Newbie Help - Authentic?

[Mbjerry]

Hello. I am new to vintage and looking at these two Willies. Wanting to make a deal on them but afraid to buy Raw from someone I dont know and doesn't have a background in Vintage that I can see. Supposedly offloading a few family cards. What are y'alls thoughts on authenticity of these cards and what would you pay? Thank you for your help!

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

You're really going to have to show photos that weren't taken through a screen door if you want opinions on authenticity.
Way too much interference.

[Mbjerry]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

You're really going to have to show photos that weren't taken through a screen door if you want opinions on authenticity. Way too much interference.

Sorry about that. Try it from my phone this time...

This should be better.

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

[Mbjerry]

One More...

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

[Mbjerry]

This one may help.

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

[ALBB]

good

[Mbjerry]

Originally Posted by ALBB

good

Thanks! I would like to learn something in the process. What helps you make that call? What am I looking for?

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

[jingram058]

Even, natural looking wear "patina"

Slightly glossy front

No gloss at all on the back, in fact rough feeling, like raw cardboard

No unnatural, trimmed off corners, no fake wear

No fake coffee or tea stains or artificial age

Normal looking 1950s printing characteristics when viewed through jeweler's loupe, ink-jet printing didn't exist in the 1950s

No fluorescence with black light

Normal cardboard stock for the card, not too thick, not too thin, but dense, no light coming through when held up to a lamp

Feels like an old card

Smells like an old card

[Mbjerry]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Even, natural looking wear "patina"

Slightly glossy front

No gloss at all on the back, in fact rough feeling, like raw cardboard

No unnatural, trimmed off corners, no fake wear

No fake coffee or tea stains or artificial age

Normal looking 1950s printing characteristics when viewed through jeweler's loupe, ink-jet printing didn't exist in the 1950s

No fluorescence with black light

Normal cardboard stock for the card, not too thick, not too thin, but dense, no light coming through when held up to a lamp

Feels like an old card

Smells like an old card

Thank you very much! I appreciate it.

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Mbjerry

Thanks! I would like to learn something in the process. What helps you make that call? What am I looking for?

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

People here can say things that are technically true, but the best way to learn is to flip through real vintage cards yourself. Get a pile of commons from a particular set or sets, and then play with them. Flip through a stack, get familiar with their quirks, idiosyncrasies, how they smell. What the print looks like up close. This is usually the first dead giveaway for obviously faked cards - something that has come off a modern laser printer is going to look nothing like the halftone dot process that was used on real vintage cards. Again, this can be explained, but difficult to learn in practice without experiencing yourself. Good luck!

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Normal cardboard stock for the card, not too thick, not too thin, but dense, no light coming through when held up to a lamp

Again, this is where experience is almost essential. Different vintage cards can have vastly different cardboard stock. A 1956 Topps card, for example - is going to feel nothing like a 1970 Topps card in terms of thickness. The 70's are much thinner. I think the general rule is that Topps used crappier cardboard stock as 50's became the 60's, and then the problem got even worse as the 60's became the 70's. But there are differences within decades as well. 1958 Topps cards are generally slightly thicker than 1955 Topps cards. It takes handling of the cards over time to get familiar with things like that.

[Mbjerry]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Again, this is where experience is almost essential. Different vintage cards can have vastly different cardboard stock. A 1956 Topps card, for example - is going to feel nothing like a 1970 Topps card in terms of thickness. The 70's are much thinner. I think the general rule is that Topps used crappier cardboard stock as 50's became the 60's, and then the problem got even worse as the 60's became the 70's. But there are differences within decades as well. 1958 Topps cards are generally slightly thicker than 1955 Topps cards. It takes handling of the cards over time to get familiar with things like that.

Thank you. That is a good idea to get a few small lots from some of the years to get an idea. My only option to get some of the cards that I want is raw. Can't afford them graded. Guess I will learn over time. I don't spend more than about $200 on a card so at least my mistakes won't be big ones.

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

[Vintagevault13]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Again, this is where experience is almost essential. Different vintage cards can have vastly different cardboard stock. A 1956 Topps card, for example - is going to feel nothing like a 1970 Topps card in terms of thickness. The 70's are much thinner. I think the general rule is that Topps used crappier cardboard stock as 50's became the 60's, and then the problem got even worse as the 60's became the 70's. But there are differences within decades as well. 1958 Topps cards are generally slightly thicker than 1955 Topps cards. It takes handling of the cards over time to get familiar with things like that.

Totally agree with this. I will add that, as a 70's set collector, it gets even more convoluted because the 1973 and 1977 sets are on really bad cardstock that makes the edges chip easily. Those years feel totally different that the years immediately preceding and following each. I love the 70's cards, but there are definitely many quirks to deal with.

[hcv123]

I can't call it either way from those pics. I have seen more fakes surfacing (mostly at shows) recently. If the seller has little or no reputation for selling vintage - be VERY careful! The suggestion of familiarizing yourself by handling bunches of od commons is a great one.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Vintagevault13

Totally agree with this. I will add that, as a 70's set collector, it gets even more convoluted because the 1973 and 1977 sets are on really bad cardstock that makes the edges chip easily. Those years feel totally different that the years immediately preceding and following each. I love the 70's cards, but there are definitely many quirks to deal with.

I think '73 was the worst. If you look at those corners wrong they will chip and fray before your eyes. It's a shame, because there are some things I really love about the '73 set, but yeah - the cardstock is awful. And centering and cut problems were running at an all time high as well.

[Mbjerry]

Originally Posted by hcv123

I can't call it either way from those pics. I have seen more fakes surfacing (mostly at shows) recently. If the seller has little or no reputation for selling vintage - be VERY careful! The suggestion of familiarizing yourself by handling bunches of od commons is a great one.

Thanks. I bought the cards. Paid $290 for the pair so thought it was a pretty good deal. I have also bought a few raw commons from 58 and 59 to compare the Mays cards to.

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

[Mbjerry]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

People here can say things that are technically true, but the best way to learn is to flip through real vintage cards yourself. Get a pile of commons from a particular set or sets, and then play with them. Flip through a stack, get familiar with their quirks, idiosyncrasies, how they smell. What the print looks like up close. This is usually the first dead giveaway for obviously faked cards - something that has come off a modern laser printer is going to look nothing like the halftone dot process that was used on real vintage cards. Again, this can be explained, but difficult to learn in practice without experiencing yourself. Good luck!

Took your advice and bought a few commons from 58 and 59 to compare the Mays cards to. I plan to buy a few commons from other years also as I progress and build a reference set.

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk