Hobby history: The fake-card scandal of 1972

[nolemmings]

I won a few of the Henry Johnson's about twenty years ago, and the seller was kind enough to let me inspect them in hand before even requiring payment. I passed and returned them. Wish I could find the scans--I know one was Gilhooley.

Interesting to me that these articles misidentify the Standard Biscuits as being D350-1 when they are really D350-3. Lew Lipset's catalog listing shown on another of David's threads also makes this error--unless back then it was not considered an error.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I won a few of the Henry Johnson's about twenty years ago, and the seller was kind enough to let me inspect them in hand before even requiring payment. I passed and returned them. Wish I could find the scans--I know one was Gilhooley.

Interesting to me that these articles misidentify the Standard Biscuits as being D350-1 when they are really D350-3. Lew Lipset's catalog listing shown on another of David's threads also makes this error--unless back then it was not considered an error.

Actually D350-1 is the correct number that the ACC gave the E121 like cards but they didn't catalog the E135 like version at all and had the M101-5 like version listed as D350-2. I think over time we have always cataloged them chronologically (which makes a lot more sense to me), so I have always referred to the M101-4/5 version as D350-1, the E135 version as D350-2 and the E121 version as D350-3.

The Henry Johnson's are easy to tell the fakes, I haven't come across the mid-1920's Zeenut counterfeits (I'll have to get Mark to show me one at some point I suppose).

As far as the D350-1 Standard Biscuits, I wonder if they are the ones that were auctioned off a few years back that I brought to the attention of the board and right at that moment a fake Babe Ruth sold for a bunch of money and had a "stamped" and not "printed" look to the back. I am too lazy to look for that old thread but it is on here somewhere (I want to say it sold in a Hunt's? Auction, I apologize to them if it wasn't them).

[rhettyeakley]

Felt un-lazy for a moment and found the old thread...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=201147&page=2

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Actually D350-1 is the correct number that the ACC gave the E121 like cards but they didn't catalog the E135 like version at all and had the M101-5 like version listed as D350-2. I think over time we have always cataloged them chronologically (which makes a lot more sense to me), so I have always referred to the M101-4/5 version as D350-1, the E135 version as D350-2 and the E121 version as D350-3.

Thanks Rhett, I suspected as much, although I didn't know they missed the 1917 cards altogether. I wonder if the 1921's were discovered first; if so that is odd in that they are so much scarcer than the 1916's.

I too wondered if these were the ones discussed some time ago in that thread. I guess I hope so, rather than think that more were made.

[brianp-beme]

Here is a link to a thread practically a decade old that has some good images and write-up about the differences between the real and fake Henry Johnson stamped cards.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/15365...enry+a+johnson

Brian

[birdman42]

"...before it gets out of hand and somebody pays $10 for one of those fakes."

Those were the days.

[slidekellyslide]

I want to hear about Tom Hufford's success/failure rate with those 600 TTM autograph requests to Spring Training.