Very simiar to those - thanks for sharing.
|
Quote:
|
Just to recap this since there was a lot of interest. The seller messaged me that due to a few concerns brought about by bidders and non-bidders in regard to the pennant's authenticity, including from me, he suggested having an appraisal of the pennant to which I agreed.
|
The batter looks “squattier” (more compressed) in the M&N repro.
|
Quote:
And with the originals, the words “National Champions” arch higher above and further below the “Cincinnati Reds”. Which means it’s either a reproduction or that they used two separate silkscreens back in the day. It would’ve been interesting to find out whether the graphics are painted/screened, or flocked (raised velvet). The fact that it’s being evaluated by an AH is not the end all-be all. I have seen countless reproductions offered by the top/most respected auction houses, many of which were subsequently withdrawn. There are a handful of people here who’s opinion I value more than any AH. But I’m sure it will surface again somewhere if Mark doesn’t buy it. |
Quote:
I’m not sure about the “squattiness” of the batter, but I see what you’re saying about the more shallow arching. This is why my collection remains “low end.” :p P.S. we never heard the final disposition of the 1918(?) Red Sox that we all felt was no good, did we? |
Quote:
|
Interesting topic of discussion. I think there's also the possibility of it being a pretty good period reproduction. What's everyone's thoughts on that?
|
Quote:
|
The spine doesn't match the Mitchell and Ness. But the scrunched graphics do a bit. I guess the spine could have been replaced. I'm curious about the color of the cut tassels. I did also see the rare NY Titans pennant from the same seller, mentioned by Rob. I know that having the Titans pennant doesn't mean that this Reds is real, but it sounds like these are coming from a serious pennant collection.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:35 PM. |