Wow, that is scary good. Who in the world would have the capability to make something like this, and for what purpose? Would it be worth their while to make just one, and if there were more than one, wouldn't you experts have spotted them coming out on the market? On the other hand, M&N and others have put out some realistic repro/fantasy pennants, so I guess the technology is available. But I'm amazed someone could think they could get away with faking these and go to the trouble of doing it to make a few bucks. Of course, as we've seen in cards and autographs, where there's money to be made, anything's possible, so why not memorabilia, too?

Good questions and observations, Hank!

Looking at the first picture of the full pennant, I can definitely see some puckering and cracking of the scroll portion. I am not sure about the "rubberized" graphics theory, as a result. Plus, all of his other pennants for sale are authentic. I know there are reproductions of this pennant, but think this one is authentic with a replaced spine.

I have seen countless pennants where the body of the pennant is perfect, but the spine has multiple moth nips and holes. For some reason, the bugs seemed to favor the spine portion for their "meal".

To me, it makes the most sense that this pennant was nicely stored away for most of its life (which would explain the lack of wear), but that moths got to the spine. I think someone replaced the spine at some point, and the "seamstress" simply didn't properly replicate the original style of stitching.

College Basketball

Gorgeous!

The seller is a good guy, I have bought from him before. I think it’s a genuine mistake. These are very good repros. I’ve seen these before. Below are pics of the scroll on (a) authentic and (b) the one in question. There are clear differences. (I have three of these and the scrolls all match.) You can see it with “ALSTON, Mgr.” and the alignment of “NEWCOMBE and WALKER” for example. Mark, I see the puckering you see but I think that’s from the material bring felt and not thin smooth cloth. I don’t see any cracking.

So that doesn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it isn’t circa 1955, just that it’s a different screen, and I’m not sure why there would be two different with the same names … just my opinion

Here are a couple other versions of the ebay pennant, note the similar stitching and the use of blue threading on the back (which should be red). The third link is to an authentic '55. Can also see a difference with respect to the placement of the year.

https://auction.lelands.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=88844

https://www.josportsinc.com/products...mpions-pennant

https://www.ebay.com/itm/16566251892...4AAOSwOY1jF3j1

I was inclined to agree with Mark's explanation: most likely, someone sewed a new replacement spine + tassels to a genuine '55 pennant. Why not? You've got a perfect, otherwise mint pennant that will sell for crazy money; but for some unsightly moth bites on the spine. Easy fix: swap out the spines. (Only us pennant nerds would notice!).

Sidenote: I always wondered why moths seemed to like spines and tassels over other parts. The reason is the spines + tassels were made with genuine wool even in the 1950s and 60s. That wasn't always true for the bodies, which were typically wool/rayon blends by the 1950s. So, if you were a moth, you wouldn't waste your time with the bodies unless it was a ca. 1910s pennant made from 100% wool.

Anyway, then I looked at the screen printed graphics and noted something that gave me pause. According to my research on Trench, and my conversations with Mr. Storm himself, these pennants were made a certain way. First they screen printed the graphics in white (called an underbase). Then, they applied all secondary and tertiary colors via an airbrush + blockout stencil.

I'm not sure I see evidence of this process/look on this '55 pennant.... The pink in the bum's shirt looks like it was printed using pink (not white) paint. We can even see evidence of the royal blue shining through it, because they used unleaded (contemporary) paint, which lacked the opacity that Trench's white leaded paints were known for. That's why both the white scroll and the pink shirt look a little blotchy.

Just an observation. I hope I'm wrong ... because it's a convincing reproduction and it would fool many a buyer.

Another thing that jumps out is that the black in Emmet’s derby and beard is jet black on the eBay pennant, the authentic versions like all with the bum have more a granite shade.

Also … you’ll love this … Emmet’s eyebrows are supposed to match his hair (gray). The eBay pennant has EK with black brows.

It has fooled many buyers, see the link to the one in the Leland’s auction.

The comparison clinches it, no doubt. Now the question is, why was it made? And that's where the scary part comes in: I hope we're not in for a generation of repros good enough to be floating around shows and auctions without question.