NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on Ebay
Pre-WWII Cards
Post WWII Cards
Vintage Memorabilia
Babe Ruth Cards
Ty Cobb Cards
Lou Gehrig Cards
Mickey Mantle Cards
Goudey Cards
Bowman Cards
T205s on Ebay
Tobacco "T" Cards
Caramel "E" Cards
Vintage Baseball Postcards
Football Cards on Ebay
Exhibit Cards
Strip Cards
Baking Cards
Sporting News
Playball Cards on Ebay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:50 PM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default 1928 Fro Joy Babe Ruth - Authentic?

I just received this Fro Joy and am hoping to get opinions on its authenticity. At first glance out of the package, I thought something wasn't right about it compared to my authentic Fro Joy cards, but I'm in the process of testing it further.

Someone mentioned using a microscope in a previous Fro Joy thread to differentiate paper types, but since we know a black light will cause a modern counterfeit to fluoresce, will it also exaggerate various paper types, whether modern or vintage, to the point that their differences are easily recognizable? Will different types of paper look different under the black light? I'm going to use one and take some pictures.

Leon, this may be one of those. If it's fake, it's a good one!

Thanks

Attached Images
File Type: jpg pe121series120maranville.jpg (68.3 KB, 493 views)

Last edited by Clutch-Hitter; 07-05-2011 at 10:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-29-2011, 10:48 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is online now
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 27,120
Default Hey Greg

Hey Greg
I have come to the conclusion that most times, for me, it is too hard to tell if a good reproduction Fro-Joy is real or fake from a scan. Also, the head grader of BVG and I, have a theory that these cards and the Babe Ruth Candy cards might have been originally printed on different kinds of paper stocks. There are absolutely a small percentage that he and I feel are not going to be 100% either way. (of course they are one way or the other but we can't be positive) Those are ones they will not slab either. From the scan it looks sort of ok but I don't like the aging look of the paper. Definitely too hard to tell that one from a scan and maybe even in person. One thing to check is to see if the paper feels like 80 yr old paper when you rub it between your fingers. If it is course it's not a good sign. If smooth it's a better sign.
__________________
Leon Luckey

Last edited by Leon; 04-29-2011 at 11:29 PM. Reason: clarification
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-29-2011, 11:04 PM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default

Thanks Leon. These are under the black light with authentic Fro Joy's beside the one in question. Look different to y'all?



Last edited by Clutch-Hitter; 04-29-2011 at 11:11 PM. Reason: added
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-29-2011, 11:16 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is online now
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 27,120
Default more now

I don't like it more now.

I also took the liberty of adding a visual to Greg's post, it being the E121. I hope to help show what I am talking about concerning old card paper. It's almost smooth many/most times whereas most of the fakes don't have that feel. Maybe it's the patina/uneven gloss on them?
__________________
Leon Luckey

Last edited by Leon; 04-30-2011 at 09:07 AM. Reason: added info
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-29-2011, 11:47 PM
Jaybird's Avatar
Jaybird Jaybird is offline
J@son M1ller
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,430
Default

I agree that it looks off. It is certainly flourescing more than the ones on either side. The paper doesn't look slick enough on the top of the card either (agreeing with Leon).

I think the blacklight is a good determining factor especially against a known authentic.

The printing does look alright though so it really does come down to the paper on these. Very tricky.

I need to look at mine again but I seem to remember that the edges on an authentic should all roll over and are not sharp. This is from the top looking down. I'll try and post a scan tomorrow to illustrate what I'm talking about. This would be more apparent on a NM card than a VG card.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-30-2011, 08:57 AM
teetwoohsix's Avatar
teetwoohsix teetwoohsix is offline
Clayton
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Vegas,Nevada
Posts: 2,461
Default

I know nothing about how to tell a real from a fake with these- and the middle card sure does appear to be brighter,, but on the front middle scan, first photo without the blacklight you can see in the upper left corner that it seems to have some chipping or wear,,,,,and on my computer, the first front shot under the blacklight it seems as though the paper underneath that first layer (where it is chipped) almost has the same "tone" as the cards on each side (the known real ones).
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-30-2011, 10:20 AM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default

Leon, "patina" seems right and was a good word choice. It appears a definite authentic has a brown undertone, under the white.

