Does Everyone Understand Pre-War?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Bosox Blair

Does Everyone Understand Pre-War?

The answer to your question is NO.

I read this thread this morning and didn't comment, but I thought the OP was being too uptight. I moved on to other threads. Then, I read the E90-1 Young thread in total disbelief.

Now, I am in agreement with the OP of this thread. He is spot on. How can anyone that knows anything about E90-1s look at that card and not know it's real? The OP is right. We do need more Pre-War threads, more Pre-War knowledge.

I'm not calling anyone out, so don't take it personal if I quoted you, but here are some of the comments in that thread about the Young:

• very...very...BAD!
  
• The color is washed out. The corners are uniformly rounded. It doesn't look like real E90-1 Young cards.
  
• Note how different the background looks. Shadows etc.
  
• and the "quaity" of the type in the name, team...the fake is different...look closely...not the right color either.
  
• All bad, IMO. All exhibit similar corner wear....
  
• obvious fakes

Here's the one that takes the cake about the Young card. "...no way I take this gamble. And I like to gamble. The payoff isn't high enough and it doesn't seem worth the shipping and grading fees to find out." If you have a card in hand and you can't tell if it is fake or not and have to send it to some third party authenticator to determine that for you, you are in the wrong hobby.

Again, not calling anybody out and if I quoted you, don't take it personal. However, many of these comments were made by long time board members that should know the difference between a real and a fake.

The OP of this thread is right - less OT threads and more Pre-War threads - especially when people can't tell the difference between a real or fake E90-1. And I've been guilty of participating in the OT main board threads too. Shame on me. It's just sad though when we (as a group), a Pre-War board, has regressed to the point that we can't tell the difference between a real and fake E90-1 Young, but we can tell you anything about Bryce Harper, Phil Rizzuto, Prince, etc. Again, I've been just as guilty. Shame on us.

[begsu1013]

enough of this.

i get where anyone is coming from w/ the kaline, the 54 aaron threads and things of that sort. (note: those were not my threads)

but prince dying? i mean c'mon. seriously. it's freaking prince. and he's influenced every board member here one way or another even if you don't realize it.

the man was a national treasure. and i bet you go to any message board about any topic and there is a "rip prince" thread.

so quit complaining and comparing the man to a box of 88 donruss that shouldn't be here.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by begsu1013

but prince dying? i mean c'mon. seriously. it's freaking prince. and he's influenced every board member here one way or another even if you don't realize it.

Sorry, Bob, but grown male adults that dress in purple and have whiney feminine voices don't influence me. If you liked him, so be it. No knocking you - to each his own.

However, it belongs in the Watercooler section with all the other RIPs...like Glen Frey's RIP...someone that actually did influence me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Neil Young has a high voice too, surely you don't dislike him?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Neil Young has a high voice too, surely you don't dislike him?

Funny you mention that, Peter. I was having this exact conversation with someone at work this morning. I love music from that era, but no, I can't stand Young - specifically for his voice.

[begsu1013]

he may not have directly. but i guarantee you he influenced some other artist you like. again, "even if you don't realize it".

i'm a glen frey fan too. just don't play me hotel california.

quick question: are you an eric clapton fan?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Clapton? Yes.

[begsu1013]

of course you do:

[vintagetoppsguy]

No doubt he influenced other artists. But didn't Glenn Frey as well? It still belongs in the Watercooler/OT section with the rest of the RIP threads.

[begsu1013]

agreed.

glen frey does belong in the water cooler section and You Belong To The City.

and i'm a fan.





edit: and the ironic thing, this whole thread about how stuff shouldn't be here has yet to produce any real talk about prewar cards.
and not many other threads popping either. as leon stated...he'd rather see something going on when it's stagnate than nothing.
if it was glowing w/ activity this thread wouldn't exist and the prince thread woulda been pushed down a long time ago.

[irv]

Originally Posted by begsu1013

of course you do:

I personally never cared for Prince's music but there is no denying he was on multi talented individual.

