Possible fake N172s?

[N300]

I asked the seller if these N172 cards were original or reprint (noticed they had been previously auctioned so that was odd), they said original then blocked me from bidding. I'd be leary of these, just a heads up. Here is a link to one:
https://ebay.us/m/oDhuEk

[Fred]

Without having them in hand, these look real, however as the item description indicates: Possibly Trimmed And Rebacked.

They definitely look trimmed.
.
.
.
.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Fred

Without having them in hand, these look real, however as the item description indicates: Possibly Trimmed And Rebacked.

They definitely look trimmed.
.
.
.
.

I agree, trimmed and rebacked at the very least.

Edit: It is also suspect that they did not answer whether original or reprint in the listing.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Amazing to me how often these kinds of threads show up with the OP having just joined the board days ago.

[N300]

bcbgcbrcb - What does that have to do with the fact that they acted suspiciously? I've been on ebay for almost 30 years so what if I just joined on here?

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Amazing to me how often these kinds of threads show up with the OP having just joined the board days ago.

[judsonhamlin]

No personal experience with the seller but 1) he’s sold a bunch of these ‘trimmed’ and/or ‘possibly rebacked’ OJs recently and now trying to sell a bunch again, which most likely were flagged through the eBay authentication process, which is highly suspicious; and 2) blocking a bidder for asking a question is a no-class move. None of his cards are so rare or unique that makes me want to give him my $. Two red flags for me

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by N300

bcbgcbrcb - What does that have to do with the fact that they acted suspiciously? I've been on ebay for almost 30 years so what if I just joined on here?

Just my two cents here:

You're a new member with a handful of posts. You're also posting anonymously. One of the anonymous posts specifically calls out a particular business. That post rather directly ("...I'd be leary of these...") gives a negative opinion of that company.

You very well may be right. I don't know 19th Century material well enough to give a credible opinion on this seller's items.

However, over the years, Net54 has had more than a few people come on here, posting anonymously and stirring up the pot. It's not the post, at least for me. It's the fact you haven't put your name on it. I'll refer you to one of the very, very few rules here:

"If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it."

[bcbgcbrcb]

So, you’re making us Net54 members, whom you know for about a minute, aware of a possible scam situation so that we don’t end up getting burned and losing our money? That’s some loyalty. I can only imagine how you watch out for your lifelong friends.

[N300]

If the moderator wants my name I'll gladly provide them that information. I'm just calling out what seems like bad business. Wouldn't you think the same thing? There are several red flags.

[N300]

bcbgcbrcb what's with the attitude? I don't get people like you. What's wrong with giving the group a heads up? It is the right thing to do. If you don't want to give people a warning that is on you, not me.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by N300

If the moderator wants my name I'll gladly provide them that information. I'm just calling out what seems like bad business. Wouldn't you think the same thing? There are several red flags.

I guess it’s fine for you to be hesitant to share your name, and that’s entirely up to you. But the rules around here do require that we all need to know who you are if you’re going to be posting anything that falls under the criteria of expressing an opinion about someone else or a business.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by N300

If the moderator wants my name I'll gladly provide them that information. I'm just calling out what seems like bad business. Wouldn't you think the same thing? There are several red flags.

You gave the moderator your name when you registered for Net54, no?

[gst6]

I will say, the first go-around with these, they went for substantially more than I would have guessed. Not sure what happened there (feel free to speculate), but the descriptions seem pretty upfront.

[NiceDocter]

Wow fronts look as clean as though they were just made yesterday! Hmmmmm

[BioCRN]

EBay has been a somewhat weird n172 marketplace for a while.

They almost all go for more than an auction house option and even an "Authentic" altered/etc non-rare example will snag rather impressive money if it's not creased up or badly faded. $150-$175 starting points are common.

There's a lot of extremely overpriced graded options hanging around in the "Ebay Museum" level priced postings, but occasionally someone will say screw it and go snag themselves an overpriced one. I wish it would happen a bit less and calm down that market option.

[Eric72]

Because every thread should have a card:

[Ludington1]

I bought one of his cards and it graded at SGC.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by N300

bcbgcbrcb what's with the attitude? I don't get people like you. What's wrong with giving the group a heads up? It is the right thing to do. If you don't want to give people a warning that is on you, not me.

Yes, anonymous shit-trolling is always the right thing to do.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Leon]

Originally Posted by N300

If the moderator wants my name I'll gladly provide them that information. I'm just calling out what seems like bad business. Wouldn't you think the same thing? There are several red flags.

Apparently, you didn't read the main rule on the forum. Look above here, on the right of the Net54baseball logo, where the paragraph is towards the top of the page. In bold letters it says this.

If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it.

You broke that rule and you aren't anonymous any longer. Thanks.

.

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by N300

If the moderator wants my name I'll gladly provide them that information. I'm just calling out what seems like bad business. Wouldn't you think the same thing? There are several red flags.

Doesn’t seem like a bad business to me and I’m not seeing several red flags - Not that eBay feedback is the Endall for me but 4227 100% positive . He has a couple listed as skinned and about a half a dozen of the better cards have been SGC graded authentic . Wouldn’t hurt to change the “possibly trimmed” to probably or definitely .. maybe someone that collects N172s Hard could weigh in .

[N300]

How is that trolling and why do you swear? Isnt that against the forum rules?

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Yes, anonymous shit-trolling is always the right thing to do.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[oldjudge]

With the big caveat that you can't tell from a picture the card looks rebacked to me; I don't see any particular evidence that it is trimmed. It also looks genuine, but again I am looking at a picture and not the actual card.

[Fred]

dupe post

[Fred]

Originally Posted by N300

I asked the seller if these N172 cards were original or reprint (noticed they had been previously auctioned so that was odd), they said original then blocked me from bidding. I'd be leary of these, just a heads up. Here is a link to one:
https://ebay.us/m/oDhuEk

Jessie,

I think had the "I'd be leary [sic] of these" been left out of the post, then all would have been good about not posting your name.

In any case, welcome to the board. It's nice to see OJ posts. Just to give you a heads up, if you're really interested in OJs, then this is the place to learn or find out more.

I say let's all hit the reset button on this and converse about the cards.

Based on the sellers other items for sale, an assumption is that the seller probably ran into a large number of them and many were trimmed (at least that seems obvious to me).

Jay,

I know it can sometimes be challenging to detect rebacking, but I've seen so many different textures on the backs. What's your rule of thumb?

This post was edited because as I was typing, the post, posted itself. I had to edit a few things. I must have fat fingered something to submit it.
.
.
.
.

[oldjudge]

Hi Fred--I think we are dealing with one kind of back but over the almost 130 years since the cards were issued they have had different treatments leading to different appearances. Unless it is something obvious if I have any questions I loope the edges to check the texture. Rebacked cards often were trimmed to size leaving areas of compression. Obvious things would be obviously wrong cardboard or thinner cardboard (or both). I've seen so many that when in hand I can tell with a high degree of certainty just by looking.
Of course, if someone rebacked a skinned OJ photo on an actress card backing of the same dimensions then it is almost impossible to tell unless glue residue is on the sides.