Some rare and expensive bakery goodies......

[Brian Van Horn]

There are 34 of them on eBay so I don't think this is really outing an auction. It is a little hard to miss 34:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1917-D-UNC-M...item3ce70ca0e5

[ValKehl]

I'll be surprised if any of these cards sell at the asking prices, or anything close thereto. The 1921 Herpolsheimer cards, of which only 1 card is known of each, don't fetch anywhere near the prices the eBay seller is asking for these Merchants Bakery cards.
Val

[nolemmings]

Reminds me of the guy who has the high-grade Uncle Jacks on ebay for ridiculous prices like this common Bill Hallahan for a meager $6500--they've been there a loooong time:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1933-Uncle-J...item53d8d031fc

Of course, it's also real wise to flood the market with about three dozen of these at once--makes the buyers really feel like they're getting something scarce.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

I'll be surprised if any of these cards sell at the asking prices, or anything close thereto. The 1921 Herpolsheimer cards, of which only 1 card is known of each, don't fetch anywhere near the prices the eBay seller is asking for these Merchants Bakery cards.
Val

Uh oh Val .... I saw a WaJo in there! Better start saving

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

I'll be surprised if any of these cards sell at the asking prices, or anything close thereto. The 1921 Herpolsheimer cards, of which only 1 card is known of each, don't fetch anywhere near the prices the eBay seller is asking for these Merchants Bakery cards.
Val

OK. Here I go :

The 1921 Herpolsheimer's are fakes. 1916 is good. 1921 is bad.

I met the original owner at the Robert Morris show in one of the May shows in the late 1990s or early 2000s (2001 the latest) and saw the guy again at the Cleveland National. Although the date is fuzzy, the conversation is not.

I looked at the cards and asked the gentleman about the cards. He waived them off with his right hand above the plastic sheets and album they were in and stated, "They are not real." The prices scribbled on the back of the cards were the prices he was seeking on the cards. Not all of the cards had a price in pencil on the back.

The cards eventually ended up in the hands of a seller in Maryland who put them on eBay.

I feel so much better now. A good rant occasionally in the morning is as refreshing as a long walk .

[Leon]

The seller will either eventually lower those prices or have them as museum pieces forever. It's not like you could go for a set of them and there are only so many type collectors out here. I think I have handled most of them that were already known in the hobby (approx.5) and though they were lower grade they filled holes in type collections. I could see a few HOF collectors ponying up quite a bit but probably not close to the asking prices. Still, some pretty neat cards and goes hand in hand with the thread about what is truly scarce in the internet age. These Merchants cards barely make the grade now...though still cool cards.

[timn1]

Leon is right - there are only so many serious type card collectors wealthy enough to imagine paying those prices.

[paul]

I agree with Leon as well, but wouldn't be surprised if the Walter Johnson sold for close to the asking price.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

OK. Here I go :

The 1921 Herpolsheimer's are fakes. 1916 is good. 1921 is bad.

I met the original owner at the Robert Morris show in one of the May shows in the late 1990s or early 2000s (2001 the latest) and saw the guy again at the Cleveland National. Although the date is fuzzy, the conversation is not.

I looked at the cards and asked the gentleman about the cards. He waived them off with his right hand above the plastic sheets and album they were in and stated, "They are not real." The prices scribbled on the back of the cards were the prices he was seeking on the cards. Not all of the cards had a price in pencil on the back.

The cards eventually ended up in the hands of a seller in Maryland who put them on eBay.

I feel so much better now. A good rant occasionally in the morning is as refreshing as a long walk .

Brian, I don't want to pick a fight but the guy you were talking to doesn't know what he is talking about, he may have thought them not real or fakes as the back had never been seen before.

I am looking at a Herpolsheimer's card as I am writing this and they 100% are on exactly the same paper as the other E121 like cards (Holsum, E121, Witmor, etc.) and the subjects are even consistent with the time-line of the Holsum Type 2 cards that has only become evident after years of me studying them. There were even subjects in that group whose images were not known on anything only to be found later on Holsum and Standard Biscuit cards.