I recently seen this vid and was blown away by how good of a guitar player he was. I had no idea truthfully.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SFNW5F8K9Y

[steve_a]

I've been curious so seems like a place to ask.. What's the origin of the net54 name? Was it a 54 Topps board? Or started by a Gene Schott fan? Or something else altogether?

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by irv

I personally never cared for Prince's music but there is no denying he was on multi talented individual.

I recently seen this vid and was blown away by how good of a guitar player he was. I had no idea truthfully.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SFNW5F8K9Y

Supreme guitarist, yes!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by begsu1013

of course you do:

http://www.snopes.com/eric-clapton-quote-about-prince/

This purported response is one Clapton is extremely unlikely to have made (in anything but jest), as it follows exactly the narrative of a decades-old (false) urban legend in which either Jimi Hendrix or Clapton himself supposedly answered the same question, in equally surprising fashion, by saying that it should instead have been posed to Phil Keaggy:

While Prince is regarded as a fine musician, he wasn't necessarily seen as being in the top echelon of world-class guitarists by his fellow axe men. Rolling Stones' 2003 list of the "Top 100 Guitarists of All Time" completely omitted him (although he was came in at #33 in a later version). Clapton and Hendrix, however, regularly rank at the top of the list.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

http://www.snopes.com/eric-clapton-quote-about-prince/

This purported response is one Clapton is extremely unlikely to have made (in anything but jest), as it follows exactly the narrative of a decades-old (false) urban legend in which either Jimi Hendrix or Clapton himself supposedly answered the same question, in equally surprising fashion, by saying that it should instead have been posed to Phil Keaggy:

While Prince is regarded as a fine musician, he wasn't necessarily seen as being in the top echelon of world-class guitarists by his fellow axe men. Rolling Stones' 2003 list of the "Top 100 Guitarists of All Time" completely omitted him (although he was came in at #33 in a later version). Clapton and Hendrix, however, regularly rank at the top of the list.

Yeah you would think Clapton Page Richards Berry before you would think of Prince, I would anyhow. I saw some clips where his pyrotechnics were pretty awesome but greatness is more than that. 1 or 33 though a terrible shame that he died young.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rats60

While Prince is regarded as a fine musician, he wasn't necessarily seen as being in the top echelon of world-class guitarists by his fellow axe men. Rolling Stones' 2003 list of the "Top 100 Guitarists of All Time" completely omitted him (although he was came in at #33 in a later version). Clapton and Hendrix, however, regularly rank at the top of the list.

Well, as somebody who has been playing the guitar for 25 years, studying a myriad of styles, and incorporating rock, prog, metal, blues, classical and jazz into my playing, I can say the Rolling Stone' Top 100 Guitarists of all-time list is shit. That they listed Kurt Cobain (#12) ahead of true virtuosos like Jeff Beck (#14), Brian May (#39), Ritchie Blackmore (#55), Eddie Van Halen (#70), David Gilmour (#82), and Randy Rhoads (#85), while completely excluding such greats as Al DiMeola, Allan Holdsworth, Pat Metheny, Andres Segovia, Joe Satriani, Stanley Jordan, Robert Cray, Adrian Belew, Eric Johnson, Joe Pass, Steve Rothery and John Petrucci....is laughable at best.

I've known a lot of guitarists, and not a one of them thought the Rolling Stone list was worth the paper it was printed on.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If you have a card in hand and you can't tell if it is fake or not and have to send it to some third party authenticator to determine that for you, you are in the wrong hobby.

Again, not calling anybody out and if I quoted you, don't take it personal. However, many of these comments were made by long time board members that should know the difference between a real and a fake.

I haven't read the referenced thread, but hoping this is somewhat of a rule-of-thumb statement and not rule-of-fact (or perhaps specific to the thread/poster). Otherwise there would never be any forgeries that get passed off as the real thing in any area, which goes against numerous forgeries that have fooled even the 'experts'.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

... If you have a card in hand and you can't tell if it is fake or not and have to send it to some third party authenticator to determine that for you, you are in the wrong hobby.
...

