Help urgently needed on N162s. [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

View Full Version : Help urgently needed on N162s.

Archive

05-13-2003, 07:29 PM

Posted By: julieSome N162s have a tiny line at the back, very last line, that says "Geo. S. Harris $ Sons, Lith, Phila" Some do not. Some that have been graded by GAI and SGC do not. Are the ones without the line reprints? If so, someone went to a lot of trouble to make beautiful reprints...

Archive

05-13-2003, 09:00 PM

Posted By: HankronI don't know anything about the 'Geo. S. Harris' text, but any and all, past and future N162 reprints and counterfeits (at least reprints & counterfeits that resemble the originals) would have a half-tone dot pattern throughout the player's image.

Archive

05-13-2003, 09:06 PM

Posted By: HankronThis means that if you have a N162 and examine it with a strong maginfying glass/microscope, and the image is free of the halftone dots (compare to a Topps card or magazine picture) and much of the printing is sold, almost as if painted on, it's safe to assume you have an original and not a reprint. Many of the early color lithographic cards, including the Allen & Ginter cards and albums, look much like paintings under strong magnification. In fact, it's common that collectors who own original color lithographs think they have watercolor paintings.

Archive

05-13-2003, 09:22 PM

Posted By: HankronLastly, as the cards you are talking about may be online and not in hand, I realize that my points may be of no help or relevance. If this is true, I take it all back.

Archive

05-14-2003, 01:47 PM

Posted By: HankronThis also says that, even if a collector has never seen a N162 or All & Ginter except in a MastroNet auction or on eBay, he or she can still make a reasonable judgement of authenticity of those Allen & Ginters at an estate sale or that someone is trying to sell you in person. I'm not neccesarilly saying that a collector should plunk down $2,000 on an Cap Anson Old Judge without a second opinion, but the collector with a good handheld microscope or powerful loupe should with easy identify any and all Old Judge, Allen & Ginter and N162 counterfeits and reprints-- even if you've never seen one in person before. Simply remember that any and all reprints (again I'm talking about reprints that closely resemble the originals you see online. Someone could make a sharpie sketch of an Allen & Ginter that has no halftone printing dots, but you don't need a loupe to judge the authenticity of the one) of an Old Judge, Allen & Ginter, N162 Gypsy Queen will be made up of the halftone dots, almost always in a variety of colors. It's as simple as that.

Archive

05-14-2003, 02:38 PM

Posted By: runscottthat you are ignoring the fact that there are not only reprints out there, but also "forgeries". You can forge any photographic image simply by taking a photograph of a real "photo" card such as an Old Judge. If done well, and on paper that gives the look and feel of the albumen image on an Old Judge, people other than you or Jay would be hard-pressed to pick out a forgery. Sure, it would involve time and skill on the part of the forger, but when you're talking about a multi-thousand $ card, it's very possible. I'm not talking about the goofs from Ohio and Kentucky that do the cheap scan-jobs, but people with brains, time, and who get a thrill from beating the system.

Archive

05-14-2003, 02:51 PM

Posted By: runscottI noticed you kept responding to your own posts, and I felt sorry for you <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

05-14-2003, 03:34 PM

Posted By: HankronThat's true, and that's why I get phone calls from MastoNet on auction day. You are correct that the real potential for a multi-thousand dollar forgery is the making of a brand new high end card of cabinet card or such. In fact these types of forgeries have appeared in the fine art photography world. In one case, a talented photographer made a salt-print photograph (early form of photography) of a neightborhood girl dressed in Victorian clothes and passed it off as authentic to top experts at an Enlglish exhibition. I know for a fact that there have been fake photographs in top auction houses the we all know and love and bid in. In fact I could tell that some were fakes just looking at the picture in the catalog. But as neither the auction house nor the bidders solicited my opinion or review I figured it was their problem.

Archive

05-14-2003, 04:28 PM

Posted By: Keith O'LearyJulie, checked the ones I have at home (all SGC graded). Out of the 23 I have here, 11 didn't have the lithographer 12 did. My Kelly BTW does not, my MacKenzie does, my Zukertort does not. I'm guessing they came both ways. hope this eases minds, Keith

Archive

05-14-2003, 04:29 PM

Posted By: julieAll my cards (6 of them) pass the magnification test. 4 of them (3 chess players--SGC 70s and 60-- and Anson--ungraded) lack the lithographer's line on the back at the bottom; two have the line (Brouthers and Kelly). The kelly i sent to ben Fisher--so very much like my own, but a "5" (GAI--was) rather than a "6" (PSA-was)--differs from mine in that it lacks the lithographer's line. I'm trying to get as much feedback as possible--anybody have N162s with no lithographer's line? Mark Macrae, who has the whole set, has promised me a chart by the end of next week.

Archive

05-14-2003, 08:07 PM

Posted By: julie....

Archive

05-15-2003, 10:27 AM

Posted By: chrisWhat exactly do half tone dots look like? Does anyone have a scan of a close up? Or maybe the question should be: what am I supposed to see when looking at a real card through magnifier? I appreciate the help.

Archive

05-15-2003, 10:56 AM

Posted By: juliecolor applied with a paintbrush. I HAVE seen, in VCBC, recently, an article on N162s, in which the illustrations were definitely dotted. Must have something to do with the printing process. I was actually surprised to look at my own cards and see that the surface looked smooth and painted.