The 1921 Herpolsheimer's cards are 100% real, have you ever examined one next to an original Holsum or E121 card? If you do there is no way to reproduce the paper and printing to make them exactly the same, there is always a way with fake cards to tell they were made later or at a different time. I was as skeptical as anyone when they first showed up but after examining the cards there is no way they are fake.

[Brian Van Horn]

Rhett,

There is no fight and no fight is intended. The guy stated they are not real. The prices on the backs were what he was seeking. They ended up in the hands of a guy from Maryland who put them on eBay. If the owner says they are not real, they are not real. Do I know if the guy had printing experience? No. Still, he was the owner and I can't get around his honesty. The cards are fakes.

The same paper is not an argument. Coming up with the same paper would not be difficult. Having knowledge of the cards and poses involved would take a little more research, but not impossible. Still these arguments are only peripheral. The guy did know what he was talking about when we spoke. With the exception of a poorly done Cobb on eBay a few years ago, no other examples have been found. Why? It's possible, just possible, the guy I spoke with may have only made one run of the cards. Here is a harder to find pose from the Standard Biscuit set that was in the grouping of the Herpolsheimers. The fact that it is harder to find, proves nothing, but if you guys want to use it as an example from this fake grouping, feel free:

[Leon]

In my opinion the 1921 Herpolsheimers are 100% real.. There is no doubt in my mind about it.

[rhettyeakley]

Brian, you never actually answered my question about actually looking at the cards closely and not from a distance in an album a decade ago. Did the guy you spoke to say he printed them himself or something? why was he so sure they are fake?

About the paper being easy to reproduce is silly, there is no way to match cardstock from 1921 perfectly and then after that duplicating the printing process perfectly. I think you are putting too much stock into the words of this person without actually looking at the cards themselves. Other than his words why are you so sure they are fake?

[Brian Van Horn]

Rhett,

When the explanation and the body language are indisputable it doesn't make any sense to argue with the gentleman. The cards are fakes. Paper for the cards of the era is not rare and, although I am not a paper expert, I would imagine finding similar paper to this day, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, next decade or next century would not be the most difficult of pursuits.

[rhettyeakley]

Brian, so you haven't actually looked at the cards then I take it as all you are talking about is what the guy said to you which IMO is not scientific and just the opinion of an unnamed person.

I'm not sure why you feel so strongly about this based only on the word of someone. About the paper... You are absolutely wrong if you think it would easy to reproduce a particular cardstock to make a reprint set.

Could it be, just maybe that the guy you spoke to didnt know what the heck he had? Everyone that has ever looked at these cards in person can attest to their being authentic. The cards are NOT fake!

[rhettyeakley]

Here is a card I own from the Herpolsheimer cards on ebay that I own...


Unknown pose of Henry that was not produced elsewhere showed up in that collection then just recently a card with the same image was found with... Holsum Type 2 back (a set that parallels the Herpolsheimer and Standard Biscuit D350-3 set). That would be some serious forethought on the part of the fake card maker to use an unknown image only to have one eventually be found that was authentic (but only after the Herpolsheimer's came to light).

http://catalog.scpauctions.com/1921-...-LOT28455.aspx

[Brian Van Horn]

Rhett,

The guy knew what he had and he stated, "They are not real." He knew of what he spoke. The guy after him who put it up on eBay may have had other intentions, but the guy I spoke to was honest and there is no getting around that point.

The paper of the time was not expensive and could not be for a caramel maker to cut and put into its products. Cost ratios.

I have never put a card from the set up against another set from the early twenties because I have no interest in the cards. We are not talking rocket science here, but simply inexpensive paper for print.

