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

[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.

[ctownboy]

packs,

I think after these sold on eBay someone went and did research and found where the cards originated from and spoke to the people who sold them. Those people/that person said Herpolsheimers made only one set of these cards and that they had been in one person's family for a long period of time.

At least that is what I remember from the different threads about these cards from the old board.

David

[MikeGarcia]

..It's been twelve pages since a card has been show......
....read the rules...

[packs]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

packs,

I think after these sold on eBay someone went and did research and found where the cards originated from and spoke to the people who sold them. Those people/that person said Herpolsheimers made only one set of these cards and that they had been in one person's family for a long period of time.

At least that is what I remember from the different threads about these cards from the old board.

David

Again maybe it's just me but I can't help but see a monetary incentive for a seller to persuade the hobby that a previously unknown set with an inconsistent back relating to a known set is the only one in existence.

[nolemmings]

It is believed to be the only set (partial) in existence because no duplicates have been seen. A discussion between a board member and the ebay seller in 2004 is quoted in post 85, where seller says no duplicates. I gave a possible explanation as to why this group may never have been actually distributed in post 64, which is not news-- its basis had been posted on this forum before.

My recollection when these came on ebay in 2004 is that seller made no mention of these being one of a kind/unique. Also seems to me that if he wanted to maximize $$$ he would have had them authenticated by a TPG.

[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 .

[nolemmings]

I disagree, it can just as easily show the guy didn't know what he had.

But why didn't you buy one? No downside if they were only a buck. You know pre-war cards pretty well, I should say. I assume you at least looked at them somewhat before speaking with him-- you said you say the prices on the back. Did they not look real to you and if not why not?

He said they came from the '70's but I'm guessing you didn't ask and he didn't tell how he got them. This still fits with my hypothesis in my first post--this is the exact time frame when Henry Johnson fakes (and probably Kending too) were supposedly made-- the same card fronts and everything. It very well could be that this was discussed among dealers-- no prior instance of this back before and known fakes using the same fronts ergo this is fake too. Heck your guy could have acquired them that same day from another dealer who sold 'em cheap because he thought they were fake, and he was parroting what he had been told. Your posts said this was a one time meeting with this dealer--never seen before or since-- yet it now seems you consider him some authority on the subject. Whether honest or not have you in your vast interactions with dealers at shows never come upon one or a hundred who acted and talked like they knew something that they clearly did not?

[Brian Van Horn]

Todd,

I don't buy fakes.

[packs]

The other logistical issue is that there is only one set. The value is in advertising and volume. So why would a company produce one set? Wouldn't that be insanely expensive and have no value to the company?

It is more likely that there is one set because it was never a set.

[nolemmings]

Did you even read my post #64? or the one a few prior to this one? Do you know a damn thing about e121s, Holsums, m101s, E135s or their related sets? Or are you just being a dumbass?

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

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 .

Let me try it this way:

"Guys, if a reputable and knowledgable dealer is selling cards at a show for under $3 marked 'fake' and 'fantasy card of the 1970s' there is a pretty good chance - maybe close to a 100% chance - that they are not the real deal. What's more likely - that they are indeed fakes as advertised? Or that they're unique one-of-ones from the 1920s that are worth thousands of dollars. I understand some pretty knowledgable people on Net54 now believe they're real, but I'm gonna go with the story I was told directly by a seller in the chain of owners. He was quite credible to me, particularly as he had every incentive to lie about their history and make a killing."

[timn1]

Prototypes and samples are created all the time, and then many are never produced on a large scale - what's so hard to grasp about that?

[nolemmings]

Packs, first you thought that the 1916 and 1921 Herpolsheimers were virtually identical, something you could have learned was untrue by spending 5 minutes on Old Cardboard or simply having some underlying knowledge of the sets of the era. Then you suggest that my opinion is skewed--that I see what I want to see because I own all of one common, implying at the same time then that anyone here who owns one or more of these somehow is not objective enough to have an informed opinion. Oddly enough, you then liken this to the Blue Old Mill T206 case and discount those board member opinions also, even though their opinions cannot be deemed skewed by financial incentives--they don't own the freaking card.

Finally, you claim that it would be insanely expensive for Herpolsheimer's to have created one or only part of one set. Apart from what Tim just said about prototypes, you apparently don't know that a half-dozen or more advertisers issued basically that same set; i.e.; that the fronts were already available and it would simply mean printing the advertising to a blank back. Yet it might just be insanely expensive for someone 50 years later to not only create a period printing plate for the backs, but re-create the fronts also, all for his own jollies and fantasies.

Edited: Brian, I will never take it easy on someone who suggests my opinion is biased/skewed because I own one flippin common worth a couple hundred bucks.

[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.