HELP!!! - E95 Philadelphia Caramel Cobb Variation?

[byrdman65]

I've had this Ty Cobb card for quite some time and have been unable to identify it correctly. As you can see it is the same photo as the E95 Philadelphia Caramel with a different background and it is a blank back. The card was found in Lancaster, PA. I was told this forum to locate accurate descriptions of older card variations. Any info would be greatly appreciated.

[petecld]

There is a known ad card of Cobb. Heritage sold one:

http://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/ci...ription-071515

I am aware of a similar card of boxer Jim Jeffries. The print quality is not as nice as the cards but yours seems even more undefined. Can't say 100% if yours is a fake as one would need to have the card in hand.

Peter

[ZachS]

Originally Posted by petecld

The print quality is not as nice as the cards but yours seems even more undefined. Can't say 100% if yours is a fake as one would need to have the card in hand.

Peter

The printing doesn't look right at all on the one in the OP.

[ErikV]

This card was discussed on the board some time ago. In this link I suggested
a theory on its origin, which as a Philadelphia Caramel Collector, I feel up to
this point holds the most water.

ErikV

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=195864

[byrdman65]

In the thread of November, 2014, Shammus posted a pic...which looks exactly as the one I am asking about. My phone flash may have distorted the color but it is the same card (as well as being a blank back). Nothing else was discussed after his post. So, not sure the conclusion.

[Luke]

Yours doesn't look good. Better pics or scans could change that opinion.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by LukeLyon

Yours doesn't look good. Better pics or scans could change that opinion.

I agree. We need better scans. I am not sure but the one posted today could be a reprint of the one posted on the board previously.

[shammus]

Originally Posted by Leon

I agree. We need better scans. I am not sure but the one posted today could be a reprint of the one posted on the board previously.

I hate to say it, but Leon's comment is exactly what I'm thinking. Here's a scan of my card. Notice that all the flaws mine has are replicated perfectly on the new card in the OP with a few additional ones added in. Specifically, the wrinkling above Ty's left shoulder, the hairline wrinkle right next to his left eye, the tiny scuff right at the base of his collar on the right side, the wrinkle in the lower left corner....all a perfect match it seems.

e95cobb-mine-001.jpg

[shammus]

I should add, that my card is a blank back also and I feel there's maybe one other blank back out there which we never determined the origins for. It was a nice bit of detective work by a couple of our members to determine the origins of the version of this card that has the advertising on the back though....

[Jobu]

Here is another blank back Cobb (this same pair also sold at Legendary in 2009). It lacks the writing in the background:

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/lot-114794.aspx

Originally Posted by shammus

I should add, that my card is a blank back also and I feel there's maybe one other blank back out there which we never determined the origins for. It was a nice bit of detective work by a couple of our members to determine the origins of the version of this card that has the advertising on the back though....

[Leon]

Good info..
Either the Cobb mentioned in the first post has a poor scan and the things around it aren't poorly scanned (not sure how that could be) or it is a reprint as the lithography isn't as crisp as the others are.

Originally Posted by Jobu

Here is another blank back Cobb (this same pair also sold at Legendary in 2009). It lacks the writing in the background:

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/lot-114794.aspx

[ullmandds]

card op posted appears to be fake...the edges look artificially aged...the colors washed out...and the stock just looks wrong...to me.

I have seen a few genuine examples of this card over my lifetime and the colors are always quite vivid.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

card op posted appears to be fake...the edges look artificially aged...the colors washed out...and the stock just looks wrong...to me.
.

Agree. Plus the scratches by his left shoulder are identical to the original from the link above. It's a worthless copy.

[byrdman65]

This is a new picture. Unfortunately this is the best I can do due to the quality of scanner that I have. I appreciate all the honesty I have received from the board members. However, I did not post this to verify whether it is an original or a worthless copy. I wanted to find out the origin of this variation. Shammus (and others) have given me more information than I have had and I am quite sure that they are correct in their theory.
I am quite certain this card is the same as the Shammus card (if I may refer to it that way). The card looks genuinely old as I hold it in my hand. It was found with other candy/ice cream cards produced at/near Philadelphia. If you blow up the photo, on the bottom right you will see a small red line, the same border line as found on the Shammus card.
Any other information or theories on this variation would be nice. I can also handle more criticism in my quest to verify this card 100%. I realize I am not holding on to a Honus Wagner T206 card so I pose these questions to the board.

