Need some help with T222 [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

View Full Version : Need some help with T222

Archive

08-23-2006, 02:58 PM

Posted By: DSGreenI recently purchased this card from an ebay auction for my Braves collection. <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/1914-FATIMA-PLAYERS-LEFTY-TYLER-BOSTON-NATIONALS_W0QQitemZ250015653827QQihZ015QQcategoryZ 86839QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/1914-FATIMA-PLAYERS-LEFTY-TYLER-BOSTON-NATIONALS_W0QQitemZ250015653827QQihZ015QQcategoryZ 86839QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem</a> Now I know nothing about this issue other than what has been discussed on this board, what is in Lipset's Encyclopedia, the info that is on Cycleback website concerning this issue, and what is on Old Cardboard. The card, even with the problematic pictures, seemed legit to me, especially considering I could not find any information concerning this issue ever being reprinted. So, I felt it would be a good chance to add a T222 to my small collection. After receiving the card, it measures out pretty close to what it should and the edges in the photo that look uneven, I suspect are due to some warping on those specific areas on the edge. Obviously from the back it looks to have been placed in an album of some type. The card itself is very thin, so much so that I can see the card back pretty clearly when held to light. The card also has a glossy finish which is very evident, especially where the torn corner is because the is a small area where the gloss is gone but part of the card remains. Also, there is no print dots on the card under 20X magnification. All of this had me feeling good about the card until I again checked the checklist of the set and noticed that the number under Tyler's name should be a 4. Under magnification, the number under the card I have looks very much like a 9. I noticed a white nine on other cards in this set that I could locate images for. Another thing that troubles me about the card is that the back printing looks to be a stamp because under magnification, there is some bleed on the lettering, especially around the lettering for "Turkish Blend" and "Cigarettes." Given this, do you think this card could be a fake? Sorry that I don't have any scans up yet. Thanks for any help you can offer. <a href="http://sgccardregistry.com/index.asp?action=5&setid=244" target="_blank">Forever A Brave Collection</a>

Archive

08-23-2006, 04:35 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackThe Fatima T200s and T222s are photographs, as opposed to ink and printing press prints. If, under strong magnifying glass, there is a ink dot pattern in the player's image, it is a reprint. Photographs have no dot pattern, as they aren't printed with a printing press but exposed under light shined through a negative. I suspect that 100 percent or close to 100 percent of Fatima reprints have a dot pattern in the image.

Archive

08-23-2006, 04:44 PM

Posted By: DSGreenDavid, thank you for your response. I had read that info on your site prior to bidding. Under 20X magnification, there are no dots in this image whatsoever, which is one of the reasons that I felt good about it after receiving it. Do you think 20X is enough. It is enough for me to recognize the dot pattern in other cards, such as a T206 reprint. <a href="http://sgccardregistry.com/index.asp?action=5&setid=244" target="_blank">Forever A Brave Collection</a>

Archive

08-23-2006, 04:46 PM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)Check out the following link for T222 <a href="http://www.t207.com/t222.shtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t207.com/t222.shtml</a>

Archive

08-23-2006, 04:48 PM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)From the photo you can't tell anything. For what it's worth I've seen T200 reprints but I can't recall seeing any T222 reprints. It wouldn't surprise me to see the Alexanders popping up as reprints someday.

Archive

08-23-2006, 05:34 PM

Posted By: davidcycleback20x power is more than strong enough to see any dots. I would think half that power would be enough to see any dots. The T222s are on photo paper, and are not on cardboard like a T206 or Topps.

Archive

08-23-2006, 05:45 PM

Posted By: bcornellThat card is fine, in my opinion. All of the characteristics you cited are what you should expect to find. A counterfeit almost certainly wouldn't have the glossy surface, for one thing. The seller needs to stop taking photos of his items at dusk from a moving vehicle, but the card is okay. Bill

Archive

08-23-2006, 06:39 PM

Posted By: scott brockelmanif anyone knows 222's it's Bill Listen and you shall learn

Archive

08-23-2006, 06:43 PM

Posted By: Anonymoushold the card at an oblique angle to a light source, being careful in handling it as they are very fragile, you should be able to see an faint "embossing" of the back print on the front due to the very thin paper stock.

Archive

08-23-2006, 07:16 PM

Posted By: DSGreenThank you for all of the help everyone. It is really appreciated. Any ideas on the number under the name being a 9 rather than the 4 that is listed in the checklist? It seems clearly to be a 9 under magnification but I also can see how it could be mistaken for a 4 with the naked eye. <a href="http://sgccardregistry.com/index.asp?action=5&setid=244" target="_blank">Forever A Brave Collection</a>

Archive

08-23-2006, 08:06 PM

Posted By: bcornell<img src="http://www.t207.com/images/t222_bottom_number.jpg"> I think it's a "9", not a "4", as well. For what it's worth, Lipset's book has one other mistake - Alexander is actually a "2", not a "9". There's no rhyme or reason to the numbering of these cards and they don't signify anything, as far as I know. One other t222 tidbit - while all numbers 12 and higher are difficult, "15" is harder than the rest. Lobert, JC Smith, Johnson, Henry, L.Magee and Lelivelt are in this group and show up on almost all want lists. Bill