Now for one opinion which can be taken or left and is strictly peripheral to this discussion. As for the pattern on the back of the card which frames the advertisement, it has always been my opinion that someone simply saw a retro type design on either a table a door on a hutch or an advertising piece, thought that would be a good frame for the back of a fantasy card and took out a piece of paper to draw up the design. For all I know they may have seen a similar pattern on an old Pathe film and got the idea. Still, that is my opinion and nothing more.

What counts here is that the gentleman knew about the cards and knew that they were not authentic.

[Brian Van Horn]

Rhett,

The Henry card and the Davenport card I posted are in the same vein. It simply means the person who ran a sheet, maybe two, in a one run production knew of the sets. Both cards were in the grouping at Robert Morris.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Leon

I think I have handled most of them that were already known in the hobby (approx.5) and though they were lower grade they filled holes in type collections.

Are there more where these 34 came from, or are we just around 39 known examples now? I may have to edit that other thread again.

[Brian Van Horn]

Well, on the Merchants Bakery, there is what Leon has and what is on eBay. I don't know if any prior to this listing got by Leon.

[Brian Van Horn]

Now, maybe this will put things to rest. We have a grouping of cards, which with one exception-that being a very poor and, in my opinion, amateurish Ty Cobb on eBay a few years ago, all came from one collection. No other card of the same quality has surfaced. The guy who had the monopoly on the cards stated to me "They are not real." Gentleman, in my opinion, the horse is dead.

Still, if you would like to debate, I am properly caffeinated and up for any length of discussion you desire.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Rhett,

The guy knew what he had and he stated, "They are not real." He knew of what he spoke. The guy after him who put it up on eBay may have had other intentions, but the guy I spoke to was honest and there is no getting around that point.

The paper of the time was not expensive and could not be for a caramel maker to cut and put into its products. Cost ratios.

I have never put a card from the set up against another set from the early twenties because I have no interest in the cards. We are not talking rocket science here, but simply inexpensive paper for print.

Now for one opinion which can be taken or left and is strictly peripheral to this discussion. As for the pattern on the back of the card which frames the advertisement, it has always been my opinion that someone simply saw a retro type design on either a table a door on a hutch or an advertising piece, thought that would be a good frame for the back of a fantasy card and took out a piece of paper to draw up the design. For all I know they may have seen a similar pattern on an old Pathe film and got the idea. Still, that is my opinion and nothing more.

What counts here is that the gentleman knew about the cards and knew that they were not authentic.

I'm trying not to be mean (I really am) but your logic is not making any sense. All you are basing your opinion on is the opinion of someone else and not the actual evidence in front of you, at least it is there if you actually care to see it.

The amount of work to reproduce cards from 1921 and make them look like they are exactly the same as another set from 1921 is astronomical if one were trying to do it today. If you don't think this is the case then why aren't good fakes out there of T206 or other cards?

There are countless reasons that point that the Herp 1921 cards are real...just an example of what I am speaking of...

You stated... "As for the pattern on the back of the card which frames the advertisement, it has always been my opinion that someone simply saw a retro type design on either a table a door on a hutch or an advertising piece, thought that would be a good frame for the back of a fantasy card"

actually lets examine that back...


Here are two different Herpolsheimer cards I own (Weilman and Faber). Notice how the meander pattern on the back actually isn't identical on the two cards (pay close attention to the corners and how the pattern meets up with each other.)

Now, here are two Holsum Bread cards (Type 2's) that also have a meander pattern on back (albeit different), notice how they do not meet up exactly the same at the corners and make each card slightly different. The same is found on the D350-3 Standard Biscuit cards and other cards made by the same manufacturer in the process of printing the cards.

[Brian Van Horn]

Rhett,

The two things we can't get around are:

1. The guy's honesty.
2. Every single example out there, save the amateurish Cobb that was on eBay a few years ago, came from this guy's collection.

