (Cleveland) I thought why would anyone go through the trouble of reprinting cards of common players with a different card back. I first checked the background of these 6 players and the common year for them all based on the information on the cards is 1921. The fronts are the same as the e121 set and the backs are close to but not the same as the 1921 Holsum Bread back, which is a variation of the e121 set. Also on the back of the 1916 Herpolsheimer's card it says<br /><br />Herpolsheimer Co.<br />Boys Fashion Shop<br />Grand Rapids Mich<br /><br />on these other cards it says <br /><br />Herpolsheimer's<br />Boys Fashion Shop<br />The Home of Boy's Fashionable clothing<br />second Floor<br /><br />The seller of these cards is a selling agent who sells items for people who normally wouldn't list on ebay. He is based in Grand Rapids Mi. and the person who is the owner is also from Grand Rapids, which is where it says Herpolsheimers is located on the back of the 1916 card. The owner was given them by his great grandfather who I was told did not work for Herposheimers, but may have known someone who did. I was also told that there are 69 cards in all, with no doubles. Most of the cards are commons with some HOFer's. The owner was willing to sell the lot for fairly cheap until the other bidder threw out a couple of large numbers and the owner of the cards got greedy and wanted more. Given all of the commons it was not worth the asking price for myself to buy the lot since the set had already been broken up anyway, with 2 of the top 3 cards gone from the set with the selling of the Cobb and Johnson. I had tried to get the owner to look into getting these cards accepted in the hobby, by getting them authenticated and doing the proper research in determining the exact year or years of issue. It is only my opinion that if these cards are legit, that they were from an unissued set of cards. I have only shown the scans of the Stengel to one other person on this board and he is of the opinion that the card(s) look real. I also think the card looks all right, but I am still skeptical and I am probably going to see what SGC has to say about the card. So as I have said it is all speculation as to whether these cards are real or fake or unissued. Any opinions based on the pictures?<br />Jeff<br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1098833349.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1098833213.JPG">

I vaguely recalled that discussion so pulled it up. In doing so, I found a thread in which you made you very first post, 10 years ago, in which you stated then that these were fake and with which others disagreed. Also, in that thread you spoke of the dealer telling you his belief that these had been made in the '70's, some 20-25 years before you would have spoken to him. So again I ask why you think he was the point of origin?

[benchod]

Keep posting, Brian
In the last 2 days I've been able to add 5 Herpolsheimers hofers to my collection at rock bottom prices

[the-illini]

The only thing I don't understand about this thread is why Brian won't even consider that just maybe, the guy was mistaken and didn't know what he had (as others have stated). Like it's not even remotely possible. This honest gentleman (selling fake cards :confused:) could have easily acquired them, had never seen or heard about them before, and thus assumed and truly believed that they were not genuine.

There's zero possiblity of that because he said they were fakes?

Yeah, why was this honest gentleman selling fake cards at all?

[benchod]

Sir,

My apologies because I do not mean to offend you, but it is you that has your facts incorrect. Herpolsheimers had a shop in Grand Rapids, MI. The cards that this gentleman had were eventually sold on eBay by a seller in Maryland.

You are the one who has your facts about the eBay sale 100% wrong
The eBay seller was/is located in Grand Rapids. Area code 616

[Brian Van Horn]

Keep posting, Brian
In the last 2 days I've been able to add 5 Herpolsheimers hofers to my collection at rock bottom prices

LOL. Great! The side effect is I'm driving down the stock market on 1921 Herpolsheimers. :D

[rhettyeakley]

Keep posting, Brian
In the last 2 days I've been able to add 5 Herpolsheimers hofers to my collection at rock bottom prices


Bruce is back! :D

[Brian Van Horn]

Yeah, why was this honest gentleman selling fake cards at all?

Chris,

That question I can not provide an answer to and never will be able to satisfy the curiosity.