As far as cards being printed on various paper stocks back then, I have a set of W517's (minus four), some with several variations. The thickness, color, etc of the paper varies variation to variation.

Another thing about the card in question, the Ruth's Grip #5, is that it has a strong vintage odor.

A Ruth collector in Maryland has a set of authentic factory cut singles in Beckett holders, and his neighbor has some too. Overall, he's handled approx twenty. When I spoke to him about it, he said the paper is more like a '33 Goudey and less like a '34 Goudey. He explained why he said that, but just out of curiosity, do y'all know why?

I have an E121 type card and '33 Goudeys, so I'll get some comparison work done with them today.

A Goudey Ruth in PSA 3 is an awesome card, but even so this card is easily the most stunning I've ever owned.


Last edited by Clutch-Hitter; 07-05-2011 at 10:14 AM. Reason: Image
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-30-2011, 10:30 AM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default Clayton,

Clayton, I saw your post after I posted, so it was interesting you mentioned the undertone. The "...Grip" card is old, smells old, etc.

I'm about to do some work with my Tunney Fro Joy and the others mentioned.

Clayton, both of these also have strong vintage odors. The first black and white fake was sold by a guy who claimed he bought it c. 1980, and I tend to believe him. Both are singles from fake sheets.


Last edited by Clutch-Hitter; 07-05-2011 at 10:23 AM. Reason: Scans
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-30-2011, 04:05 PM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default Interesting!

Here's the card in question between an E121 (poor condition) and a 1928 Yeungling (poor condition):




Here it is between a '33 Goudey and a '27 Fro Joy Tunney:




And the next is very interesting. Between 1970's fakes:


Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-30-2011, 05:16 PM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default Next to Tunney

Here's the card next to a Fro Joy Tunney:







[IMG][/IMG][IMG][/IMG]
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-30-2011, 05:35 PM
teetwoohsix's Avatar
teetwoohsix teetwoohsix is offline
Clayton
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Vegas,Nevada
Posts: 2,461
Default

Hi Greg-

Wow !!! Those last few high res scans are very convincing, especially the shot under the blacklight in between two '70's fakes......maybe Leon's theory about these being printed on two different types of paperstock is correct.

My uneducated guess would be that the card wouldn't "chip" like that if it were a modern copy? And the high res scan of the corner next to the Tunney.......looks very similar.

I don't know anything about these cards, but really enjoy reading these threads and trying to learn about them, it's alot of fun. Thanks!!

Sincerely, Clayton
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-30-2011, 06:11 PM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default

Thanks Clayton

Just went back to look at the pictures under the black light with the authentic ones and it seems like those two are dirtier, either that or the dark background on them makes them look a little different.

This is the first black light picture with the two authentic ones, cropped in to the part of "...Crack Fielder" that looked the cleanest and then to the "Look Out Mr Pitcher."





And cropped in to the Tunney black light comparison:

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-04-2011, 07:51 AM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default Very Interesting!

Alright, the paper is DEFINITELY different. Leon, it looked like my E121 under the light, but a nicer E121 example would have been more obvious. It's obvious from the Tunney/Grip photos that the two are very, very similar, so why would one see that and say "not sure.."(?). With my grip card, there's nothing to indicate it isn't authentic, nothing.






