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

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

The original seller has credibility in my eyes.

For any reasons other than the following?

1. He said they were fake
2. He priced them low
3. He wrote the prices on them

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

For any reasons other than the following?

1. He said they were fake
2. He priced them low
3. He wrote the prices on them

Yeah, just one small almost imperceptible reason. His honesty.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Yeah, just one small almost imperceptible reason. His honesty.

Was he infallible?

[Brian Van Horn]

Honesty and infallibility are two different subjects, but the conversation eliminated the infallibility.

[packs]

Maybe it's just me but I'm really not seeing how it's easier to believe that Herpolsheimer printed two sets of nearly but not quite identical cards, one of which was only printed one time, than it is to believe a single individual printed a single set of fantasy cards with authentic characteristics.

The cards in question are nearly the same as the previously known set. However, they are not perfect because there are inconsistencies with the text on the back of the cards.

Doesn't that scream reprint in nearly every other case?

[Brian Van Horn]

Good point.

[nolemmings]

The cards are nowhere near the same as the original 1916 Herpolsheimer set. The size of the cards and the selection of photos are completeley different, as is much of the player selection.

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Yeah, just one small almost imperceptible reason. His honesty.

So you have other experiences that validate his honesty, or are you just a good judge of character? It would help your argument if you would provide something other than parroting the same line about this guy being honest.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Honesty and infallibility are two different subjects, but the conversation eliminated the infallibility.

I am glad you recognize that an honest person can make an honest mistake, but without more than the conversation you have recounted there is no basis for eliminating the infallibility. You can only honestly say that you believe these to be fake. You do not know them to be fake.

[packs]

Anyone know where the notion that there is only one set came from? Is that an idea the hobby determined or was that something the seller claimed? If it is something the seller claimed there is a monetary incentive. If it was hobby determined there is something independent about that idea.

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Yeah, just one small almost imperceptible reason. His honesty.

I repeat myself. Honesty does not an expert make. An honest person can be wrong. ( I slink back to the shadows, upset with myself for posting a second time in the thread with no likely resolution)

[ctownboy]

packs,

I think after these sold on eBay someone went and did research and found where the cards originated from and spoke to the people who sold them. Those people/that person said Herpolsheimers made only one set of these cards and that they had been in one person's family for a long period of time.

At least that is what I remember from the different threads about these cards from the old board.

David

[MikeGarcia]

..It's been twelve pages since a card has been show......
....read the rules...

[packs]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

packs,

I think after these sold on eBay someone went and did research and found where the cards originated from and spoke to the people who sold them. Those people/that person said Herpolsheimers made only one set of these cards and that they had been in one person's family for a long period of time.

At least that is what I remember from the different threads about these cards from the old board.

David

Again maybe it's just me but I can't help but see a monetary incentive for a seller to persuade the hobby that a previously unknown set with an inconsistent back relating to a known set is the only one in existence.

[nolemmings]

It is believed to be the only set (partial) in existence because no duplicates have been seen. A discussion between a board member and the ebay seller in 2004 is quoted in post 85, where seller says no duplicates. I gave a possible explanation as to why this group may never have been actually distributed in post 64, which is not news-- its basis had been posted on this forum before.

My recollection when these came on ebay in 2004 is that seller made no mention of these being one of a kind/unique. Also seems to me that if he wanted to maximize $$$ he would have had them authenticated by a TPG.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

I am glad you recognize that an honest person can make an honest mistake, but without more than the conversation you have recounted there is no basis for eliminating the infallibility. You can only honestly say that you believe these to be fake. You do not know them to be fake.

If a man at a show has cards that he is asking only $1.00 to $3.00 on and says the cards are fake, they are fake. Also, please refer to my December 24, 2004 post on the matter. He stated they were produced in the 1970s. I thank Todd for bringing up the archived post. I had forgot about that over time. I apologize, but at 48 a little senility has to eventually creep in .

[packs]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

It is believed to be the only set (partial) in existence because no duplicates have been seen. A discussion between a board member and the ebay seller in 2004 is quoted in post 85, where seller says no duplicates. I gave a possible explanation as to why this group may never have been actually distributed in post 64, which is not news-- its basis had been posted on this forum before.

My recollection when these came on ebay in 2004 is that seller made no mention of these being one of a kind/unique. Also seems to me that if he wanted to maximize $$$ he would have had them authenticated by a TPG.

What I am proposing is that the person who bought them could perpetuate the myth not the original seller. They are graded now and the lore behind them drives prices.

I respect the hobby but I also saw how the hobby proclaimed the blue Old Mill real with no reasonable explanation other than it was examined by respected members of the hobby. Despite their opinion I will never believe that card is real.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by packs

What I am proposing is that the person who bought them could perpetuate the myth not the original seller. They are graded now and the lore behind them drives prices. The same is true of the Allegehny set. But has anything been verified independently? If you own an example your opinion is skewed.

