1915 Sporting News Famous-Barr Help

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

I just won a 1915 Sporting News Dick Hoblitzell at a silent auction in Frederick, MD today. The back is from Famous-Barr of St. Louis. I got home and noticed the card didn't have the card number at the bottom of the team name as usual. Fearing the card to be trimmed, I measured it. It measured 1 15/16"x 3". It's not trimmed but a bit wider than the Standard Guide dimensions. I began to think it might be a reprint, but have never seen a Famous-Barr Sporting News reprint, and this card doesn't look like any of the reprints I've investigated or seen. I think began to think this might be a cut-out or some promo? Perhaps it's from another issue? Any and all help is wanted, and forgive me if I'm missing the obvious. Here are some scans...



and the back....



James

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

That front looks kind of funky to me...and the back is a little more "black" than a 90 yr old card usually is. Not positive one way or the other but I don't see a black border around the front photo and the pic looks rather grainy. Not good signs....

[Archive]

Posted By: Zach Rice

The font on the front seems way too black along with the font on the back.

[Archive]

Posted By: Harry Wallace (HW)

The front of the card looks like it is an E135 with the bottom trimmed off. I do not know what to say about the Famous and Barr advertisement (which also looks funny to me.)

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

Very interesting, think there is a possibility it could be an ad cut-out? The bottom and top of the card are kind of wavy. But the length is identical. I would think a repro would be more precise, and I've never seen a Sporting News reprint with a back? This is a bit perplexing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

for sure--it's not a Mendelsohn based card.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

For the collecting challenged, what is a Mendelsohn?

J---

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

it ain't no Sporting News card. If authentic--and I've never seen the Famous and Barr ad with the fonts bleeeding or filling like that (check the o's and s's), it could be an e135 variant, but I'm skeptical.

Edited to add: I'll keep an open mind, and study it further. Maybe others`have seen these?

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

James, sorry if I came off as smart alecky. Below is a scan of an F&B back from m101-4. You can see how crisp the "St. Louis" and other words are printed. I also attached a scan of a Standard Biscuit card--mislabeled by PSA (easy Dan)--that most closely matches your card. It has no number, like Herpolsheimer, Holsum, E121 and W575--I erred previously in comparing yours to a E135, which of curse has numbers.

Like others mentioned, notice how there is a black frame around the photo that is lacking (or very very weak)on your card. Also, compare the font used in the "H" in Hoblitzell to that used in Chester and in Thomas--they are different. EDITED TO ADD: although your card's font/typeset appears to match up with E135.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

Thank you very much, that sheds some light on the subject.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

Id say reprint, though Ive never seen one like it.

The card is actually a cross between 3 sets. It has the caption font of a E135, the back of a M101-4/5 (but printed very blury), and the no number charactoristic like the E121.


BTW thats Chester Thomas card is from the rarest of the 3 Standard Biscuit sets, the 1921 D350-3. The Thomas is uncataloged so far in the short checklist started in the 2006 SCD. Id get that slab corrected.


Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I know it's mislabled--that's why I got it so reasonably. It will not be going back to PSA though. I just won another one--John Henry--that was not as reasonable It matches the 1921 Herpolsheimer and is listed in W575-1, but is absent from E121. It will be interesting to watch how these 1921ish sets-Standard Biscuit, Herpolsheimer and Holsum-unfold.

[Archive]

Posted By: dd

James,

the reverse looks like a modern stamping, the front appears to be a photostatic copy. Check for dual layering. It appears that this card is a modern creation rather than a reprint,,,,that is, a counterfeit.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

Please explain further what photostatic copying and what dual layering is, and I'll check. Thanks for your considerate help.

P.S---I'm not trying to pull something here, but just to note my scanner is very good as showing dark colors. In other words, the black on the scan is more black than the card actually is, front and back. In my opinion, the back doesn't look fake to the card, and that's not me being a card homer . Did the Collins-McCarthy set have Famous and Barr backs? The SCD guide mentions it having other regional backs.

James

[Archive]

Posted By: dd

I recently bought a counterfeit Hornsby from a similar series....Looked good on a computer screen but in my hand it was clearly a counterfeit. The photo image was a separate layer of paper than the reverse advertisement...i'll add that the photo image was of outstanding quality. The card was actually two separate pieces of paper glued together professionally---dual layering. Your card may very well not have dual layering, but it still looks fishy.

IMHO, the image on the front of your card appears to be a quality reproduction. The reverse appears to be a stamp. These type of stamps could be made at any print shop. One would just need to bring an example of what they would like on the stamp and wala a stamp.

PS I hope your card is authentic but from what I see, I'm skeptical.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

It doesn't appear to be dual layered. What concerns me the most is the lack of a a black box or liner around the picture. Were there any similar issues released like that? Personally, I'm going to put it on ebay with full disclosure of what some of the concerns may be. For the life of me I would have no idea why someone would want to repro a Hoblitzell. The paper looks aged, but not artificially so. Thanks for your help.

J---

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert S

Looks like one of a bunch of fakes that were floating around over the past few years.

1) The fakes were very, very thin

2) The paper was "aged"

2) The photos were printed first and were faint or fuzzy.

3) The player ID and reverse were printed AFTER the photo, and in some cases after the paper was aged.

4) When held on an angle, the player ID appeared almost shiny, like a laser printer or copier-printed text.

5) When held up to the light, the paper was so thin you could see the printing on the other side almost bleeding through, whereas the original cards were thicker and you couldn't see reverse printing when held up to the light.

6) Some of the cards were so thin, there were holes in the cards.

7) Lastly, some had back printing, some did not. Different backs were printed, including Kendig. Some of the backs apperaed stamped on, without the same quality as a printed original.

Does you card exhibit any of these tendencies -- ultra thin, photo and typeface printed at different times, etc.?

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

I suggest you put some black light on it. If it shines, it is a reprint.

If it doesn't, it still may be a card someone has printed the F&B back on what used to me blank.

I bought a black light from a fellow on this board a few months ago. First one I got didn't work, and he kindly and promptly replaced it. I finally got good use out of it a couple of weeks ago. I'd bought a 1949 Remar Bread card that looked odd to me. When I put it with my others, it was the right size, a bit worn, it looked ok, but the back was in black ink. Black light quickly exposed the reprint. It flouresced, all of the other Remars stayed dark. It was a good fake, but a fake nonetheless.

Don't you reckon that folks with that much talent, energy, and time could really make some big bucks at an honest vocation, if properly redirected...

Get a black light.

Frank.