Potentially fake D350-3 Standard Biscuit backed cards on eBay
 

I was looking over at the recent PWCC thread and noticed Val talking about some 1921 D350-3 Standard Biscuit cards that recently sold on ebay. It is a set that I collect pretty aggressively so I was a bit bummed I had missed them, that is until I looked at the scans.

Something isn't right with these cards, which were VERY high grade for the issue and look like they were printed yesterday with crazy sharp corners. That being said the thing that is "off" about them is the printing on the back.

I have collected these for years and below is the back of one of the cards from my collection, please notice how crisp the printing is on the back of the card and how well-delineated the individual letters and even the little tick marks are all around the edges. The backs were most likely printed by the same company producing the cards themselves and one would expect the "clarity" of the print to be similar on the front and the back...

http://starsofthediamond.com/standardbiscuitreal.jpg

Now, here is one of the backs from the recent ebay auctions, notice how "blurry" the back printing is, especially the tick marks around the edges. It almost looks like someone made a rubber-stamp of some sort and just stamped the back of the cards...

http://starsofthediamond.com/standardbiscuitfake.jpg

I have been collecting these for years and have 10-15 of them in my collection and have never seen backs like the ones that just sold, I just wished I had seen them when they were live so that perhaps I could have alerted the forum to their dubious nature.

Not having the cards in front of me I don't want to speak to the authenticity of the cards themselves as they may be legitimate blank backed W575-1 cards (probably not though but will hold off judgement) that have had a deceptive back added to increase value. I appreciate everyone else's opinions on the matter.

Looks like you are on to something based on the two scans. The printed back on the SGC graded example appears slightly thinner than your example, but perhaps it is simply the difference in scan size that deceives me. Can you crop the SGC example back so that they are approximately the same size to see if there is a difference.

Also, is it common for the front to be perfectly centered but the back to have that "diamond cut" look?

The SGC graded one (above) looks like a stamped back whereas the other one looks printed from a press. Something looks fishy but maybe there were period ones with stamped backs?....Whether there is something amiss or not, I don't know, but it seems strange...here are a few more from my collection...

http://luckeycards.com/pe121d350stan...cuitstrunk.jpg

http://luckeycards.com/pe135standardbiscuit.jpg

Hopefully Mark M. has some input as to known or rumored fakes of this West Coast issue. The backs are definitely different than previously known examples. There is some similarity among Standard Biscuit, Holsum and Herpolsheimer to suggest that the same printer was involved in all three sets and yet as Rhett said these from ebay last night lack the clarity and evenness of printing found in the others. The cards also looked a bit too white or "un-toned" to me also, although the '21s show less toning than the '17s (see Leon's post) and it could just be the scans.

If it's a stamp it's a very intricate one; otherwise it could just be a less precise printing from a different printer--we know there were at least two printings of this set because of the "80 photographs" language found sometimes. Still, apart from the uneven inking, what also bothers me is the inconsistent printing/inking within the various cards themselves that sold last night. One looks generally washed out, no bold distinction between "Standard Biscuit" and message text, blurred "Cal.", another looks a little more heavily inked on the right-side letters and frame, another on the left, etc. A different printing would not show such inconsistency would it? This too supports a stamped backing, and although that would not mean they were fake per se, it would really make me skeptical that these are period with genuine backs (although I'd love to have one or two in hand to see)

http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/pw..._1/3_200_2.jpg
http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/pw..._1/3_200_4.jpg
http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/pw..._1/3_198_3.jpg
http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/pw..._1/3_198_1.jpg
http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/pw..._1/3_198_4.jpg

Here are a few more of the known examples for comparison:
http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverh.../21sbhenry.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverh...21SbThomas.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverh...uit_schang.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverh...1SBPfeffer.jpg

The card in question has printing on the reverse that is inconsistent with any Standard Biscuit I've seen before. Without having the card in hand to examine, I'd withhold any opinions as to the card's authenticity, but the back is enough reason to post a yellow flag

There's a Ruth with the same back in the current Hunt auction:
http://www.huntauctions.com/phone/imageviewer.cfm

Interesting information. I bought the Alexander. I did not have a D350-3 to compare these two. I did notice the backs were crooked and a bit inconsistent on card to card. I imagine it is plausible that the cards were blank backed and stamped but why would someone stamp the backs of cards already worth quite a bit of money. My assumption was the backs were either a bit blurry due to scanning through the SGC holder or that the printing just wasn't perfect on this group. I had planned to cross the card over with PSA and put into my type collection . I have very little confidence in SGC as they graded re colored Fatimas on two occasions I have seen that did not cross over to PSA. It would be very disappointing if SGC would not be able to tell if the cards were altered (or not period in all ways) If it comes back from PSA as a fake I am sure PWCC will take it back and provide a refund. I will post another comment when I get the card which may be as soon as today.

Here's the picture.

Good catch on the Ruth, whenever you are talking about a high dollar card like a D350-3 Ruth would be that certainly makes things more interesting

Based on the serial number on that Babe Ruth and the ebay cards, most have the same numbers (at least the WaJo and several of the others on ebay) so they were graded together.

