Crawford Old Mill t-206

[ullmandds]

Type font/color is awful...thats all the evidence i need

[Runscott]

For an aged T206 reprint, the first thing I would normally notice with a quick glance would be gloss or lack of border on the front, but for this one it's the dark lettering and bad font - doesn't match the card. There are so many ways to create a realistic-looking forgery from a hi-def image, that are easier than trying to age and manipulate a reprint. I don't get why they do it this way.

I plan to create some tobacco fantasy card to bring to the National as advertising, so you'll see what I mean.

[hshrimps]

Isn't that a blue Old Mill back?

[sb1]

The card is a reprint rebacked with a real Old Mill back.

[eastonfalcon19]

Thank you guys for taking a look at the card. I knew it was reprint but I didn't know the back was real. Why would somebody put a reprint on a real back?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by eastonfalcon19

Thank you guys for taking a look at the card. I knew it was reprint but I didn't know the back was real. Why would somebody put a reprint on a real back?

stupidity? it's probably the back from a common front...with the rationale being a crawford w/old mill back would be worth a lot more.

funny thing is a lot of t206 heads think old mills are actually tough(according to nonsensical pop reports)...so the pop of the destroyed old mill may have been a relatively tough combo...ie low pop card...some might surmise.

[eastonfalcon19]

That is pretty stupid...does a card like this have any value because of the back or is it just a worthless piece of cardboard?