M101 Reproductions careful

[danmckee]

The deceiver went to great lengths to fake the old scrapbook removal.

But I believe these to be reproductions that you can easily tell by the space between the picture and the frame. See M101 counterfeit detection right here on Net54.

Dan

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-SPORTING-N...item5416af0afc


.

[nolemmings]

Dan I saw those too, and contacted the seller yesterday but have not received a response (busy time of year I guess). Those scans practically flouresce in the lower right corner where "reprint" used to show. I get a feeling the seller may have been duped himself though, as he has a high feedback but does not appear to sell baseball cards.

[Leon]

I added a link for ya' and here they are again... Dan..

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-SPORTING-N...item5416af0afc

..yes, very poor looking reprints. He does give a little bit of a disclaimer saying what he has been told. However, he still listed them as 1915-1916.

[nolemmings]

Yes I see where he now says he has been told they are reprints from the 1960's. Must have had others contact him as well, since I would not give these reprints that much credit. Just as likely from the 2010's. Maybe he figures the scrapbook is old

[Sean1125]

Someone had something similar @ Sun Times. Bought an alexander that fooled me. They are relly really close other than the spacing.

[Fred]

Those are a bit too "sepia" for me. It looks like the seller has amended the item desription content and has indicated that the cards are probably reprints.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I get a feeling the seller may have been duped himself though, as he has a high feedback but does not appear to sell baseball cards.

I agree that the seller most likely was not trying to perpetrate a scam. Selling reprint "Pants" Rowland and Wally Schang cards as genuine doesn't seem too lucrative when the set also has high-dollar Ruth, Thorpe and "Shoeless Joe" cards.

[brass_rat]

Thanks for posting this, Dan. It's always helpful to see examples of reprints, particularly when they aren't obviously presented as such.
Best regards,
Steve

[Brian Van Horn]

I contacted him and told him they were reprints. He asked how and I told him the reasons. He left the listing up.

[danmckee]

Yea I think he should take them down or relist them as doctored reprints to look old.

Thanks everyone for chiming in

Dan

[t206hound]

Originally Posted by danmckee

Yea I think he should take them down or relist them as doctored reprints to look old.



Thanks everyone for chiming in



Dan

Looks like the title was updated...