Headin Home Ruth - authentic, reprint or countefeit?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Greg Martin</b><p><img src="http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/headinhome1.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/headinhomer.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/ruthtopfront.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Turner Engle</b><p>I'd say it is no good. <br /><br />I have one that looks identical to yours, and I was told mine was fake.<br /><br />Will try to find a scan of it later today.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>There are a few others on the board that have handled many of these too....You know my opinion so we will see what others say ....FKW?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Greg Martin</b><p>Thanks. I'm working on typing the story behind this transaction. Here's another photo...It's amazing what a little light will do...<br /><br /><img src="http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm25/gbmartin34/ruthfrontscale-1.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Turner Engle</b><p><a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5042/ruthbn4.jpg" border="0" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us"/></a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>here is mine..<br /><br /><img src="http://luckeycards.com/phuncbaberuthheadinhomemajestic.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p><img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/zouraspm/ruthheadinhome.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/zouraspm/hhb.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>If under strong magnification the printing is made up of a fine pattern of multi color dots, it's a reprint. I assume 99 to 100 percent of the reprints will have these color dots. I'm not aware of the this issue being formally/officially reprinted by a printing house, so I assume most to all reprints were made on home computers or such.<br /><br />For Pre-War black/sepia-and-white cards-- from Old Judges to Play Balls--, if the magnified printing shows multi color dots, you can assume it's a reprint. Some of the original PreWar b & w cards do have a dot pattern (Play Ball, 1915 Sporting Life, for examples), but it is monotone (black dots only). Other original Pre-War b & w cards are actual photographs (Old Judges, Pinkerton Cabinets, for examples) and have no dot pattern.<br /><br />So, the multi-color dot pattern is a modern technique to reproduce antique b & w photos, cards, etc, but was not a technique originally used. Most computer printers, including the ones you and I have at home, will produce the multi color dot pattern, even when reproducing a black and white photograph. You don't notice the multi colors from naked eye level, just when examining the image under strong magnification.<br /><br />If you look at most black and white cards or photos, they aren't strictly black and white. Old Judges and Heading Home cards are sepia, Sporting Lifes and Play Balls have off white stock. Even 1910s news photos have colors to the the images. If you reproduced these cards or photos in strictly black on white ink, they wouldn't look right-- they'd look like dime store Xerox copies and experienced collector's wouldn't believe for a second they were originals. This is why they often recommend you reproduce your old b & w family photos using color not black and white film-- if you look at the originals, you will see they aren't strictly black and white. Yes, they're called "black and white," but your family photos look will a lot better when you use color film.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>Thanks for the tip David.<br /><br />Seems the reprints' text placement matches the card in question. Also, the first stantion didn't copy well on either counterfeit.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Greg Martin</b><p>"I assume 99 to 100 percent of the reprints will have these color dots. I'm not aware of the this issue being formally/officially reprinted by a printing house, so I assume most to all reprints were made on home computers or such."<br /><br />David, thanks for the information. Based on the above statement, a reprint would be a licensed, formal copy of an original and a home computer version would be a counterfeit?<br /><br />Here is the condensed version:<br /><br />This card was placed on ebay by a seller who had received several recent negative feedbacks as a buyer. He had perfect seller feedback, some of which included a recent sale of 1911 Helmar stamps. I thought the Headin Home card was authentic based on his scan but figured it was risky, not because of the possibility it was counterfeit, but because I may not receive the card at all. Therefore, I submitted what would be a low offer for one of these authentic cards, with the stipulation that if he agreed he would add a buy it now to the auction. I received his reply the next day that he would reluctantly take the offer and added the buy it now. Then I received it and held it in my hand. It just didn't look right, not even a little bit.<br /><br />After my discovery and subsequent !@#$, I immediately logged onto this site and attempted to post but couldn't figure out how to place a photo in the message. I e-mailed Leon for his opinion and joined photobucket. I logged into Paypal and filed a dispute. After giving the seller a few days to respond, I upgraded the dispute to a claim. I was willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, thinking of the possibility he may have purchased the card without the knowledge of its lack of authenticity. His no response to the dispute, however, answered that question. In my initial dispute, I stated to Paypal that I would be willing to return the card to the seller for a full refund. When I upgraded to a claim, I added I would need the seller's response prior to returning the card because I am not releasing the evidence.<br /><br />My collection of battered cards can be viewed at PSA's web site under the Martin Family Collection, Babe Ruth master set, etc. <br /><br />Turner, if I may ask, who sold you that card?<br /><br />Steve, thanks for the chewed on 1924 Ruth... believe it was last year I bought it from you. <br /><br />Leon, thanks again for your time prior to, and during this post.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Turner Engle</b><p>Greg: To answer your question, I bought the card from a seller at a show in Cincinnati. That was about a year ago, and I don't remember the guy that I bought it from. <br /><br />I think I paid $10 or $20 for it, knowing it was a shot in the dark that it would be legit.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcyleback</b><p>Greg, if your card is a reprint (official or homemade reproduction) and was offered as original, it's a fake. Fake means the described identity is different than what the item is.<br /><br />Forgery and counterfeits are fakes that were intentionally made to fool and often defraud others. Fake is the word you use if the item is not authentic, but you don't know the makers/seller's intent. Some fakes are due to seller's ignorance not maliciousness. <br /><br />If a vintage card was reproduced on a home computer printer with the intent to sell as an original, that would qualify as a counterfeit. Are there a lot of what I would classify as counterfeit baseball cards on eBay? Yes. Though, as noted, if I wasn't sure of the maker's intent, I would call the cards fakes, which translates to "they are not authentic." And, as everyone knows, if you buy an autograph or baseball card or Tiffany lamp and it's "not authentic," you deserve your money back. As far as getting refund in small claims court, whether or not the maker or seller belongs to a mafia counterfeit ring is beside the point. If Mother Theresa's kinder sister unknowingly sold you a bad Tiffany's lamp, she'd have to give a refund. In other words, knowledge of maker's or seller's intent is not needed to get a refund if the item was misidentified in the sales description. That the item is fake is reason enough for the refund. If the Feds are pursuing it as part of a criminal case of counterfeiting, then showing intent would be essential.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Greg Martin</b><p>David, thanks again.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>I own 2 and this doesn't look good to me but I will have to double check tonight. This looks more like a card where I think mine are bordering on photo type paper? Has been about 10 years since I looked at them. Dan.<p><br /><br />WOW! just noticed the 2 posted. I didn't know these came with borders or advertising on back. I am sure mine are more square and blank backed. But my memory is terrible.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>There are 3 different varieties of these and 1 that doesn't look close to the other 2.....here is the odd man out....<br /><br /><img src="http://luckeycards.com/phuncbaberuthheadinhome.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>There we go Leon, that is exactly what I have. Dan.