That Ruth also looks much more like an American Caramel to me (or w575-1) than a Standard Biscuit. Note that on the right side of the photo there is a dark-shaded stripe that is often seen with American Caramels and w575-1s (so too on the ebay Faber). I do not recall ever seeing this on a Standard Biscuit d350-3, although maybe Rhett has. Instead the photos are "cleaner". I also suspect that if a particular card has that "stripe" on a Standard Biscuit, then all examples share the trait, yet here is a Ruth D350-3 that lacks it:
http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...em_10260_1.jpghttp://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...em_10260_2.jpg

The Ruth was graded around 10 yrs ago.

Leon, I have no problem with the D350-3 Ruth Todd just posted a scan of as it is 100% legit w/ the clear back and the "old style" SGC holder with the hologram at top on back.

The Ruth in the Hunt Auction that Gary posted a scan of is the questionable one, I don't think that one was graded that long ago (but before SGC switched to their new holders) as it has the "newer style" embossed SGC instead of the hologram at top on back.

I was commenting on the Hunt Auction one.....and now I see it was recently graded..My error, someone else told me about the "other one" being graded 10 yrs and I thought he was talking about the Hunt Ruth, but he wasn't, or he was mistaking.

How can you tell it was done 10 years ago?

That being said 10 years ago we probably knew even less about these cards than today so regardless of when the item was graded I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of the back of these "Standard Biscuit" cards. It also doesn't change anything as the Walter Johnson and several others have the exact same number as the Ruth (only the last digits after hash mark are different, indicating they were on the same invoice).

It is the card Todd showed that was graded long ago. My mistake and edited above.. And I know because it was SGC that told me.

FWIW, the scan I showed of D350-3 Ruth came from a 2008 REA offering, so it's been around awhile. http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/.../2008/504.html

I have never collected this issue so forgive me if this is a silly question - the CARDS themselves are real, but the stamp/printing on the back is what is believed to be fake, correct?

Have the same question.

No idea on the cards themselves as I don't have one in front of me right now to check against a real one to determine that so I don't want to jump the gun and say the cards are fake/counterfeit. The back stamp is likely not real in my opinion based on the evidence. I really hope someone didn't mess with some real W575-1's and add backs to them to make them more desirable, a normal W575-1 card is worth a fraction of what a D350-3 card is worth, the D350-3's are actualy REALLY tough to find.

Rhett, thanks for catching this and initiating this thread. Right about now, I'm so glad I didn't chase the WaJo card (or the Joe Judge card, which I was the first under bidder on). "Sometimes, it's better to be lucky than good" describes how I feel right now!
Best,
Val

Looking deeper...
 

around the printed/stamped back, you can see an faint wavy outline where it looks like these may have been printed separately, then affixed(?) with an iron/steam which then adhered them to the back and made them a little drippy? Or am I seeing things. The ones posted as authentic don't have a faint border in between the printed back text and the card edges, but the posted ones from the recent auction all seem to.

Caveat: I have no experience with this issue, just seeing differences between the scans.

To me it doesn't look like anything was affixed to the cards in question as much as they look to be somewhat crudely stamped.

I rescind; I must be seeing part of the SGC holder which makes it look like a cloudy outline of a piece of paper.

My first instinct in seeing the differences first posted was that the questionable card was stamped with a basic ink stamp, the difference is noticeable even to someone who knows nothing about the cards(me).

.

Thg Trader Speaks July 1976
 

Here is an image out of the July '76 "The Trader Dpeaks" showing this Wilhoit as the issues discovery. The border and text is clearly crisp in this image.

Actually Eric, the card featured in your Trader Speaks article is from the 1917 D350-2 Standard Biscuit set, identified by the card numbering on the front and the reference to 200 subjects on the back (not 80). The second scanned card in Leon's first post shows an example.

I'm not offering excuses but for whatever reason the grading card companies have had problems with these sets for a long time. Leon's first posted example is a mislabeled SGC card, and below that I show mislabeled cards from both PSA and GAI. Again, it shouldn't be that hard to tell the two sets apart--look for card numbering on the front and the number comprising the set on the back.

Also, the hash marks or ticks that frame the ad message on the back are designed differently. In D350-2, they are uniform strokes or bars of the same width and length, kind of like teeth in a comb. In D350-3 these strokes have wider spacing and are not uniformly sized but instead are placed in a broad-thin-thin, broad-thin-thin pattern--very distinct to the eye. These possible fakes tend to blur the two sets--trying to hit the right pattern for D350-3 but looking more like the other set because of uneven inking. They therefore may look somewhat familiar to the graders, who already have trouble telling the two sets apart. :)

todd
 

great delineation of the history of problems with the cards.
Thanks for working so hard to keep the scholarship current in an area full of dark tributaries.

all the best, Todd

Barry

Leon or anyone else...

Is SGC in contact with Hunt's Auction in regards to the Ruth card or are we all going to pretend that there is nothing wrong with a card selling for $50,000+ with some serious questions about its authenticity?

http://www.huntauctions.com/phone/im...29&lot_num=754

SGC is very aware of the possible issue and the Hunt Auctions Ruth being auctioned now with that possible issue. I spoke with a VP there 2 days ago and they are aware of this thread.