I respect the hobby but I also saw how the hobby proclaimed the blue Old Mill real with no reasonable explanation other than it was examined by respected members of the hobby. Despite their opinion I will never believe that card is real.

Go man go. Bravo.

[nolemmings]

I disagree, it can just as easily show the guy didn't know what he had.

But why didn't you buy one? No downside if they were only a buck. You know pre-war cards pretty well, I should say. I assume you at least looked at them somewhat before speaking with him-- you said you say the prices on the back. Did they not look real to you and if not why not?

He said they came from the '70's but I'm guessing you didn't ask and he didn't tell how he got them. This still fits with my hypothesis in my first post--this is the exact time frame when Henry Johnson fakes (and probably Kending too) were supposedly made-- the same card fronts and everything. It very well could be that this was discussed among dealers-- no prior instance of this back before and known fakes using the same fronts ergo this is fake too. Heck your guy could have acquired them that same day from another dealer who sold 'em cheap because he thought they were fake, and he was parroting what he had been told. Your posts said this was a one time meeting with this dealer--never seen before or since-- yet it now seems you consider him some authority on the subject. Whether honest or not have you in your vast interactions with dealers at shows never come upon one or a hundred who acted and talked like they knew something that they clearly did not?

[Brian Van Horn]

Todd,

I don't buy fakes.

[packs]

The other logistical issue is that there is only one set. The value is in advertising and volume. So why would a company produce one set? Wouldn't that be insanely expensive and have no value to the company?

It is more likely that there is one set because it was never a set.

[nolemmings]

Did you even read my post #64? or the one a few prior to this one? Do you know a damn thing about e121s, Holsums, m101s, E135s or their related sets? Or are you just being a dumbass?

[packs]

Thanks for insulting me that is always a good way to make your point. We can have different opinions.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

If a man at a show has cards that he is asking only $1.00 to $3.00 on and says the cards are fake, they are fake. Also, please refer to my December 24, 2004 post on the matter. He stated they were produced in the 1970s. I thank Todd for bringing up the archived post. I had forgot about that over time. I apologize, but at 48 a little senility has to eventually creep in .

Let me try it this way:

"Guys, if a reputable and knowledgable dealer is selling cards at a show for under $3 marked 'fake' and 'fantasy card of the 1970s' there is a pretty good chance - maybe close to a 100% chance - that they are not the real deal. What's more likely - that they are indeed fakes as advertised? Or that they're unique one-of-ones from the 1920s that are worth thousands of dollars. I understand some pretty knowledgable people on Net54 now believe they're real, but I'm gonna go with the story I was told directly by a seller in the chain of owners. He was quite credible to me, particularly as he had every incentive to lie about their history and make a killing."

[timn1]

Prototypes and samples are created all the time, and then many are never produced on a large scale - what's so hard to grasp about that?

[benchod]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Did you even read my post #64? or the one a few prior to this one? Do you know a damn thing about e121s, Holsums, m101s, E135s or their related sets? Or are you just being a dumbass?

Todd,
You've shared your knowledge and used logical, rational reasoning.
It's not worth raising your blood pressure, anymore. There will always be conspiracy theorists.
Brian you have your opinion but it is not shared by the majority of the hobby.
Also you haven't admitted you were in error saying the seller was in Maryland. I don't doubt you saw some cards at a show that may have been reprints but how do your remember that they were this exact group?

[asoriano]

Originally Posted by packs

I respect the hobby but I also saw how the hobby proclaimed the blue Old Mill real with no reasonable explanation other than it was examined by respected members of the hobby. Despite their opinion I will never believe that card is real.

+1

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by benchod

Todd,
You've shared your knowledge and used logical, rational reasoning.
It's not worth raising your blood pressure, anymore. There will always be conspiracy theorists.
Brian you have your opinion but it is not shared by the majority of the hobby.
Also you haven't admitted you were in error saying the seller was in Maryland. I don't doubt you saw some cards at a show that may have been reprints but how do your remember that they were this exact group?

Sir,

I wasn't trying to be rude, but my memory serves me as Maryland. In the post from 2004 there is an eBay lot number. If that lot number states the seller is from Michigan, then by all means I am wrong. Still, my memory serves me as Maryland. That could be wrong. My memory of my conversation, although I forgot about the gentleman stating the cards were produced in the 1970s (please see December 24, 2004 post) is otherwise intact.

[Eric72]

I find it interesting that there are now a few (as opposed to just one) dissenting opinions regarding the authenticity of these cards.

Would the board please (collectively) post images of the cards in question? It could further this discussion in a positive and scholarly manner.