PSA is going to be at the Chicago show in November. Could they verify authenticity or the age of this card?
If it is verified, would other members on this board recommend grading it?

[Luke]

Yeah definitely a copy/reprint of the previously posted card.

[petecld]

byrdman65,

I will be at the Chicago show at the Heritage booth if you want to bring it by and I'll take a look at it.

Peter

[shammus]

Originally Posted by byrdman65

This is a new picture. Unfortunately this is the best I can do due to the quality of scanner that I have. I appreciate all the honesty I have received from the board members. However, I did not post this to verify whether it is an original or a worthless copy. I wanted to find out the origin of this variation. Shammus (and others) have given me more information than I have had and I am quite sure that they are correct in their theory.
I am quite certain this card is the same as the Shammus card (if I may refer to it that way). The card looks genuinely old as I hold it in my hand. It was found with other candy/ice cream cards produced at/near Philadelphia. If you blow up the photo, on the bottom right you will see a small red line, the same border line as found on the Shammus card.
Any other information or theories on this variation would be nice. I can also handle more criticism in my quest to verify this card 100%. I realize I am not holding on to a Honus Wagner T206 card so I pose these questions to the board.

PSA is going to be at the Chicago show in November. Could they verify authenticity or the age of this card?
If it is verified, would other members on this board recommend grading it?

I'm a little confused about your post. You say that you did not post about the card to verify whether it's an original or a worthless copy. But then you say that you're on a "quest to verify the card 100%". What are you hoping to verify exactly?

You also mention that you're quite sure we're correct about our theory, but then you turn right around in the next sentence and say that you're certain your card is the same as mine. Yes, there are similarities between the two cards, but IMO, that is due to your card being a photocopied version of mine. The fact that your card displays the exact same flaws as mine (identical creases and little nicks), combined with it's exceptionally pixelly appearance (always a telltale sign of a forgery), leads me to say with 110% certainty that our two cards are not the same as one is real and the other is fake.

All that being said, I'd definitely encourage you to have it looked at professionally. I realize I'm just a random stranger on a message board and I don't expect you to put a lot of stock into what I'm saying. Peter was kind enough to volunteer to meet you at the Chicago show so I hope you're able to run into him there. It sounds like you've had the card awhile and you're excited about it, so you should definitely have it checked out in person if you feel strongly about it. But you might keep in mind what myself and others have told you already as I don't expect you'll be given good news in the end.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Jobu

Here is another blank back Cobb (this same pair also sold at Legendary in 2009). It lacks the writing in the background:

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/lot-114794.aspx

this is an e95...maybe cut from a sheet...not to be confused with the super tough cobb...without cobb caption at the bottom...with writing in middle most likely cut from a box.

[Jobu]

Thanks for clarifying that Pete.

Originally Posted by ullmandds

this is an e95...maybe cut from a sheet...not to be confused with the super tough cobb...without cobb caption at the bottom...with writing in middle most likely cut from a box.

[shammus]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

this is an e95...maybe cut from a sheet...not to be confused with the super tough cobb...without cobb caption at the bottom...with writing in middle most likely cut from a box.

That Cobb from Legendary looks like one of the 1913 Notebook cards actually....

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by shammus

That Cobb from Legendary looks like one of the 1913 Notebook cards actually....

u are correct!

[byrdman65]

Originally Posted by shammus

I'm a little confused about your post. You say that you did not post about the card to verify whether it's an original or a worthless copy. But then you say that you're on a "quest to verify the card 100%". What are you hoping to verify exactly?

You also mention that you're quite sure we're correct about our theory, but then you turn right around in the next sentence and say that you're certain your card is the same as mine. Yes, there are similarities between the two cards, but IMO, that is due to your card being a photocopied version of mine. The fact that your card displays the exact same flaws as mine (identical creases and little nicks), combined with it's exceptionally pixelly appearance (always a telltale sign of a forgery), leads me to say with 110% certainty that our two cards are not the same as one is real and the other is fake.

