Will anyone be giving a blow-by-blow account from the National this year?

[Yoda]

Tony, I would be more than happy to scan if I knew how to. My PC skills are still sorely lacking. But wait... the fact that you and several knowledgeable people have never seen a counterfeit one before gives me faint hope that SGC got it wrong and mine just might be ok. Perhaps PSA or BVG might express a favorable verdict. Or I might just tuck it into my Cobb collection, believe it to be real and say to hell with the grading cos. Just before I submitted the card to SGC, I was sitting behind the cases with a bunch of fellow old geezers swapping baseball card lies at the LOTG table. One of the gentlemen there, probably a Net54 guy whose name I never got, apparently an expert on early baseball PC's, took a look at it for a long time, wasn't happy with a couple minor things but said he thought it might have a chance.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Tony, I would be more than happy to scan if I knew how to. My PC skills are still sorely lacking. But wait... the fact that you and several knowledgeable people have never seen a counterfeit one before gives me faint hope that SGC got it wrong and mine just might be ok. Perhaps PSA or BVG might express a favorable verdict. Or I might just tuck it into my Cobb collection, believe it to be real and say to hell with the grading cos. Just before I submitted the card to SGC, I was sitting behind the cases with a bunch of fellow old geezers swapping baseball card lies at the LOTG table. One of the gentlemen there, probably a Net54 guy whose name I never got, apparently an expert on early baseball PC's, took a look at it for a long time, wasn't happy with a couple minor things but said he thought it might have a chance.

SGC is very good at spotting counterfeit cards, PSA not so much. You could try them and probably get it into their slab, but if SGC says fake it probably is.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by tbob

I bought a NRMT 1965 Topps football set recently, minus the Namath card. I bought a Namath reprint on eBay as a placeholder until prices come out of the stratosphere and was shocked when I got it to see how authentic looking it was. It has made me realize that when I get ready to buy a Namath rookie it will be in a graded holder, regardless of condition. The "quality" of reprinted, fake, replicated (whatever you want to call them) cards has become very scary.

Originally Posted by Leon

The quality of a lot of fakes and counterfeits has got a lot better the last few years, so it seems.

Bob and Leon, et al

Back in 1982, the Rose rookie counterfeit was pretty darn good. And, if it wasn't for the stupidity of the counterfeiter trying to dump a large number of them
at one BB card show in California, these cards would not have been detected as soon as they were.


Hey guys,

Which one of these Rose rookie cards is a fake ?






TED Z
.

[bobbyw8469]

Im thinking the one on the right is the fake. I can't imagine a fake having a fisheye.

[swarmee]

One on the right is dead centered, and for this issue that would be rare. But the images of the player heads are clearer/better registered. Right is probably the fake, and as pointed out, a fisheye on a counterfeit would be a dead giveaway if you knew about them. Otherwise, the fisheye might become a "variation" of the card and recognized in price guides.... ;-)

[irv]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Bob and Leon, et al

Back in 1982, the Rose rookie counterfeit was pretty darn good. And, if it wasn't for the stupidity of the counterfeiter trying to dump a large number of them
at one BB card show in California, these cards would not have been detected as soon as they were.


Hey guys,

Which one of these Rose rookie cards is a fake ?






TED Z
.

All the way back in 82? I had no idea this has been going on for this long?
What was a Rose card worth back then? I can't see it being worth the effort but obviously I am wrong.

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Im thinking the one on the right is the fake. I can't imagine a fake having a fisheye.

I agree with that, and if that is the only clue, that counterfeit is really good, especially if it's a 1982 copy?

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by irv

All the way back in 82? I had no idea this has been going on for this long?
What was a Rose card worth back then? I can't see it being worth the effort but obviously I am wrong.



I agree with that, and if that is the only clue, that counterfeit is really good, especially if it's a 1982 copy?

I don't remember the value in 1982, but I know that in 1984, the Rose RC was a $400+ card.

Steve

[tedzan]

In the Spring of 1982, the 1963 TOPPS Rose rookie was real "hot". It was selling for about $150.

At the 1982 National in St Louis, I acquired 8 of them (Ex to Ex/Mt). Then sold all 8 of them at the Willow Grove Show for $250 apiece.

