1921 Herpolsheimers graded w/o mark

[molenick]

I don't know what "nope" means in this case. Please elaborate.

[Yoda]

And the beat goes on. Cher.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by molenick

I don't know what "nope" means in this case. Please elaborate.

1. We disagree.
2. The "Herpolsheimer's" brand, not the 1916 one, but the one we have been discussing, is not from 1921, but from a later date. Have an older looking design makes the fakes easier to sell.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by steve B

It certainly is.

I was going to post that the e121 cards were typographed.


As far as faking offset transfers, it's not easy. If you were newly typographing a set of cards, making offset transfers while the cards were still wet would be very easy.

There are exceptions, some inks may never completely dry. And some are more susceptible to chemical alteration.
Like the vegetable oil based inks many magazines are printed with today. They've improved, but SI from around the time they switched were easily damaged by handling them.

And at least one formulation of ink used in the 1870's-80's can leave a transfer from weight placed on it during shipping.

Generally though, the inks were well formulated to dry well and quickly, and don't leave transfers post factory.

Steve,

Thank you for this post.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Yoda

And the beat goes on. Cher.

Well, Cher was big in the 1970's and the design on the back of the "1921" Herpolsheimer's would have fit in well as a floor design for her performances.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

1. We disagree.
2. The "Herpolsheimer's" brand, not the 1916 one, but the one we have been discussing, is not from 1921, but from a later date. Have an older looking design makes the fakes easier to sell.

Before you said (many times) that you didn't like the 1921 border because it looked like a 1970s design.

Now that someone has shown that the design existed well before 1970, you seem to be saying you don't like them because having "an older looking design makes the fakes easier to sell".

As far as I can tell, your only basis for calling the cards fake is that a dealer in 1999 said they were.

When you mention there is no address on the back, others point out that that is in keeping with earlier Herpolsheimer's cards, printed Herpolsheimer's ads, and other 1921 cards (like Holsum Bread Standard Biscuit).

When you question why no ads were placed in 1921 newspapers for the cards, someone finds an ad.

When you say the borders are from the 1970s, someone finds proof that they are not. Which somehow you use to support that the cards are fake.

Your argument is essentially they are fake because I know they are counterfeit because someone told me they are not real. I do not count "LOL" and "I will not be bidding" as arguments. Nor do I see the relevance of AI being used in the future to counterfeit cards, speculation that the next batch is due in 2034, or the fact that it is possible to counterfeit cards.

I am curious if the dealer from 1999 has looked at every card in your collection. Otherwise, how do you know they are not all fakes?

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by molenick

Before you said (many times) that you didn't like the 1921 border because it looked like a 1970s design.

Now that someone has shown that the design existed well before 1970, you seem to be saying you don't like them because having "an older looking design makes the fakes easier to sell".

As far as I can tell, your only basis for calling the cards fake is that a dealer in 1999 said they were.

When you mention there is no address on the back, others point out that that is in keeping with earlier Herpolsheimer's cards, printed Herpolsheimer's ads, and other 1921 cards (like Holsum Bread).

When you question why no ads were placed in 1921 newspapers for the cards, someone finds an ad.

When you say the borders are from the 1970s, someone finds proof that they are not. Which somehow you use to support that the cards are fake.

Your argument is essentially they are fake because I know they are counterfeit because someone told me they are not real. I do not count "LOL" and "I will not be bidding" as arguments. Nor do I see the relevance of AI being used in the future to counterfeit cards, speculation that the next batch is due in 2034, or the fact that it is possible to counterfeit cards.

I am curious if the dealer from 1999 has looked at every card in your collection. Otherwise, how do you know they are not all fakes?

Before 1970, but the dealer indicated the cards were made in the 1970's and it still looks like a 1970's disco floor design but keep me in mind some 1970's disco floor designs harked back to the 1930's and 1940's and the link in the previous post placed the design in those years.

"When you mention there is no address on the back, others point out that that is in keeping with earlier Herpolsheimer's cards, printed Herpolsheimer's ads, and other 1921 cards (like Holsum Bread)."

There was only one other Herpolsheimer's set of cards which was the real group from 1916. No address. 1921 Holsum Bread? Please see the attachments. Showing front just so you know who is on the card and back for the address.

"Your argument is essentially they are fake because I know they are counterfeit because someone told me they are not real. I do not count "LOL" and "I will not be bidding" as arguments. Nor do I see the relevance of AI being used in the future to counterfeit cards, speculation that the next batch is due in 2034, or the fact that it is possible to counterfeit cards."

