Originally Posted by Beercan collector (Post 2466920)

It’s pictured on PSA’s website Price guide section

Originally Posted by Beercan collector (Post 2466920)

It’s pictured on PSA’s website Price guide section

Originally Posted by rand1com (Post 2466938)

Well, if it sells on EBay it will go through their authentication process which means it goes back to PSA for authentication. Will they catch their problem, maybe?

Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 2466901)

I politely informed this Ebay seller that his card was not authentic, explained why, and suggested that he try and get some relief from PSA.
His response “HAHA".

Originally Posted by MikeGarcia (Post 2466941)

I was under the impression that only the holder integrity is " Authenticated" at that facility . ? Was I misled ?

Originally Posted by Brent G. (Post 2466952)

I don't know anything about this card, but I assume it'd be worth a lot more than $400 if it was real? Isn't a $400 price tag essentially admitting it's bogus?

If it's a fake slab, you gotta give them credit for putting it in crooked just like PSA.

Originally Posted by swarmee (Post 2466969)

They already know there is an issue.


https://www.psacard.com/cert/12396968

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2466999)

All I can say is that somewhere a village is missing its idiot.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 2466999)

All I can say is that somewhere a village is missing its idiot.

Originally Posted by perezfan (Post 2467022)

I would argue that the missing idiot resides at PSA. The seller is more like the Village Shyster.

Only PSA could "center" a card that poorly within the slab. It's an "art form" for them. A criminal would at least try to straighten and center it.

Originally Posted by perezfan (Post 2467022)

I would argue that the missing idiot resides at PSA. The seller is more like the Village Shyster.

Only PSA could "center" a card that poorly within the slab. It's an "art form" for them. A criminal would at least try to straighten and center it.

Originally Posted by TiffanyCards (Post 2467140)

Added to the Altered Card Database

Originally Posted by Eric72 (Post 2467173)

Not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2467176)

There's no need to be apologetic in any case. A company should be accountable for its actions.

Originally Posted by Eric72 (Post 2467173)

Does the Altered Card Database have a section for fake cards slabbed by the TPGs?

Not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious.

Originally Posted by TiffanyCards (Post 2467140)

Added to the Altered Card Database

Originally Posted by TiffanyCards (Post 2467205)

I add all cards that have been suspected of being altered, faked, mislabeled, or stolen.

There is not a specific section for fakes, but you can do a search for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by brianp-beme (Post 2466905)

Chock one up for PSA - they got the Lajoie, M101-5, and blank back part correct on their label. They just forgot that they shouldn't be grading reprints.

Originally Posted by jingram058 (Post 2466915)

Expensive cardboard = more + more fakery

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 2466921)

PSA sure knows vintage!

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2467505)

The more I think about it, the more obvious it is to me that the card is not a present day fake.

First of all, no fraud artist would have sealed the card so crookedly. Sloppiness of that magnitude is a PSA hallmark.

But I don't understand how/why any fraudster would have added the black line around the player's photo. This card looks to be some other shyster's knockoff of these M101-5 cards that they used to sell their own product in 1916-17 without having to pay for the cards. So copyright infringement from over a century ago. Yes, there are other examples of this phenomenon. Outfits in the Philippines and other U.S. territorial possessions were often inclined to knock off American material and release it as their own.

:confused:

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2467505)

But I don't understand how/why any fraudster would have added the black line around the player's photo. This card looks to be some other shyster's knockoff of these M101-5 cards that they used to sell their own product in 1916-17 without having to pay for the cards. So copyright infringement from over a century ago. Yes, there are other examples of this phenomenon. Outfits in the Philippines and other U.S. territorial possessions were often inclined to knock off American material and release it as their own.

:confused:

Originally Posted by jingram058 (Post 2467513)

Completely agree with this. You should have seen the stuff for sale in Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines back in the 1980s and 90s. Everything, and I mean everything, copied and for sale for pennies on the dollar.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467537)

Just in case this claim was serious....

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467537)

...this card is just a Fritsch reprint, which was not produced for fraudulent purposes, altered by somebody else to look old. That's why the lines are how they are, matching the Fritsch copy. This is not from 1916-1917. It is not from the Philippines. It is not copyright infringement from over a century ago.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2467559)

Huh?! Why would I not be serious?



That's the first mention of Fritsch reprint I've seen in this thread. If you're referring to Larry Fritsch Cards (from whom I've bought), whyever would they have produced a copy of a 100+ year old card anyway?