Hi David, you might've been sarcastic when you stated the above, but I don't think that's totally fair. In prewar, there are so many different types of cards with different card stocks and printing methods. You almost need to specialize in a particular area to know whether it is truly authentic or not, even if you do have the card in hand. For example, T206 print anomalies, you might not know you have a true one unless you show it to mrvster, even if you have the card in hand. I once had a Butterfinger ad card, which I purchased from a long time and reputable dealer, which we bought thought were real until I sent it in for authentication and it was returned as fake (and which Leon confirmed since he owned authentic ones before). There is definitely more prewar knowledge that can be gained, so I am definitely in agreement with you there. However, the whole E90-1 thread, frankly, that card had all of the typical signs of being fake. It's definitely one of the exception cases.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Hello, Gary. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic but, as you made me realize, I may have been too harsh. You're right, not everyone can know everything about all different types of cards. I certainly don't. I wouldn't have any idea if I was holding a real Butterfinger or not. My comment was meant to be more in general with mainstream prewar cards, which really E90-1s are

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The answer to your question is NO.

I read this thread this morning and didn't comment, but I thought the OP was being too uptight. I moved on to other threads. Then, I read the E90-1 Young thread in total disbelief.

Now, I am in agreement with the OP of this thread. He is spot on. How can anyone that knows anything about E90-1s look at that card and not know it's real? The OP is right. We do need more Pre-War threads, more Pre-War knowledge.

I'm not calling anyone out, so don't take it personal if I quoted you, but here are some of the comments in that thread about the Young:

• very...very...BAD!
  
• The color is washed out. The corners are uniformly rounded. It doesn't look like real E90-1 Young cards.
  
• Note how different the background looks. Shadows etc.
  
• and the "quaity" of the type in the name, team...the fake is different...look closely...not the right color either.
  
• All bad, IMO. All exhibit similar corner wear....
  
• obvious fakes

Here's the one that takes the cake about the Young card. "...no way I take this gamble. And I like to gamble. The payoff isn't high enough and it doesn't seem worth the shipping and grading fees to find out." If you have a card in hand and you can't tell if it is fake or not and have to send it to some third party authenticator to determine that for you, you are in the wrong hobby.

Again, not calling anybody out and if I quoted you, don't take it personal. However, many of these comments were made by long time board members that should know the difference between a real and a fake.

The OP of this thread is right - less OT threads and more Pre-War threads - especially when people can't tell the difference between a real or fake E90-1. And I've been guilty of participating in the OT main board threads too. Shame on me. It's just sad though when we (as a group), a Pre-War board, has regressed to the point that we can't tell the difference between a real and fake E90-1 Young, but we can tell you anything about Bryce Harper, Phil Rizzuto, Prince, etc. Again, I've been just as guilty. Shame on us.

I was the one who made the comment you mentioned. It's not just about telling if the card is fake or not, but if it's been altered and would receive a numerical grade. As PSA has been known to get it wrong, or have different results when submitting a card multiple times it is a valid concern. Even if the card is real it's still a gamble, and I stand by my assessment that with the information available to me at the time I made the comment it was not a gamble worth taking.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Based on the initial scan I don't think it was so obvious it was real. Particularly from a zero feedback seller with the old line about been in the family forever. But maybe I need to learn more about prewar. I will study up with Neil Young in the background.

[begsu1013]

dont be denied.

[mechanicalman]

FWIW, I'd rather read a thread about Prince than another one about Bryce Harper in the pre-war section.

[irishdenny]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The answer to your question is NO.

I read this thread this morning and didn't comment, but I thought the OP was being too uptight. I moved on to other threads. Then, I read the E90-1 Young thread in total disbelief.

Now, I am in agreement with the OP of this thread. He is spot on. How can anyone that knows anything about E90-1s look at that card and not know it's real? The OP is right. We do need more Pre-War threads, more Pre-War knowledge.

