m101 fakes on ebay

[nolemmings]

Thanks Leon. Here's a little more information for any who care. I found the original Mack from which this fake was copied (a Herpolsheimer graded SGC 30) and show the two side by side. Note the light wrinkling or spider creases in the lower left quadrant of the photo, which extend into the border:

There also are a couple of other tells when the cards are compared closely. Note the oversized borders and slightly larger size of the fake, although it is within specs.

While the toning of the two Macks is noticeably different, the fake is not far off from other real Herpolsheimers. Here I've added a common from that set that actually measures very closely to the Mack, despite my inability to get the scan to scale.

As you can see, the "yellowing" is not far off, although the borders on the fake look a little "dirty" or less sharp.

My point is that these are getting tougher to distinguish--they are not your grandfather's reprints. They apparently do not cost much to make. Allow for further improvements and factor that commons might be added with scarcer backs and it makes for potential problems on the horizon for whoever might think of adding m101s to their collection. Please proceed with caution.

[midmo]

[ls7plus]

Interesting that you should ask. Just finished a little internet research which included cycleback.com's discussion of counterfeits and authenticity of early baseball cards. Quoting Cycleback, " If paper stock fluoresces very bright as just described, it almost certainly was made after the mid 1940s. It is important to note that not all modern papers will fluoresce this way as optical brighteners are not added to all modern paper..."

Happy collecting,

Larry

[Leon]

Originally Posted by midmo

I appreciate this kind of info. Sorry if this is an obvious question, but do all the reprints fluoresce with a black light? Are there modern papers available without brighteners added?

I would venture to guess ALL reprints or fakes don't flouresce. My guess is that the one in the intial post, which is a reprint, will flouresce. Once a collector has handled hundreds or thousands of M101-4/5 it becomes much easier to spot fakes.

I should add, many times when an experienced collector gets that "not so warm and fuzzy" about a card, he/she is correct..

[midmo]

[Leon]

Originally Posted by midmo

Yeah I hear ya. I probably have less than 20 of these and don't see myself ever handling hundreds of them since I'm not a set builder. I assume they're fairly detectable in hand, but he says they're getting better so any knowledge is helpful.

Agreed 100%. There are some other fakes on ebay to discuss later. I think it can help if we discuss WHY the cards aren't good. Us (collectors with a few years on us) only saying they aren't real doesn't help our newer collectors very much.

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by Leon

Agreed 100%. There are some other fakes on ebay to discuss later. I think it can help if we discuss WHY the cards aren't good. Us (collectors with a few years on us) only saying they aren't real doesn't help our newer collectors very much.

Amen!

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

My point is that these are getting tougher to distinguish--they are not your grandfather's reprints. They apparently do not cost much to make. Allow for further improvements and factor that commons might be added with scarcer backs and it makes for potential problems on the horizon for whoever might think of adding m101s to their collection. Please proceed with caution.

How does the card look when you have it "in hand"? Is it obviously a reprint?

[nolemmings]

Sorry if this is an obvious question, but do all the reprints fluoresce with a black light? Are there modern papers available without brighteners added?

I will dig out my black light and take a look in the next few days--it's packed away somewhere.

How does the card look when you have it "in hand"? Is it obviously a reprint?

It is to me, but of course it would be best if you could tell from scans, so you don't have to deal with returns. As I mentioned above, the dot pattern is different under a loupe, and both the gloss and texture are a bit different, as well as the cardstock back color or tone, at least to someone familiar with the set. The card thickness and dimensions are right, though. I also see that the edges are white or at least a lighter color stock than the surfaces. All of these point toward fake, but some might be subject to being "fixed", particularly if the card is made to look slightly distressed.