Reprints?

[h2oya311]

Are these really reprints? With postmarks on back, etc.? Or did I miss out on some "too good to be true" lots on eBay? These look a little "off" to me, but they don't look that bad and could easily be pawned off as the real deal.

Thoughts? Comments? Snide remarks?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1910-Philadelphia-Athletics-Postcard-Postmark-10-28-1910-/183974695048?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=R0s3HFKz3JjvUEKW1NY0nYrCPQk%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1908-Detroit-Tigers-Team-Postcard-Postmark-10-11-1908-/183974697337?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=R0s3HFKz3JjvUEKW1NY0nYrCPQk%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1906-Chicago-White-Sox-Team-Postcard-Postmark-3-13-1907-/183974694050?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=R0s3HFKz3JjvUEKW1NY0nYrCPQk%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc

[h2oya311]

different seller, same description, same postcard that "sold" about 1 week earlier:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1908-Detroit-Tigers-Team-Postcard-October-1908-/362755835137?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=R0s3HFKz3JjvUEKW1NY0nYrCPQk%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc

[Bicem]

I bought one just to see it in person for educational purposes, I'll post my findings when it arrives.

Fronts look bad, backs look good, so I'll see what's going on.

[RCMcKenzie]

He has positive feedback from a buyer who bought a "1952 Topps Willie Mays" for .99 cents. I can't believe anything after that and would keep moving. Just my .02. Similar to the other thread where the guy has a Ruth rookie and a 1 seller feedback for a nintendo cartridge.

[Popcorn]

it says reprint in the description and looking at the sellers completed sales they have sold a lot of fake cards.

I’ll admit the post cards look really good for a reprint.

[Bicem]

His cards are obvious reprints, but I have not seen many reprints of postcards that look to be postal used. I want to know how he did it.

[swarmee]

So if/when you find out it's a reprint pasted to a real back, at least you can return it as Not As Described since it wasn't made by Cracker Jack and doesn't have Shoeless Joe.

[Bicem]

I think more likely the backs are re-printed as well and not really postal used.

[Rascal1010]

Very odd that at least 2 of them have a second postage stamp over the first stamp. I looked at these also the other day, and just wasn't convinced they were legit, but I too was unsure enough to bid.

[chalupacollects]

Looks like second seller of same postcard is from same town as original seller...probably the same person different account...

[D. Bergin]

Looks like second seller of same postcard is from same town as original seller...probably the same person different account...


Yup, same seller, two different accounts, two different reprints.

Sometimes, when somebody says that something they are selling is a reprint, you just have to take their word for it.

[steve B]

Very odd that at least 2 of them have a second postage stamp over the first stamp. I looked at these also the other day, and just wasn't convinced they were legit, but I too was unsure enough to bid.

That's what they've done.
Printed a postcard image of a postcard that was postally used, then added an actual used stamp so it doesn't look flat.

They did a decent job of matching the cancel up on second two, and got it totally wrong on the Philadelphia one.

[Leon]

When anyone gets one of these it would be nice to know what they are....

[BeanTown]

When anyone gets one of these it would be nice to know what they are....

+1

[Bicem]

Very odd that at least 2 of them have a second postage stamp over the first stamp. I looked at these also the other day, and just wasn't convinced they were legit, but I too was unsure enough to bid.

They are pretty obvious in person. And you are correct, they put a real stamp on the reprinted back. The stamp under the real one is just part of the reprinted back and not a real stamp.

https://photos.imageevent.com/bicem/musc/large/IMG_20191010_164812.jpg

[pbspelly]

I wonder why his "uncle" collected reprinted postcards and then put old stamps with forged postal markings on them. Such a strange collection, but glad to see these beauties getting into the hands of people who will appreciate them.

[steve B]

I wonder why his "uncle" collected reprinted postcards and then put old stamps with forged postal markings on them. Such a strange collection, but glad to see these beauties getting into the hands of people who will appreciate them.

