1921 Herpolsheimers graded w/o mark

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Brian,

Why would you destroy your reputation in the hobby over something as dumb as this? It’s painful to watch. Please stop.

In all sincerity, and as someone who has had positive dealings with Brian in the past, this is where I am now as well. Just as a matter of epistemic humility, I would hope that anyone could acknowledge that any particular one of their beliefs has some non-zero probability of being incorrect, regardless of whether there is mounting evidence on the other side of the scale. As trivial a matter as baseball cards are in the grand scheme of things, this has been genuinely upsetting to behold.

[raulus]

Can’t speak for the rest of the group, but the posts from this morning have helped to eliminate a lot of my confusion.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

In all sincerity, and as someone who has had positive dealings with Brian in the past, this is where I am now as well. Just as a matter of epistemic humility, I would hope that anyone could acknowledge that any particular one of their beliefs has some non-zero probability of being incorrect, regardless of whether there is mounting evidence on the other side of the scale. As trivial a matter as baseball cards are in the grand scheme of things, this has been genuinely upsetting to behold.

Glenn,

First, Happy Holidays. I am sorry you feel that way, but from what i have experienced with the cards, although brief, they are fake, and I stand by that assertion.

[Brian Van Horn]

Folks,

Feel free to pull this up in 2004 in addition to now. Nothing in my opinion or accounting of matters has changed. 19 years. No changes. Just additional fraudulent cards.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Glenn,

First, Happy Holidays. I am sorry you feel that way, but from what i have experienced with the cards, although brief, they are fake, and I stand by that assertion.

I appreciate that. Happy holidays to you as well.

[rhettyeakley]

This “debate” has become hilarious in its absurdity.

The only part I feel bad for is the next person that finds some REAL 1921 Herpolsheimer cards. They will potentially have to wade through this mess of a thread and read Brian’s comments that are not based on any actual evidence.

It is just bad for card scholarship to have this amount of misinformation and confirmation bias (by Brian) out there.

I echo Jeff’s thoughts on this being a painful thing to watch.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

This “debate” has become hilarious in its absurdity.

The only part I feel bad for is the next person that finds some REAL 1921 Herpolsheimer cards. They will potentially have to wade through this mess of a thread and read Brian’s comments that are not based on any actual evidence.

It is just bad for card scholarship to have this amount of misinformation and confirmation bias (by Brian) out there.

I echo Jeff’s thoughts on this being a painful thing to watch.

Rhett,

Still referring you back to post 240 which you haven't answered.

https://archive.org/details/LanstonM...e/n23/mode/2up

A typographical specimen booklet containing borders and ornaments for casting on the Lanston Monotype Composition Caster, Lanston Monotype Type-Caster, Lanston Monotype Giant Caster and Monotype-Thompson Type-Caster. This booklet is from a Lanston Monotype specimen book (binder) bearing the general title "Monotype Type Faces." It is undated, but based on internal evidence elsewhere in the binder it is from the late 1930s or early 1940s.


So, buying Herpolsheimer cards supposedly from 1921 with backs from the late 1930s or early 1940s is a good investment?

[molenick]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Rhett,

Still referring you back to post 240 which you haven't answered.

https://archive.org/details/LanstonM...e/n23/mode/2up

A typographical specimen booklet containing borders and ornaments for casting on the Lanston Monotype Composition Caster, Lanston Monotype Type-Caster, Lanston Monotype Giant Caster and Monotype-Thompson Type-Caster. This booklet is from a Lanston Monotype specimen book (binder) bearing the general title "Monotype Type Faces." It is undated, but based on internal evidence elsewhere in the binder it is from the late 1930s or early 1940s.


So, buying Herpolsheimer cards supposedly from 1921 with backs from the late 1930s or early 1940s is a good investment?

The backs are not from 1930's-1940's. The binder is from 1930's-1940's. There is no way to know how old the back designs are just using the binder as evidence.

The binder also has a border that we all agree was used on legitimate 1921 Holsum Bread cards.

So if a border from this binder was used on 1921 Holsum Bread cards, why is it impossible that a border from the same binder was used on legitimate 1921 Herpolsheimer's cards?

No one is saying that this proves the Herpolsheimer's are real. But the binder also does not prove they are fake. It just proves that the border existed before the 1970's.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by molenick

The backs are not from 1930's-1940's. The binder is from 1930's-1940's. There is no way to know how old the back designs are just using the binder as evidence.

The binder also has a border that we all agree was used on legitimate 1921 Holsum Bread cards.

So if a border from the book was used on a 1921 Holsum Bread card, why is it impossible that a border from the same book was used on a legitimate 1921 Herpolsheimer's card?

No one is saying that this proves the Herpolsheimer's are real. But the binder also does not prove they are fake. It just proves that the border existed before the 1970's.

I'll wave at the bold print.