Does PWCC tell the truth? - baseball signs

[CW]

Brent, do you know if this piece was viewed under a black light?

Originally Posted by Brent Huigens

I want to comment on this thread. Agreed that advertising signs are not our expertise so I want to be data driven in our assessment of this and try not to assume. This is what I can say:

1) Despite the original post's accusation, we have indeed shown this item to four different people unrelated to PWCC, all of whom educated collector/investors, and one of whom I do consider a memorabilia expert (as does PSA/DNA).
2) Everyone who has held this piece agrees that it's old. It's only those looking at auction images who remain doubtful (and I don't blame folks for this). Agreed that no 'authority' on the issue has commented; I'm not sure who that would be.
3) Obviously this is a different product from the REA sale of 2006. Aside from the size, the print quality is far inferior, as are colored inks used, and even the design is notably different (including a Hassan advertisement on the Mathewson panel).
4) The guess that this was a newspaper advertisement is interesting... would explain the print quality and faded red coloring (common flaw in cheaper red inks used in the pre-1930s). However, in my opinion, this is absolutely NOT a newspaper add adhered to a thicker card stock backing. The process of trying to glue thin paper stock (which this is not) to a thicker card board backing (this is about 1/16") would induce wrinkles, tears, delamination, misalignment at the edges, and other obvious flaws which are not present on this piece. The die-cut aspects of this piece clearly convey mass production in my opinion, not an at-home art project.
5) To the best of my ability, referencing vintage cardboard on trading cards, the wear, staining, and overall patina of the piece is absolutely old. It's possible this was a reproduction from 30-50 years ago, but this was not produced recently as I don't believe the faded red, staining and oxidation on the piece could be reasonably reproduced. I suppose someone looking to commit fraud could be capable of anything, but I don't see the upside in this case for such an act... the cost to fake this item to a degree that fools someone like me would be exceedingly expensive...I don't see the upside.
6) While I do believe the piece is vintage, I can't say for certain its circa 1910 and it could be a reproduction of some kind from later on. Why a manufacturer would reproduce something like this (costly) is hard to fathom due to it's size and esoteric nature...who would want it? But I have to remain open to this possibility. What I do feel is true is that if this were a reproduction, I'm sure the manufacturer made more than one and somebody should be able to find a historical sale of some kind for the repro so we can know either way. I have tried to find such a sale and been unable.


Personally, I believe this to be genuine piece from 1910 era. Clearly a lower production quality advertisement than the REA example, perhaps meant to be displayed above the Hassan products within the store. It's size and format would make sense for such a thing. The REA example is so large and brightly printed that I don't see it used in close proximity to Hassan products, but rather perhaps displayed elsewhere to drive traffic.

Bottom line, obviously I don't have definitive answers, but this is as much as I know.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I don't collect this stuff and the person who knows the least about these has probably forgotten more than I'll ever know, but doesn't logic come into play here? If you were going to fake a piece, wouldn't you at least try to get close to the real thing? Given that they aren't even close, is it possible that they could be real? What would be the point in faking something and not even trying to come close to the real thing?

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I don't collect this stuff and the person who knows the least about these has probably forgotten more than I'll ever know, but doesn't logic come into play here? If you were going to fake a piece, wouldn't you at least try to get close to the real thing? Given that they aren't even close, is it possible that they could be real? What would be the point in faking something and not even trying to come close to the real thing?

The point in making, or "faking" something somewhat different from an original is just that... it's somewhat different. Hence, it's much harder to determine authenticity when there's nothing to compare it to.

[RedsFan1941]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

The point in making, or "faking" something somewhat different from an original is just that... it's somewhat different. Hence, it's much harder to determine authenticity when there's nothing to compare it to.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

exactly!!!!

[perezfan]

As referenced above, the first test administered should be the blacklight test. Very simple to do, and will easily determine whether it is vintage. The cardboard will "fluoresce" (light up) if it's a modern reproduction piece.

After this is done, we can have a far more intelligent conversation as to it's actual age/original purpose/etc. Please let us know how it turns out, as the majority here tend to be skeptical (typically with good reason). My initial belief was that the Hassan piece is an obvious reproduction, while the DiMaggio/Williams piece might just be a different version of the Heritage Poster. Of course if they came from the same consignor, it would certainly cast more doubt.

Would love to be wrong, and eager to see what the blacklight test reveals... Thanks!

[RedsFan1941]

Originally Posted by perezfan

As referenced above, the first test administered should be the blacklight test. Very simple to do, and will easily determine whether it is vintage. The cardboard will "fluoresce" (light up) if it's a modern reproduction piece.

hopefully a black light unrelated to pwcc will be used

[Econteachert205]

I concur as to the black light test being essential. AH’s should include one for every major piece like this being sold.