All that being said, I'd definitely encourage you to have it looked at professionally. I realize I'm just a random stranger on a message board and I don't expect you to put a lot of stock into what I'm saying. Peter was kind enough to volunteer to meet you at the Chicago show so I hope you're able to run into him there. It sounds like you've had the card awhile and you're excited about it, so you should definitely have it checked out in person if you feel strongly about it. But you might keep in mind what myself and others have told you already as I don't expect you'll be given good news in the end.

You are correct. The post sounds contradictory. It was typed quickly as I just wanted to use another photo to present. I had been looking for a similar card to mine that I hold for a very long time.....with no luck at all. Even of a different player....but same format. Frustrated, I learned of this board and within one day, I had my first description with photo of identical card and explanation where it may have originated from. My question was answered I am happy with that alone. Of course, my "quest" will not be conducted on this board but rather in the hands of an expert.

My card is not for sale (either because it is worthless and will be tossed or because there are not that many to which I would keep it).... and I am not pushing it on the board. So lets go back to the original question. You presented a card like mine. Same script/blank back/hand cut/ and even hint of an original red border as I have on mine. I am looking for others like these. So far you have the only one to refer to. My card continually is getting compared to yours. Does that alone set "the standard"? How about other fakes? Lets look at them. I haven't seen any of those either. Why are there none for sale as originals. Maybe I have the only fake one? Is it possible to get a bunch of pics of these together (authentic and fakes)? Someone even posted that they have seen other versions of this card. Where can I view a couple of them? Am I missing a site where these exact cards are listed? Maybe several different cards real and fake would explain the different print flaws.

Please do not take offence to any of the above by the way it is worded. I just think they are legitimate questions. Too many boards get chippy, sarcastic, and personal. I appreciate you and all others taking the time to post. So far, you have the ONLY one that compares.....so I take the conversation to you. And, again, your theory actually does shed light on the original question.....where did this style of card originate? But before I get to Chi town, I would like to see others. There have been a lot of opinions regarding my somewhat crappy scan. So to those people, please post links to other blank back versions.

I am still up for criticism. I can take it! I did not pay much for it and it will not change my life one bit either way. This is actually more interesting than I imagined it would be

[ullmandds]

I saw 2 of these cards at the 95 national...and have seen a few more since...some on this board...maybe 1 or 2 in major auctions.

I also have an old paperback book depicting this card...but my book is packed away in a box somewhere.

I certainly understand your desire to find out more info on your card...and the hope it is real.

But comparing it to brians card is all that is necessary. Cards this rare do not age over time with identical creases. They just don't. And if you look at enough fake vintage cards...you will see similar characteristics to yours.


This board has more "experts" on it than any grading company you will find.

Best of luck.

My advice to you...take a quality scan of your card. Zoom in to the pixels. Examine the detail of the eyes...the print. Yours will appear different.

[PolarBear]

Stealth account activated.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by byrdman65

You are correct. Of course, my "quest" will not be conducted on this board but rather in the hands of an expert.

You could check with the autograph section of the board. They have lots of experts over there (sorry auto guys, just joking)
Seriously though, your card looks like a homemade reprint of a very obscure card. I am not an expert, but very obscure cards in poor condition do not bring a lot of money at auction anyway.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I saw 2 of these cards at the 95 national...and have seen a few more since...some on this board...maybe 1 or 2 in major auctions.

I also have an old paperback book depicting this card...but my book is packed away in a box somewhere.

I certainly understand your desire to find out more info on your card...and the hope it is real.

But comparing it to brians card is all that is necessary. Cards this rare do not age over time with identical creases. They just don't. And if you look at enough fake vintage cards...you will see similar characteristics to yours.


This board has more "experts" on it than any grading company you will find.

Best of luck.

My advice to you...take a quality scan of your card. Zoom in to the pixels. Examine the detail of the eyes...the print. Yours will appear different.

+1 The reason we compare it to Brian's is because it is the one that the reprint/fake shown is made from. I am sure there are a few other real ones in the hobby but none will have identical creases and wrinkles.

[shammus]

Originally Posted by byrdman65

You are correct. The post sounds contradictory. It was typed quickly as I just wanted to use another photo to present. I had been looking for a similar card to mine that I hold for a very long time.....with no luck at all. Even of a different player....but same format. Frustrated, I learned of this board and within one day, I had my first description with photo of identical card and explanation where it may have originated from. My question was answered I am happy with that alone. Of course, my "quest" will not be conducted on this board but rather in the hands of an expert.