I saw the cards, I discussed with the dealer, I handled the cards and I looked at the back design and he mentioned that they were made in the 1970's. It is incredibly possible to counterfeit cards. Feel free to do a Google search. AI will simply make this a higher tech accomplishment in the future.

"I am curious if the dealer from 1999 has looked at every card in your collection. Otherwise, how do you know they are not all fakes?[/QUOTE]"

LOL with all due respect and Thank you!

[molenick]

My mistake on the Holsum Bread...they do have the address....there are so many sets to keep track of...I meant Standard Biscuit.

Otherwise, we are just back to agree to disagree.

You will not be persuaded the cards are real and everyone else on the board will not be persuaded they are fake, so I guess I will just drop it.

[rhettyeakley]

Seriously, this is starting to feel more and more like an episode of “Punk’d” than a serious discussion of whether the cards are real or fake.

Absent an anecdotal testimony Brian heard 2 decades ago he is full of it and he knows it. He doesn’t have to accept the consensus of this board, but to keep on digging in his heels when everything he had questioned has been debunked is asinine. He doesn’t want to be wrong but… YOU, BRIAN, are wrong and are making a poor showing of yourself here by not being able to accept that fact.

I said I was done with the thread earlier and apologize for even chiming back in but these E121-like cards are kinda special to me and I have dedicated more time to studying them than perhaps anyone else in the world. The idea that someone could conjure up fakes that would fool me or any of the others testifying to their legitimacy is actually rather insulting.


Imagine this scenario…a fake set is made in the 1970’s that was previously unknown to exist…then coincidentally the company that the person decided to fake as the maker of the fraud set DID in fact have an actual promotion distributing baseball cards in the same style, format and year as the “fake” cards(which was unknown to the fraudster) and then several advertisements are found to confirm the promotion (which would have been unknown to the fraudster)… THiS IS INSANELY COINCIDENTAL!!!

Or…The cards are real and Brian is full of Shit!

[G1911]

You can only win with facts and evidence and reason with a person who also accepts those as the grounds of battle and the rules of engagement. You can’t reason with an idiot who rejects them in favor of an appeal to authority to an anonymous dealer’s claim they may even be making up too.

Nobody should change their mind because of the credentials of people who say otherwise or because of peer pressure; they should because their claim is absurdist and illogical and all of the evidence is against it and points to the exact opposite.

This is the stupidest thread in a long time. I love it.

[Brian Van Horn]

Michael,

Thank you for the response.

[Brian Van Horn]

Now, now, now Rhett.

I am still waiting for response to my post to your #218 yesterday. Here is what you stated:

"The weird part about your theory of fake cards Brian is...

the subjects included in the "fake" Herpolsheimer cards line up perfectly with the D350 Standard Biscuit and Holsum Bread (Type 2) set perfectly as VERY early 1921 sets and pre-date the earliest version of the E121 Series 80 set because by the time the E121-80 set was printed many of the "dropped" cards had been eliminated from the lineup.

WHAT MAKES THIS INTERESTING?

This knowledge is only known by me and a handful of other people in the entire world and was known by nobody in the 1970's.

And, when I say they line up perfectly...I mean there are 0 outliers! There is not a single mistake made in the Herpolsheimer's checklist and includes copies of cards that were not known to exist in the "E121 family of sets" in the 1970's...like the Davenport card (which is only included in the sets listed above and 1-2 copies in the world as a W575-1)

With all due respect you are being ridiculous about this subject and you seem to really have a hard time with admitting when you are wrong.

I am done with this conversation at this point and would advise everyone to stop "feeding the troll" as Brian is obviously not looking at anything here objectively and is (I can only imagine at this point) is somehow getting pleasure from his troll behavior."

No errors, but no answer so far to Peckinpaugh/Peckinbaugh in existence in the Herpolsheimer knock off in my response and that is just one example.

Also, here is another one.

Post #240 today which states

Wow, this is an all-time thread. Like others I enjoy printmaking so, FWIW, with a fairly quick search I was able to find both borders available in the 1930s and 40s, so the border in question was definitely available before the 1970s.

https://archive.org/details/LanstonM...e/n23/mode/2up

Go to the link and below the images?

A typographical specimen booklet containing borders and ornaments for casting on the Lanston Monotype Composition Caster, Lanston Monotype Type-Caster, Lanston Monotype Giant Caster and Monotype-Thompson Type-Caster. This booklet is from a Lanston Monotype specimen book (binder) bearing the general title "Monotype Type Faces." It is undated, but based on internal evidence elsewhere in the binder it is from the late 1930s or early 1940s.


