Opinions wanted on card authenticity...

[conor912]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The people that are saying it looks bad are basing their opinion on the quality of the image. If there is something else they're basing it on, please let me know what you're seeing that I am missing.

I say it's good based on the characteristics of the card - I'm not even considering the quality of the image.

To me, just the tape that's on there is at least 40-50 years old. You can tell that by how yellow it is.

Edited to add: If someone were going to try the real flip/fake card trick, wouldn't they do it with a much better card in order to try and get more money from the scam?

Could 30 year old tape look like that? Just asking, since this set was reprinted in the 80's.

[bobbyw8469]

I don't like that fact that the back has an "aged/stained/dirty" look on the reverse, and the front has a washed out look with nary a stain in sight. Those defects are not complimentary to each other. If the card is "stained" that way on the back, then it should look that way on the front. It is as though the card is trying too hard to look "old".

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

I don't like that fact that the back has an "aged/stained/dirty" look on the reverse, and the front has a washed out look with nary a stain in sight.

This is exactly why I think the card was soaked in some kind of chemical. I think the chemical washed out the color on the front and left the back with some kind of oily residue. The front and back may not absorb stains the same way. The front has a thin paper coating. The back is strictly cardboard.