:confused:

Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 2466901)

What you have is a Larry Fritsch reprint first sold 30+years ago and still available. Your card was purposely scuffed and otherwise made to look like it came from 1916. It did not.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2467559)

Huh?! Why would I not be serious?



That's the first mention of Fritsch reprint I've seen in this thread. If you're referring to Larry Fritsch Cards (from whom I've bought), whyever would they have produced a copy of a 100+ year old card anyway?

:confused:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467580)

...it's pretty obvious that this is just a reprint and not some Phillipines period pirated item.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467580)

I'm positive we can all figure out why a reprint of a 100 year old card would be made.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467580)

How can somebody be a Fritsch customer and not be familiar with the tons of reprints filling their catalogs still to this day?

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467580)

There's no exciting conspiracy here, it's just a Fritsch reprint that has been aged and the "Reprint" stamp removed to try and fool some people.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2467591)

Well clearly it wasn't obvious to PSA either and they're in the card grading/authentication business.



Well it's also pretty obvious to any collector that reprints can/will eventually be passed off as the real thing. Therefore why couldn't a pro such as Larry Fritsch figure that out before reprinting the darn thing? Was he just trying to make a quick buck the consequences be damned? Is that what you're saying?



A customer(me) from circa 2000 who had no interest in any reprints of pre-WWI cards that might or might not have been in Fritsch's catalog at the time certainly could.



Excuse me but I wasn't positing any "conspiracy". I was just guessing that the card could simply have originated from a knock off printing back in the day. You're the one suggesting that a conspiracy to deceive by removing a reprint stamp and subjecting the card to aging is in evidence here.

The question now is whether PSA will compensate anyone who relied on their "authentication" for any losses they may have sustained purchasing this piece of crap slab.

:confused:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467594)

What I am saying is what I said, in this transcript where no word is left out.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467594)

If you can read, you will notice that nobody has accused Fritsch of any wrong doing whatsoever....

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2467591)

Well it's also pretty obvious to any collector that reprints can/will eventually be passed off as the real thing. Therefore why couldn't a pro such as Larry Fritsch figure that out before reprinting the darn thing? Was he just trying to make a quick buck the consequences be damned?

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467594)

He made clearly marked reprints with other differences that are difficult to mistake for the real thing....

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467594)

...or the product of a 1916 Phillipines counterfeiting or knockoff ring ripping off worthless American Sporting News pictures (can common sense please enter the equation?).

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467594)

The Fritsch company has been selling them since the 1980's. This exact card has been in their catalog for decades. If this is shocking information to you, oh well.

Originally Posted by JollyElm (Post 2466340)

Well, then go fuck yourself, Mr. Argumentative(G1911).

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...6&d=1728351229

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2467662)

Interesting. There's not a single word of yours above. I guess I'll add vision problems to your other "challenges".



You're very wrong. I did right here:



:p



Well these Fritsch reprints were obviously not clearly marked enough if one could so readily be "authenticated" by PSA. Either that or PSA isn't very good at doing what they say they do. Take your choice. It's one or the other.



I posited no "counterfeiting ring". Just a Philippines company using cards obtained at minimal cost to help sell its product (probably cigarettes). In case you hadn't noticed, cigarette cards first appeared in 1875. The phenomenon quickly spread across the globe because the cards did indeed increase sales. I'm surprised this needed to be explained to you.



Sorry. I'm not so easily shocked. Only disappointed if the card in question turns out to be one of Fritsch's.



Well as they say "Practice makes perfect." If G1911 continues to hone his craft, he may eventually rise to mediocrity.

;)

Originally Posted by jingram058 (Post 2467695)

One of my best friends is a real contrarian. Takes an opposite or alternative view on everything. He has always been this way, going all the way back to grade school when we were kids. We call him "Mr. Perfect". No matter what the topic of discussion is, Mr. Perfect will weigh in with some contrarian, opposite counterpoint, always backed up with "facts". He had a girlfriend once some years back; very pretty and nice too. It lasted a few years, but fell apart in the end, because he drove her insane with his constant need to be right about everything.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2467505)

The more I think about it, the more obvious it is to me that the card is not a present day fake.

First of all, no fraud artist would have sealed the card so crookedly. Sloppiness of that magnitude is a PSA hallmark.

But I don't understand how/why any fraudster would have added the black line around the player's photo. This card looks to be some other shyster's knockoff of these M101-5 cards that they used to sell their own product in 1916-17 without having to pay for the cards. So copyright infringement from over a century ago. Yes, there are other examples of this phenomenon. Outfits in the Philippines and other U.S. territorial possessions were often inclined to knock off American material and release it as their own.