I'm not calling anyone out, so don't take it personal if I quoted you, but here are some of the comments in that thread about the Young:

• very...very...BAD!
  
• The color is washed out. The corners are uniformly rounded. It doesn't look like real E90-1 Young cards.
  
• Note how different the background looks. Shadows etc.
  
• and the "quaity" of the type in the name, team...the fake is different...look closely...not the right color either.
  
• All bad, IMO. All exhibit similar corner wear....
  
• obvious fakes

Here's the one that takes the cake about the Young card. "...no way I take this gamble. And I like to gamble. The payoff isn't high enough and it doesn't seem worth the shipping and grading fees to find out." If you have a card in hand and you can't tell if it is fake or not and have to send it to some third party authenticator to determine that for you, you are in the wrong hobby.

Again, not calling anybody out and if I quoted you, don't take it personal. However, many of these comments were made by long time board members that should know the difference between a real and a fake.

The OP of this thread is right - less OT threads and more Pre-War threads - especially when people can't tell the difference between a real or fake E90-1. And I've been guilty of participating in the OT main board threads too. Shame on me. It's just sad though when we (as a group), a Pre-War board, has regressed to the point that we can't tell the difference between a real and fake E90-1 Young, but we can tell you anything about Bryce Harper, Phil Rizzuto, Prince, etc. Again, I've been just as guilty. Shame on us.

Hey There David!,

I Mention'd that the E90-1 and E95 Both Have the Same Papar Stock!
And THaT E90-1's Nevar Fray at the Ends Like this E90-1 Has...
So We Disagree!
I've Been Handling E90-1's & E95's fir the Last 4 years ... Diligently!
And I Always Start with The Papar Stock...

Okay... There's my BeginiN Reason Why I Think the Cards are Fake!
So, Tell Us Why You Think There Real!?
You Didn't Give any Reason(s) fir their Authenticity ...
Just Boast'd THaT They Are Real!

And Just ta Note...
You Didn't Call me Out

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The answer to your question is NO.

I read this thread this morning and didn't comment, but I thought the OP was being too uptight. I moved on to other threads. Then, I read the E90-1 Young thread in total disbelief.

Now, I am in agreement with the OP of this thread. He is spot on. How can anyone that knows anything about E90-1s look at that card and not know it's real? The OP is right. We do need more Pre-War threads, more Pre-War knowledge.

I'm not calling anyone out, so don't take it personal if I quoted you, but here are some of the comments in that thread about the Young:

• very...very...BAD!
  
• The color is washed out. The corners are uniformly rounded. It doesn't look like real E90-1 Young cards.
  
• Note how different the background looks. Shadows etc.
  
• and the "quaity" of the type in the name, team...the fake is different...look closely...not the right color either.
  
• All bad, IMO. All exhibit similar corner wear....
  
• obvious fakes

Here's the one that takes the cake about the Young card. "...no way I take this gamble. And I like to gamble. The payoff isn't high enough and it doesn't seem worth the shipping and grading fees to find out." If you have a card in hand and you can't tell if it is fake or not and have to send it to some third party authenticator to determine that for you, you are in the wrong hobby.

Again, not calling anybody out and if I quoted you, don't take it personal. However, many of these comments were made by long time board members that should know the difference between a real and a fake.

The OP of this thread is right - less OT threads and more Pre-War threads - especially when people can't tell the difference between a real or fake E90-1. And I've been guilty of participating in the OT main board threads too. Shame on me. It's just sad though when we (as a group), a Pre-War board, has regressed to the point that we can't tell the difference between a real and fake E90-1 Young, but we can tell you anything about Bryce Harper, Phil Rizzuto, Prince, etc. Again, I've been just as guilty. Shame on us.

+1

I was equally surprised by the number of people convinced the card was fake. To me that was people making a decision about the cards based on a zero feedback seller and shoddy grammar in the listing. The photos of the cards was not ideal either but I don't think there were any red flags about authenticity.