Potentially fake D350-3 Standard Biscuit backed cards on eBay

[Leon]

The SGC graded one (above) looks like a stamped back whereas the other one looks printed from a press. Something looks fishy but maybe there were period ones with stamped backs?....Whether there is something amiss or not, I don't know, but it seems strange...here are a few more from my collection...

[nolemmings]

Hopefully Mark M. has some input as to known or rumored fakes of this West Coast issue. The backs are definitely different than previously known examples. There is some similarity among Standard Biscuit, Holsum and Herpolsheimer to suggest that the same printer was involved in all three sets and yet as Rhett said these from ebay last night lack the clarity and evenness of printing found in the others. The cards also looked a bit too white or "un-toned" to me also, although the '21s show less toning than the '17s (see Leon's post) and it could just be the scans.

If it's a stamp it's a very intricate one; otherwise it could just be a less precise printing from a different printer--we know there were at least two printings of this set because of the "80 photographs" language found sometimes. Still, apart from the uneven inking, what also bothers me is the inconsistent printing/inking within the various cards themselves that sold last night. One looks generally washed out, no bold distinction between "Standard Biscuit" and message text, blurred "Cal.", another looks a little more heavily inked on the right-side letters and frame, another on the left, etc. A different printing would not show such inconsistency would it? This too supports a stamped backing, and although that would not mean they were fake per se, it would really make me skeptical that these are period with genuine backs (although I'd love to have one or two in hand to see)

[nolemmings]

Here are a few more of the known examples for comparison:

[oaks1912]

The card in question has printing on the reverse that is inconsistent with any Standard Biscuit I've seen before. Without having the card in hand to examine, I'd withhold any opinions as to the card's authenticity, but the back is enough reason to post a yellow flag

[darwinbulldog]

There's a Ruth with the same back in the current Hunt auction:
http://www.huntauctions.com/phone/imageviewer.cfm

[glchen]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

There's a Ruth with the same back in the current Hunt auction:
http://www.huntauctions.com/phone/imageviewer.cfm

Here's the picture.

[rhettyeakley]

Good catch on the Ruth, whenever you are talking about a high dollar card like a D350-3 Ruth would be that certainly makes things more interesting

Based on the serial number on that Babe Ruth and the ebay cards, most have the same numbers (at least the WaJo and several of the others on ebay) so they were graded together.

[ricktmd]

Interesting information. I bought the Alexander. I did not have a D350-3 to compare these two. I did notice the backs were crooked and a bit inconsistent on card to card. I imagine it is plausible that the cards were blank backed and stamped but why would someone stamp the backs of cards already worth quite a bit of money. My assumption was the backs were either a bit blurry due to scanning through the SGC holder or that the printing just wasn't perfect on this group. I had planned to cross the card over with PSA and put into my type collection . I have very little confidence in SGC as they graded re colored Fatimas on two occasions I have seen that did not cross over to PSA. It would be very disappointing if SGC would not be able to tell if the cards were altered (or not period in all ways) If it comes back from PSA as a fake I am sure PWCC will take it back and provide a refund. I will post another comment when I get the card which may be as soon as today.