Some rare and expensive bakery goodies......

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Unless we know why the original seller believed them to be fake, his statement that they are fake is without any credibility. That is why no one is able to buy into Brian's story here.

My guess -- pure and simple -- is that the seller acquired them from someone who told him they were fake; or the seller had them appraised by someone he trusted who told him they were fake. Any of those people is just offering an opinion as to authenticity unless they printed them or fabricated them personally.

I have a signed T206 Cobb that James Spence told me was fake. Does that make it so? In the hobby today, you bet it does.

If Brian himself does not know who fabricated them, then the best anyone can hope for is an expert opinion. And the experts on Net54 have clearly weighed in on them being authentic.

This is all that matters.

The original seller has credibility in my eyes.

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

The original seller has credibility in my eyes.

I have no doubt that you believe this seller to be honest. Honesty does not eliminate the possibility of being wrong. Your trust is commendable but with out the missing piece, the "why he believes them to be fake", I am afraid that this discussion will go unresolved. He saw Big Foot but didn't shoot him and bring back a body. There is nothing to back up his statement (at least that you have conveyed as yet). I have no dog in this fight but, Brian, you are convinced. Everyone else lacks your conviction in his honesty and credibility.

I shall step back now and watch the merry-go-round go 'round.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Bocabirdman

I have no doubt that you believe this seller to be honest. Honesty does not eliminate the possibility of being wrong. Your trust is commendable but with out the missing piece, the "why he believes them to be fake", I am afraid that this discussion will go unresolved. He saw Big Foot but didn't shoot him and bring back a body. There is nothing to back up his statement (at least that you have conveyed as yet). I have no dog in this fight but, Brian, you are convinced. Everyone else lacks your conviction in his honesty and credibility.

I shall step back now and watch the merry-go-round go 'round.

Yeah, but this merry-go-round doesn't cause motion sickness .

[Brian Van Horn]

Thank you, Todd.

Here are parts 1 and 2. To clarify in part 2, I did see the guy setup at the Cleveland National (1999?). I was not part of the first discussion (now stop cheering ):

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=Herpolsheimer

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=Herpolsheimer

[Brian Van Horn]

Oh, from December 24, 2004:

"Posted By: BrianVanHorn
The cards offered on eBay are fakes. I have seen these cards once before at a show produced by J. Paul Sports at the Charles Sewald Center on the Robert Morris Campus in Pittsburgh. This was about six years ago and I asked the dealer about these cards. He said they were fakes.

Why else would he say this if it were not true?

Apparently, according to the dealer, they were produced in the 1970's. Of course, as I write this, I have no idea of the identity of the dealer. It was a one time meeting.

Please don't misinterpret my message. I don't mean to come off as a "know it all" or bombastic. This is my first post and I don't want to get off on the wrong foot."

Right after that Leon typed "nothing personal, but you're wrong."

I guess it's just a decade reunion disagreement.

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

The original seller has credibility in my eyes.

I certainly respect your opinion Brian and I know you are very well-versed in vintage cards, but without a "why" or at least a name for this person, this is the Herpolshimer equivalent of trying to prove the Loch Ness monster is real based on anecdotal evidence.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

The original seller has credibility in my eyes.

For any reasons other than the following?

1. He said they were fake
2. He priced them low
3. He wrote the prices on them

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

For any reasons other than the following?

1. He said they were fake
2. He priced them low
3. He wrote the prices on them

Yeah, just one small almost imperceptible reason. His honesty.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Yeah, just one small almost imperceptible reason. His honesty.

Was he infallible?

[Brian Van Horn]

Honesty and infallibility are two different subjects, but the conversation eliminated the infallibility.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Honesty and infallibility are two different subjects, but the conversation eliminated the infallibility.

I am glad you recognize that an honest person can make an honest mistake, but without more than the conversation you have recounted there is no basis for eliminating the infallibility. You can only honestly say that you believe these to be fake. You do not know them to be fake.

[packs]

Anyone know where the notion that there is only one set came from? Is that an idea the hobby determined or was that something the seller claimed? If it is something the seller claimed there is a monetary incentive. If it was hobby determined there is something independent about that idea.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

I am glad you recognize that an honest person can make an honest mistake, but without more than the conversation you have recounted there is no basis for eliminating the infallibility. You can only honestly say that you believe these to be fake. You do not know them to be fake.

If a man at a show has cards that he is asking only $1.00 to $3.00 on and says the cards are fake, they are fake. Also, please refer to my December 24, 2004 post on the matter. He stated they were produced in the 1970s. I thank Todd for bringing up the archived post. I had forgot about that over time. I apologize, but at 48 a little senility has to eventually creep in .

[packs]

Maybe it's just me but I'm really not seeing how it's easier to believe that Herpolsheimer printed two sets of nearly but not quite identical cards, one of which was only printed one time, than it is to believe a single individual printed a single set of fantasy cards with authentic characteristics.

The cards in question are nearly the same as the previously known set. However, they are not perfect because there are inconsistencies with the text on the back of the cards.

Doesn't that scream reprint in nearly every other case?

[Brian Van Horn]

Good point.

[nolemmings]

The cards are nowhere near the same as the original 1916 Herpolsheimer set. The size of the cards and the selection of photos are completeley different, as is much of the player selection.

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Yeah, just one small almost imperceptible reason. His honesty.

So you have other experiences that validate his honesty, or are you just a good judge of character? It would help your argument if you would provide something other than parroting the same line about this guy being honest.

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Yeah, just one small almost imperceptible reason. His honesty.

I repeat myself. Honesty does not an expert make. An honest person can be wrong. ( I slink back to the shadows, upset with myself for posting a second time in the thread with no likely resolution)