Potentially fake D350-3 Standard Biscuit backed cards on eBay

[Leon]

Originally Posted by swarmee

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.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Leon

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.

[Econteachert205]

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).

[Eric72]

.

[Tao_Moko]

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.

[nolemmings]

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.

[ethicsprof]

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