[Brian Van Horn]

Brian,
I believe Benchod believes these were sold from Grand Rapids Mi based upon the following post from (former?) member Jeff McKee, who was an active bidder when these first appeared on Ebay ten years ago:



I vaguely recalled that discussion so pulled it up. In doing so, I found a thread in which you made you very first post, 10 years ago, in which you stated then that these were fake and with which others disagreed. Also, in that thread you spoke of the dealer telling you his belief that these had been made in the '70's, some 20-25 years before you would have spoken to him. So again I ask why you think he was the point of origin?

Todd,

Can I trouble you for a date on that post? I am a packrat when it comes to e-mails and I may-repeat may-be able to come up with the original eBay seller account.

Thank you,

Brian

[nolemmings]

Brian,

I closed the window. Just search Herpolsheimer--go to last and then up to the October through December 2004 posts for these various discussions.

Added-- your post was 12/24/2004.

[T206Collector]

Unless we know why the original seller believed them to be fake, his statement that they are fake is without any credibility. That is why no one is able to buy into Brian's story here.

My guess -- pure and simple -- is that the seller acquired them from someone who told him they were fake; or the seller had them appraised by someone he trusted who told him they were fake. Any of those people is just offering an opinion as to authenticity unless they printed them or fabricated them personally.

I have a signed T206 Cobb that James Spence told me was fake. Does that make it so? In the hobby today, you bet it does.

If Brian himself does not know who fabricated them, then the best anyone can hope for is an expert opinion. And the experts on Net54 have clearly weighed in on them being authentic.

This is all that matters.

[Brian Van Horn]

Unless we know why the original seller believed them to be fake, his statement that they are fake is without any credibility. That is why no one is able to buy into Brian's story here.

My guess -- pure and simple -- is that the seller acquired them from someone who told him they were fake; or the seller had them appraised by someone he trusted who told him they were fake. Any of those people is just offering an opinion as to authenticity unless they printed them or fabricated them personally.

I have a signed T206 Cobb that James Spence told me was fake. Does that make it so? In the hobby today, you bet it does.

If Brian himself does not know who fabricated them, then the best anyone can hope for is an expert opinion. And the experts on Net54 have clearly weighed in on them being authentic.

This is all that matters.

The original seller has credibility in my eyes.

[Bocabirdman]

The original seller has credibility in my eyes.

I have no doubt that you believe this seller to be honest. Honesty does not eliminate the possibility of being wrong. Your trust is commendable but with out the missing piece, the "why he believes them to be fake", I am afraid that this discussion will go unresolved. He saw Big Foot but didn't shoot him and bring back a body. There is nothing to back up his statement (at least that you have conveyed as yet). I have no dog in this fight but, Brian, you are convinced. Everyone else lacks your conviction in his honesty and credibility.

I shall step back now and watch the merry-go-round go 'round.:D

[Brian Van Horn]

I have no doubt that you believe this seller to be honest. Honesty does not eliminate the possibility of being wrong. Your trust is commendable but with out the missing piece, the "why he believes them to be fake", I am afraid that this discussion will go unresolved. He saw Big Foot but didn't shoot him and bring back a body. There is nothing to back up his statement (at least that you have conveyed as yet). I have no dog in this fight but, Brian, you are convinced. Everyone else lacks your conviction in his honesty and credibility.

I shall step back now and watch the merry-go-round go 'round.:D

Yeah, but this merry-go-round doesn't cause motion sickness :D.

[the-illini]

The original seller has credibility in my eyes.

I certainly respect your opinion Brian and I know you are very well-versed in vintage cards, but without a "why" or at least a name for this person, this is the Herpolshimer equivalent of trying to prove the Loch Ness monster is real based on anecdotal evidence.

[Brian Van Horn]

Thank you, Todd.

Here are parts 1 and 2. To clarify in part 2, I did see the guy setup at the Cleveland National (1999?). I was not part of the first discussion (now stop cheering :D):

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=75250&highlight=Herpolsheimer

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=75628&highlight=Herpolsheimer

[Brian Van Horn]

Oh, from December 24, 2004:

"Posted By: BrianVanHorn
The cards offered on eBay are fakes. I have seen these cards once before at a show produced by J. Paul Sports at the Charles Sewald Center on the Robert Morris Campus in Pittsburgh. This was about six years ago and I asked the dealer about these cards. He said they were fakes.