Oh, we're just off by the early 1920's (not) to the late 1930's or 1940's. Still, let's go with the lesser number of years and be off by under twenty years. Yeah, that's the ticket. Refund! LOL!

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by G1911

You can only win with facts and evidence and reason with a person who also accepts those as the grounds of battle and the rules of engagement. You can’t reason with an idiot who rejects them in favor of an appeal to authority to an anonymous dealer’s claim they may even be making up too.

Nobody should change their mind because of the credentials of people who say otherwise or because of peer pressure; they should because their claim is absurdist and illogical and all of the evidence is against it and points to the exact opposite.

This is the stupidest thread in a long time. I love it.

Greg,

Well, we have something in common.

[Brian Van Horn]

By the way gentlemen,

I have to give credit where it is deserved. From last Wednesday morning until today I have had a cold. It caused me to back out of not one or two, but three Thanksgiving dinners. I thank you seriously for your responses in this thread for making me recover.

Sincerely,

Brian Van Horn

P.S.

Keep the responses coming. The "1921" Herpolsheimer cards are fakes.

[Rhotchkiss]

The brilliant irony of this terribly annoying thread that won’t die (and I just bumped it) is that the Herpolsheimers (and many LOTG lots) probably went for more because of Brian’s (incorrect) claims, which lead to a runaway thread of publicity and produced what, I think, is previously unknown and lock-solid proof of authenticity. Classic

[rhettyeakley]

In the Holsum Bread set the Peckinpaugh card in Type 1 (1920) has him correctly identified as “PeckinPaugh” while the Type 2 (1921) has his name mistakenly listed as “ PeckinBaugh”

The incorrect spelling was continued into the next round of production (which included the E121 Series of 80 cards (Type 1) cards

The last round of production of the cards with their various backs included E121-80 Type 2 & 3 backs, Gasslers’s and Koester’s Bread has the company RE-correcting the card to “PeckinPaugh”

What exactly do you think you are proving with that?

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

In the Holsum Bread set the Peckinpaugh card in Type 1 (1920) has him correctly identified as “PeckinPaugh” while the Type 2 (1921) has his name mistakenly listed as “ PeckinBaugh”

The mistaken spelled was continued into the next round of production (which included the E121 Series of 80 cards (Type 1) cards

The last round of production of the cards with their various backs included E121-80 Type 2 & 3 backs, Gasslers’s and Koester’s Bread has the comoany RE-correcting the card to “PeckinPaugh”

What exactly do you think you are proving with that?

Rhett,

Please review your previous post, not your response you just made. You stated:

"And, when I say they line up perfectly...I mean there are 0 outliers! There is not a single mistake made in the Herpolsheimer's checklist and includes copies of cards that were not known to exist in the "E121 family of sets" in the 1970's...like the Davenport card (which is only included in the sets listed above and 1-2 copies in the world as a W575-1)"

Well mistake could be interpreted as a mistake in the name or in the nameplate of a player, thus the question involving Peckinpaugh/Peckinbaugh.

Now, as for the link:

https://archive.org/details/LanstonM...e/n23/mode/2up

Just under 20 to 20 years off. Uh, hmmm.

Go to the link and below the images?

A typographical specimen booklet containing borders and ornaments for casting on the Lanston Monotype Composition Caster, Lanston Monotype Type-Caster, Lanston Monotype Giant Caster and Monotype-Thompson Type-Caster. This booklet is from a Lanston Monotype specimen book (binder) bearing the general title "Monotype Type Faces." It is undated, but based on internal evidence elsewhere in the binder it is from the late 1930s or early 1940s.

[rhettyeakley]

It lines up with the timeline of Peckinpaugh cards perfectly.

Something that would not be done by a fraudster with no knowledge of the sets.

[rhettyeakley]

Your peckinpaugh blank back lines up with the Koester’s printing at the end of the 1921 season (at the same time as E121 Series of 80 Type 2 & 3, Gassler’s Bread as well) when they had recorrected his name.

[JollyElm]

424. Scorched Mirth
A welcome and unexpected post in the middle of a very contentious thread which suddenly provides comic relief and brings smiles to people’s faces.

See also: Laftereffects - when other people follow suit and keep the light-hearted vibe going to ease the tension.



Since every thread is more enjoyable with 'Collectorisms,' I will shamelessly (Herpolshamelessly??) ride my pun horse out of the barn and quickly (way too quickly...definitely shoulda spent some more time on inventing this garbage) try a little 'Scorched Mirth' in this one (obviously not taking sides in the matter, just reporting what I see)...

