O.K. Fess up you Old Judge addict!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

Just as I started putting down some bids on the N172s on ebay, they started disappearing. One of you (JM?) was quick on the trigger to buy all but the one card I had a bid down on (the trimmed Brouthers). Don't know what you paid for the whole lot but would be curious as to the identity and amount paid. Lucky stiff

[Archive]

Posted By: Ben

But not this time. Not fun when a nice group like that ends within a few hours of being listed. Those were some great looking OJ's!

I'm with Tbob...culprit, REVEAL YOURSELF

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe_G.

If I understand you correctly, several cards were listed and then quickly pulled from eBay earlier today. If so, what cards went up for sale that I missed while working some OT to pay the bills? Do you recall any Detroit cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

Ah, ah, ah.

You KNOW what the good eBay book says:

"Only he who is without sin may cast the first violet colored stone.

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam J. Baxter

from Detroit.

Here's a list of the other players this seller HAD:

Crane, New York
Carpenter, Cincinnati
Pickett, Kansas City
Hughes, Brooklyn
Porter, Kansas City
Mahoney, St. Joes
Ryan, Chicago
Maul, Pittsburgh
Sweeny, Washington

I had my eye on the Pickett, Carpenter, and Mahoney cards.... but I shall have to save my Old Judge lust for another day! Seller still has a Brouthers available though.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Wasn't me. BTW Tbob, why did you relist the Old Judge reprint after I told you what it was?

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

but since you're posting on a public board about this card, could you please tell us why you think it's a reprint?

If you already answered this question, I apologize for missing it. Thanks

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Scott--I thought I posted my reasons before but, in case I didn't, let me do it again. The bottom line is I have seen these before and have a few copies. They were printed in the late-70's/early-80's. They are smaller than normal Old Judge and have a slight yellowish tint to them. There were never any Old Judge, other than normal size, used on ad posters. In fact, what they used on ad posters was unbacked sheets. I originally got their history from Keith Mitchell(Bettendorf, Iowa), one of the unrecognized greats in Old Judge cataloging. If I am not mistaken I think Keith said they were made by some guy in California.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

This is actually pretty amazing - unless the forger created these as true albumen prints (which would be damned near impossible and certainly not worth the effort for this particular item), it should be a no-brainer to determine authenticity by simply looking at the image through a magnifier.

David, am I right about this?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob M (ramram)

With regard to tbob's "reprint" it would beg some questions; why did the guy choose a nobody (Jocko Fields) to reprint and why in an off-size? Are the other cards you mentioned commons also? Why would he pick a low quality card to reprint? It even looks aged (which I suppose could happen naturally in 30 years). If he made the reprints good enough to pass the scrutiny of some supposed experts then you would almost think he was out to deceive but if that were the case you'd probably fake some higher value cards and you'd make them the appropriate size, etc. On the other hand, these cards didn't carry much value 30 years ago. The m.o. just doesn't quite add up. Any thoughts?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Rob--As I understand it the cards were made for personal use and for friends and not to profit through deception(Scott--kinda like your project only 25+ years ago). They were photographically made so they appear like little shiney yellowish Old Judge. I think they were made from photos of the uncut sheets in the LOC. How they got out I don't know but they have confused some collectors and dealers ever since.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Mine could never fool an expert, and aren't meant to be forgeries, or even close. If you were to be fooled, I would be amazed and disappointed.

But if the one in question has back-stamps, a letter "R" on the front, and couldn't in a million years slip past even GAI, then maybe it is similar to my project.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

They were made small so they would not be confused with the real cards. Since they are obviously smaller than real cards people wanting to profit from unknowing collectors or people hoping to find a reason to justify calling them real had to come up with a theory. The "trimmed off an ad sheet" theory seems to be used to justify everything that makes no sense otherwise. It was used in this case and, as I explained in an earlier post in this thread, doesn't hold water for Old Judge.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

...if I can make a profit I will be thrilled.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Scott--The only comparison I was making was that both you and the maker of these cards did so for their own personal enjoyment, not to deceive. Unfortunately, despite trying to prevent confusion, the maker of these cards was not careful enough and did end up causing some confusion. It sounds like you are doing enough to avoid this problem.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I have had conversations with several collectors about reprints. I created a reprint set of e95s and e96s and decided that they looked too "real", so I didn't distribute them. An alternative would have been to make them "Topps-sized", but then they looked dorky. Same occurred with t206's, although I am still considering creating a slightly larger card with stats/bios on back...if I can find good printable card stock so I won't have to glue to sheets together. Another project: I can make an incredible '34 or '33 Goudey set ...won't do the '33 set, but may do the '34 and sub Mr. Mint's face for Gehrig's.