Why else would he say this if it were not true?

Apparently, according to the dealer, they were produced in the 1970's. Of course, as I write this, I have no idea of the identity of the dealer. It was a one time meeting.

Please don't misinterpret my message. I don't mean to come off as a "know it all" or bombastic. This is my first post and I don't want to get off on the wrong foot."

Right after that Leon typed "nothing personal, but you're wrong."

I guess it's just a decade reunion disagreement.

[T206Collector]

The original seller has credibility in my eyes.

For any reasons other than the following?

1. He said they were fake
2. He priced them low
3. He wrote the prices on them

[Brian Van Horn]

For any reasons other than the following?

1. He said they were fake
2. He priced them low
3. He wrote the prices on them

Yeah, just one small almost imperceptible reason. His honesty.

[T206Collector]

Yeah, just one small almost imperceptible reason. His honesty.

Was he infallible?

[Brian Van Horn]

Honesty and infallibility are two different subjects, but the conversation eliminated the infallibility.

[packs]

Maybe it's just me but I'm really not seeing how it's easier to believe that Herpolsheimer printed two sets of nearly but not quite identical cards, one of which was only printed one time, than it is to believe a single individual printed a single set of fantasy cards with authentic characteristics.

The cards in question are nearly the same as the previously known set. However, they are not perfect because there are inconsistencies with the text on the back of the cards.

Doesn't that scream reprint in nearly every other case?

[Brian Van Horn]

Good point.

[nolemmings]

The cards are nowhere near the same as the original 1916 Herpolsheimer set. The size of the cards and the selection of photos are completeley different, as is much of the player selection.

[the-illini]

Yeah, just one small almost imperceptible reason. His honesty.

So you have other experiences that validate his honesty, or are you just a good judge of character? It would help your argument if you would provide something other than parroting the same line about this guy being honest.

[T206Collector]

Honesty and infallibility are two different subjects, but the conversation eliminated the infallibility.

I am glad you recognize that an honest person can make an honest mistake, but without more than the conversation you have recounted there is no basis for eliminating the infallibility. You can only honestly say that you believe these to be fake. You do not know them to be fake.

[packs]

Anyone know where the notion that there is only one set came from? Is that an idea the hobby determined or was that something the seller claimed? If it is something the seller claimed there is a monetary incentive. If it was hobby determined there is something independent about that idea.

[Bocabirdman]

Yeah, just one small almost imperceptible reason. His honesty.

I repeat myself. Honesty does not an expert make. An honest person can be wrong. ( I slink back to the shadows, upset with myself for posting a second time in the thread with no likely resolution:D)

[ctownboy]

packs,

I think after these sold on eBay someone went and did research and found where the cards originated from and spoke to the people who sold them. Those people/that person said Herpolsheimers made only one set of these cards and that they had been in one person's family for a long period of time.

At least that is what I remember from the different threads about these cards from the old board.

David

[MikeGarcia]

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/2042957/view/1929KASHINFOXX_NEW.JPG



..It's been twelve pages since a card has been show......
....read the rules...

[packs]

packs,

I think after these sold on eBay someone went and did research and found where the cards originated from and spoke to the people who sold them. Those people/that person said Herpolsheimers made only one set of these cards and that they had been in one person's family for a long period of time.

At least that is what I remember from the different threads about these cards from the old board.

David



Again maybe it's just me but I can't help but see a monetary incentive for a seller to persuade the hobby that a previously unknown set with an inconsistent back relating to a known set is the only one in existence.

[nolemmings]

It is believed to be the only set (partial) in existence because no duplicates have been seen. A discussion between a board member and the ebay seller in 2004 is quoted in post 85, where seller says no duplicates. I gave a possible explanation as to why this group may never have been actually distributed in post 64, which is not news-- its basis had been posted on this forum before.