My card is not for sale (either because it is worthless and will be tossed or because there are not that many to which I would keep it).... and I am not pushing it on the board. So lets go back to the original question. You presented a card like mine. Same script/blank back/hand cut/ and even hint of an original red border as I have on mine. I am looking for others like these. So far you have the only one to refer to. My card continually is getting compared to yours. Does that alone set "the standard"? How about other fakes? Lets look at them. I haven't seen any of those either. Why are there none for sale as originals. Maybe I have the only fake one? Is it possible to get a bunch of pics of these together (authentic and fakes)? Someone even posted that they have seen other versions of this card. Where can I view a couple of them? Am I missing a site where these exact cards are listed? Maybe several different cards real and fake would explain the different print flaws.

Please do not take offence to any of the above by the way it is worded. I just think they are legitimate questions. Too many boards get chippy, sarcastic, and personal. I appreciate you and all others taking the time to post. So far, you have the ONLY one that compares.....so I take the conversation to you. And, again, your theory actually does shed light on the original question.....where did this style of card originate? But before I get to Chi town, I would like to see others. There have been a lot of opinions regarding my somewhat crappy scan. So to those people, please post links to other blank back versions.

I am still up for criticism. I can take it! I did not pay much for it and it will not change my life one bit either way. This is actually more interesting than I imagined it would be

Honestly, I don't think your scans are crappy. In particular, your second one. I think that's just how your card looks...the scan is just fine. The card, to me, just has the appearance of one that was printed off a laser printer.

To answer your main question on why other fake examples aren't available, it's pretty simple - this card is just simply too obscure and wouldn't have been reprinted all that often. While reprints of this card are certainly possible, we're talking about a card where there are maybe 3-5 examples known total. Generally speaking, that's not really the sort of card that gets reprinted all that often.

To be clear, this card is NOT an e95 and it's not one of the 1913 Notebook cards. These script-styled Cobbs are entirely different from those two issues altogether and are thusly NOT considered "variations" of those sets. These Cobbs, with the script styled captions at the top of the photo, do have two different variations though, a blank backed variation and an advertisement variation that we DO know the origins for, which was explained up above a bit. We're not exactly sure where the blank backed versions come from. Of the two variations, I think I'm aware of two examples of each that our out there and no more. So I believe that's the answer to your other collection of why you can't find a lot of photos out there.

So yes, I'd still advise to have it checked out by a professional. I would also say, however, that there are plenty of experts on this board. And to be honest, I personally feel that I don't really need to see your card in person to assess whether it's real or not. The scan will suffice in my opinion and I think others would agree with that. But definitely do your due diligence on the card and I'd be interested in hearing how it turns out.

[ullmandds]

well stated brian...i wish I picked one of them up at the nat'l in 95...they were $350 ea.

[bcornell]

Let's summarize

1. Anonymous poster
2. Posts using exclamation marks and "help" like some circa 2002 eBay scammer
3. Asks for advice, then disregards it because he doesn't like the answer ("I appreciate all the honesty I have received from the board members. However...").

The bar for new users here is not set high enough. Leon, this needs to be fixed.

Bill

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

well stated brian...i wish I picked one of them up at the nat'l in 95...they were $350 ea.

sounds like you did good passing, you could've prolly picked up a psa8 '52 mantle for that price back then.

as for the OP, if you're looking for another example to make a reprint from erikv has one in the other thread referenced here.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

sounds like you did good passing, you could've prolly picked up a psa8 '52 mantle for that price back then.

as for the OP, if you're looking for another example to make a reprint from erikv has one in the other thread referenced here.

quan...you are correct...smartass!!!!

[shammus]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

well stated brian...i wish I picked one of them up at the nat'l in 95...they were $350 ea.

Thanks Pete! Like Quan said, I'm sure you got a quality deal on something else

[ullmandds]

Brian... Back in 95 when I was just starting dental school I had no money . I had purchased a T206 O'Hara St. Louis variation for 170 bucks and was bringing it to the national to sell. I doubled my money and I was pretty happy. I also ran into the dealer who sold my childhood collection in high school after I had lost interest in the hobby. I bought my 77 Camaro with the proceeds .

But I did not pick up any quality vintage back at that show .