Fake Shoeless Joe Sporting News

[Shoeless Moe]

brutal.....

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1918-M101-5-...item3ccb54a7ad

[buymycards]

Did you see his bs explanation? What a liar.

[BCauley]

Ha! Caught in a noreaster. I haven't seen that one before.

I like his description in his Fisk lot. The 15 'Drop Dead' gorgeous cards.

[Eric72]

Paul,

I do not doubt your ability to spot a fake here; however, I am curious as to what the red flag was. After digging through an old guide, I saw a picture of an M101 from 1916 which lacked an apostrophe in the line of text on the back which reads, "FIVE CENTS THE COPY." Granted, this listing read, "1916 Sporting News M-101-4" and the ebay auction is titled, "1918 M101-5." That said, something caught your eye and I would like to know what it was.

Please let me know. Thanks, in advance, for your help.

Best Regards,

Eric

[CobbSpikedMe]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the large spacing between the black border and the actual image a dead give away here?

Thanks.

AndyH

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Paul,

I do not doubt your ability to spot a fake here; however, I am curious as to what the red flag was. After digging through an old guide, I saw a picture of an M101 from 1916 which lacked an apostrophe in the line of text on the back which reads, "FIVE CENTS THE COPY." Granted, this listing read, "1916 Sporting News M-101-4" and the ebay auction is titled, "1918 M101-5." That said, something caught your eye and I would like to know what it was.

Please let me know. Thanks, in advance, for your help.

Best Regards,

Eric

Not sure the term for it, but all those lines, the cracking look, I see it all the time on bad reprints. Fake aging. Of course maybe that was due to this card surviving "The Perfect Storm."

[nolemmings]

There are multiple problems with the card's back. Of course, the fact that that card does not exist with that back might also be a clue.

[Eric72]

I found an M101-5 (1915 Sporting News) listing in another guide. The photos still lack the apostrophe shown in the ebay auction. Perhaps I am missing something?

Please know that I am here to learn and would greatly appreciate input from everyone here.

Best Regards,

Eric

[Runscott]

Simply reading his scamster explanation is enough to know it's a fake:

"This card is stiff from the water damage. That said, I must adhere to EBAY rules and say this could be a novelty/reproduction card"

[Bwstew]

I learned the hard way by buying a fake. The black border should be closer to the picture. I think that's correct any way. What I look for now. BW

[nolemmings]

Eric,

Your guide is outdated and flawed. M101-5s do not exist with Sporting News backs. Moreover, you've already noted the forger's puctuation error, and if you were to look at a real TSN back you would see the obvious differences between it and this garbage--check ebay now. Finally, there is the tell-tell gap between frame and photo edge on the front of the card, and it lacks any semblance or remnants of gloss--probably some sort of laser copy of a reprint.

The real version of this card comes up for auction every so often, and you will see that it is an m101-4 Jackson #87. Review archived auctions from any of the major auction houses and you can see from the scans there how different this fake is from the real deal.

[Buythatcard]

Check out the link to "Detecting Card Alterations And Reprints" which will give some good clues to look out for. The space between the border and pic is usually a good indicator.

BTW, the link is at the top of Net54 page.

[Eric72]

Thanks to everyone for their advice. I appreciate all of the information, especially regarding the guide. I know it is out of date, being from 1993; however, was unaware of it being flawed. Up to this point, I had considered it to be a good resource.

Here are a few photos. One is the front cover of the book. The other two are of pages where I found info on the M101-5 cards. The author apparently believed they were issued with Sporting News backs.







I welcome any additional insight as to how trustworthy (or not) this guide may be. Collecting pre-war material is new to me and I am grateful to everyone for helping to steer me in the right direction.

Again, thank you very much.

Best Regards,

Eric

[SushiX37]

I'm lost. Is Eric the seller? Why is he defending this guy?

I'm also somewhat new to pre war cards, but I'm not new to eBay. That little disclaimer has nothing to do with eBay policy, it's just a way out if he sells the card and it turns out to be fake. Then again, I think we all know that.

Happy Sunday everyone!

Rich

[nolemmings]

ah yes, the Hager book. Not a horrible reference, if you can get past the lousy spelling and grammar. The colored pictures are nice and there is interesting data--the author's reputation and history are also "colorful".

In his defense, some of the info listed here was commonly believed to be true at the time of publication, but has since been corrected. This particular listing is chock full of inaccuracies. First, m101-5 was issued in 1916, not 1915, and as noted before, was not issued by The Sporting News. While the set was used by other companies, Weil Baking and Globe Stores were not among them (those ad backs are on m101-4 only). The set did not include Federal League players- although a couple may be seen wearing Fed Lg. uniforms, all cards are captioned with either National or American League teams.

Still, if you look closely at the TSN back shown in Hager's book, you can see how it differs from that fake on ebay-- note the horizontal lines that set apart the second and fifth lines of text, for example. Again, looking at archived auctions from the popular auction houses should also provide you with information to help you spot these fakes.