My recollection when these came on ebay in 2004 is that seller made no mention of these being one of a kind/unique. Also seems to me that if he wanted to maximize $$$ he would have had them authenticated by a TPG.

[Brian Van Horn]

I am glad you recognize that an honest person can make an honest mistake, but without more than the conversation you have recounted there is no basis for eliminating the infallibility. You can only honestly say that you believe these to be fake. You do not know them to be fake.

If a man at a show has cards that he is asking only $1.00 to $3.00 on and says the cards are fake, they are fake. Also, please refer to my December 24, 2004 post on the matter. He stated they were produced in the 1970s. I thank Todd for bringing up the archived post. I had forgot about that over time. I apologize, but at 48 a little senility has to eventually creep in :).

[packs]

It is believed to be the only set (partial) in existence because no duplicates have been seen. A discussion between a board member and the ebay seller in 2004 is quoted in post 85, where seller says no duplicates. I gave a possible explanation as to why this group may never have been actually distributed in post 64, which is not news-- its basis had been posted on this forum before.

My recollection when these came on ebay in 2004 is that seller made no mention of these being one of a kind/unique. Also seems to me that if he wanted to maximize $$$ he would have had them authenticated by a TPG.


What I am proposing is that the person who bought them could perpetuate the myth not the original seller. They are graded now and the lore behind them drives prices.

I respect the hobby but I also saw how the hobby proclaimed the blue Old Mill real with no reasonable explanation other than it was examined by respected members of the hobby. Despite their opinion I will never believe that card is real.

[Brian Van Horn]

What I am proposing is that the person who bought them could perpetuate the myth not the original seller. They are graded now and the lore behind them drives prices. The same is true of the Allegehny set. But has anything been verified independently? If you own an example your opinion is skewed.

I respect the hobby but I also saw how the hobby proclaimed the blue Old Mill real with no reasonable explanation other than it was examined by respected members of the hobby. Despite their opinion I will never believe that card is real.

Go man go. Bravo.

[nolemmings]

I disagree, it can just as easily show the guy didn't know what he had.

But why didn't you buy one? No downside if they were only a buck. You know pre-war cards pretty well, I should say. I assume you at least looked at them somewhat before speaking with him-- you said you say the prices on the back. Did they not look real to you and if not why not?

He said they came from the '70's but I'm guessing you didn't ask and he didn't tell how he got them. This still fits with my hypothesis in my first post--this is the exact time frame when Henry Johnson fakes (and probably Kending too) were supposedly made-- the same card fronts and everything. It very well could be that this was discussed among dealers-- no prior instance of this back before and known fakes using the same fronts ergo this is fake too. Heck your guy could have acquired them that same day from another dealer who sold 'em cheap because he thought they were fake, and he was parroting what he had been told. Your posts said this was a one time meeting with this dealer--never seen before or since-- yet it now seems you consider him some authority on the subject. Whether honest or not have you in your vast interactions with dealers at shows never come upon one or a hundred who acted and talked like they knew something that they clearly did not?

[Brian Van Horn]

Todd,

I don't buy fakes.

[packs]

The other logistical issue is that there is only one set. The value is in advertising and volume. So why would a company produce one set? Wouldn't that be insanely expensive and have no value to the company?

It is more likely that there is one set because it was never a set.

[nolemmings]

Did you even read my post #64? or the one a few prior to this one? Do you know a damn thing about e121s, Holsums, m101s, E135s or their related sets? Or are you just being a dumbass?

[packs]

Thanks for insulting me that is always a good way to make your point. We can have different opinions.

[T206Collector]

If a man at a show has cards that he is asking only $1.00 to $3.00 on and says the cards are fake, they are fake. Also, please refer to my December 24, 2004 post on the matter. He stated they were produced in the 1970s. I thank Todd for bringing up the archived post. I had forgot about that over time. I apologize, but at 48 a little senility has to eventually creep in :).