The postal markings on the real stamps are not forged. Those stamps were used for years to mail postcards, and there are thousands of them readily available. I'd say I'd mail a similar stamp to anyone who wants one, but the postage is more than one is worth. (Unless you get really lucky - and if it's me mailing the old stamp you won't)

The reprinted markings and reprinted stamps themselves I think are a gray area. I think in this context they aren't allowed, but that's probably a question for a postal inspector.

[pbspelly]

The postal markings on the real stamps are not forged. Those stamps were used for years to mail postcards, and there are thousands of them readily available. I'd say I'd mail a similar stamp to anyone who wants one, but the postage is more than one is worth. (Unless you get really lucky - and if it's me mailing the old stamp you won't)

The reprinted markings and reprinted stamps themselves I think are a gray area. I think in this context they aren't allowed, but that's probably a question for a postal inspector.

If the markings on the real stamps are not forged, then how is it that the lines line up (albeit not always perfectly) for the stamps on the Chicago and Detroit cards? It looked to me like they used a pen to ink in the wavy lines on the stamps. But perhaps I am mistaken.

There is still clearly an intent to deceive here. What makes it a bit tricky from a legal perspective is that he is not expressly claiming that these items are genuine, and, in fact, is, at least superficially, presenting them as reprints. But what the seller is really doing, of course, is pretending to be more ignorant than he really is, and hoping that buyers looking for a bargain will think that he doesn't know what he's really got. What the seller is misrepresenting here is his own knowledge about the genuineness and provenance of these items. He's trying to take advantage of people who are, in some ways, looking to take advantage of him. It reminds me a bit of the adage that it is hard to con an honest man. But they are looking to take advantage of his ignorance, while he is pretending to be something he's not. There is a difference. What would be kind of funny would be to send him a message telling him that he shouldn't be selling these for such a low price since they look genuine, and you don't want to see him get taken advantage of, and see how he responds to such "honesty."

[steve B]

If the markings on the real stamps are not forged, then how is it that the lines line up (albeit not always perfectly) for the stamps on the Chicago and Detroit cards? It looked to me like they used a pen to ink in the wavy lines on the stamps. But perhaps I am mistaken.

There is still clearly an intent to deceive here. What makes it a bit tricky from a legal perspective is that he is not expressly claiming that these items are genuine, and, in fact, is, at least superficially, presenting them as reprints. But what the seller is really doing, of course, is pretending to be more ignorant than he really is, and hoping that buyers looking for a bargain will think that he doesn't know what he's really got. What the seller is misrepresenting here is his own knowledge about the genuineness and provenance of these items. He's trying to take advantage of people who are, in some ways, looking to take advantage of him. It reminds me a bit of the adage that it is hard to con an honest man. But they are looking to take advantage of his ignorance, while he is pretending to be something he's not. There is a difference. What would be kind of funny would be to send him a message telling him that he shouldn't be selling these for such a low price since they look genuine, and you don't want to see him get taken advantage of, and see how he responds to such "honesty."

The wavy lines are from a commercially produced cancelling machine that was used in hundreds of cities/towns. I could look up which one it was in a book I have, but I'm too lazy.
Those machines were mass produced, and the wavy line dies are very consistent from one to another. All it takes is a boxful of cheap stamps and a bit of time matching them up to find one that's close enough. I bought an envelope full at the stamp club for my daughter to play with. (She is sort of into stamps, and he favorite color is green) It only cost $5 for a few hundred of them.

I agree that it's deceptive, and really isn't something the seller should be doing.
The reprinting of the entire back including markings may be illegal as well it's allowed for stuff like stamp catalogs and articles, but I don't think it's allowed for a commercial product, or one where it might be mistaken for an actual stamp and postal marking. Showing a picture of a stamp, even in black and white wasn't allowed for a long time even in stamp catalogs or articles.

[Leon]

Wow. A real stamp to make it look real.....scamming 102.

They are pretty obvious in person. And you are correct, they put a real stamp on the reprinted back. The stamp under the real one is just part of the reprinted back and not a real stamp.

https://photos.imageevent.com/bicem/musc/large/IMG_20191010_164812.jpg