| Archive |
10-13-2008 10:15 PM |
henry a johnson
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>First, I want to thank Jim for being so kind as to send me his card, gratis, which I have now added to my collection. I've wanted to add a fake stamp, mostly so I could post it around the net and let people know how to identify them.<br /><br />Second, I figured I'd bump this thread and A) write something about cards, and B) create a post with all the relevant info in one post so that the next person who searches for Henry A. Johnson Confectioners cards will find this post and be able to identify a fake. These fakes have fooled a couple of knowledgeable hobbyists in the last few months, so it's worthwhile to have some info out there that might help.<br /><br />The card Jim sent me is definitely a fake. And I realize that some of what I'm writing below is contained in Rhett's post above mine, but the search function on 54 is sometimes a little clunky, and so I'm repeating some of what he wrote, so that all the relevant info is in one post that will show up in future searches.<br /><br />First, there are issues with the paper stock. The real Henry Johnson Confectioners cards are printed on a smooth, bright stock that has a bit of a gloss to both the front and back. Although it is a lightweight stock, it's rigid enough that it's got some substance.<br /><br />The fake that Jim provided is printed on a rough, tan-colored stock that has no gloss. The weight of the paper is even lighter than the authentic one.<br /><br /><br />Second, there are issues with the cut. True Henry Johnson Confectioners are not hand-cut, like other W575-1s (which are usually jagged at the top and bottom). They're all machine cut, and fall within the normal size variances of E121s and their ilk (Rhett can tell you more about those, as he's the expert in E121s). On the fake, it's visibly smaller than an authentic card, and it's clearly hand cut.<br /><br /><br />I'm linking to an image that has an authentic card and Jim's fake, side-by-side, so you can see the things I'm describing above, but also so that you can see the most important difference between the two, and one that should help you identify this type of fake without even looking at the stamp on the back.<br /><br /><img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a56/Novocent/HJFronts.jpg"><br /><br />In this scan, the authentic H-J is on the left. Look at the typeface underneath the photo. The type is a standard, sans-serif typeface, with the lettering short and disproportionately wide. It looks just like every other E121 or W575-1.<br /><br />Look at the typeface on the fake card. It's a serif typeface, proportionate in height and width. The typeface in the fake is the same typeface as an M101-4 or E135 (as Rhett stated above), not an E121. The other fake that I've seen uses this same typeface. I've never seen an authentic E121, W575-1, or H-J with this typeface.<br /><br />I'll also point out the fact that the lettering on the fake is not centered under the photo, although that could be something that's pertinent only to this one copy, and not all the fakes. This is the only fake I've handled, and I've only seen one other (and don't recall if the lettering was centered).<br /><br />The reason that this is important is that a post above mine, from Rhett, shows a scan of the back of another Henry Johnson that looks different from every other Henry Johnson I've ever seen. I won't question his knowledge of the authenticity of that card, because I think he knows more about these than anyone I've encountered in the hobby. So it's clear to me that the Henry Johnson confectioners company used at least two different stamps. Since I would have called Rhett's copy a fake based on the stamp (if it was sitting in the collection of someone less knowledgeable than he), it becomes more important to be able to identify the telltale signs of a common fake from the printing on the FRONT of the card.<br /><br />The other obvious issue is with respect to condition. Henry Johnson Confectioners cards in anything better than VG-EX condition are very rare. I would question virtually anything that's in EX condition or better - there are probably fewer than a half-dozen graded copies at the EX level. <br /><br />Many of the authentic cards also have small, star-shaped hole punches in them. Whether this is from a cancellation of some sort (which is my belief) or from a Northern California kid who liked punching holes in his cards (which is the belief of another veteran collector who has forgotten more about this hobby than I'll ever know) will probably never be determined.<br /><br /><img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a56/Novocent/HJBack.jpg"><br /><br />In the picture above, the authentic Henry Johnson stamp is on the top. This is the "common" Henry Johnson stamp, clearly different from the one underneath it. The one underneath is Jim's card. You can see that in the authentic example, the top two lines of text are a serif typeface, with tall, thin letters. The bottom two lines are sans serif, different sizes from one another. The lettering in the fake example is not as heavy as the lettering in the authentic one.<br /><br />I'm also aware of fakes that use the same stamp as the one above, only with black ink. Authentic Henry Johnsons that use the common stamp are in purple ink.<br /><br />So that's a brain dump that compares the authentic Henry Johnson with the fake. With this post, you should be able to tell the difference between the common fakes that were made by a hack in the 80s, and the authentic ones that are out there.<br /><br />Now, please - dig through your collections and, using the info in this post, find your authentic Henry Johnsons, and sell them to me. I'm approaching the halfway point in building this set, and would like to get it done before senility begins to set in.<br /><br />-Al
|
