Fake Lajoie slabbed by PSA, Ebay seller: vintage_card_shop

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Well clearly it wasn't obvious to PSA either and they're in the card grading/authentication business.



Well it's also pretty obvious to any collector that reprints can/will eventually be passed off as the real thing. Therefore why couldn't a pro such as Larry Fritsch figure that out before reprinting the darn thing? Was he just trying to make a quick buck the consequences be damned? Is that what you're saying?



A customer(me) from circa 2000 who had no interest in any reprints of pre-WWI cards that might or might not have been in Fritsch's catalog at the time certainly could.



Excuse me but I wasn't positing any "conspiracy". I was just guessing that the card could simply have originated from a knock off printing back in the day. You're the one suggesting that a conspiracy to deceive by removing a reprint stamp and subjecting the card to aging is in evidence here.

The question now is whether PSA will compensate anyone who relied on their "authentication" for any losses they may have sustained purchasing this piece of crap slab.

What I am saying is what I said, in this transcript where no word is left out. If you can read, you will notice that nobody has accused Fritsch of any wrong doing whatsoever, much less creating fakes with an intent for other people to appropriate them to commit fraud. He made clearly marked reprints with other differences that are difficult to mistake for the real thing or the product of a 1916 Phillipines counterfeiting or knockoff ring ripping off worthless American Sporting News pictures (can common sense please enter the equation?). The Fritsch company has been selling them since the 1980's. This exact card has been in their catalog for decades. If this is shocking information to you, oh well.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by G1911

What I am saying is what I said, in this transcript where no word is left out.

Interesting. There's not a single word of yours above. I guess I'll add vision problems to your other "challenges".

Originally Posted by G1911

If you can read, you will notice that nobody has accused Fritsch of any wrong doing whatsoever....

You're very wrong. I did right here:

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Well it's also pretty obvious to any collector that reprints can/will eventually be passed off as the real thing. Therefore why couldn't a pro such as Larry Fritsch figure that out before reprinting the darn thing? Was he just trying to make a quick buck the consequences be damned?

Originally Posted by G1911

He made clearly marked reprints with other differences that are difficult to mistake for the real thing....

Well these Fritsch reprints were obviously not clearly marked enough if one could so readily be "authenticated" by PSA. Either that or PSA isn't very good at doing what they say they do. Take your choice. It's one or the other.

Originally Posted by G1911

...or the product of a 1916 Phillipines counterfeiting or knockoff ring ripping off worthless American Sporting News pictures (can common sense please enter the equation?).

I posited no "counterfeiting ring". Just a Philippines company using cards obtained at minimal cost to help sell its product (probably cigarettes). In case you hadn't noticed, cigarette cards first appeared in 1875. The phenomenon quickly spread across the globe because the cards did indeed increase sales. I'm surprised this needed to be explained to you.

Originally Posted by G1911

The Fritsch company has been selling them since the 1980's. This exact card has been in their catalog for decades. If this is shocking information to you, oh well.

Sorry. I'm not so easily shocked. Only disappointed if the card in question turns out to be one of Fritsch's.

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Well, then go fuck yourself, Mr. Argumentative(G1911).

Well as they say "Practice makes perfect." If G1911 continues to hone his craft, he may eventually rise to mediocrity.

[nolemmings]

Well, if you spent 5 minutes on ebay and typed in "m101 reprint" you will see dozens of sales of Fritsch reprints, all clearly marked 'REPRINT" in the bottom right corner. This and almost every day. The topic of these fakes has been discussed here off and on for years, including how that bottom corner can be easily but usually noticeably obscured. So to suggest as you did in post #42 that the more you think about it, the more you are convinced it is not a present day fake is to show a lack of inquiry and a failure to even carefully read the first post. I can certainly understand why some here would roll their eyes and wonder how you could be serious.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Interesting. There's not a single word of yours above. I guess I'll add vision problems to your other "challenges".



You're very wrong. I did right here:







Well these Fritsch reprints were obviously not clearly marked enough if one could so readily be "authenticated" by PSA. Either that or PSA isn't very good at doing what they say they do. Take your choice. It's one or the other.



I posited no "counterfeiting ring". Just a Philippines company using cards obtained at minimal cost to help sell its product (probably cigarettes). In case you hadn't noticed, cigarette cards first appeared in 1875. The phenomenon quickly spread across the globe because the cards did indeed increase sales. I'm surprised this needed to be explained to you.



Sorry. I'm not so easily shocked. Only disappointed if the card in question turns out to be one of Fritsch's.



Well as they say "Practice makes perfect." If G1911 continues to hone his craft, he may eventually rise to mediocrity.

This is why it is difficult to take the crap you spew seriously lol. Your retort to my line that I what I mean is what I said in this preserved transcript is to claim "There's not a single word of yours above". I am sure that you can, in fact, understand there is a transcript, that I did post in it, and that's how you're managing to reply. Is this somebody's alt getting a laugh or is this guy actually this stupid?