Herpolshaman
Someone who stands up, sticks to his guns and preaches his truth to collectors that the 1921 Herpolsheimer’s cards are fakes.

Herpolshammer
Someone who knowingly pushes the false narrative that 1921 Herpolsheimer’s cards are fakes.

Herpol Rain
The torrents of on-line abuse pouring down on anyone daring to suggest the 1921 Herpolsheimer’s cards are fakes.

Herpolshamers
Members who angrily go after anyone making the claim that the 1921 Herpolsheimer’s cards are fakes.

Herpolshimsham
The act of tap dancing around all of the abuse flying your way in a thread about 1921 Herpolsheimer’s cards.

Addrest Assured
The belief that the lack of an address on back either proves 100% that the 1921 Herpolsheimer’s cards are fakes OR proves 100% that they are real.

Cher Cropper
Anyone who is able to somehow slyly sneak Cherilyn Sarkisian’s moniker into the middle of a baseball card debate thread.

Border Blather
The back and forth from each side of the debate arguing over whether or not the advertisement border and ornament design is the proof that wins the case for their side.

‘16 Scandals (slang)
Relying on the known facts about the Herpolsheimer’s cards issued five years earlier to prove that any claims purporting the 1921 cards to be fake are a wanton deception.

Boysfashionistas
General fans of the Herpolsheimer’s cards.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

It lines up with the timeline of Peckinpaugh cards perfectly.

Something that would not be done by a fraudster with no knowledge of the sets.

OK. Now, for the late 1930's, early 1940's on the back. Still looking forward in about ten years to the Peckinpaugh sample.

My apologies.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

424. Scorched Mirth
A welcome and unexpected post in the middle of a very contentious thread which suddenly provides comic relief and brings smiles to people’s faces.

See also: Laftereffects - when other people follow suit and keep the light-hearted vibe going to ease the tension.



Since every thread is more enjoyable with 'Collectorisms,' I will shamelessly (Herpolshamelessly??) ride my pun horse out of the barn and quickly (way too quickly...definitely shoulda spent some more time on inventing this garbage) try a little 'Scorched Mirth' in this one (obviously not taking sides in the matter, just reporting what I see)...

Herpolshaman
Someone who stands up, sticks to his guns and preaches his truth to collectors that the 1921 Herpolsheimer’s cards are fakes.

Herpolshammer
Someone who knowingly pushes the false narrative that 1921 Herpolsheimer’s cards are fakes.

Herpol Rain
The torrents of on-line abuse pouring down on anyone daring to suggest the 1921 Herpolsheimer’s cards are fakes.

Herpolshamers
Members who angrily go after anyone making the claim that the 1921 Herpolsheimer’s cards are fakes.

Herpolshimsham
The act of tap dancing around all of the abuse flying your way in a thread about 1921 Herpolsheimer’s cards.

Addrest Assured
The belief that the lack of an address on back either proves 100% that the 1921 Herpolsheimer’s cards are fakes OR proves 100% that they are real.

Cher Cropper
Anyone who is able to somehow slyly sneak Cherilyn Sarkisian’s moniker into the middle of a baseball card debate thread.

Border Blather
The back and forth from each side of the debate arguing over whether or not the advertisement border and ornament design is the proof that wins the case for their side.

‘16 Scandals (slang)
Relying on the known facts about the Herpolsheimer’s cards issued five years earlier to prove that any claims purporting the 1921 cards to be fake are a wanton deception.

Boysfashionistas
General fans of the Herpolsheimer’s cards.

Thank you. Also, during this post this evening I have been listening to the song "The Eggplant that Ate Chicago" which is by Norman Greenbaum and puts him one beyond the one hit wonder number. Remember "Spirit in the Sky". No, I did not hear this song ever on Dr. Demento:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfZ1ZHDAq08

[theshowandme]

If I read 272 posts, am I going to be convinced that these cards are real or fake?

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

If I read 272 posts, am I going to be convinced that these cards are real or fake?

Save your time. Both sides will be holding their ground.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

OK. Now, for the late 1930's, early 1940's on the back. Still looking forward in about ten years to the Peckinpaugh sample.

My apologies.

The designs found were from the late 1930's-early 1940's.

That clearly disproves your idea that this was a disco-inspired design from the 1970's as you stated several times:

• Post 217 "I also handled the cards with concern about the design which looked like, in my opinion, something influenced by the disco era"
• Post 245 "and the one on the back of the "1921" still looks like the design of a disco floor or even some coffee tables from the 1970's"
• Post 255 "Well, Cher was big in the 1970's and the design on the back of the "1921" Herpolsheimer's would have fit in well as a floor design for her performances".

