View Full Version : How to spot a fake 1963 Pete Rose?
eliotdeutsch
04-22-2019, 11:52 AM
Every website says the fakes are on lighter card stock, enabling light to show through.
Can someone test whether or not an iPhone light can shine through an authentic Rose RC? I just bought one that I was told was authentic, but my iPhone light does get through.
Thanks! I’ll try to post pics later.
Yastrzemski Sports
04-22-2019, 12:00 PM
Your best bet is to use a magnifier and compare it to another 1963 card. Sometimes using a phone camera on zoom will work.
But the real question is how much did you pay for it? Where did you get it? If it was online do you have a link? For 30+ years the Rose rc is one of the most faked. Your best bet is to buy it graded. If you saved a lot of money by buying one raw you probably got what you paid for.
eliotdeutsch
04-22-2019, 05:34 PM
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=1125&pictureid=26911
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=1125&pictureid=26912
Please tell me what you think? I do know its trimmed. I just want to make sure it's authentic.
fusorcruiser
04-22-2019, 06:51 PM
Hello, Looks like a real one to me but does looked trimmed along at least a couple edges. The off-center nature illustrated on your card is typically not found on reprints and the color and card stock type on the back look authentic. I'm just a collector and not an expert but I would've bid on this one as it looks like others I own.
hcv123
04-22-2019, 07:35 PM
As was previously suggested - get it under good magnification - If under magnification you see a pattern of dots - it is no good. If it is solid (no dots) under magnification it is good.
The top of the card looks trimmed to me. As stated earlier the centering indicates that it is probably not a fake. One thing that concerns me as well is the how nice the top corners are compared to the bottom. Maybe the trim job has something to do with that.
swarmee
04-23-2019, 05:42 AM
Top looks like a meniscus, to go back to middle school chemistry experiments. Definitely trimmed.
Yastrzemski Sports
04-23-2019, 07:42 AM
Looks good to me. It's the perfect card if your intent is to have it signed.
eliotdeutsch
04-23-2019, 08:32 AM
How did you know?!
steve B
04-23-2019, 10:34 AM
As was previously suggested - get it under good magnification - If under magnification you see a pattern of dots - it is no good. If it is solid (no dots) under magnification it is good.
The pictures however should have dots. The rest should not.
steve B
04-23-2019, 10:35 AM
How did you know?!
I suspect he read your website name....
I love that classic Rose rookie stamped - Official Counterfeit on the back ! LOL
tedzan
04-23-2019, 06:41 PM
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=1125&pictureid=26911
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture.php?albumid=1125&pictureid=26912
Please tell me what you think? I do know its trimmed. I just want to make sure it's authentic.
Your card is real.
It's not complicated....the cap of a fake Rose rookie has a thin black outline on it. Here's counterfeit card to compare with your Rose rookie...…..
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1963ToppsPeteRose25x.jpg . http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/websize/1963ToppsPeteRose25bcf.jpg
TED Z
T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.
should one be proud to own a collection of "original reprints " ?..
Imagine the prestige associated with having counterfeit baseball cards that have been stamped on the back .assuring you - that,yes they are original...reprints :)
Mark17
04-23-2019, 08:18 PM
should one be proud to own a collection of "original reprints " ?..
Imagine the prestige associated with having counterfeit baseball cards that have been stamped on the back .assuring you - that,yes they are original...reprints :)
I have to figure an original reprint is more valuable than a reprinted reprint.
MikeGarcia
04-23-2019, 08:39 PM
I have to figure an original reprint is more valuable than a reprinted reprint.
..I only buy reprints if the seller points out that "it doesn't say 'reprint' anywhere on the card." Hey , it doesn't get any more authentic than that. ......per E-Bay rules.....
..
ALR-bishop
04-24-2019, 12:44 AM
I intentionally bought a fake Rose Rookie and a 59 Ted Signs fake to put labeled as such with those two sets. At one time the SCD Standard Catalog listed two fakes intentionally. One involved Topps Mini Promotional Samples from the 60s, which were Surff book cut outs patted to cardboard with Promotionsl Samples stamped on back. A 62 Mantle was pictured in the Catalog.
The other involved pewter ingot examples of the Gallery Of Chamions sets, which were done, with one exception per year from 84 to 91 in silver, bronze or aluminum
Doesn't the story go .. A " Judge " ruled that these reprints/fakes could " stay in the hobby " for all to enjoy..as long as they are stamped on the back..
But did they have to stamp them " Original Reprint " ?.... why couldn't they just go with - "Counterfeit "...and leave it at that ??
Mark17
04-25-2019, 06:56 AM
Doesn't the story go .. A " Judge " ruled that these reprints/fakes could " stay in the hobby " for all to enjoy..as long as they are stamped on the back..
But did they have to stamp them " Original Reprint " ?.... why couldn't they just go with - "Counterfeit "...and leave it at that ??
Wouldn't someone creating a counterfeit card be in violation of copyright laws, using the name of Topps, the Major League teams and logos, and the players pictures?
CobbSpikedMe
04-25-2019, 05:33 PM
I had heard that the cards were to be destroyed after they were all stamped but several examples escaped the destruction phase and remained in the hobby. I also bought one of the stamped cards and love the thing for the collectible that it is in my mind. I also have a counterfeit 1984 Donruss Mattingly that was being sold all over the place in the 80's. It's currently in an ASA slab labelled as counterfeit. I love that one too.
Yes, that's right..the 84 Donruss Mattingly …..I recall a lot of those fakes...and I seem to recall 84 Donruss were not seen as often as the Topps..so that made it easier to dupe collectors
tedzan
04-25-2019, 09:10 PM
I had heard that the cards were to be destroyed after they were all stamped but several examples escaped the destruction phase and remained in the hobby. I also bought one of the stamped cards and love the thing for the collectible that it is in my mind. I also have a counterfeit 1984 Donruss Mattingly that was being sold all over the place in the 80's. It's currently in an ASA slab labelled as counterfeit. I love that one too.
Hi Andy
In the Summer of 1982 at the St. Louis National, counterfeit Rose rookies were available, and I bought several of them. Most of them were stamped "COUNTERFEIT".
But, some were not stamped. Anyhow, I purchased several cards of both of them. If I recall correctly, they were $5 each. Shown here are examples of each.
I could have sold the un-stamped ones as "real" (typical price in 1982 for a Rose rookie was $250). Most collectors, at that time, would not have known the difference.
But, you know me well.....I'm an honest dude.
http://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/2xPeteRoserookies50x.jpghttp://photos.imageevent.com/tedzan77/images/large/2xPeteRoserookies50xb.jpg
TED Z
T206 Reference (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=237816)
.
CobbSpikedMe
04-26-2019, 04:43 PM
Hey Ted,
That's cool. I've never seen one of the fakes without the stamps. And yes, I know you're honest and wouldn't sell it.
Andy