PDA

View Full Version : M101-5 Ruth (Closed Ebay Auction)


Archive
11-21-2007, 11:49 AM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/Babe-Ruth-1915-Sporting-News-RC-rookie-AUTHENTIC_W0QQitemZ160178696319" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/Babe-Ruth-1915-Sporting-News-RC-rookie-AUTHENTIC_W0QQitemZ160178696319</a><br /><br />Now, red flags abound, but let's ignore those and discuss the card on it's merits and use it hone our repro ID skills.<br /><br />In the newly created Net54 forgery ID section, there is an article on IDing reproductions of exactly this card:<br /><a href="http://www.network54.com/Index/86178" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Index/86178</a><br /><br />However, the card on ebay seems to pass many, if not all of the criterion:<br />1)This space between the border and image<br />2) Space under foot<br />3) No trimming on bottom of card<br />4) Gap in the corner of the border<br /><br />So, looking at the card, was it real or fake?

Archive
11-21-2007, 12:16 PM
Posted By: <b>quan</b><p>matt there's a difference between reprints and counterfeits. of course there are also stolen scans, photoshops etc.<br /><br />i've seen a couple good home-made counterfeits with hi-end printers (and sometime fuzzy off-angle scans) but when you have the cardboard in hand it becomes apparent.<br /><br />edit: oh yeah...and the ruth is fake....reading the description for about 15sec the seller admits as much.

Archive
11-21-2007, 12:33 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>quan - You're suggesting a reprint doctored to look like the real thing wouldn't be called a counterfit?<br /><br />I understand having a card in hand can help, but many of us have no vintage card sources close by and shop online, so that doesn't work.<br /><br />Again I ask, looking at just the card, is it real or fake and how do you know (or can you not know on this one)? <br /><br />I don't really care about this card in particular, so just imagine this card was posted by a seller with 300 ebay feedback, who sells all his items raw and there are no obvious flags.

Archive
11-21-2007, 12:35 PM
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>I think this is bad because of the difference in the color of the paper from the front to the back. Could I be wrong? yes but I would bet on me on this one.

Archive
11-21-2007, 12:45 PM
Posted By: <b>quan</b><p>usually i brush off these noob questions (smiley) but i like you so here's my system for identifying (not so obvious) reprints/counterfeits and an *** if it applies to this ruth auction.<br /><br />1. take him for his words when he says it's a reprint*** <br />(...my great grandpa got this card direKly from a paidmont pack and he died of lung cancer in 1939 but i wAsn't there wit him so cant garantee its authenticity...GOD BLESS AMIRKA SUPPORT OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ)<br /><br />2. when he has a history of selling cheap graded cards but not this 15k card if real***<br /><br />3. again...trust him when he says it's not authentic*****************************<br />one more example (...i've had this card looked by 18 different dealers and they told me it's real but i'm not sure so there will be no return)<br /><br />I guarantee you will eliminate 90% of the fake crap out there if you just follow those 3 rules. If card passes those 3, then u gotta know the particular issues like front font ot a t206, the whiteonwhite of a cracker jack, that n300 mayo have black backs...or why this ruth have a white back like my 1989 score card right out of the pack while the front is so toned! <br />

Archive
11-21-2007, 12:50 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>quan - thanks for entertaining the question, but I think you're missing my point. The auction is over and done with and clearly we knew not to bid due to the flags.<br />The question was:<br /><br />just look at the card - forget the seller.<br /><br />can you tell?<br /><br />the answer seems to be the back being so white is the giveaway...<br />

Archive
11-21-2007, 01:59 PM
Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>It's a counterfeit, or it's two different scans. The front is almost certainly m101-5, and the back is m101-4. No way you have a toned front with a white back like that. TSN cards are not toned like that either, so if he tried to photoshop the back to look more yellow, that would be another sign. I am unaware of any authorized (licensed) reprints of m101-4, so this is a case of two "cards" being scanned, printed, and melded into one through a re-back, or, as I mentioned, it's two separate cardscans. Either way, it should be even more obvious once the "winner" receives it, although it is obvious now also. <br /><br />Edited to add: BTW, the "card" is trimmed, and there is one other obvious clue it's fake, but I'm not sure I should say, as the pinhead seller could be reading and the blunder could be corrected.

Archive
11-21-2007, 02:09 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Todd - would you at least email me what that other clue is?

Archive
11-21-2007, 02:17 PM
Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>I guess if you have the money to spend $600 a pop for Star Wars action figures and $200 for Albert Pujols shiney cards, you can throw away $3500 on a bad fake Ruth card....