Ruth Postcard pick-up

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by Jaybird

Not to rain on your parade but I am suspicious about the postcard. I think the fact that the price remained so low is indicative that others were as well. I hope it is real and right as rain but my gut says no. If I had it in hand, I could tell for certain but the back along with the clarity of the image on the front cause me to pause.

Well I did some research on the manufacturer stamp in the right corner which says "cyko". Cyko postcards were made between 1904-1920's. Ive checked several websites and they all indicate the same thing.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by JoeyF1981

Well I did some research on the manufacturer stamp in the right corner which says "cyko". Cyko postcards were made between 1904-1920's. Ive checked several websites and they all indicate the same thing.

I am with Jason. I don't get a warm fuzzy on the authenticity of it. It might be good...but sure doesn't look like the other 250+ RPPC's I have from that time frame. It almost looks like a second generation photo.

[ullmandds]

I also am skeptical...most likely not real. What's with his eyes?

[Leon]

To give an idea here is what some real photo postcards look like from that era. BTW, I don't even like the way the back stamp looks.

[JoeyF1981]

http://www.playle.com/realphoto/

this is one of the websites I came across to date it.

[Jaybird]

It's not about the back stamp. You're right on that. The problem is that someone is making stamps for these postcard backs and stamping them on repro pictures. If you look at the way the stamp on the back looks, there is pooling on certain letters and the Cyko itself isn't fully stamped. I just don't think it looks right. I've looked at 1000s of PCs and that's my opinion.

The fact that it has a stampback that is correct for the era is moot. The question is the authenticity.

And as for the price, many collectors saw it. I heard from two at least who would have bid this up into the 1000s. It didn't happen and that speaks to what postcard collectors felt about it.

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by Jaybird

It's not about the back stamp. You're right on that. The problem is that someone is making stamps for these postcard backs and stamping them on repro pictures. If you look at the way the stamp on the back looks, there is pooling on certain letters and the Cyko itself isn't fully stamped. I just don't think it looks right. I've looked at 1000s of PCs and that's my opinion.

The fact that it has a stampback that is correct for the era is moot. The question is the authenticity.

And as for the price, many collectors saw it. I heard from two at least who would have bid this up into the 1000s. It didn't happen and that speaks to what postcard collectors felt about it.

youre right and I was very skeptical too that it didnt go for higher, but I figured with the research I did that it was legit. I wish I wouldve posted this before the auction ended to get everyones opinion.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by JoeyF1981

youre right and I was very skeptical too that it didnt go for higher, but I figured with the research I did that it was legit. I wish I wouldve posted this before the auction ended to get everyones opinion.

Generally speaking you don't want to post live auctions you are interested in unless you want more competition PM or email one of our members, or me, to get some more ideas. If I don't know then I can usually direct you to someone that does.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I saw it as soon as it was listed and placed a minimum .99 bid and watched it. I am also under the assumption that it is fake.

[JoeyF1981]

I emailed probstein and he's telling me "based on the source it came from it should be good"..dont really know what to make of that

[smtjoy]

Well Probstein offers a 14 day return, if it was me I would return it asap.

Humm suspicious looking early Ruth PC that does not look right and having a consignment house sell it .........run

[glchen]

I think the postcard went so low because probstein put the era of the postcard at postwar 1942-80, so it probably didn't come up in a lot of searches (like mine!). The backstamp does indicate what Joey said: Link. As the others have said, hopefully, it's not a fake.