Best,

Eric

[Brian Van Horn]

Two matters here:

Eric,

That is an excellent idea. Rhett put up scans earlier of a couple cards, but lets help out with the scans we can retrieve.

On the other matter:

Todd,

You and I both know each other's knowledge of sets, particularly with the M101. If you would, please take it a little easier on your criticism of another board member.

[nolemmings]

Packs, first you thought that the 1916 and 1921 Herpolsheimers were virtually identical, something you could have learned was untrue by spending 5 minutes on Old Cardboard or simply having some underlying knowledge of the sets of the era. Then you suggest that my opinion is skewed--that I see what I want to see because I own all of one common, implying at the same time then that anyone here who owns one or more of these somehow is not objective enough to have an informed opinion. Oddly enough, you then liken this to the Blue Old Mill T206 case and discount those board member opinions also, even though their opinions cannot be deemed skewed by financial incentives--they don't own the freaking card.

Finally, you claim that it would be insanely expensive for Herpolsheimer's to have created one or only part of one set. Apart from what Tim just said about prototypes, you apparently don't know that a half-dozen or more advertisers issued basically that same set; i.e.; that the fronts were already available and it would simply mean printing the advertising to a blank back. Yet it might just be insanely expensive for someone 50 years later to not only create a period printing plate for the backs, but re-create the fronts also, all for his own jollies and fantasies.

Edited: Brian, I will never take it easy on someone who suggests my opinion is biased/skewed because I own one flippin common worth a couple hundred bucks.

[MW1]

The first time I saw the 1921 Herpolsheimers, my impression was that they were a more modern issue--something that very well may have been printed in the 1970s. They have both the feel and look of cards that were printed more recently, not in 1921.

That being said, I think it is possible that Herpolsheimer's Boys Fashion Shop in either Detroit or Grand Rapids may have commissioned the printing of a small "test" series in 1921 and then, for whatever reason, shut down production and meticulously stored the cards until they were discovered in the 1970s, and perhaps thought to be a more modern issue.

With the pricing ($1 to $3) and the writing on the backs of the cards, however, I'm leaning towards the former provenance. The rumors of more modern printing also add support to this possibility.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Eric72

I find it interesting that there are now a few (as opposed to just one) dissenting opinions regarding the authenticity of these cards.

Would the board please (collectively) post images of the cards in question? It could further this discussion in a positive and scholarly manner.

Best,

Eric

Not true. The only people that are doubting them being real from what I have read is Brian and apparently Mich.ael We.ntz, with all due respect to packs he doesn't know what he is talking about with regards to these cards.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by MW1

my impression was that they were a more modern issue--something that very well may have been printed in the 1970s. They have both the feel and look of cards that were printed more recently, not in 1921.

Michael, absolute baloney! The cards look and feel in no way like they were printed in the 1970's. I feel like I am taking crazy pills right now reading these posts. I am literally as I am writing this holding a non-graded Herp, a Holsum bread, an E121 Series of 80 and a Witmor candy right in front of my face and if I didn't tell you which one was which nobody would be able to tell the freaking difference!

Again, when they first showed up I thought they were fake until I actually held one of the cards and compared it to others and for all the reasons I have explained ad nauseam. Brian is being really weird about this issue (sorry Brian I just don't understand your stance at all and I honestly can't believe you even believe it) so I will ask an honest question of anyone (probably not Brian because he admits he has never actually looked closely at the cards)...

SHOW ME PROOF THEY ARE FAKE!

anything, anything that is inconsistent with other E121 like sets! Enough is enough, show me any little bit of actual evidence that supports the "they're fake" position!

[4815162342]

I cast my vote for this thread as Funniest Thread of the Year.

[Leon]

Rhett, Michael is just saying he doesn't own any. It's not that unique of a way of saying it, actually. These aren't fake, we all know it. Don't beat yourself up.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Leon

Rhett, Michael is just saying he doesn't own any. It's not that unique of a way of saying it, actually. These aren't fake, we all know it. Don't beat yourself up.

Not beating myself up over it I just don't understand the "non-consensus" on the subject. I actually find this thread pretty humorous. The "crazy pills" comment is a Zoolander reference (in case anybody actually watched that movie) and am 100% not upset about anything (if that is how it is coming across).

[rhettyeakley]

Just for fun...

without looking up subjects or anything else pick the Herpolsheimer's (sorry for size but I wanted them to be somewhat big)...

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Just for fun...

without looking up subjects or anything else pick the Herpolsheimer's (sorry for size but I wanted them to be somewhat big)...