Let me try it this way:

"Guys, if a reputable and knowledgable dealer is selling cards at a show for under $3 marked 'fake' and 'fantasy card of the 1970s' there is a pretty good chance - maybe close to a 100% chance - that they are not the real deal. What's more likely - that they are indeed fakes as advertised? Or that they're unique one-of-ones from the 1920s that are worth thousands of dollars. I understand some pretty knowledgable people on Net54 now believe they're real, but I'm gonna go with the story I was told directly by a seller in the chain of owners. He was quite credible to me, particularly as he had every incentive to lie about their history and make a killing."

[timn1]

Prototypes and samples are created all the time, and then many are never produced on a large scale - what's so hard to grasp about that?

[benchod]

Did you even read my post #64? or the one a few prior to this one? Do you know a damn thing about e121s, Holsums, m101s, E135s or their related sets? Or are you just being a dumbass?

Todd,
You've shared your knowledge and used logical, rational reasoning.
It's not worth raising your blood pressure, anymore. There will always be conspiracy theorists.
Brian you have your opinion but it is not shared by the majority of the hobby.
Also you haven't admitted you were in error saying the seller was in Maryland. I don't doubt you saw some cards at a show that may have been reprints but how do your remember that they were this exact group?

[asoriano]

I respect the hobby but I also saw how the hobby proclaimed the blue Old Mill real with no reasonable explanation other than it was examined by respected members of the hobby. Despite their opinion I will never believe that card is real.

+1

[Brian Van Horn]

Todd,
You've shared your knowledge and used logical, rational reasoning.
It's not worth raising your blood pressure, anymore. There will always be conspiracy theorists.
Brian you have your opinion but it is not shared by the majority of the hobby.
Also you haven't admitted you were in error saying the seller was in Maryland. I don't doubt you saw some cards at a show that may have been reprints but how do your remember that they were this exact group?

Sir,

I wasn't trying to be rude, but my memory serves me as Maryland. In the post from 2004 there is an eBay lot number. If that lot number states the seller is from Michigan, then by all means I am wrong. Still, my memory serves me as Maryland. That could be wrong. My memory of my conversation, although I forgot about the gentleman stating the cards were produced in the 1970s (please see December 24, 2004 post) is otherwise intact.

[Eric72]

I find it interesting that there are now a few (as opposed to just one) dissenting opinions regarding the authenticity of these cards.

Would the board please (collectively) post images of the cards in question? It could further this discussion in a positive and scholarly manner.

Best,

Eric

[Brian Van Horn]

Two matters here:

Eric,

That is an excellent idea. Rhett put up scans earlier of a couple cards, but lets help out with the scans we can retrieve.

On the other matter:

Todd,

You and I both know each other's knowledge of sets, particularly with the M101. If you would, please take it a little easier on your criticism of another board member.

[nolemmings]

Packs, first you thought that the 1916 and 1921 Herpolsheimers were virtually identical, something you could have learned was untrue by spending 5 minutes on Old Cardboard or simply having some underlying knowledge of the sets of the era. Then you suggest that my opinion is skewed--that I see what I want to see because I own all of one common, implying at the same time then that anyone here who owns one or more of these somehow is not objective enough to have an informed opinion. Oddly enough, you then liken this to the Blue Old Mill T206 case and discount those board member opinions also, even though their opinions cannot be deemed skewed by financial incentives--they don't own the freaking card.

Finally, you claim that it would be insanely expensive for Herpolsheimer's to have created one or only part of one set. Apart from what Tim just said about prototypes, you apparently don't know that a half-dozen or more advertisers issued basically that same set; i.e.; that the fronts were already available and it would simply mean printing the advertising to a blank back. Yet it might just be insanely expensive for someone 50 years later to not only create a period printing plate for the backs, but re-create the fronts also, all for his own jollies and fantasies.

Edited: Brian, I will never take it easy on someone who suggests my opinion is biased/skewed because I own one flippin common worth a couple hundred bucks.

[MW1]

The first time I saw the 1921 Herpolsheimers, my impression was that they were a more modern issue--something that very well may have been printed in the 1970s. They have both the feel and look of cards that were printed more recently, not in 1921.

