Posted By:
Chuck RossHey guys: Those of you who know me personally (Dan and a few others) know that I collect mainly pre-war nonsports. There have been a few auctions on eBay lately that make me wonder if some of the problems on the baseball side are slipping over into nonsports (for example, the recent auction of the super rare card #25 from the Wild West gum set by Gum Inc). I passed it up but I never really was able to decide, even after corresponding with the seller, regarding the card's authenticity.
I'd hate to pass up a tough card, though, just on a hunch. I do have a question for board members regarding cards like the one in this post and many others that come up. Usually the response from the board is that the card in question is an obvious fake. I often feel pretty ignorant that I also can't see the fake immediately. Though I moved over to nonsports years ago, I started collecting baseball cards back in the 60's and have a pretty decent vintage collection. Since I've had a fair number of vintage cards in my hands, I wonder why sometimes these blatant forgeries are not so obvious to me.
I do know the usual clues to suspect auctions (i.e. private auctions, sellers who don't have a good track record in vintage cards, etc). But my question for you guys is this: In general when there is an overwhelming concensus from the board that a card is fake, is that conclusion drawn from the scan (i.e coloring is off, borders don't look right) or is it from more circumstantial evidence (the way the auction is presented, a gut feeling about the seller)? If you had the card in hand you could use some of David's techniques to examine the printing on the card, but sometimes with only a scan to go by it seems hard to tell the difference between a crook and an inexperienced seller with a real card who doesn't present it well.
Chuck Ross