It does not disprove the idea the design could have existed in 1921.

The sample book of borders has a design used by Holsum Bread in 1921. That does not mean the Holsum Bread cards are fake.

Let me put it this way. Say I discovered a magazine article from 1940 about airplanes. That would disprove that airplanes originated in the 1970's. But it would not mean airplanes did not exist in 1921.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

If I read 272 posts, am I going to be convinced that these cards are real or fake?

They were conclusively proven real through new genuine search as a result of a complete moron making shit up and lying.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by molenick

The designs found were from the late 1930's-early 1940's.

That clearly disproves your idea that this was a disco-inspired design from the 1970's as you stated several times:

• Post 217 "I also handled the cards with concern about the design which looked like, in my opinion, something influenced by the disco era"
• Post 245 "and the one on the back of the "1921" still looks like the design of a disco floor or even some coffee tables from the 1970's"
• Post 255 "Well, Cher was big in the 1970's and the design on the back of the "1921" Herpolsheimer's would have fit in well as a floor design for her performances".

It does not disprove the idea the design could have existed in 1921.

The sample book of borders has a design used by Holsum Bread in 1921. That does not mean the Holsum Bread cards are fake.

Let me put it this way. Say I discovered a magazine article from 1940 about airplanes. That would disprove that airplanes originated in the 1970's. But it would not mean airplanes did not exist in 1921.

Michael,

"It does not disprove the idea the design could have existed in 1921."

The Herpolsheimer cards are not proof the design existed in 1921.

From my post earlier today (#257):

"I saw the cards, I discussed with the dealer, I handled the cards and I looked at the back design and he mentioned that they were made in the 1970's. It is incredibly possible to counterfeit cards. Feel free to do a Google search. AI will simply make this a higher tech accomplishment in the future."

Wow. 1930's, 1940's and 1970's similarities. The Big Band music, however, was by far the better music. Oops! Another discussion but has to be on another board.

Now, let me refresh you on a post (#240 earlier today):

https://archive.org/details/LanstonM...e/n23/mode/2up

My response in post 246 earlier today:

Can I direct your attention to the synopsis in the white of the website below the page you offered in your information?


https://archive.org/details/LanstonM...e/n23/mode/2up

"A typographical specimen booklet containing borders and ornaments for casting on the Lanston Monotype Composition Caster, Lanston Monotype Type-Caster, Lanston Monotype Giant Caster and Monotype-Thompson Type-Caster. This booklet is from a Lanston Monotype specimen book (binder) bearing the general title "Monotype Type Faces." It is undated, but based on internal evidence elsewhere in the binder it is from the late 1930s or early 1940s."

I apologize, but this paragraph eliminates the design.

Ah, revitalized design from the 1930's or 1940's in the 1970's on a 1921 card. Forget the math here. What's under or over 20 years difference? Uh, hum. Cough, cough. They must have planning for a bumper crop with this "set". Man, the aroma.

[molenick]

I agree that "The Herpolsheimer cards are not proof the design existed in 1921."

I never said it was proof.

I just said that, like the Holsum Bread design found in the same book, the design could have existed in 1921 but could not have originated in the 1970's.

The problem with saying "Ah, revitalized design from the 1930's or 1940's in the 1970's on a 1921 card" is that you are starting by assuming they are 1970's cards (or at least assuming that this particular design was used because it was revitalized in the 1970's). Why would a counterfeiter use a 1970's style design if they were trying to forge a 1921 card?

It still comes down to two things: the dealer said they were from the 1970's and it is possible to counterfeit cards. I am not disputing that these things are true. I (and I think most of us) are just saying the dealer was incorrect.

And if "this paragraph eliminates the design" how did another design from the book get on a 1921 Holsum Bread card?

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by molenick

I agree that "The Herpolsheimer cards are not proof the design existed in 1921."

I never said it was proof.

I just said that, like the Holsum Bread design found in the same book, the design could have existed in 1921 but could not have originated in the 1970's.

The problem with saying "Ah, revitalized design from the 1930's or 1940's in the 1970's on a 1921 card" is that you are starting by assuming they are 1970's cards.

It still comes down to two things: the dealer said they were from the 1970's and it is possible to counterfeit cards. I am not disputing that these things are true. I (and I think most of us) are just saying the dealer was incorrect.

"I never said it was proof.

I just said that, like the Holsum Bread design found in the same book, the design could have existed in 1921 but could not have originated in the 1970s."

My apologies.