If the guy says they are fakes, they are fakes. He may have had two sheets in his run and they may have been of different tone. I do not know. I did not ask him. His honest straightforward statement was all I needed in the conversation. The handwriting on the card on the left was the $2.00 he was asking and the $1.00 on the right was the amount he was asking for that card.

As for the back design, I still think it is a retro look, but that is my opinion.

[timn1]

Brian,

These "two things we can't get around" make no sense to me--

1. Maybe you can't get past your opinion of the guy's honesty, but why you think anyone else should be so completely convinced by this I can't imagine. Not that I disbelieve the conversation took place, but all conversations are open to interpretation, and I see no reason to buy your account as the only way to read this guy.

2. I don't find it hard to believe at all that every known card 100 years later, or almost every one, could come from the same little hoard. I believe every M101-4 Burgess-Nash I've seen comes from one of two small groups.

I think Rhett's point is compelling: if it were so easy to create convincing fakes on old paper, surely someone would have done it with T206s long ago-

The nice thing is that we don't all have to agree on this, and it won't create any problem.

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Rhett,

The two things we can't get around are:

1. The guy's honesty.
2. Every single example out there, save the amateurish Cobb that was on eBay a few years ago, came from this guy's collection.

If the guy says they are fakes, they are fakes. He may have had two sheets in his run and they may have been of different tone. I do not know. I did not ask him. His honest straightforward statement was all I needed in the conversation. The handwriting on the card on the left was the $2.00 he was asking and the $1.00 on the right was the amount he was asking for that card.

As for the back design, I still think it is a retro look, but that is my opinion.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Rhett,

The two things we can't get around are:

1. The guy's honesty.
2. Every single example out there, save the amateurish Cobb that was on eBay a few years ago, came from this guy's collection.

Wrong, I am perfectly comfortable "getting around" the two things listed above...

1. The guy had no idea that the cards were actually real but he thought they were fake!

Obviously, no evidence I provide can overcome this "honest" unnamed persons opinion in your mind as there is apparently no way the guy could possibly have been mistaken so I guess I will let it go but I hope you are never on a jury in a major case and are presented both evidence and an "honest guys" opinion as I wouldn't want to be the defendant in that case.

[ValKehl]

Brian,
You keep referring to this guy's "honesty." What makes you so darn certain about his honesty? Did you personally know him well? Or?

And, please tell us what sort of credentials you believe (or know) this guy had insofar as being knowledgeable and experienced re vintage baseball cards? Was he a long-time dealer and/or collector of vintage cards? Is/was he known within the hobby?

My guess is, that while this guy may be as honest as the day is long, he was ignorant with respect to what he had, and therefore he assumed the Herpolsheimers were not legit and wrote his selling prices on the backs of the cards.
Val

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by timn1

Brian,

These "two things we can't get around" make no sense to me--

1. Maybe you can't get past your opinion of the guy's honesty, but why you think anyone else should be so completely convinced by this I can't imagine. Not that I disbelieve the conversation took place, but all conversations are open to interpretation, and I see no reason to buy your account as the only way to read this guy.

2. I don't find it hard to believe at all that every known card 100 years later, or almost every one, could come from the same little hoard. I believe every M101-4 Burgess-Nash I've seen comes from one of two small groups.

I think Rhett's point is compelling: if it were so easy to create convincing fakes on old paper, surely someone would have done it with T206s long ago-

The nice thing is that we don't all have to agree on this, and it won't create any problem.

Tim,

I appreciate the input, but how can I get around the statement "They are not real."?

Also, how can I get around that no other card has surfaced, other than a poor imitation Cobb, in a hobby in which there are nearly countless collectors.

This is one heck of a mental gymnastics act to go through to get around what actually happened. I am not trying to be stubborn, but I am not going to come up with revisionist history. The cards are fake.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

Brian,
You keep referring to this guy's "honesty." What makes you so darn certain about his honesty? Did you personally know him well? Or?