By the Summer of 1983, these cards were selling in the $300 - $400 range (for Ex/Mt to near Mint).


TED Z
.

[Griffins]

Originally Posted by irv

All the way back in 82? I had no idea this has been going on for this long?
What was a Rose card worth back then? I can't see it being worth the effort but obviously I am wrong.



I agree with that, and if that is the only clue, that counterfeit is really good, especially if it's a 1982 copy?

At the Anaheim show in '75 (precursor to the National) there was a huge scandal with a group of '59 Fleer #68's that came in that were fake. They looked pretty good and got by many but Irv Lerner wasn't fooled and blew the whistle. The promoters told the seller he wasn't allowed to sell them and I think he ended up walking out. Ended up making front page in SCD. I remember at the time the old time dealers thought that the hobby had too much money in it when a card was faked, and lamented how bad things were getting.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Griffins

At the Anaheim show in '75 (precursor to the National) there was a huge scandal with a group of '59 Fleer #68's that came in that were fake. They looked pretty good and got by many but Irv Lerner wasn't fooled and blew the whistle. The promoters told the seller he wasn't allowed to sell them and I think he ended up walking out. Ended up making front page in SCD. I remember at the time the old time dealers thought that the hobby had too much money in it when a card was faked, and lamented how bad things were getting.

Thanks for sharing that information.

I really didn't think, based on the tech that was available back then, that people would be making counterfeit cards in order to make money.

I was surprised, however, to hear what some of the Rose RC's were worth even way back then, so I can understand it, now, why it goes way back like it does.

[Cmount76]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Im thinking the one on the right is the fake. I can't imagine a fake having a fisheye.

+1

[begsu1013]

usually easier to tell in hand as the stock is noticeably thinner,

but the go to indicator is the bolder black line that outlines pete's cap.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by begsu1013

usually easier to tell in hand as the stock is noticeably thinner,

but the go to indicator is the bolder black line that outlines pete's cap.

Bob Evans has the clue. The real Rose rookie does not have Rose's cap outlined. Both of these cards are counterfeits.

Therefore, my next question to any of you is......
If I were to submit this un-stamped "COUNTERFEIT" card to PSA or SGC (or etc.), will this card get a numerical grade ? ?






TED Z
.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Bob and Leon, et al

Back in 1982, the Rose rookie counterfeit was pretty darn good. And, if it wasn't for the stupidity of the counterfeiter trying to dump a large number of them
at one BB card show in California, these cards would not have been detected as soon as they were.


Hey guys,

Which one of these Rose rookie cards is a fake ?






TED Z
.

Just a guess but I would say the one on the right because of the extra red tint on the players faces. In hand they are very easy to tell real from fake with a loupe.

What most can't understand is the ability to make very high end counterfeits has been around as long as the ability to make the original card.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Bob and Leon, et al

Back in 1982, the Rose rookie counterfeit was pretty darn good. And, if it wasn't for the stupidity of the counterfeiter trying to dump a large number of them
at one BB card show in California, these cards would not have been detected as soon as they were.


Hey guys,

Which one of these Rose rookie cards is a fake ?






TED Z
.

Unless it's something in the posted scans they both have a small break in the border in the same place.

[MW1]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Tony, I would be more than happy to scan if I knew how to. My PC skills are still sorely lacking. But wait... the fact that you and several knowledgeable people have never seen a counterfeit one before gives me faint hope that SGC got it wrong and mine just might be ok. Perhaps PSA or BVG might express a favorable verdict. Or I might just tuck it into my Cobb collection, believe it to be real and say to hell with the grading cos. Just before I submitted the card to SGC, I was sitting behind the cases with a bunch of fellow old geezers swapping baseball card lies at the LOTG table. One of the gentlemen there, probably a Net54 guy whose name I never got, apparently an expert on early baseball PC's, took a look at it for a long time, wasn't happy with a couple minor things but said he thought it might have a chance.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by MW1

Michael, bingo, you got me. But, my God, I hope I didn't look or sound like Jim Carey when sitting at the SGC booth waiting for Scott to render judgement on my Wolverine Cobb. Have you ever seen a counterfeit specimen? Can't believe mine is the only one in existence. Why would anybody go to the effort of producing just one complete with little signature marks? So, see, there is still a chance!