Ruth M101-5?

[ls7plus]

Nice try yourself, or close, but no cigar! You acknowledged that when Fritsch made his reprints, he took a photo to do so, presumably of an original card, since that would be a heck of a lot easier than getting a hold of the original photo from which Mendelsohn produced the M101 Ruth's. THAT WILL PRODUCE A RANDOM, RATHER THAN LINEAR DOT PATTERN. THAT'S HOW MOST COUNTERFEITS HAVE BEEN MADE! How many cards have you looked at under a 16X loupe? Not very many, I suspect. AS STATED, I HAVE SEEN 2 RUTH'S AND ONE THORPE NOW MORE THAN TWO DECADES AGO WHICH HAD A LINEAR, REGULAR PRINT DOT PATTERN, MATCHING THAT OF A REGULAR M101 CARD, BUT WITH DIFFERENT PHOTO-CROPPING AND LIGHTER WEIGHT CARD STOCK, WHICH WOULD INDICATE THEY WERE PRINTED EITHER FROM THE ORIGINAL PLATE, OR A DUPLICATE ORIGINAL MADE FROM THE ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPH. Do you really think someone had a duplicate plate made from the original photograph, yet were dumb enough to print out the card on quite different stock with different photo-cropping (LOL)? Maybe just for their own amusement, perhaps? Or do you have some other explanation as to how to achieve such an original print dot pattern?

If I was the original poster to this thread, I'd certainly do a bit of investigation, the first of which will cost very, very little, merely to see if the second more costly step is even warranted. If the result shows a random, non-linear print dot pattern, the matter is at an end--simple test, simple conclusion. But if the result is positive, and does show a regular, linear dot pattern, I would at least consider consulting a qualified forensic paper examiner concerning the age of both the ink and the card stock, and possibly incurring the cost of the second step (which, admittedly, even if positive also, may not be sufficient to satisfy closed-minded graders at several of the TPG's). Better careful and thorough now, though, rather than sorry later. Alternatively, of course, you can do nothing and potentially lose out on a positive opportunity. Personally, I would want to learn more before coming to a conclusion based on insufficient facts, since I don't know everything, as you so obviously do. But as a lawyer specializing in litigation for more than 40 years, I certainly saw more than enough of conclusions drawn from insufficient facts--what a joy it has been getting them reversed in the Michigan Court of Appeals, Michigan Supreme Court, and U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for almost 40 years. Join the crowd!

You probably don't believe there were printer's proofs of the '69 Topps Super Reggie Jackson, either, do you? But I own one (graded authentic by PSA before they stopped grading printer's proofs some time ago), and another, along with the Pete Rose from the set, went for about $900 some years ago in an REA auction. Perhaps the printer's proof/prototype Hal Newhauser card from the '40's doesn't exist either? Or, if it does, was that the only such card ever made?

Oh, and don't worry about my heirs--they certainly won't be hurting!

Best of luck as you stumble along your way,

Larry