And, please tell us what sort of credentials you believe (or know) this guy had insofar as being knowledgeable and experienced re vintage baseball cards? Was he a long-time dealer and/or collector of vintage cards? Is/was he known within the hobby?

My guess is, that while this guy may be as honest as the day is long, he was ignorant with respect to what he had, and therefore he assumed the Herpolsheimers were not legit and wrote his selling prices on the backs of the cards.
Val

Val,

This guy had cards at a show and was selling them from one to three dollars with many, but not all, having the price written on the back of the card. If he were dishonest would he not ask for more?

Further, when asked about the cards, if he was dishonest, would he state "They are not real."?

This is a pretty hard hand to beat on an honesty angle.

As for his knowledge, there are no other examples, save the amateurish Cobb, that are out there. If the guy says they are fake and he had, and, frankly, still has the monopoly from a lineage of ownership standpoint on the cards, they are fakes. It would tend to indicate, through this monopoly, that he had knowledge of their origin.

If the guy has all the cards known and says they are fakes, they are fakes. In view of the conversation, this guy was not ignorant to what he had.

[Leon]

Brian- you keep saying there are no other examples. That is 100% wrong. I had and sold 3-4 other examples, in very poor shape, a few years ago. Now what?

Proof- we lost the scan but here is one I sold....

http://b-lauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=1777

[darwinbulldog]

I don't see how honesty has anything to do with it, unless there's some rule I don't know of whereby being honest precludes someone from making a mistake, but that's clearly what happened. Is it more likely for an honest person to have real cards and believe them to be fake (I've done this myself at least once) or for someone to have invested tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to create convincing fakes using appropriate images whose appropriateness would not have been known until several years into the future; and, having already demonstrated himself capable of reproducing the printing and cardstock that would have existed in real cards, to modify them sufficiently to convince two people that they weren't real, all the while having no intention of doing any of this for a profit but being motivated instead by the fun of investing years of income on a lark that quite likely no one else in the world would ever have found out about? Honest (and self-injurious) mistake or time-traveling spendthrift? You decide.

But good luck persuading the guy who missed the chance to pick them up for a few bucks.

[Brian Van Horn]

Leon,

Wait a minute. What I said was there are not other examples of the Herpolsheimers other than the one amateurish Cobb. On the Merchants Bakery, I stated there are the ones listed on eBay and the ones you got the last time they were listed on eBay. I also stated I didn't know if there were any Merchants Bakery cards that got past you. Just a clarification.

The link you posted is for a Merchants Bakery. Just trying to keep the two topics clear and separated.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I don't see how honesty has anything to do with it, unless there's some rule I don't know of whereby being honest precludes someone from making a mistake, but that's clearly what happened. Is it more likely for an honest person to have real cards and believe them to be fake (I've done this myself at least once) or for someone to have invested tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to create convincing fakes using appropriate images whose appropriateness would not have been known until several years into the future; and, having already demonstrated himself capable of reproducing the printing and cardstock that would have existed in real cards, to modify them sufficiently to convince two people that they weren't real, all the while having no intention of doing any of this for a profit but being motivated instead by the fun of investing years of income on a lark that quite likely no one else in the world would ever have found out about? Honest (and self-injurious) mistake or time-traveling spendthrift? You decide.


But good luck persuading the guy who missed the chance to pick them up for a few bucks.

LOL on the last line.

If the gentleman is making a clear, honest and declarative statement that "They are not real." and he has all of the examples then and now, save the amateurish Cobb, the cards are fake. He knew of what he spoke and he was being honest. He was not mistaken.

If people want to persuade themselves these cards are real, feel free. I will just smile knowing that the only 1921 Herpolsheimers that are out there, save one poor attempt, were from this gentleman who knew of what he spoke. They are fakes.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Leon,

Wait a minute. What I said was there are not other examples of the Herpolsheimers other than the one amateurish Cobb. On the Merchants Bakery, I stated there are the ones listed on eBay and the ones you got the last time they were listed on eBay. I also stated I didn't know if there were any Merchants Bakery cards that got past you. Just a clarification.