You have been told the objective truth by several people. If that upsets you, oh well. If you cannot figure it out still, oh well. If your only retort when told the objective factual truth is to tell people to go fuck themselves and lie about the transcript, well, that sounds like Net54. Welcome.

[jingram058]

One of my best friends is a real contrarian. Takes an opposite or alternative view on everything. He has always been this way, going all the way back to grade school when we were kids. We call him "Mr. Perfect". No matter what the topic of discussion is, Mr. Perfect will weigh in with some contrarian, opposite counterpoint, always backed up with "facts". He had a girlfriend once some years back; very pretty and nice too. It lasted a few years, but fell apart in the end, because he drove her insane with his constant need to be right about everything.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

One of my best friends is a real contrarian. Takes an opposite or alternative view on everything. He has always been this way, going all the way back to grade school when we were kids. We call him "Mr. Perfect". No matter what the topic of discussion is, Mr. Perfect will weigh in with some contrarian, opposite counterpoint, always backed up with "facts". He had a girlfriend once some years back; very pretty and nice too. It lasted a few years, but fell apart in the end, because he drove her insane with his constant need to be right about everything.

The contrarian view is that this card is a period knockoff of likely Philippine origin and not a Fritsch reprint, which only you (in post 43) and this guy (post 42 you "completely agree with") are going to be silly enough to endorse. Everyone else is well aware that this card is a Fritsch reprint as numerous people have stated and which is obviously true if somebody even just looks at the cards. It is somewhat impressive what obvious fictions people will endorse while criticizing the use of "facts" to form opinions.

Is this board capable of very basic common sense and able to engage with objective reality for just a single thread?

Originally Posted by Balticfox

The more I think about it, the more obvious it is to me that the card is not a present day fake.

First of all, no fraud artist would have sealed the card so crookedly. Sloppiness of that magnitude is a PSA hallmark.

But I don't understand how/why any fraudster would have added the black line around the player's photo. This card looks to be some other shyster's knockoff of these M101-5 cards that they used to sell their own product in 1916-17 without having to pay for the cards. So copyright infringement from over a century ago. Yes, there are other examples of this phenomenon. Outfits in the Philippines and other U.S. territorial possessions were often inclined to knock off American material and release it as their own.

Originally Posted by jingram058

Completely agree with this. You should have seen the stuff for sale in Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines back in the 1980s and 90s. Everything, and I mean everything, copied and for sale for pennies on the dollar.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by G1911

The contrarian view is that this card is a period knockoff of likely Philippine origin and not a Fritsch reprint, which only you (in post 43) and this guy (post 42 you "completely agree with") are going to be silly enough to endorse. Everyone else is well aware that this card is a Fritsch reprint as numerous people have stated and which is obviously true if somebody even just looks at the cards. It is somewhat impressive what obvious fictions people will endorse while criticizing the use of "facts" to form opinions.

Is this board capable of very basic common sense and able to engage with objective reality for just a single thread?

It's okay sir, you are right as always.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Well, if you spent 5 minutes on ebay and typed in "m101 reprint" you will see dozens of sales of Fritsch reprints, all clearly marked 'REPRINT" in the bottom right corner.

Which I've never done because the topic hasn't come up for me.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

So to suggest as you did in post #42 that the more you think about it, the more you are convinced it is not a present day fake is to show a lack of inquiry and a failure to even carefully read the first post. I can certainly understand why some here would roll their eyes and wonder how you could be serious.

Okay. I can be wrong. But!!! The point should have been made without condescension. G1911 chose to be rude. That was a mistake.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Which I've never done because the topic hasn't come up for me.



Okay. I can be wrong. But!!! The point should have been made without condescension. G1911 chose to be rude. That was a mistake.

But several people made the same point, I leave it to you whether or not it was done with or without condescension as that is an opinion. The only one you engaged with is the one that you felt condescended. Not sure what that says, but I'm sure it says something about someone...

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is why it is difficult to take the crap you spew seriously lol.

Speaking of crap, you have a long history in that regard. Recognize these words?

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, I'm lying about an obvious dick joke as part of a cover up .

Is this guy on the spectrum? I've never encountered somebody who truly cannot comprehend the idea of what a joke is. I'm a prick but it's starting to feel like picking on a special ed kid.

I'm glad I didn't step in that one.

Originally Posted by G1911

I am sure that you can, in fact, understand there is a transcript, that I did post in it, and that's how you're managing to reply.

Sorry, but I'm one of those people who believes that a quoted transcript should contain the words of the person ostensibly quoted. And the "transcript" of your words you tried to quote contained only mine. Now I understand that you may be computer challenged or that a touch of senility might be settling in, but I can only suggest that you get some help with the QUOTE feaure.

Originally Posted by G1911

Is this somebody's alt getting a laugh or is this guy actually this stupid?

Speaking of stupidity:

Originally Posted by G1911

Your retort to my line that I what I mean is what I said in this preserved transcript is to claim "There's not a single word of yours above".

Try rephrasing that sentence in the standard English grammar you were taught in fifth grade.