"The problem with saying "Ah, revitalized design from the 1930's or 1940's in the 1970's on a 1921 card" is that you are starting by assuming they are 1970's cards."

Please review:

I have stated the dealer in May 1999 told me at the table the cards were printed in the 1970's.

"And if "this paragraph eliminates the design" how did another design from the book get on a 1921 Holsum Bread card."

I've been waiting for this one all day. THANK YOU!!!!
The Holsums have been known for a very long time. The "1921" Herpolsheimer plus a design from either the late 1930's or 1940's plus a dealer at the table in May 1999 waiving his hand over the cards in the case and stating they were printed in the 1970's equals not original. Those three outweigh, but the Holsum design was also the late 1930's or 1940's from reading the link and interpreting.

Summary: The "1921" Herpolsheimer cards are fakes, but will probably have more findings in the future. Wow, the possibilities. I'll leave out the incentives for the possibilities because they are obvious.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

"I never said it was proof.

I just said that, like the Holsum Bread design found in the same book, the design could have existed in 1921 but could not have originated in the 1970s."

My apologies.

"The problem with saying "Ah, revitalized design from the 1930's or 1940's in the 1970's on a 1921 card" is that you are starting by assuming they are 1970's cards."

Please review:

I have stated the dealer in May 1999 told me at the table the cards were printed in the 1970's.

"And if "this paragraph eliminates the design" how did another design from the book get on a 1921 Holsum Bread card."

I've been waiting for this one all day. THANK YOU!!!!
The Holsums have been known for a very long time. The "1921" Herpolsheimer plus a design from either the late 1930's or 1940's plus a dealer at the table in May 1999 waiving his hand over the cards in the case and stating they were printed in the 1970's equals not original. Those three outweigh, but the Holsum was also the late 1930's or 1940's.

Well, it is too late to continue arguing. But can you do me one favor and please stop saying "waiving"? That means putting a player on waivers (among other definitions). I think we can all agree that "waving" is the correct word.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by molenick

Well, it is too late to continue arguing. But can you do me one favor and please stop saying "waiving"? That means putting a player on waivers (among other definitions). I think we can all agree that "waving" is the correct word.

Waving goodnight and my cold obviously has had one side effect.

Another one was naming the attachment Waving High. I know. That one's open for interpretation with the photo. Oh, the effects of a cold.

[hammertime]

I apologize in advance, I try to mostly lurk on this forum because just about everyone else on here is so much more knowledgeable than me, and I know you all have known each other for years and no one has a clue who I am, but an aspect of this discussion has really stuck in my craw. Brian you said the design looks like something from the 70s, "inspired by disco". Someone posted evidence the design existed several decades earlier, so clearly NOT inspired by disco. Now you're trying to use that as evidence the cards couldn't have been made in 1921? What? Talk about moving the goalposts. Even if the designs posted were from the 30s or 40s it doesn't mean they were all brand new, some could have been around for years before that, correct? The point of that being posted (I believe) was to establish the design existed well before the 70s. NOT that the design hadn't been around for even longer. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Jay Wolt]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Save your time. Both sides will be holding their ground.

Brian it seems that you have your stance & the rest of the world thinks otherwise

[Snapolit1]

I have a feeling I will be reading updates to this thread in 30 years in a senior care facility somewhere. Nurse yelling at me to put the phone down.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I have a feeling I will be reading updates to this thread in 30 years in a senior care facility somewhere. Nurse yelling at me to put the phone down.

Thank you for covering the next batches.

[GeoPoto]

If I read 272 posts, am I going to be convinced that these cards are real or fake?

Reader's Digest Version: Brian asserts that the cards are fake, because someone long ago told him they were fake. Brian believes the person was in a position to know and had no obvious reason to lie about it.

Meanwhile, numerous hobby stalwarts have analyzed the cards and concluded that they are real, including PSA. As such the preponderance of people (including myself) have concluded that the probability is very high that they are real, and Brian's account is flawed in some unknowable way.

Despite the over-heated use of phrases like "lock-solid proof", "conclusively proven real", and ". . . that fact (that Brian is wrong)", there will never be complete certainty because there is no practical way to definitively prove the cards are real. Expert opinion is occasionally wrong.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by hammertime

I apologize in advance, I try to mostly lurk on this forum because just about everyone else on here is so much more knowledgeable than me, and I know you all have known each other for years and no one has a clue who I am, but an aspect of this discussion has really stuck in my craw. Brian you said the design looks like something from the 70s, "inspired by disco". Someone posted evidence the design existed several decades earlier, so clearly NOT inspired by disco. Now you're trying to use that as evidence the cards couldn't have been made in 1921? What? Talk about moving the goalposts. Even if the designs posted were from the 30s or 40s it doesn't mean they were all brand new, some could have been around for years before that, correct? The point of that being posted (I believe) was to establish the design existed well before the 70s. NOT that the design hadn't been around for even longer. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Andy,

I was told by the dealer that had these cards in his case at the Robert Morris Show in May 1999 that the cards were fake as he waived his hand over the case. He also said they were made in the 1970's. I looked at them, handled them and observed the backs which I thought look like they were made in the 1970's because they looked like disco dance floors.