The link you posted is for a Merchants Bakery. Just trying to keep the two topics clear and separated.

Right you are on that point. I still stand by my thoughts on the Herpolsheimers being legitimate for all of the reasons stated. I find it a bit curious that you believe someone whom you have no idea of who they are except they had some cards they ignorantly wrote on. Just because they said they were honest (or you think they are and they might be, it doesn't really matter) doesn't make them an expert on cards. The cards are real.

[ctownboy]

Brian,

To me there is a difference between a guy saying the cards are "not real" because he has never seen them before and they are not checklisted and saying they are "not real" because he or someone he knows made them.

What is the reason in this case?

If he told you they are not real because he made them then I would say they are fake. If all he said was they were not real without any other reason then I would lean towards the cards being real and him saying they weren't because he hadn't found any others.

I have a 1928 Star Player Candy card of Buddy Myer. When a discussion of rare cards came about on the old board, I was a new member and said I had 15 of these cards and one was an uncatalogued Myer. People didn't believe it because the card wasn't known to exist. Then a scanned all of the cards. After that people not only believed it but the card was added to the checklist.

To me, if the Herpolsheimer's are one of a kind cards and they were found all together then I can see where a person would think they are "not real" and honestly say so. I mean, if the guy looked at every price guide and they are not listed, talked to a bunch of dealers and they never saw nor heard of these cards and did a web search and found nothing resembling them then he could honestly say they were "not real" and be wrong.

Just my two cents,

David

[Brian Van Horn]

Leon,

In all due respect, they are fakes. The guy for all I know may have been a printer and printed a couple of sheets of cards, one in one shade of paper and the other in another shade. This guy was honest. He knew of what he spoke and the cards eventually ended up with a guy in Maryland who posted them on eBay. Ask yourself, why have there been no other examples, save one homemade Cobb, which have surfaced? All of the cards have come from one source and that source stated "They are not real."

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Leon,

In all due respect, they are fakes. The guy for all I know may have been a printer and printed a couple of sheets of cards, one in one shade of paper and the other in another shade. This guy was honest. He knew of what he spoke and the cards eventually ended up with a guy in Maryland who posted them on eBay. Ask yourself, why have there been no other examples, save one homemade Cobb, which have surfaced? All of the cards have come from one source and that source stated "They are not real."

Brian- I don't think empirical evidence will convince you more than a guy that knew so much about cards he wrote the prices on them. No sane person can argue with you on that.

On a related note here is a card with only one set known. I heard the guy that had these said they aren't real either. They must not be...

[Brian Van Horn]

Leon,

I know nothing about this other set which you posted and have no interest in the set. I understand the point you are making with the comparison, but the man's honesty, his monopoly on the market and the fact that only a homemade copy of Cobb from the set has surfaced since our discussion all point to one thing and that is the cards are fake.

One thing I do worry about at this point is that there may be an unscrupulous printer who reads this post, acquires one of the cards and sets out to produce more cards circa 2014 with the price tag of a rare 1921. That is a nice little potential Pandora's Box. The one check is that he would need to have the same level of knowledge of the sets as the original creator of this fantasy set.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Leon

Brian- I don't think empirical evidence will convince you more than a guy that knew so much about cards he wrote the prices on them. No sane person can argue with you on that.

On a related note here is a card with only one set known. I heard the guy that had these said they aren't real either. They must not be...

I was about to cite the same example. I have a hard time believing the herps are fake.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

Brian,

To me there is a difference between a guy saying the cards are "not real" because he has never seen them before and they are not checklisted and saying they are "not real" because he or someone he knows made them.

What is the reason in this case?

If he told you they are not real because he made them then I would say they are fake. If all he said was they were not real without any other reason then I would lean towards the cards being real and him saying they weren't because he hadn't found any others.