Just for fun I'll guess the Charles Deal? 25% chance

I know almost nothing about these and have no dog in the fight, but it was mentioned as a possible possibility - could the 1921 Herps have been blank backs originally (printed along w/the other M101 blank backs so the cards are authentic, correct paper, etc) with the backs printed? Again, I might've missed a post explaining why its 100% not possible, but is it even a 1% possible explanation as to why Brian's seller waved them off as being fakes?

Ok, feel free to call me a dumbass now

[nolemmings]

Rob you're not a dumbass. They're not m101 though, so your reference to that set is misplaced-- the cards are akin to E121, Holsum, D350-3 Standard Biscuit, Shotwell, Queen City, w575 etc.

I'll let Rhett and others who focus on these sets elaborate but will give my two cents. As I understand your question, you wonder whether legitimate card fronts from 1921 had their backs added later. This has always been a concern of mine with stamped backs, as anyone can have a stamp cheaply created to say most anything, and then the only trick would be getting the right ink. As mentioned, some known Henry Johnson and a couple of advertised chocolate brands using these card fronts have surfaced which are known to be fake in this regard.

These Herps were printed--all are centered and there is no uneven inking. To print them as you ask would require that you first have an uncut sheet of genuine blank-backed e121s, a rare enough piece in its own right. Why anyone would defile such an item with fake backs and then cut it into cards to create fantasy pieces defies logic. Moreover, and I'll let those with printing experience take over here, it would be very cost ineffective and expensive to set up the printing process for such an endeavor, particularly to produce just one sheet. This makes even less sense if done 40 years ago with no likelihood or even creator's desire of recouping money. Finally as I understand it, there are some of these Herpolsheimer's that depict players who are unknown to e121, so it's even less possible someone could have even used a sheet of blank-backed e121s, leaving perhaps only w575s as candidates, which themselves may have been strips, not sheets. Of course, I have not even touched upon the expertise required to adequately replicate the design, ink and fonts to look like those used in some of the other 1921 sets.

I think you also have to ask yourself, if someone really had used a legit sheet of blank-backed cards and just added very realistic period-looking backs, how in the heck would a dealer be able to so easily dismiss them as fakes? What analysis was undertaken–if the fronts are real then the “tell” must be on the backs, right? What is it? What did they know 40, 20 or 15 years ago that we don’t know now?

No, I stick to my theory that someone just dismissed them because they were unknown/ uncatalogued and because other known fakes using some of the same fronts (but different backs) had been spotted and were on the hobby radar at the time.

[glchen]

After reading this older thread (w/ many of the same folks in this one), I'm now w/ most of the others in believing that these card are authentic. Here's the link: Link. The thing that is very convincing to me are the arguments from Rhett and Frank that many of the images in these card are extremely rare. If someone was trying to make a reprint set, why would they use such difficult to find images? They would use the common ones from the E120-80 or W575 sets.

I think someone told the original seller that Brian met that the cards were fake. Someone that person trusted as a knowledgeable collector. That is why he seemed so honest when talking to Brian and priced the cards so low. Maybe they simply made a mistake at that time thinking the cards were fake because the set was unique and not catalogued.

[smokelessjoe]

For what it is worth...

Here is some interesting stuff: Not sure that it helps in any way though....

A picture I pulled from Lemke's Blog of the Ruth / Shotwell with very similar border...

Next, is an article showing that the Shotwell MFG DID insert "Souvenirs" into their Checkers Brand popcorn box (similar to Crack Jacks)...

Last is an advertisement from Shotwells "popcorn that pops" that has a similar border...

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Just for fun I'll guess the Charles Deal? 25% chance

I'll take Weilman. Now we're up to 50/50.

[MW1]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Michael, absolute baloney! The cards look and feel in no way like they were printed in the 1970's. I feel like I am taking crazy pills right now reading these posts. I am literally as I am writing this holding a non-graded Herp, a Holsum bread, an E121 Series of 80 and a Witmor candy right in front of my face and if I didn't tell you which one was which nobody would be able to tell the freaking difference!

Again, when they first showed up I thought they were fake until I actually held one of the cards and compared it to others and for all the reasons I have explained ad nauseam. Brian is being really weird about this issue (sorry Brian I just don't understand your stance at all and I honestly can't believe you even believe it) so I will ask an honest question of anyone (probably not Brian because he admits he has never actually looked closely at the cards)...

SHOW ME PROOF THEY ARE FAKE!

anything, anything that is inconsistent with other E121 like sets! Enough is enough, show me any little bit of actual evidence that supports the "they're fake" position!

Rhett,

I will grant you that the fronts of the cards may be virtually indistinguishable from other period issues, save for their general condition. The reverse sides, however, do not appear to have been printed in 1921. Sorry for not being more specific. Many of the vintage characteristics are lacking although I will concede that this might be due to how they were stored. In any case, I'm not at all saying they are fake.