![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I would like to study it in person Todd. Please do bring it to the National if you can remember to. What I proposing as a possibility is that the gloss AND the number might have been missed in the regular production process. It's just a thought and one that might make sense. I know we have seen steps of production missed in other cards. These E195s never got cut....
And I should add, after looking at the original card more, it does look to be different colored where the number should have been. That is not usually a good sign.
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com Last edited by Leon; 03-17-2013 at 09:40 AM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Hi Todd, it does seem strange that most of the card is discolored/toned except for the white area under the team name. I would vote "altered" but I would want to see the card under a 100 power microscope and a black light before making a decision.
Hope it is real. Rick
__________________
Rick McQuillan T213-2 139 down 46 to go. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
If it isn't altered, any chance it could be tied to the 1916 unnumbered Successful Farming set (as mentioned above?) Granted Cady isn't on the checklist. My thoughts lay along the lines of the existing teams available in the unnumbered set (Philadelphia AL & NL, Chicago AL & NL, Boston NL, and New York AL.) Could there exist the outside possibility that cards featuring Boston AL and New York NL were to be produced, but later scrapped?
__________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jcarota/albums Last edited by Jason Carota; 03-17-2013 at 09:02 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Interesting card and thread Todd. The color difference where the numbers were would be a big concern for sure, imo the money difference between his M101-4 and m101-5 is huge and the temptation to alter would make a lot of sense. The matte finish also bothers me as I have never seen one like that, Leons reply in another thread had me wondering about soaking these. I have never tried it so no idea on what would happen. I also know others will soak cards in chemicals and have great success removing stuff. It makes me wonder if it could lose the gloss in a chemical bath, I dont know but seems possible to me.
I think its a cool card and at what you paid well worth keeping in your collection. I do think it warrants letting experts look at it, I personally would not attach much more value to it than you paid as I think it has two big red flags. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A strange card! | bh3443 | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 2 | 07-31-2011 09:49 AM |
Strange 1975 Topps error card question | RobertGT | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 2 | 07-11-2009 05:39 AM |
Strange 1975 Topps error card question | RobertGT | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 2 | 05-31-2009 07:51 AM |
Strange things about the T206 110 card lot posted to ebay today | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 01-07-2009 05:30 PM |
M101-6's - Any expert opinions | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 13 | 12-02-2005 01:50 PM |