Originally Posted by G1911

You have been told the objective truth by several people.

"Objective?" The only objective evidence we have so far is that PSA doesn't stand by their original assessment of the card. (Surprise, surprise.) You can hold your breath for a further update from PSA if you want, but I suspect PSA will just try to sweep this one under the carpet with their other mistakes.

Originally Posted by G1911

If that upsets you, oh well.

I'll leave getting "upset" about the Lajoie card to you.

Originally Posted by G1911

If your only retort when told the objective factual truth is to tell people to go fuck themselves and lie about the transcript, well, that sounds like Net54.

1. I've lied about no transcripts.

2. Nor have I told "people" to fuck off. For one thing "people" is plural. (Another English lesson for you.) I merely quoted another poster's considered opinion of your (singular) best course of action. I am though certainly coming around to his way of thinking.

Incidentally, have you ever consdered contributing positively to this board? Should I QUOTE some examples for you?

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

The only one you engaged with is the one that you felt condescended.

Does that surprise you?

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

ot sure what that says, but I'm sure it says something about someone...

That G1911 is all too quick to make condescending remarks and that I don't take kindly to such and therefore bite right back.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Speaking of crap, you have a long history in that regard. Recognize these words?



I'm glad I didn't step in that one.



Sorry, but I'm one of those people who believes that a quoted transcript should contain the words of the person ostensibly quoted. And the "transcript" of your words you tried to quote contained only mine. Now I understand that you may be computer challenged or that a touch of senility might be settling in, but I can only suggest that you get some help with the QUOTE feaure.



Speaking of stupidity:



Try rephrasing that sentence in the standard English grammar you were taught in fifth grade.



"Objective?" The only objective evidence we have so far is that PSA doesn't stand by their original assessment of the card. (Surprise, surprise.) You can hold your breath for a further update from PSA if you want, but I suspect PSA will just try to sweep this one under the carpet with their other mistakes.



I'll leave getting "upset" about the Lajoie card to you.



1. I've lied about no transcripts.

2. Nor have I told "people" to fuck off. For one thing "people" is plural. (Another English lesson for you.) I merely quoted another poster's considered opinion of your (singular) best course of action. I am though certainly coming around to his way of thinking.

Incidentally, have you ever consdered contributing positively to this board? Should I QUOTE some examples for you?

If you want to do the cross thread stalking to strip context and attack, you should already know I cede any argument of virtue to the other person. I am the worst man alive. Anyways, this is 100% factually true regardless of how upsetting it is for you:

Originally Posted by G1911

Just in case this claim was serious - this card is just a Fritsch reprint, which was not produced for fraudulent purposes, altered by somebody else to look old. That's why the lines are how they are, matching the Fritsch copy. This is not from 1916-1917. It is not from the Philippines. It is not copyright infringement from over a century ago.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Does that surprise you?

Yes, it does. If you wanted to have a cogent conversation about what we purport to be about on this site, then the condescending guy would be the LAST guy I would engage with. I'd engage with the people who might contribute to my knowledge base first, but that's just me. Rich Klein has forgotten more about cards than I know. If he chimed in on a thread I made I'd definitely ask him questions before fighting with someone for no discernible purpose.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

If you wanted to have a cogent conversation about what we purport to be about on this site, then the condescending guy would be the LAST guy I would engage with.

Okay. I'll go back to posting about my favourite cards and collectibles.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Okay. I'll go back to posting about my favourite cards and collectibles.

Not trying to chase you out of the thread, that's not my point at all.

I have used this site as an education. The resources are here (mainly ridiculously knowledgeable people) I can argue with people anywhere. I can't avail myself of an amazing knowledge base just anywhere, so why waste the opportunity to learn?

I'm not taking sides in the battle, I don't care who's wrong or right or who wins or who gets the last word.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

...I have used this site as an education. The resources are here (mainly ridiculously knowledgeable people) I can argue with people anywhere. I can't avail myself of an amazing knowledge base just anywhere, so why waste the opportunity to learn?...

[not directing this at Scott, just using his post to make a point]


This coming from a man who runs an auction house, handles cards and collectibles on a daily basis, and has years of experience in the hobby.

Hell, I've been collecting since the '70s and I still learn new things here every day.

This is, without a doubt, the most knowledgeable group of sports card collectors I've ever met. It's quite possibly the most knowledgeable group of collectors in the world.

When the members freely share their knowledge and help those seeking to further their learning, Net54 absolutely shines. When threads devolve into whatever this one has become, the site loses a bit of its luster.

Now...if you'll excuse me. I'm going to take my rose colored glasses and go look through a binder of baseball cards.

[ValKehl]

Getting back to 1916 M101-4/5 reprints, here's a WaJo reprint that I unknowingly and unsuspectingly purchased at a local card show back in the early 1990's, back when I was just getting into pre-War cards and didn't know these cards had been reprinted, much less how to distinguish a reprint from the real McCoy. It's 30+ years later, and I'm still pissed! Also, here's a legitimate card for comparison.