I have a 1928 Star Player Candy card of Buddy Myer. When a discussion of rare cards came about on the old board, I was a new member and said I had 15 of these cards and one was an uncatalogued Myer. People didn't believe it because the card wasn't known to exist. Then a scanned all of the cards. After that people not only believed it but the card was added to the checklist.

To me, if the Herpolsheimer's are one of a kind cards and they were found all together then I can see where a person would think they are "not real" and honestly say so. I mean, if the guy looked at every price guide and they are not listed, talked to a bunch of dealers and they never saw nor heard of these cards and did a web search and found nothing resembling them then he could honestly say they were "not real" and be wrong.

Just my two cents,

David

David and Pete,

I appreciate the input. I like the Allegheny set since I live in Pittsburgh which is in Allegheny County. I still have no interest beyond the local connection.

As for the gentleman, the discussion was quite simple. "They are not real." At that time that was all I needed. I did not need, and still do not need to find a sample from this set for comparison to another set from the 1920s. Here is one bit of conjecture:

Let's say this gentleman was a printer. He printed up a couple sheets, one white, one tan and then wrote on the back what he wanted for each card.

This is not conjecture:

I meet him at the Robert Morris show and ask about the cards. He states, "They are not real." He wrote what he was selling the cards for on the back of many, but not all of the cards.

No other cards, save the amateurish Cobb has surfaced. There are no duplicates. The monopoly was with-and is still traceable-solely to this gentleman.

He doesn't know what he is talking about? It is possible (conjecture) he was the creator of the cards. Did I ask? It would not have occurred to me at the time. I would also not have asked at the time and, frankly, would not ask now if presented the same scenario about how he knew because the statement was definitive, declarative, straightforward and honest. I also would not ask to compare the compare the cards to the stock of other card sets from the time because 1.) The honesty would have knocked that thought from my mind and 2.) Even if it did not knock the thought from my mind, I would have been insulting an honest man.

[packs]

Just putting this out there but if you bought one of these cards your opinions on the matter could be tainted. It would be best to view this objectively and as though you don't have something at stake.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by packs

Just putting this out there but if you bought one of these cards your opinions on the matter could be tainted. It would be best to view this objectively and as though you don't have something at stake.

Thank you.

[ullmandds]

sounds like a job for the forensics team in seattle!

[bn2cardz]

I find the Herp conversation humorous.

Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Using Occam's Razor here is what we are left with.

Facts: A gentleman has them for sale and when asked he states they are not real.

Brian's assumptions:
1)They guy knew what he had
2)The guy had a printer
3)The guy had access to vintage paper
4)the guy had access to vintage ink
5)the guy only printed 1 or 2 sets to sell at a single show
6) this guy knew about other images to use that weren't known to the rest of the hobby until future discoveries in other sets

The counter assumptions:
1) The guy didn't know that the cards were real and thought they were fake

Using Occam's Razor it is easy to go with the fact the cards are real.

[packs]

Just wondering about the Allegheny cards. Has there ever been a patent found for the game? I'm wondering what dates them to the period other than insight from hobby veterans. I know the cards have the registered date printed on them, but is there evidence that supports the fact that the game was registered in 1904?

[the-illini]

maybe I missed this, but a person that you know well enough to unequivocally vouch for his honesty has a bunch of interesting cards and says "they are not real" and you didn't bother to ask why?

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Thank you.

Says the guy being completely non-objective and basing his opinion on one guys "honest" (subjective) opinion.

To packs' point I assumed they were not real because by default I am skeptical of new "unknown" sets and purchased none of the cards the first time they were offered on eBay. Only after looking at a handful of the cards in person after the fact and comparing them to known E121-like cards have I come to the conclusion that the cards are original.

Brian, just to be clear there are no "tan" cards... The only reason the two above look different is because one was laying directly on the scanner bed and the other is in a PSA holder.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by the-illini

maybe I missed this, but a person that you know well enough to unequivocally vouch for his honesty has a bunch of interesting cards and says "they are not real" and you didn't bother to ask why?