:confused:

Originally Posted by jingram058 (Post 2467513)

Completely agree with this. You should have seen the stuff for sale in Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines back in the 1980s and 90s. Everything, and I mean everything, copied and for sale for pennies on the dollar.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467696)

The contrarian view is that this card is a period knockoff of likely Philippine origin and not a Fritsch reprint, which only you (in post 43) and this guy (post 42 you "completely agree with") are going to be silly enough to endorse. Everyone else is well aware that this card is a Fritsch reprint as numerous people have stated and which is obviously true if somebody even just looks at the cards. It is somewhat impressive what obvious fictions people will endorse while criticizing the use of "facts" to form opinions.

Is this board capable of very basic common sense and able to engage with objective reality for just a single thread?

Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 2467666)

Well, if you spent 5 minutes on ebay and typed in "m101 reprint" you will see dozens of sales of Fritsch reprints, all clearly marked 'REPRINT" in the bottom right corner.

Originally Posted by nolemmings (Post 2467666)

So to suggest as you did in post #42 that the more you think about it, the more you are convinced it is not a present day fake is to show a lack of inquiry and a failure to even carefully read the first post. I can certainly understand why some here would roll their eyes and wonder how you could be serious.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2467717)

Which I've never done because the topic hasn't come up for me.



Okay. I can be wrong. But!!! The point should have been made without condescension. G1911 chose to be rude. That was a mistake.

:mad:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467693)

This is why it is difficult to take the crap you spew seriously lol.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2465184)

Yes, I'm lying about an obvious dick joke as part of a cover up :rolleyes:.

Is this guy on the spectrum? I've never encountered somebody who truly cannot comprehend the idea of what a joke is. I'm a prick but it's starting to feel like picking on a special ed kid.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467693)

I am sure that you can, in fact, understand there is a transcript, that I did post in it, and that's how you're managing to reply.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467693)

Is this somebody's alt getting a laugh or is this guy actually this stupid?

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467693)

Your retort to my line that I what I mean is what I said in this preserved transcript is to claim "There's not a single word of yours above".

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467693)

You have been told the objective truth by several people.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467693)

If that upsets you, oh well.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467693)

If your only retort when told the objective factual truth is to tell people to go fuck themselves and lie about the transcript, well, that sounds like Net54.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2467720)

The only one you engaged with is the one that you felt condescended.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2467720)

ot sure what that says, but I'm sure it says something about someone...

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2467733)

Speaking of crap, you have a long history in that regard. Recognize these words?



I'm glad I didn't step in that one.



Sorry, but I'm one of those people who believes that a quoted transcript should contain the words of the person ostensibly quoted. And the "transcript" of your words you tried to quote contained only mine. Now I understand that you may be computer challenged or that a touch of senility might be settling in, but I can only suggest that you get some help with the QUOTE feaure.



Speaking of stupidity:



Try rephrasing that sentence in the standard English grammar you were taught in fifth grade.



"Objective?" The only objective evidence we have so far is that PSA doesn't stand by their original assessment of the card. (Surprise, surprise.) You can hold your breath for a further update from PSA if you want, but I suspect PSA will just try to sweep this one under the carpet with their other mistakes.



I'll leave getting "upset" about the Lajoie card to you.



1. I've lied about no transcripts.

2. Nor have I told "people" to fuck off. For one thing "people" is plural. (Another English lesson for you.) I merely quoted another poster's considered opinion of your (singular) best course of action. I am though certainly coming around to his way of thinking.

Incidentally, have you ever consdered contributing positively to this board? Should I QUOTE some examples for you?

:confused:

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2467537)

Just in case this claim was serious - this card is just a Fritsch reprint, which was not produced for fraudulent purposes, altered by somebody else to look old. That's why the lines are how they are, matching the Fritsch copy. This is not from 1916-1917. It is not from the Philippines. It is not copyright infringement from over a century ago.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2467734)

Does that surprise you?

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2467752)

If you wanted to have a cogent conversation about what we purport to be about on this site, then the condescending guy would be the LAST guy I would engage with.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2467779)

Okay. I'll go back to posting about my favourite cards and collectibles.

:)

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2467794)

...I have used this site as an education. The resources are here (mainly ridiculously knowledgeable people) I can argue with people anywhere. I can't avail myself of an amazing knowledge base just anywhere, so why waste the opportunity to learn?...