Theory about 1919 White Sox team issue.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike 

I have a theory about the 1919 Chicago White Sox team issue, the set where only one is known to exist. I think the set was made, by someone very experienced,10-15 years ago. The set is blank backed with a black and white photo on the front. It doesn't sound like it could be that hard to create something this basic if you could get your hands on the right materials. Just a thought, what does everyone think?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

With the set changing hands at least 3 times in the last 10 years for 40k plus I doubt that it is a fake. Too many people paid too much too many times. just my thought....although there is the famous T206?? regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Parks

All of the pictures seem to be "unique"- I do not remember seeing any of them used anywhere else. Where would they come from?

Also, why would someone only make one set? If someone wanted to pull a scam, they would produce quite a few and disperse them into the hobby over time as singles, groups and a set here and there, all in varying conditions in order to give the appearance of a legitimate issue.

Most likely it was a proof set, similar to the Allegheny set that someone made reference to earlier.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

is the fact that it's the 1917 White Six, not the 1919 White sox. There's a common player (with a stupid grin) who wasn't with them any more. And the manager
is the manager from 1917 (too bad names fail me).

Pants Rowland, that's him. Manager, 1917; in '19 it was Gleason.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

If you are going to fake a card, why not fake a copyright too? I know only a little about copyright law (a little knowledge is always a dangerous thing) but I understand that as national and international copyright laws have changed over the years, the requirements for copyright markings have changed too. The existence of a copyright mark (depending on form and language used) might actually disprove the age of an article. Any copyright lawyers out there want to chime in?

I would be reticent to plunk down big bucks on an obscure issue that did not surface until relatively recently (say the last ten to fifteen years) unless it was accompanied by copious documentation of its origin (for example, memos and other materials from the manufacturer). The odds of it being a fake are just too great, unless there is serious provenance evidence.

The provenance arguments made as to this White Sox set are good examples of what I mean. Essentially, several people have argued that the cards must be good because a number of people have paid for them before. That doesn't mean squat. True provenance is established from accepted independent sources, not what some ninny paid for something. Take M116 as an example. We have verifiable contemporary sources that establish exactly how the cards were issued and what went into them. We "know" as a matter of historical fact (at least as best as history can be established) that the cards were issued by Sporting Life in several series, etc. T206, we know from advertisements from the day too.

Unless there are independent sources of information an opinion about what a card is is no more than one person's opinion. Take the archangel of card cataloguing, Jeff Burdick. He opined that there were Hustler T206 cards. There are none. He made a human error. Now, if a Hustler card were to surface, the seller could say that Burdick catalogued it so it must have existed but was extremely rare. Absent serious documentation, however, I would deem it a fake. For that reason, I am leery of cards like the Allegheny set. How do we know it wasn't a really good, well conceived forgery?

[Archive]

Posted By: David

By examining in person one or more cards from the set it should be easy determine if it was made 1910s or recently. I have never examined one of the cards, so can't offer any other relavent info. I don't mean to be dismisive of Mike's or anyone else's theory, because he might have some great points to offer-- but, unless their are flaws obvious from a picture, I think it is problematic to be calling a unique card or memorabilia fake without seeing it in person.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

Is there a Copyright Date on the cards? If so, it should be easy to find out if they are authentic. I believe that this was how the date of the Alleghany cards was determined, since there is a 1904 Copyright date on the back.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

...under a magnifier to check printing technniques. I examined my Alleghenys thoroughly, and though I can't be sure they were really created in 1904 (as you say, no documentation), I'm quite sure they are very old. Of course, maybe I could create one set of cards today and 100 years from now they would be discovered as "valuable and unique" cards - who knows?

Pete and David should have some thoughts on this.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

I don't know much about Copyrighting, but wouldn't there be government records that if an item states a copyright date, it was actually copyrighted on that date by the government? That would prove the age of the item.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

I've never been lucky enought to own an Allegheny (sp), but most early playing cards and game cards (Fan Crazy, 1913 National Game, etc) were made with photoengraving. If you examine the printing under a 30X or better microscope, the edge of the ink will have a dark, hard, mechanical rim all the way around. Much more distinct and solid than on the pictures of the T206s (lithograph) I have had my my newsletter. If you can see this distinct quality, this does not prove a particular date (1903 versus 1907), but does show that the item is old. This is because photoengraving has not been commercially used for several decades.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

This is a microscopic (about 100X power) look at the photoengraving on an early The Baseball Magazine Premium, with the distinct mechanical rim. This was literally caused by the printer's ink being pushed to the edge. The little cross-like design in the dots is typical too.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I wrote a nice long response to your cynicism (sp?)...but then I remembered you are a lawyer and figured it would do no good. How could you ever be wrong? best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

Pants Rowland was the manager in 1917; Gleason was a coach. In 1919, Gleason was the manager and Rowland was gone.

There is also that one common player (all i tell you is that he has a stupid grin) who is in the set, and was no longer with the White Sox in 1919.