The problem we've had with Fro Joy singles all these years is with cards cut from fake sheets, such as the 70's cards on the ends above, fluorescing heavily under the black light.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-04-2011, 08:02 AM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is online now
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 27,120
Default the last picture

Hey Greg
Nice last post. To me it really points out the paper differences. The grip card does look real. You can see the more closely placed dots. It actually looks "smoother" in the scan than the others do. That is exactly what I have been trying to say. I am not sure exactly what your question is or if I said something contrary earlier but that picture does show what I was talking about.....and also in relation to the E121 type stock. Also, I do think the lighter, bluer fluorescence is a sign of the reprint type paper. regards
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-04-2011, 09:08 AM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default

Leon, I must have been thinking out loud. BTW, I have not sent this to a grading company. Beckett-BVG has my respect for taking on Fro Joy, but they did "miss" my premium in December. I have lots of pictures of cards cropped to the border, or even more, inside their authentic holders. Nice pick-up on your Fro Joy premium; if you ever take it to Beckett, I'd like to send mine to you to take with it, if you don't mind. My fees are paid.

And now that I know what these singles look like, including the E121 type, I'm about to print a Beckett submission form for my Crack Fielder and Look Out Mr Pitcher cards.

The seller of this Grip card sold a few E121 type Fro Joy's recently, stating he or she acquired them from an east coast estate. He or she sells quite a bit of vintage stuff, plus east coast sounds like a likely spot to find some based on what I've read and heard.

Check out the other E121 type cards from this seller (not my cards below):





__________________________________________

My Premium

Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-19-2011, 10:23 AM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default Thanks Leon

Fro Joy cards on e121 looking paper are fake, probably TCMA mid 70s productions.

Here's a fake Cobb:



The Ruth's Grip card is fake.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-19-2011, 12:43 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is online now
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 27,120
Default E121 like paper are fakes?

Hey Greg
I have usually thought the Fro Joys and Babe Ruth Candy cards SHOULD be on card stock that is similar to E121's. Now you are saying they are fake. Can you help me understand that? I am familiar with the notion of a rogue lithographic machine being in the hobby but have never heard of this particular card stock issue before. (besides a Beckett grader and myself thinking these cards could have been produced on different types of stock at time of mfg)
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-19-2011, 08:48 PM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default

Sorry Leon, I worded that wrong. My #5 Grip card has to be fake, and it looks more like an E121 to me than known real Fro Joys (I know very little about E121 except for my poor Reuther). Something was wrong/different with this thing right out of the package, so I thought it may be one of the unknown type you've mentioned. Also, my son Jack was born May 1, which obviously led to little time here and messing with my cards. When I re-read my one of my posts, it seemed like I didn't see what you wrote, but I did and have 100% confidence in what you're saying. However, it is confusing trying to imagine what one of the unknown type Fro Joys looks like in a scan and agreeing with you that the blue under the light looks like reprint paper (?). Do you have a scan of one of the unknowns?

With the Grip card, I've resorted to my first impression and the pictures under the light next to my two authentic Fro Joys. I have 10 days left to get a refund, but I want to keep it if it's one of those. The same seller sold the previously mentioned Cobb (SGC counterfeit) as well after selling the Fro Joys, and he or she has also been selling 70's TCMA. In the descriptions, all the cards were from a southern estate. I have a feeling that Cobb would fluoresce big time though, unlike the Ruth Grip card.

By the way, I just got an e-mail from Beckett:
  • #2 Look Out Mr Pitcher got a "3"
  • #6 Crack Fielder got a "2."

Paper comparison under the black light seems to work for these.

I appreciate your time and help Leon, and sorry I worded some ideas wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-19-2011, 09:15 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is online now
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 27,120
Default hey Greg

Hey Greg
No problem. Suffice it to say the card here "Bang the Babe Lines One Out" is the one I have had in my collection for quite a while. You can't really see a difference in the paper from the scans however, after close inspection of the paper stock it was determined there could not be 100% certainty that the card is good. Therefore it will not be able to be put into a holder....(unless some new information comes out leading me/us to believe it is good.)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg pf52frojoyx2.jpg (70.2 KB, 157 views)
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-19-2011, 09:19 PM
Jaybird's Avatar
Jaybird Jaybird is offline
J@son M1ller
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,430
Default

sorry to be stupid. but to clarify, are you guys saying that the known Real cards are a rougher E121 paper and that the ones on smooth stock are questionable?