The OJ's are a good candidate for a reprint set for several reasons: due to the photograph nature, it is easy to get a "real look" without creating something too close to a forgery, and the glossy front is more difficult to manipulate (remove the "R"). Also, the back, because it is blank, is not an integral part of the card and can be over-stamped on the reprints, whereas that would really ruin a t206, Phil. Caramel, etc. Finally, they are so small that they can be enlarged quite a bit without making them look ridiculously big.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob M (ramram)

It's interesting to know that an Old Judge Ad sheet would essentially be original OJ cards without the same thickness. I would figure if someone were lucky enough to come across an Ad sheet that it would be a great find but nothing in comparison to an original uncut sheet of cards. But, I guess in reality they are nearly one and the same it sounds like.

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

I thought your comment was pretty pithy- accusing me of putting a card on ebay which you deigned as a reprint, with the implication that therefore I somehow knowingly sold a fake card. I guess it doesn't make any difference that I have a 3000 feedback on ebay and a 100% rating. I guess it didn't make any difference that SCD authenticated the card, I guess it didn't make any difference that GAI said the card was authentic, just trimmed, I guess the seller who sold it to me, Rhys Yeakley a very stand-up guy, said he had submitted it to SGC and they said the card was authentic but trimmed, doesn't make any difference. I guess that doesn't matter because you obviously feel you know more than they do. You also didn't mention the fact that the card advertising on ebay clearly said that I didn't know anything about the origin of the card or its authenticity other than what the grading companies and the former owner told me. I consider myself to be 100% honest when it comes to cards, buying and selling, I think my reputation in the hobby would verify that.
I think you did succeeed in one thing though, your chatter about the card on this board both now and previously helped keep bidder interest and bidding down. You very nearly crossed the line on what ebay calls "bidder interference with auctions."
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, Jay, but you have no right to sanctimoniously question my integrity when you have never even seen the card in person, using the buy it now and then reniging instantly, never having even received the card to examine it in person. I have had a couple of emails from collectors who told me they were aware of a reprint set of Old Judges which was smaller in size but this card did not resemble those reprints.

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

<<Uh, tbob. . . . September 26 2003, 12:08 AM
Ah, ah, ah.
You KNOW what the good eBay book says:
"Only he who is without sin may cast the first violet colored stone.">>

Absolutely right, oh caramel king, but please note I didn't criticize the guy for scarfing them up off-line, merely begrudgingly congratulated him for his good luck and wondered who he was. Is your post a hint of who the winning scarfer was?

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

http://www.cycleback.com/secret7.html

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

Tbob,

>>Is your post a hint of who the winning scarfer was?>>

Nope, wasn't me, I just couldn't resist a little teasing. If I had beat you to some nice cards I'd have bragged abut it days ago.

Besides. . . Tobacco?. . . Me?. . . I don't smoke.

Leon, please, no comments.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Tiernan is a dead ringer for Jim Corbett. Scary.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Bob--In answer to your questions as to whether I think I know more about Old Judge than SCG graders, GAI graders and Rhys--yes. You are correct, I did not see the card in person but I saw scans of it. We discussed the card on the board and not only myself, but Dan also I believe, mentioned the reprints that this card appeared to be part of. If you still had doubts in your mind did you contact someone else who was experienced in this area, perhaps Lew Lipset? Looks like you just listed it on ebay as this "mystery card". Am I correct that you also never mentioned in the write-up that there were questions about the cards authenticity, that it might be a reprint?
BTW, we all know that ebay's rating system is a joke. Short of outright fraud it is tough to get negative feedback from anyone. Also, the fact that I treaded close to ebay's bidder inteference "line" bothers me to no end.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

As far as I know, other than the outdoor Brooklyn pose minis, there are no Old Judge with smaller than normal photos. There are certainly variation in the size of Old Judge cards, but not any real difference in the photo sizes. There are no smaller than normal Old Judge photos that were trimmed off ad sheets. Ad sheets were made of heavy cardboard with wording around the outside and a sheet of normal Old Judge cards glued in the middle.
BTW Bob, my original post was not intended to question your character. You appear to be a stand-up guy who is helpful in your areas of expertise. I just thought that the write-up should have raised the possibility that the card could be a reprint. If my comments offended you I am sorry.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

In checking ebay for the history of that card, I noticed that you won it the first time. Did you receive the card and actually look at it under a magnifier? I only ask because even though I agree that you have more expertise on this subject than any grader at any of the major grading companies, the fact that it is slabbed means that at least two people (and their "double-checkers" if such a thing exists)thought it real enough to slab. We all know that anomalies occasionally pop up in the vintage card world, and it is always exciting - I would want to actually hold a card and view it under a magnifier/or microscope before passing judgement, especially if the card in question was being "accused" of being related to "my" set. It sounds like you had just that opportunity and might have passed on it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Scott--What happened was I was looking through the Old Judge cards that were listed and I came upon this one. I saw it was a pose I needed at a cheap price on BIN. I didn't read the description, or even look at the seller, I just hit the BIN before someone else did (bad move). After I did this I went back and read the description and saw it was the card I had already said was a reprint. So, feeling like a dummy I emailed Bob and asked him if I could bust the buy and that I would send him a check to cover his costs, which I did. I wasn't trying to make a statemnet or get the card to inspect; I was just trying to pick up a pose I needed.