Archive

05-15-2003, 11:34 AM

Posted By: warshawlawis that the print line is on some but not on other printings, as is the case with N184 logos, N269 print lines, etc. As far as painted vs. dots goes, both N162 and (one of my favorite sets) T224 have pointillist-style illustrations on some cards--the painting itself is comprised of dots. These look nothing like a half-tone print; I point it out only so that there isn't a panicked rush of people mistaking painting technique for print dots.

Archive

05-15-2003, 02:03 PM

Posted By: HankronAdam is correct. There are often a number of naked eye visible dots (called 'stipple') that the artist put here and there for shading or texture. Kind of like adding by hand some dots with your pencil to give shadow in a sketch. These dots are easily differentiated from the saturated/throughout tiny dot pattern on a modern trading card or image on the cover of a Time magazine.

Archive

05-15-2003, 02:28 PM

Posted By: HankronRealize that the N162 & Allen & Ginters were actually handmade. Using special lithography pens and other tools, the artist drew directly onto the printing plates, or onto special paper that directly transfered the art to the printing plate. The printing plates essenitally printed these exact 'drawings' directly onto the cards. This is why under even high magnification they look much like paitings, and there is not halftone dot pattern or pixels. In modern times, whether it's the player image on a 1971 Topps card or a reprint of a N162, they reprint the original art (whether it's the N162 or a Topps photograph). Using a complicated reproduction process and literally an image of the original art through a screen to separate the image into tiny dots, they make the image into saturated pattern of tiny dots. The end result is basically the same as the pixels in a computer image. So the sporadic stipple dots of an original N162 were by the artists design and hand, while the throughout halftone dots of a reprint were from the way it was printed. Lastly, the stipple dots are usually easily visible to the naked eye, while modern halftone dots usually are not, often requiring a strong magnifying glass.

Archive

05-15-2003, 02:47 PM

Posted By: HankronJulie's point was a good one. But it reminds me of whenever I point out that a real photograph has no printing dots or printing pattern (a photographic image is made by a chemical reaction not by a printing plate). I usually try to point of that a photograph can have dots in the image if, for example, the image is of a kid with freckles. So, I don't want anyone calling the fraud police because the player on the Old Judge card he just bought has buttons running down his shirt and a dimple on his chin.

Archive

05-15-2003, 03:28 PM

Posted By: runscottI finally got a close-up look at a Mayo the other day, and was surprised to see that it was like a black and white lithograph, rather than a photo. Can you describe how these were created? Thanks

Archive

05-15-2003, 03:46 PM

Posted By: julieThe ones in VCBC (the Keefe, which I don't have), were definitely visable to the naked eye, and an addition of the artist.

Archive

05-15-2003, 04:29 PM

Posted By: HankronI've never owned one before, and I'd have to see one in person to tell you for sure. My guess is that they are halftone photoengravings (photoengraving being a popular printing rival to lithograph) and are not real photographs like many think. If under strong magnification they have the halftone dot pattern, that's what it is. If this is the case, this would mean the images are reproductions of original photographs or whatever the original art was (some of them have a kind of artisticly-altered look). This is the same printing method used to make many 20th cards, including the Sporting News, Sporting Lifes and Exhibit cards. These all kind of look like photographs but, upon closer look, have the dot pattern. Again, I'd have to see one in person to say for sure.

Archive

05-24-2003, 11:32 AM

Posted By: Brett DomueJulie, Have you received anything further on these. More specifically, can any 1 card be found both with and without the line? Just wondering if we need to list 2 variations of each card in the set... Brett Brett Domue okeedokee@pipeline.com <a href="http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/wantlist.htm" target=_new>http://members.aol.com/METSBWD/wantlist.htm</a>

Archive

05-25-2003, 07:41 PM

Posted By: julieBetween keith's 23 and my 6, we have evidence that at least some of the cards come both ways. Terry Knouse called to say he thinks ALL N162s come both ways... And then Mark Macrae called this afternoon to tell me that his entire set of 50 have the lithographer's line. He bought the set from an 80-year-old man, who got it from his father. End of report.

Archive

05-25-2003, 10:40 PM

Posted By: juliethe 80-year-old-man (this was 20 years ago), his father probably lived in one place and bought his cigarettes at the same place for a lot of his life, so any idiocyncracies native to that place would show up on all his cards. Or, even if he didn't smoke, and was just attracted to the cards, would mooch cards off his neighbors, who, like the cards, would be the same for a lot of his life. Or? Mark says he knows for a fact that N162s were distributed from centers from all over the country. Keith and I probably have no idea where our cards came from. before me, mine came from 4 different states, all on the east coast (5 with no lithographer's line, 2 with one).

Archive

05-27-2003, 01:57 AM

Posted By: C Danielsfor details! ! if a nice first edition "pinky" is not available than try a nice blue or light green one.I am certain he has a few for you to purchase and treasure. The pcitures are mostly borrowed but the info is helpful for you. David you should pop a few on E-bay!

Archive

05-27-2003, 02:36 PM

Posted By: HankronThe pinkies are okay every other day, but I swore off the greenies altogether as they made my eyeballs itch.