Now, another member here trying to provide evidence the backs were real, provided the following link in post #240 yesterday at #921 a.m.

https://archive.org/details/LanstonM...e/n23/mode/2up

Just one little problem with the evidence:

A typographical specimen booklet containing borders and ornaments for casting on the Lanston Monotype Composition Caster, Lanston Monotype Type-Caster, Lanston Monotype Giant Caster and Monotype-Thompson Type-Caster. This booklet is from a Lanston Monotype specimen book (binder) bearing the general title "Monotype Type Faces." It is undated, but based on internal evidence elsewhere in the binder it is from the late 1930s or early 1940s.

So, let's review:

1.) The dealer at the Robert Morris Show said the cards were fake when we met in May 1999 and made in the 1970's. I reviewed the cards and I had a problem with the back design.

2.) From the link provided in post #240 yesterday:

It is undated, but based on internal evidence elsewhere in the binder it is from the late 1930s or early 1940s.


Now, these basic points and I have pointed out other ones are that the cards are fake. They were in 1999 and 2004 with the first batch and 2019 and this year with the second. Waiting on three times the charm, but that will not result in them being real.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

If I read 272 posts, am I going to be convinced that these cards are real or fake?

Reader's Digest Version: Brian asserts that the cards are fake, because someone long ago told him they were fake. Brian believes the person was in a position to know and had no obvious reason to lie about it.

Meanwhile, numerous hobby stalwarts have analyzed the cards and concluded that they are real, including PSA. As such the preponderance of people (including myself) have concluded that the probability is very high that they are real, and Brian's account is flawed in some unknowable way.

Despite the over-heated use of phrases like "lock-solid proof", "conclusively proven real", and ". . . that fact (that Brian is wrong)", there will never be complete certainty because there is no practical way to definitively prove the cards are real. Expert opinion is occasionally wrong.

George,

Well put. Just not heated from my side. Amused.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

If I read 272 posts, am I going to be convinced that these cards are real or fake?

Reader's Digest Version: Brian asserts that the cards are fake, because someone long ago told him they were fake. Brian believes the person was in a position to know and had no obvious reason to lie about it.

Meanwhile, numerous hobby stalwarts have analyzed the cards and concluded that they are real, including PSA. As such the preponderance of people (including myself) have concluded that the probability is very high that they are real, and Brian's account is flawed in some unknowable way.

Despite the over-heated use of phrases like "lock-solid proof", "conclusively proven real", and ". . . that fact (that Brian is wrong)", there will never be complete certainty because there is no practical way to definitively prove the cards are real. Expert opinion is occasionally wrong.

Your overall point stands, but I have a minor quibble. The issue is not the "Brian's account is flawed in some unknowable way." The issue is that, even accepting everything he claims as 100% true, his conclusion that the cards are fake is built on several logical fallacies.

Even if everyone could agree that nothing is truly certain, the anecdotal evidence that these are fake is laughably weak. It reminded me of Thanksgiving this year, when my dad quoted the My Pillow guy as gospel and assured me that all the evidence I needed was that the My Pillow guy knows his stuff.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Andy,

I was told by the dealer that had these cards in his case at the Robert Morris Show in May 1999 that the cards were fake as he waived his hand over

I asked you nicely to stop saying "waived" (although technically I asked you to stop saying "waiving" so maybe that is why you said "waived" this time).

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by molenick

I asked you nicely to stop saying "waived" (although technically I asked you to stop saying "waiving" so maybe that is why you said "waived" this time).

Michael,

Which post? You stated that in your last post last night. By the way waving you good morning.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

your overall point stands, but i have a minor quibble. The issue is not the "brian's account is flawed in some unknowable way." the issue is that, even accepting everything he claims as 100% true, his conclusion that the cards are fake is built on several logical fallacies.

Even if everyone could agree that nothing is truly certain, the anecdotal evidence that these are fake is laughably weak. It reminded me of thanksgiving this year, when my dad quoted the my pillow guy as gospel and assured me that all the evidence i needed was that the my pillow guy knows his stuff.

lol!

