Allen and Ginters Mike Kelly - Authentic?

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

This seller leaves a suspicious description, but the card looks good to me. What do you guys think?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5155743785&indexURL=1&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

caveat emptor

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

"it is being sold as ungraded...copy/reproduction"

from a low feedback seller.......do u need to be hit on the head with a hammer?? Sorry to be mean, but give your head a shake, and think rationally about this item.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

Elliot,
I'm familiar with some of the tell tale signs, but the card looks good. The A&G reprints I've seen have obviously different backs than the originals. Let me know if I'm missing something other than the riddled with flags description.

.. oh, and please have no reservations being rude to get a point across. I would rather sacrafice my ego as opposed to my wallet.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ray

Funny how the people who need to sell their cards for money are always the ones with the nicest cards! Check out what else they're selling! T206 Broadleaf 460 back, old Mantles, Shoeless Joe's, and an N28 Comiskey with autograph!

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The rule of thumb is when a card is being sold as a "reproduction/copy" bid as if it's a reproduction/copy. Sellers may lie about their fake cards being real, but they almost never make up stories about their real cards being fake.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Cornell

I'm familiar with some of the tell tale signs, but the card looks good

Mike - no, it doesn't. The back is tanned in a way that doesn't happen normally. More important, the seller is absolving themselves of all responsibility for the sale. Unless you bid early, you won't get in, as this seller will be gone soon.

Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert A

I think it's "kimpossible!"

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

So, there are A&G reprints with backs identical to the originals? I wouldn't have picked up on the different tanning in the pic. The description is enough to have kept me from bidding either way though.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

This is a blatant fake. Card does not look good and is worthless. back print color is off.

[Archive]

Posted By: pete

the fake back is more believable than the fake front...unless you know the seller's legit, dont spend more than you can afford to lose.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Seller probably thinks it may be a fake simply because it is not graded, and it is not graded simply because it is a fake.

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

Mike,

The seller doesn't say it is a reprint because it isn't either of the issued reprints that were made of this card. The seller DOES say "it is being sold as ...copy/reproduction".

Don't confuse "reprint" and "reprodcution". This card is computer/printer generated. That is why the colors aren't the same as the reprints but don't match the originals too.

It's fake.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe P.

Psst ...... down below.

Lucifer T. Cornpone

[Archive]

Posted By: Billy

Yeah Dan is right, the back color is wrong. Real A&G's are blue or black?? but definitly not green.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Even if a fake looks perfectly real, if the seller says it is fake, then it is fake. It is a fairly common scam on ebay to post a picture of a real card, describe it as a fake, and then send the lucky winner a fake. The winner can't complain, because the card was described as a fake. What's the winner gonna say? His own greed led him to buy a card that was clearly described as fake.