Anyone know what these cards are?

[UnVme7]

Are they old/reprints/vintage reprints/ part of some sort of set/one of a kind?

They are glued to a piece of cardboard, but still pretty neat. I've never seen them before so I didnt know if they were legit or just some crummy cards made in the 80's to look old.

[Hankphenom]

Made to look old. I haven't seen these particular images before, but there's lots of repro negro league team photos out there with this same attempt at a vintage look and coloration. I guess someone made (or is still making) a little industry out of trying to cash in on the demand for negro league material. So far, at least, they've been pretty obvious and easy to spot.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Like Hank said, obvious fakes.

[UnVme7]

Thanks for the info

[Exhibitman]

You'd have to check them to be sure of age. Not saying they are vintage, only that to be definitive you need to see them.

Assuming they pass the age tests, I don't think they are cards--those simply did not exist--but they could be cutouts from a broadside. I've found them sporadically from 1930s posters for boxers like Joe Louis. Here is an example:

[Hankphenom]

Nothing like having them in hand, of course, but I'd bet my house these are fakes. Like most such attempts, there's a uniform yellowing/browning that comes from the baking or chemicals or whatever they do to try to make them look old that just doesn't capture the look of real old photos. It's an attempt at a sepia look, when in fact very few actual old photos have a sepia tone. I've seen many of these negro league team fakes over the years on eBay and elsewhere, but curiously when I tried to find a picture of one on Google I was unsuccessful.

[Runscott]

I'm with Adam on this one.

If they were 'aged' recently, the ager did a much better job than do most.

But that opinion is based on the scans - minimally I'd need to see hi-res scans of the roughed-up edges.

[Hankphenom]

Fakes today, fakes yesterday, fakes tomorrow.

[Leon]

From the scans they look like they were cut from a book and pasted on the cardboard. You can see them wrinkle a bit in the borders, as paper would.

[UnVme7]

Heres a close up....

[Exhibitman]

Oh, I agree they are cut from something but before I pass judgment on what I'd need to see them and put them under magnification and possibly a uv light.

[UnVme7]

Another close up...

[UnVme7]

.

[UnVme7]

This photo came from the same collection....

[UnVme7]

.

[UnVme7]

Its in the matting but I dont know if it came with it...

.

[UnVme7]

.

[Runscott]

....

I meant to re-write this post, but accidentally created a new one...sorry.

[Runscott]

Nate, if you feel like mailing these out for any opinion, I would be happy to look at them. There are others here who I am sure would make the same offer.

[Runscott]

I guess my definition of 'obvious' differs from that of Phil and Hank.

I think that with items that are either 'too good to be true', or, like Negro League pieces that are forged often, there is a tendency to reject them out of hand;i.e-you look at such items through 'not-rose-colored glasses'.

These don't look at all like the obvious fakes that we've seen in the past, and even less so now that you have provided more detailed scans.

As Hank mentioned, even though he thinks they are fakes, he can't find examples of these images anywhere on the internet. That's a good thing.

But having said that, if they showed up on ebay and I couldn't see them up close or have the option to return them, I wouldn't bid.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Trust me, you can do all of the research you want, handle them in person, high res scans, etc., a fake is still a fake..........

[Exhibitman]

That's a bit of the cart before the horse, Phil. If there is a way to examine the items there are ways of determining when they were made that cannot be ascertained from a scan. Unless you have specific information that these items are fakes, which it doesn't sound like you do, it seems more sensible to evaluate them if possible before concluding about them. Would I pay big bux for them without a firsthand examination? No. But I'd at least want to check them out first before writing them off.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I know, Adam, every time I post something on Net 54 involving a controversial topic, you always take the con side to my point of view. I don't even mean 99% of the time but instead, 100%. At this point, I have to think that it is something personal that you have against me (don't know what or why). It's too bad, I used to have a lot of respect for you, especially your knowledge about baseball exhibit cards of the '20's & '30's.

I know more than a little bit about Negro League Baseball material and would not make a definitive statement if I was unsure about an item.

[Hankphenom]

Here's what I'm talking about, only had to go back two days in eBay completed listings to find this one. I've seen many negro league teams done this way, and the "cards" in question have this same look. I'm guessing one person has been doing all of them.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-KANS...p2047675.l2557

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I know, Adam, every time I post something on Net 54 involving a controversial topic, you always take the con side to my point of view. I don't even mean 99% of the time but instead, 100%. At this point, I have to think that it is something personal that you have against me (don't know what or why). It's too bad, I used to have a lot of respect for you, especially your knowledge about baseball exhibit cards of the '20's & '30's.

I know more than a little bit about Negro League Baseball material and would not make a definitive statement if I was unsure about an item.

Phil, this is about 'eye', not about expertise in Negro League stuff.

As I already said (and was, of course, ignored), it's real easy to just say right out of the box that this is bad - the odds are about 95% that you would be right, regardless of what the scan looks like. I tried real hard not to take that approach with this item, even offering to look at it in person for the Original poster. I really think that, given these scans, that's the only way to be fair to him.

As I said, I wouldn't bid on it without a return guarantee, but post-wwi black baseball memorabilia is a risky area, and as you know, I have no interest in it.

[Hankphenom]

Another one:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-HOME...p2047675.l2557

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Trust me, you can do all of the research you want, handle them in person, high res scans, etc., a fake is still a fake..........

Really? If I handled these in person and determined that they were real, they would still be fakes?

You are probably right about them being fakes, but you also had the percentages behind you when you responded to my original post about the early Stengel postcard. In fact, yours was the first negative response posted in that thread, and, as with this one, you posted before doing any research.

I don't believe in taking stupid chances with things that have a high likelihood of being fakes, but Hank's original post that he couldn't locate these images anywhere was kind of a clue in favor of these possibly being real (like my not being able to locate images of the Stengel postcard). The next step was higher-res scans, which the OP provided...still looking good.

The next step is to examine them in person. If the OP is unwilling to let anyone do that, then end of story. If he is, then we look at them and we probably find that they are fakes. But perhaps not.

[Runscott]

And by the way, I frequently disagree with Adam.

[jerseygary]

Did the matting come with that Gibson photo? If it did I would be seeing red flags because of the even wear and damage on the photo which shouldn't be there on the edges because they would have been saved by being protected by the matting.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I know, Adam, every time I post something on Net 54 involving a controversial topic, you always take the con side to my point of view. I don't even mean 99% of the time but instead, 100%. At this point, I have to think that it is something personal that you have against me (don't know what or why). It's too bad, I used to have a lot of respect for you, especially your knowledge about baseball exhibit cards of the '20's & '30's.

I know more than a little bit about Negro League Baseball material and would not make a definitive statement if I was unsure about an item.

Gee Phil, that came out of nowhere...I think I've agreed with you on any number of things over the years. If I don't agree with you it isn't because I don't like you--I don't think we've even met more than once or twice--it is because I disagree with what you are saying. Perhaps if you weren't wrong every single time about everything you ever say on every subject

No one is debating your knowledge on NL items, but I don't think you can write off an item you've never seen without seeing it. That is all I was trying to point out. I am amazed all the time at how little I really know about the items that I am really, really expert about. I find new stuff all the time, which is one reason I enjoy this hobby. If you are 100% certain about the items being fakes, please explain how and why you reach that conclusion. Have you seen them before?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Without having them in hand, can we all agree that they are not authentic cards? how about not authentic, original photos?

If there is a possibility that they are not fake but are "real", "real" what?

[Hankphenom]

Last example:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1930...p2047675.l2557

Of course, there is a miniscule chance that the "cards" in question are good. There was always the possibility that Coaches Corner's Hitler autographed baseball, along with the 5,000 Mathewson balls they offered in their day, were good. The same guy that's making these team photos made the "cards" too, so let's call him out without equivocation. Identical coloration, identical roughing up the edges, etc. And he's doing a decent business, too. I'd guess he's employing the Roaches Corner model--a refund to those who ask for it, therefore no complaints, or in this case, no negative feedback.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Last example:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1930...p2047675.l2557

Of course, there is a miniscule chance that the "cards" in question are good. There was always the possibility that Coaches Corner's Hitler autographed baseball, along with the 5,000 Mathewson balls they offered in their day, were good. The same guy that's making these team photos made the "cards" too, so let's call him out without equivocation. Identical coloration, identical roughing up the edges, etc. And he's doing a decent business, too. I'd guess he's employing the Roaches Corner model--a refund to those who ask for it, therefore no complaints, or in this case, no negative feedback.

There must be something in the water. Lots of this sort of logic lately, from guys I have the utmost respect for.

Hank, Phil, Adam....everyone - hope to see you at the National this year.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Without having them in hand, can we all agree that they are not authentic cards? how about not authentic, original photos?

If there is a possibility that they are not fake but are "real", "real" what?

I don't think anyone here ever thought they were 'cards' - not even the OP. As far as original photos, he showed us a scan of one that came with the lot, that appears to have 'silvering'. As stated at least twice now, I'd have to see them in hand at this point. You're apparently going with the percentages and just saying they are 'fake'. As a buyer, I would do the same.