[molenick]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Michael,

Which post? You stated that in your last post last night. By the way waving you good morning.

In post 280 I said "Well, it is too late to continue arguing. But can you do me one favor and please stop saying "waiving"? That means putting a player on waivers (among other definitions). I think we can all agree that "waving" is the correct word."

In post 281 you seemed to agree with me and blamed it on a cold. You said "Waving goodnight and my cold obviously has had one side effect."

Then in post 287 (which I quoted in my post 290) you said "as he waived his hand over the case".

In order to find at least one thing we can all agree on, can we agree that any form of the word "waive" is not correct for describing someone waving his hand at the cards?

[Brian Van Horn]

Sorry, but still have the cold. Let's wave on.

[frankbmd]

Herpolsheimer's Impact on Climate Change should be explored further. Carbon 14 dating to establish the age of the paper/cardboard used in the creation of all the real and faux Herpolsheimer exemplars is needed information. Who among you is certain of the value of Herpolsheimer carbon credits? Isn't everyone who deals in Herpolsheimers breaking the law including auction houses? Aren't more federal agents needed to monitor the Herpolsheimer card market? These are all relevant questions that need to be answered. You can't make this up, but I can.

Furthermore the gentlemen in 1999 and 2004 who espoused the Fabricated Herpolsheimer Hypothesis (FHH) need to be identified and subpoenaed for questioning. Was he/she/they really a dealer(s)? Where was he/she/they born? Were he/she/they an interplanetary refugee transported to earth via asteroid? Is this all part of an intergalactic conspiracy? My friends on this forum, I fear, are merely scratching the surface of the FHH.

My advice is to forget the cards and invest in the Herpolsheimer short pants market, or should you "short" the Herpolsheimer long pants market. My advice to Leon is to be wary of Herpolsheimer pants flippers. Where there's a flipper, there's a scammer.

Carry on.

[scooter729]

Despite trailing right now by 28,000, another week of this thread and Brian will surpass Leon for most lifetime N54 posts!

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Herpolsheimer's Impact on Climate Change should be explored further. Carbon 14 dating to establish the age of the paper/cardboard used in the creation of all the real and faux Herpolsheimer exemplars is needed information. Who among you is certain of the value of Herpolsheimer carbon credits? Isn't everyone who deals in Herpolsheimers breaking the law including auction houses? Aren't more federal agents needed to monitor the Herpolsheimer card market? These are all relevant questions that need to be answered. You can't make this up, but I can.

Furthermore the gentleman in 1999 or 2004 who espoused the Fabricated Herpolsheimer Hypothesis (FHH) needs to be identified and subpoenaed for questioning. Was he/she really a dealer? Where was he/she born? Was he/she an interplanetary refugee transported to earth via asteroid? Is this all part of an intergalactic conspiracy? My friends on this forum, I fear, are merely scratching the surface of the FHH.

My advice is to forget the cards and invest in the Herpolsheimer short pants market, or should you "short" the Herpolsheimer long pants market. My advice to Leon is to be wary of Herpolsheimer pants flippers. Where there's a flipper, there's a scammer.

Carry on.

Frank for president except one clarification. The gentleman in 1999 and the one who sold the cards on eBay in 2004 were two different gents.

[frankbmd]

Brian, Post #295 has been edited to reflect your critique. However the 1999 gentleman could have been morphed into the 2004 gentleman, so I have left the pronouns ambivalent.

Do we have a Net 54 pronoun authority? I would respectfully decline such a position.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

Your overall point stands, but I have a minor quibble. The issue is not the "Brian's account is flawed in some unknowable way." The issue is that, even accepting everything he claims as 100% true, his conclusion that the cards are fake is built on several logical fallacies.

Even if everyone could agree that nothing is truly certain, the anecdotal evidence that these are fake is laughably weak. It reminded me of Thanksgiving this year, when my dad quoted the My Pillow guy as gospel and assured me that all the evidence I needed was that the My Pillow guy knows his stuff.

Reading this one post makes the former several hundred worth it!!!

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Brian, Post #295 has been edited to reflect your critique. However the 1999 gentleman could have been morphed into the 2004 gentleman, so I have left the pronouns ambivalent.

Do we have a Net 54 pronoun authority? I would respectfully decline such a position.

Frank,

I agree. The guy in 2004 could have been a "fake" of the 1999 version. Oh, I am so sorry. I may have to put one version of the gentleman on waivers and wave him goodbye. Oh, the humanity!

It's between you and Alfred E. Neuman for president next November.