That being said, I think it is possible that Herpolsheimer's Boys Fashion Shop in either Detroit or Grand Rapids may have commissioned the printing of a small "test" series in 1921 and then, for whatever reason, shut down production and meticulously stored the cards until they were discovered in the 1970s, and perhaps thought to be a more modern issue.

With the pricing ($1 to $3) and the writing on the backs of the cards, however, I'm leaning towards the former provenance. The rumors of more modern printing also add support to this possibility.

[rhettyeakley]

I find it interesting that there are now a few (as opposed to just one) dissenting opinions regarding the authenticity of these cards.

Would the board please (collectively) post images of the cards in question? It could further this discussion in a positive and scholarly manner.

Best,

Eric


Not true. The only people that are doubting them being real from what I have read is Brian and apparently Mich.ael We.ntz, with all due respect to packs he doesn't know what he is talking about with regards to these cards.

[rhettyeakley]

my impression was that they were a more modern issue--something that very well may have been printed in the 1970s. They have both the feel and look of cards that were printed more recently, not in 1921.

Michael, absolute baloney! The cards look and feel in no way like they were printed in the 1970's. I feel like I am taking crazy pills right now reading these posts. I am literally as I am writing this holding a non-graded Herp, a Holsum bread, an E121 Series of 80 and a Witmor candy right in front of my face and if I didn't tell you which one was which nobody would be able to tell the freaking difference!

Again, when they first showed up I thought they were fake until I actually held one of the cards and compared it to others and for all the reasons I have explained ad nauseam. Brian is being really weird about this issue (sorry Brian I just don't understand your stance at all and I honestly can't believe you even believe it) so I will ask an honest question of anyone (probably not Brian because he admits he has never actually looked closely at the cards)...

SHOW ME PROOF THEY ARE FAKE!

anything, anything that is inconsistent with other E121 like sets! Enough is enough, show me any little bit of actual evidence that supports the "they're fake" position!

[4815162342]

I cast my vote for this thread as Funniest Thread of the Year.

[Leon]

Rhett, Michael is just saying he doesn't own any. It's not that unique of a way of saying it, actually. These aren't fake, we all know it. Don't beat yourself up.

[rhettyeakley]

Rhett, Michael is just saying he doesn't own any. It's not that unique of a way of saying it, actually. These aren't fake, we all know it. Don't beat yourself up.

Not beating myself up over it I just don't understand the "non-consensus" on the subject. I actually find this thread pretty humorous. The "crazy pills" comment is a Zoolander reference (in case anybody actually watched that movie) and am 100% not upset about anything (if that is how it is coming across).

[rhettyeakley]

Just for fun...

without looking up subjects or anything else pick the Herpolsheimer's (sorry for size but I wanted them to be somewhat big)...

http://starsofthediamond.com/herpornoherp2.jpg

[tiger8mush]

Just for fun...

without looking up subjects or anything else pick the Herpolsheimer's (sorry for size but I wanted them to be somewhat big)...



Just for fun I'll guess the Charles Deal? 25% chance :)

I know almost nothing about these and have no dog in the fight, but it was mentioned as a possible possibility - could the 1921 Herps have been blank backs originally (printed along w/the other M101 blank backs so the cards are authentic, correct paper, etc) with the backs printed? Again, I might've missed a post explaining why its 100% not possible, but is it even a 1% possible explanation as to why Brian's seller waved them off as being fakes?

Ok, feel free to call me a dumbass now :)

[nolemmings]

Rob you're not a dumbass. :) They're not m101 though, so your reference to that set is misplaced-- the cards are akin to E121, Holsum, D350-3 Standard Biscuit, Shotwell, Queen City, w575 etc.

I'll let Rhett and others who focus on these sets elaborate but will give my two cents. As I understand your question, you wonder whether legitimate card fronts from 1921 had their backs added later. This has always been a concern of mine with stamped backs, as anyone can have a stamp cheaply created to say most anything, and then the only trick would be getting the right ink. As mentioned, some known Henry Johnson and a couple of advertised chocolate brands using these card fronts have surfaced which are known to be fake in this regard.

