m101 fakes on ebay

[nolemmings]

Lately the quality and number of m101 subjects sold on Ebay as reprints has increased, with many second-level HOFers and even Joe Wood and Black Sox Buck Weaver making the list. More troubling is that the card reverses now include many of the major advertising backs and these are both oriented correctly and show the proper fonts and graphics. They also are “toned”and thus appear similar to many advertising backs that are also associated with toning. There remain some impossible front-back combinations, and for now, the fabricator has marked almost all of these with a noticeable black ink dot(s) on the reverse or front. Still, it doesn’t take much imagination to see where this is going or at least could go. Here is an example of a fake Mack that I bought for $3.50 shipped.
Not bad, at least from the scans. While the photo looks slightly faded or not sharp, most are better. In this case there is no telltale ink spot. However, TSN cards almost never are toned like this (but others are). Still, I assume the stock tone/color can be adjusted, to fix that “tell”. Other signs of these being fakes are just as subtle and subjective. First, they almost always are incredibly well centered, which is somewhat atypical. Also, while within specs, they also all seem to have fairly full borders–m101s routinely have slight variances. When you blow up the scans, you see on some of these that the coloring in the small space between the frame and the photo is either white or lighter than the remaining “tone” of the card–this should not be. Moreover, these otherwise nearmint- looking cards sometimes will show slight wrinkles or flaws from the original photo that can be seen but are not textural. Finally, now that I have one in hand, I note that the dot pattern is different under a loupe, and both the gloss and texture are a little different, as well as the cardstock back coloring/toning, at least to someone familiar with the set. The card thickness is right, though. All and all a cause for some concern, as these may only get more real looking.

[Leon]

That is good information, thanks Todd.
This Mack does look funky. Thanks for the heads up...It is listed as a reprint but the next seller might not be so honest...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CONNIE-MACK-...item419d3fe556


.

[nolemmings]

Thanks Leon. Here's a little more information for any who care. I found the original Mack from which this fake was copied (a Herpolsheimer graded SGC 30) and show the two side by side. Note the light wrinkling or spider creases in the lower left quadrant of the photo, which extend into the border:

There also are a couple of other tells when the cards are compared closely. Note the oversized borders and slightly larger size of the fake, although it is within specs.

While the toning of the two Macks is noticeably different, the fake is not far off from other real Herpolsheimers. Here I've added a common from that set that actually measures very closely to the Mack, despite my inability to get the scan to scale.

As you can see, the "yellowing" is not far off, although the borders on the fake look a little "dirty" or less sharp.

My point is that these are getting tougher to distinguish--they are not your grandfather's reprints. They apparently do not cost much to make. Allow for further improvements and factor that commons might be added with scarcer backs and it makes for potential problems on the horizon for whoever might think of adding m101s to their collection. Please proceed with caution.

[midmo]

[ls7plus]

Interesting that you should ask. Just finished a little internet research which included cycleback.com's discussion of counterfeits and authenticity of early baseball cards. Quoting Cycleback, " If paper stock fluoresces very bright as just described, it almost certainly was made after the mid 1940s. It is important to note that not all modern papers will fluoresce this way as optical brighteners are not added to all modern paper..."

Happy collecting,

Larry

[Leon]

Originally Posted by midmo

I appreciate this kind of info. Sorry if this is an obvious question, but do all the reprints fluoresce with a black light? Are there modern papers available without brighteners added?

I would venture to guess ALL reprints or fakes don't flouresce. My guess is that the one in the intial post, which is a reprint, will flouresce. Once a collector has handled hundreds or thousands of M101-4/5 it becomes much easier to spot fakes.

I should add, many times when an experienced collector gets that "not so warm and fuzzy" about a card, he/she is correct..

[midmo]

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

My point is that these are getting tougher to distinguish--they are not your grandfather's reprints. They apparently do not cost much to make. Allow for further improvements and factor that commons might be added with scarcer backs and it makes for potential problems on the horizon for whoever might think of adding m101s to their collection. Please proceed with caution.

How does the card look when you have it "in hand"? Is it obviously a reprint?

[nolemmings]

Sorry if this is an obvious question, but do all the reprints fluoresce with a black light? Are there modern papers available without brighteners added?

I will dig out my black light and take a look in the next few days--it's packed away somewhere.

How does the card look when you have it "in hand"? Is it obviously a reprint?

It is to me, but of course it would be best if you could tell from scans, so you don't have to deal with returns. As I mentioned above, the dot pattern is different under a loupe, and both the gloss and texture are a bit different, as well as the cardstock back color or tone, at least to someone familiar with the set. The card thickness and dimensions are right, though. I also see that the edges are white or at least a lighter color stock than the surfaces. All of these point toward fake, but some might be subject to being "fixed", particularly if the card is made to look slightly distressed.