[Hankphenom]

His thread is titled: "Anyone know what these cards are?" What's in the water these days is a lot of skepticism, and rightly so. There's too much money in this stuff not to attract crooks, and we've seen them long since move into cards and autographs big time. Why would photos and other valuable memorabilia be immune? Then there's all this other phony negro league stuff out there that looks to me to be of the same process, so that's the clincher for me. Sure, the ideal is to have them in hand to look at, but honestly if you told me for $10 you'd send these to me and I could keep them, I wouldn't waste the money.

[bcbgcbrcb]

C'mon, Scott, you know better than that, original photos, really?

[71buc]

I really don't have an opinion on the authenticity of the photos. However, the frame is from my father's home town. As a child I remember speaking to my great aunt Rose who lived there about baseball. She was in her mid 70s at the time. She was an avid Pirates fan but never saw them play in person. I asked her if she felt bad about missing out on seeing Clemente in person. She said, "No I saw Josh Gibson." I had no idea who he was. She told me that as a young woman she would travel to neighboring Masury Ohio to watch Games and saw him play there. Her stories were my introduction to the Negro Leagues. She died 20 years ago and took those stories with her. I wish I had recorded her but lacked the foresight at such a young age. She was obviously very progressive and quite a story teller.

Sharon is a small economically depressed town. I have returned there to visit an aunt who lives minutes from the address on that mat. While there I have stumbled upon a Sovereign back Brooklyn Dahlen, a blue version T206 Evers, a beautiful Beckley, and a Variety of vintage Indians items in small nondescript shops. Ironically when I was there last I stopped at a local antique mall and they were auctioning off a panoramic photo of the Homestead Grays. The auction was scheduled for a date after I was to return to Washington. They didn't look to be original despite the auction house guarantee. Had I been there I would have considered bidding simply because my aunt Rose and the way she beamed when telling me those stories. I called my father who is now the same age as aunt Rose when I last spoke to her. I asked him if he recalled the name of the photographer on the mat he said he had no such recollection. But he laughed about the stir Rose must have caused with her family by going to those games.

I found another mat with the same markings on ebay so I doubt it would be terribly hard to remove the original photo contained in this or any other vintage mat and replace it with another photo. http://www.ebay.com/itm/antique-cabi...ht_1490wt_1091

[Ease]

Awesome story Mike!

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Another one:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-HOME...p2047675.l2557

I can't tell squat from those scans and I don't see how any buyer could make a reasonable buy decision on them either. I'd pass for $60 but for $6 I'd buy it just to have a look. I do that from time to time with items that might be good. More often than not I've done OK with them. Gotten a few bad ones over the years. The two that come to mind are a Jack Dempsey movie piece that proved to be a modern photo and a Groucho piece that was from the 1970s.

BTW, up above Leon commented on the border wrinkling on one of the images shown. I've seen that rippling on vintage photos printed on a heavier matte stock. I have a few Adam Hats H815s with that and also a few movie studio issued photos from the 1930s that exhibit it. The glossy photos just seem to curl consistently inward but the others seem to ripple.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

C'mon, Scott, you know better than that, original photos, really?

Phil, I really think you are just playing the odds with this one. I can't say it any better than Adam just did.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by 71buc

I found another mat with the same markings on ebay so I doubt it would be terribly hard to remove the original photo contained in this or any other vintage mat and replace it with another photo. http://www.ebay.com/itm/antique-cabi...ht_1490wt_1091

Great story.

It's almost never hard to glue a fake photo to a real mat...or to glue a real one to a real one, where the two don't belong together.

This is really about whether or not these are real photos, pictures or images cut from a non-card product (book or broadside) (Damn, I'm getting tired of repeating myself - anyone care to star reading so I don't have to?), as opposed to something that was created more recently with the intent to deceive. The latter is probably the case (again, repeating myself for at least the third time ).

Later guys - I've said the same thing too many times in the last two days, and have better things to do than to talk with the wall.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Well, I don't think a cut-out from a book is a real possibility, assuming that it was not the cover that was cut out, the piece would be way too thick for a book page. So now, we are down to cut out from a "broadside" and possibly authentic. Actually, in order for that to make sense, these would have been cut out from two different broadsides as they are clearly uniforms from two different seasons (for those that don't know, broadsides were produced to promote a specific, upcoming game). How likely is that now?

All we are missing is the word "FAKE" rubber stamped across the photos........

BTW Homestead Grays photos are the most counterfeited in the industry, little coincidence that both of these are Grays ballplayers.