These Herps were printed--all are centered and there is no uneven inking. To print them as you ask would require that you first have an uncut sheet of genuine blank-backed e121s, a rare enough piece in its own right. Why anyone would defile such an item with fake backs and then cut it into cards to create fantasy pieces defies logic. Moreover, and I'll let those with printing experience take over here, it would be very cost ineffective and expensive to set up the printing process for such an endeavor, particularly to produce just one sheet. This makes even less sense if done 40 years ago with no likelihood or even creator's desire of recouping money. Finally as I understand it, there are some of these Herpolsheimer's that depict players who are unknown to e121, so it's even less possible someone could have even used a sheet of blank-backed e121s, leaving perhaps only w575s as candidates, which themselves may have been strips, not sheets. Of course, I have not even touched upon the expertise required to adequately replicate the design, ink and fonts to look like those used in some of the other 1921 sets.

I think you also have to ask yourself, if someone really had used a legit sheet of blank-backed cards and just added very realistic period-looking backs, how in the heck would a dealer be able to so easily dismiss them as fakes? What analysis was undertaken–if the fronts are real then the “tell” must be on the backs, right? What is it? What did they know 40, 20 or 15 years ago that we don’t know now?

No, I stick to my theory that someone just dismissed them because they were unknown/ uncatalogued and because other known fakes using some of the same fronts (but different backs) had been spotted and were on the hobby radar at the time.

[glchen]

After reading this older thread (w/ many of the same folks in this one), I'm now w/ most of the others in believing that these card are authentic. Here's the link: Link (http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1205973284/last-1206221798/Herpolsheimer's....). The thing that is very convincing to me are the arguments from Rhett and Frank that many of the images in these card are extremely rare. If someone was trying to make a reprint set, why would they use such difficult to find images? They would use the common ones from the E120-80 or W575 sets.

I think someone told the original seller that Brian met that the cards were fake. Someone that person trusted as a knowledgeable collector. That is why he seemed so honest when talking to Brian and priced the cards so low. Maybe they simply made a mistake at that time thinking the cards were fake because the set was unique and not catalogued.

[smokelessjoe]

For what it is worth...

Here is some interesting stuff: Not sure that it helps in any way though....

A picture I pulled from Lemke's Blog of the Ruth / Shotwell with very similar border...

Next, is an article showing that the Shotwell MFG DID insert "Souvenirs" into their Checkers Brand popcorn box (similar to Crack Jacks)...

Last is an advertisement from Shotwells "popcorn that pops" that has a similar border...

[darwinbulldog]

Just for fun I'll guess the Charles Deal? 25% chance :)

I'll take Weilman. Now we're up to 50/50.

[MW1]

Michael, absolute baloney! The cards look and feel in no way like they were printed in the 1970's. I feel like I am taking crazy pills right now reading these posts. I am literally as I am writing this holding a non-graded Herp, a Holsum bread, an E121 Series of 80 and a Witmor candy right in front of my face and if I didn't tell you which one was which nobody would be able to tell the freaking difference!

Again, when they first showed up I thought they were fake until I actually held one of the cards and compared it to others and for all the reasons I have explained ad nauseam. Brian is being really weird about this issue (sorry Brian I just don't understand your stance at all and I honestly can't believe you even believe it) so I will ask an honest question of anyone (probably not Brian because he admits he has never actually looked closely at the cards)...

SHOW ME PROOF THEY ARE FAKE!

anything, anything that is inconsistent with other E121 like sets! Enough is enough, show me any little bit of actual evidence that supports the "they're fake" position!Rhett,

I will grant you that the fronts of the cards may be virtually indistinguishable from other period issues, save for their general condition. The reverse sides, however, do not appear to have been printed in 1921. Sorry for not being more specific. Many of the vintage characteristics are lacking although I will concede that this might be due to how they were stored. In any case, I'm not at all saying they are fake.