Agreed!

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I find the Herp conversation humorous.

Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Using Occam's Razor here is what we are left with.

Facts: A gentleman has them for sale and when asked he states they are not real.

Brian's assumptions:
1)They guy knew what he had
2)The guy had a printer
3)The guy had access to vintage paper
4)the guy had access to vintage ink
5)the guy only printed 1 or 2 sets to sell at a single show
6) this guy knew about other images to use that weren't known to the rest of the hobby until future discoveries in other sets

The counter assumptions:
1) The guy didn't know that the cards were real and thought they were fake

Using Occam's Razor it is easy to go with the fact the cards are real.

Andy,

It is humorous. I have been laughing the entire time. Now to sharpen Occam's Razor:

3. The paper did not need to be vintage. The same paper has been used in printing for years. If you don't believe me, ask a printer. Have modifications be made over the years? I am sure they have, but the paper for the most part is the same. It is a cheap product and cheap products remain cheap because, in part, they are mostly not modified.

4. I never said the guy had vintage ink.

Clarification:

5. He printed and then brought to shows the cards from the sheets.

6. The guy knew the sets. The discovery of other images was in regard to this generation of collectors. Older collectors would have run across the Davenport or the Henry, etc.

The cards are fakes. Why? Not because of assumptions, but honesty.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Andy,

It is humorous. I have been laughing the entire time. Now to sharpen Occam's Razor:

3. The paper did not need to be vintage. The same paper has been used in printing for years. If you don't believe me, ask a printer. Have modifications be made over the years? I am sure they have, but the paper for the most part is the same. It is a cheap product and cheap products remain cheap because, in part, they are mostly not modified.

4. I never said the guy had vintage ink.

Clarification:

5. He printed and then brought to shows the cards from the sheets.

6. The guy knew the sets. The discovery of other images was in regard to this generation of collectors. Older collectors would have run across the Davenport or the Henry, etc.

The cards are fakes. Why? Not because of assumptions, but honesty.

Response to each "clarification"

3- It would have to be vintage. Vintage paper and modern paper are NOT the same. For just one example, modern paper has brighteners that wasn't introduced until the 40's this is a reason vintage card collector's use a black light. So you are coming up with a new assumption in place of the vintage paper one, and that is that no one bothered using a black light on one of these cards.

4- As stated with the paper, ink has changed over the years along with the printing process. This has not stated stagnant since 1921. So, again if you don't believe that he used vintage printing techniques than you are assuming no one that has seen them no how to tell a vintage printing from a modern printing.

both above assumptions can be researched more at Judging the Authenticity of Early Baseball Cards by David Rudd Cycleback

5- That wasn't a clarification, that is pretty much what I said. That he brought these cards with the intention of only selling the 1 or 2 sets. Having worked in the printing industry I know for a fact that it would have cost more money to produce this set and the designing of it for just 1 or 2 sets.

6- So this older collector had access to these rare images and decided to add them to a set. This is still an assumption just replacing the other one.


And honesty only goes as far as your knowledge. You can honestly be mistaken which is where the counter argument comes from and since this is the only assumption on the counter argument it still wins when using Occam's Razor.

[slidekellyslide]

Is Brian being for real? This just comes off as a complete troll thread.

Vintage paper is not easy to come by, nor is vintage ink. The most likely scenario is that this "honest" fellow came across these cards in a collection, could not find them in a book or online and assumed they were fantasy cards and priced them as such.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by the-illini

maybe I missed this, but a person that you know well enough to unequivocally vouch for his honesty has a bunch of interesting cards and says "they are not real" and you didn't bother to ask why?

One, the guy was definitive, direct and honest in his response.

Two, the cards, for the most part, had the prices written on the back.

Three, I had an issue with the frame of the advertisement on the back which I thought was retro in look.

Add these together and I would not ask why.