[Eric72]

Rich,

No, I am not the seller. I am also not defending anyone. I realize the Jackson is a fake, and never disputed that.

I just wanted to learn a little bit, that's all. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused along the way.

Respectfully,

Eric

[Eric72]

Todd,

Thank you very much for the info. I truly appreciate it.

Using an older guide seemed fine to me, especially considering that the cards in question were over 75 years old when the book was printed. I am grateful to have heard, before relying on it to make any purchases, that it is filled with inaccruacies. What good is a "guide" if it leads me in the wrong direction?

Thanks again, for everything. I do plan to check into the archived auctions you mentioned. If you could let me know the names of a few popular auction houses, I would be grateful.

Best Regards,

Eric

[nolemmings]

Eric,

Near the top of the page, under the Grand Slam Bids banner you will see Vintage Links. Click there and then auction sites. Robert Edward Auctions and Goodwin would be good places to start, and for more obscure or 19th century material you may want to look at The Old Judge site. Many of these other auction sites offer good archived material too-- I just picked a couple that came to mind.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Eric,

Near the top of the page, under the Grand Slam Bids banner you will see Vintage Links. Click there and then auction sites. Robert Edward Auctions and Goodwin would be good places to start, and for more obscure or 19th century material you may want to look at The Old Judge site. Many of these other auction sites offer good archived material too-- I just picked a couple that came to mind.

Todd,

I started looking into the archived auctions and found them to be a great resource. Thanks again for pointing them out to me.

Best,

Eric

[smtjoy]

I just put this together, the real ones next to the fakes so you can see a clear difference, thats why anyone who collects the set type can spot these bad fakes real fast, there are some other much harder to spot fakes were the only difference is slight cropping and no gloss on the front.

Here you go-

You can clearly see how much different the detail is, also look at the cropping of the photo of his feet/hands and the gap between the black border line-


The fake back is a mess and not even close to the real thing as you can see-


I did find the guide you had listed that the Shoeless was selling for 2.5 times the Thorpe back in 93, today the Thorpe sells for more.

[nolemmings]

Thanks for the scans Scott but everyone should remember that card #86 Joe Jackson does not exist with a TSN back, so your back scan came from somewhere else.

The back of this fake is just so obviously butchered that it is not worthy of scrutiny. However, since the front/back combo does not exist, this is akin to examining a T206 Wagner with a Sovereign 460 back with no frame, or better yet, a Soveriegn 460 back no frame, as they can't even get the text or the non-lettered art work right.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by smtjoy

I just put this together, the real ones next to the fakes so you can see a clear difference, thats why anyone who collects the set type can spot these bad fakes real fast, there are some other much harder to spot fakes were the only difference is slight cropping and no gloss on the front.

Here you go-

You can clearly see how much different the detail is, also look at the cropping of the photo of his feet/hands and the gap between the black border line-


The fake back is a mess and not even close to the real thing as you can see-


I did find the guide you had listed that the Shoeless was selling for 2.5 times the Thorpe back in 93, today the Thorpe sells for more.

Scott,

Thank you very much for the scans. When the two Jackson fronts are placed side-by-side, the fake is quite simple to spot. In retrospect, it is now very easy for me to imagine how quickly an experienced collector would be able to see this from a mile away.

I also appreciate you taking the time to provide images of the Sporting News backs for comparison. I have never handled a card from that series; however, the fake does stand out like a sore thumb, even to me.

As for changes in pricing from '93 to present, I fully expected that would happen. My original intent when looking into collecting pre-war cards was to use the Hager book as a resource for identifying them. The thought of using it as a price guide, of course, would have been out of touch with reality. That said; I do find it fascinating that the relative values of the two cards (Jackson & Thorpe) have shifted so drastically.

Once again, thank you very much for your help. Please know that I do sincerely appreciate it.

Best Regards,

Eric

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Thanks for the scans Scott but everyone should remember that card #86 Joe Jackson does not exist with a TSN back, so your back scan came from somewhere else.

The back of this fake is just so obviously butchered that it is not worthy of scrutiny. However, since the front/back combo does not exist, this is akin to examining a T206 Wagner with a Sovereign 460 back with no frame, or better yet, a Soveriegn 460 back no frame, as they can't even get the text or the non-lettered art work right.

Todd,

Thanks again, for everything. My hobby experience thus far has almost exclusively involved post-WWII material and I appreciate the information everyone here has been willing to provide.

Please know that your insight into the Jackson (which, I now understand, is not found with a Sporting News back) and the Hager book are tremendously well received. As I delve into a new segment of the hobby, I truly welcome and appreciate insight such as this.

Best Regards,

Eric

[smtjoy]

I hear ya Todd but anyone just looking at ebay listing and new to vintage is going to have no idea that front and back combo is not possible. I know its always best to learn about the issues before buying the cards. Considering I purchased a number of fake exhibits when I got back into collecting years ago I felt knowing what a real Sporting News back looks like can only help. The more you know on these old cards the better off you are. Knowledge is Good!