Good to hear, thanks for your efforts Leon. This hobby is a better place with people like you in it!

The below D350 Ruth is currently being auctioned. Given that the back doesn't seem blurry, I assume that it's authentic?

auction
 

Or they learned how to make a better fake....... jus sayin

Looks like it either has some bleedthrough from the front ink or wet sheet transfer from being stacked on another card.

At this point a lot of us would do better grading than the TPG's. I don't trust them like I used to. I am being careful with everything I buy, especially graded.

A good friend had to return this not long ago. Worst looking e94 backstamp I have seen. And I currently own one already deemed fake, after slabbing in a graded holder. It makes me want to vomit. :)

As for the Ruth in question...probably good but I can't be positive from the scan.

I see no problems with that Ruth card, it is good.

Thanks, Rhett!

Looks like the Lelands 1921 D350-3 Standard Biscuit Ruth SGC 4 just sold for $60,658.80.

Hi gang,

Picked this up in a lot recently, it wasn't pictured but was noted as being E135. When I received it, the back was mostly covered in scrapbook, except a small spot in the middle that appeared to say "Standard Biscuit Company" in blurry blue font.
So I soaked it for about an hour (only meant to do it for 10 mins, but lost track of time). The scrapbook paper was floating freely from it, but I noticed the water had a light blueish tint to it, which normally doesn't happen when I soak a card. As you can see, the back is a D350-3 in blurry blue font.

Thoughts? I'd be happy to send it to someone more knowledgeable for inspection if needed. Thanks!
Rob
:)
tiger8mush@yahoo.com

I believe Hodge is in E121 series of 120, not series of 80. No 1921 Standard Biscuits correlate with E121-120 to my knowledge. Nor have I seen one with blue ink. Finally, the design that surrounds/boxes the text is different from the 1921 SBs, which follow an alternating two thin line and one thick line pattern (see some examples from this thread). So whatever the authenticity of the card front, this is not a D350-3 card. Sorry.

Thanks Todd!

Ruth ungraded D 350-1 real or fake
 

I have an opportunity to buy this ungraded Ruth D 350 -1 ...... suspicious yes but I also noticed it appears to be the same card as one auctioned off in a Mile High Auction years back. enclosed is the link to the auction

https://www.milehighcardco.com/spect...-lot63709.aspx

here are the photos of the current offering - looking closely all the markings and creases are exactly the same. the back is printed fine (no stamping) Why would it have been broken out of a PSA holder. The lower corners seem sharper BUT they both have the same markings

https://www.ebay.com/itm/25635441697...3Avlp_homepage

Run

I own the standard biscuit PSA 2 Ruth that was sold in mile high. It sits in my safe. Not sure what you are looking at, but whatever it is, it’s not my card. And there are only 3-4 known Ruth SB combos.

If it quacks like a duck….

I just looked at the eBay listing - that is fake.

Honestly, these types of postings/questions burn me up - yea right! Go ahead and buy for $3500, a super rare Ruth Rookie, unslabbed, from a guy out of Puerto Rico with 11 feedback. Use your fucking head - does anything (literally one thing) about that sound legit?

Well at least he asked. Of course if there was any chance it was real he just outed it lol.

Here are (3) cards that aren't as milky white as the ones I 've seen in this thread. Perhaps mine are older (snicker, snicker ). I've had these cards for a couple/few decades and I'm pretty sure they're legitimate. I'd say, "hey, they're graded by SGC so they have to be authentic". But we all know that's a joke these days.

Attachment 603240

Yeah, why would it be broken out of a PSA holder? Because it wasn't. Someone is going to be rather disappointed with a $3500 fake Ruth.

I was getting confused reading the thread. Is the D350 in POST 9 the "suspect" card?

A little research seems to indicate that these cards could have come with blank backs which allowed advertisers to put their own stamps on them. If so, how much more $value does the "Standard Bisquit" stamp add to the card (as opposed to a blank back version)?

In an effort to educate myself on the D350, I went to the Old Cardboard website and found the following info:

Subset Name D350-1
Year of Issue 1916
Card Size (inches) 1-5/8 x 3
Num. of Cards in Set 200
Cards Numbered? yes yes no
Related Sets: M101-4, D329, H801-9


D350-2
Year of Issue: 1917
Card Size (inches) 2 x 3-1/4
Num. of Cards in Set 200
Cards Numbered? yes
Related Sets: E135, D328, H801-8



D350-3
Year of Issue: 1921
Card Size (inches) 2 x 3-1/4
Num. of Cards in Set 80
Cards Numbered? no
Related Sets: E121, D327

Note: The D350 Type 1 and 2 subsets are listed in the American Card Catalog and in the Sports Collectors Bible with Type 1 as an 80 card set of "large" (2 x 3-1/4 inch) cards and Type 2 as a 200 card set of 1-5/8 x 3 inch cards. The sets as defined above are consistent with most hobby checklists today but are not consistent with the descriptions in the ACC and SCB.

I'm no expert on this issue but if I were to guess, I'd guess the cards in POST 4 look suspect only because the stamps appear to be very "light".