I bought two that are on smoother, whiter stock that seem to be real from what I can tell comparing the factors you mention other than paper stock. They also do not flouresce under black light like modern paper.

Leon, I would say that mine look more like the bottom image in your last post. Just a little cleaner around the edges.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 1928_FroJoy_Pic4.jpg (77.3 KB, 153 views)
File Type: jpg 1928_FroJoy_Pic4Bk.jpg (79.4 KB, 153 views)

Last edited by Jaybird; 05-19-2011 at 09:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-26-2011, 10:36 AM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default

Nice cards Leon and Jay! Jay, that does look like one of the unconfirmed types Leon mentioned, outstanding image!

Of course, I did not submit the Grip card to Beckett with the other two because it's clearly different, but it also is not an early 1970's TCMA either, which are more fake uncut sheet cards:



I've decided to keep the #5 Grip card since it seems to be the unconfirmed paper type.

Recently got a canoscan based on recommendations in a scanner thread. Most everything I've posted before was with pictures, which creates a white balance problem most of the time. Here's some scans with the grip card between two Beckett graded Fro Joys:




Kawika sent a scan of his authentic #5 Grip on confirmed paper, SGC graded, back in December. Here's mine next to his (Thanks Kawika):



May have mentioned this, but I've been told by someone who would know that the paper is more like 1933 Goudey, less like 1934 Goudey.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-05-2011, 11:40 AM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default Got another #5 Grip Card

Bought another 1928 Fro Joy #5 and compared it to my existing one. What do y'all think?

The one I just bought is on the right and is smaller than the existing one. Also, my #2 Look Out....card is smaller than my #6 ....Crack Fielder. When I noticed this prior to sending them to BVG, I asked my friend in Maryland about his, and he confirmed his #2 is narrower that his #6:



With the two between the 70's reprints, black light used (the recent card is left center):

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-05-2011, 11:51 AM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default More comparison

Cropped into this image (the non-compressed one) top to bottom (recent card on the right):











Jaybird mentioned how the edges should roll over, and unlike the first paper variation, I think I see that happening here on this recent card. Was wondering what y'all think? Thanks again for the help.

Also, the front image on the #5 card is much lighter than the #6 and #2 cards, which may explain why there's more lightness on the reverse? In fact, the text box on the back of the recent #5 bled through to the front, and the darker areas on the front bled through to the back. This corresponds to the #6 and the #2 cards.

Last edited by Clutch-Hitter; 07-05-2011 at 12:07 PM. Reason: added
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-05-2011, 01:32 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is online now
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 27,120
Default look good to me

The new one looks good to me. Size differences don't concern me too much in this series though I have never really tried to study the sizes.
__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-05-2011, 01:52 PM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default

Thanks for your time again Leon. It went out to Beckett about an hour ago.

I'm looking at my '27 Tunney again; I don't think the paper on the '27 cards is the same as the real (confirmed real) '28 Fro Joy cards. The back of my Tunney is heavily damaged but the front is fairly nice, so I'm going to check on that. The reason I started comparing the first #5 Grip to the Tunney was because it looked more like the '27s than the '28s.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-05-2011, 06:03 PM
Jaybird's Avatar
Jaybird Jaybird is offline
J@son M1ller
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,430
Default

Looks good to me as well. Nice pickup.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-05-2011, 06:45 PM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default

Thanks Jason
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-05-2011, 11:30 PM
Clutch-Hitter's Avatar
Clutch-Hitter Clutch-Hitter is offline
G.r.eg M@r.t.i.n
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 522
Default

Found my scan! These three were scanned together Feb 22 while I was trying to confirm the #2 Ruth was real. Do they look like the same paper?

Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Babe Ruth Fro Joy...is it real..scans added at #7 post!..BGS 5.0 just popped!! 1966CUDA Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 14 09-13-2011 07:43 PM
Foiled again....1928 Babe Ruth Candy Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 8 04-27-2005 11:45 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:24 AM.


ebay GSB