N284 Buchner Gold Coin Checklist Add?

[1880nonsports]

still don't see it. You can get as worked up as you want and repeat yourself a dozen times. Neither one of us has the card in hand. Anomalies are just that. I can point out a dozen in the set. Nobody was trying to introduce a new card into the hobby that has no real value in an unpopular "set" (poster cards, cut cards, cards with backs). I am NOT saying it IS real. I'm saying more likely than not that it is. That's an OPINION. You say your comments are all factual yet just like me you don't have it in hand. Not like it's a blatant forgery that's easily pointed out. Jeff finds many unusual items as he searches the globe - mainly in Europe I believe. Not impossible this is an actual item - maybe a proof - a card that never was - something from an image on a trade card.

[1880nonsports]

why? Why that one - why did he try and fail? Strange set and person to chose for the forger - nothing easier for them to tackle? Why oh why? BTW - while I'm at it - he took the time and the obvious skills and he couldn't think to replicate something like the laces or copy the right uniform? He ran out of time? He forgot? He wasn't too smart? That's some leap - hope there are flower petals at the bottom.

[bigfanNY]

Why did he fail? He failed because the folks that drew the original Gold Coins were pretty good at it. Laces ears baseball no belt loops...many inconsistencies. And he was NOT trying to duplicate a card he was trying to produce a product that has value because it MIGHT BE SOMETHING....

And the Facts are Wrong size Wrong Back. Wrong card stock.
But one person here has even stated that even if it TPG's refused to holder it he would still believe it's good?? ...

And I am sure the person who produced the card is really enjoying this thread. Look at back how edges are dark from trying to force age if it was pasted in a scrapbook like the back indicates wouldn't the front have aged faster than the back? And the dollar sign written on the back is a wonderful subliminal message.

[RCMcKenzie]

Jon, It would be easier to follow your position if you claimed it was an elaborate hoax to fool hobby experts. It's not a shoddy fake to make a quick buck off of rube, casual ebay collectors such as myself.. It's not a "manner of Cezanne" painting or an AG Anson, it's a Charles Jacque in a dead ringer manner of Jacque, a Buchner common.Rob

[oldjudge]

A one minute look at the card with a loope will tell if the card is good or not. My sense is that there is no economic incentive to forge a card like this, and it looks like most Buchners. My bet is that it was produced by Buchner, not a forger.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

A one minute look at the card with a loope will tell if the card is good or not. My sense is that there is no economic incentive to forge a card like this, and it looks like most Buchners. My bet is that it was produced by Buchner, not a forger.

Well if you are up to a friendly bet then how about lunch at next years National when it is in our backyard? Plenty of time to work out authentication.... No gloating or flexing just a friendly conversation about 19th century issues with the guy who picked wrong picking up the check.

[bigfanNY]

RC although it might be easier to follow It is what it is. One of a group of cards produced to generate money. I am not one of the 500 lawyers Leon says are on this board. But I know if you reprint/ counterfeit cards you sell them and get cought there are specific fraud statutes that can be promlamatic. If you produce cards like this it is part of a "fantasy" set. And this is not a $50 or $100 one card problem. Hundreds of folks are burned every year with similar cards.
5 decades of roaming through flea markets ( even a couple in Europe) card shows paper, postcard, Antique shows. I have seen many items that first impression was $$ only to be disapointed when I looked closer. And even worse paid money then took it home and looked closer and was disappointed. Really I dont care if any of the deep pockets that have come out and said "it looks good to me" buy this card or a hundred like it. My concern is guy or worse kid in hobby out there hunting and falling into this type of trap. It hurts and if all I did was make a few folks look a little closer at their "find" I am ok with that. I have nothing in this and no personal grudge against anyone on board. But over the past few years I sent PM's to folks I thought had problem cards. Most said thanks and looked closer but a couple ended up getting passed on to other collectors. And I dont want to do that anymore.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

RC although it might be easier to follow It is what it is. One of a group of cards produced to generate money. I am not one of the 500 lawyers Leon says are on this board. But I know if you reprint/ counterfeit cards you sell them and get cought there are specific fraud statutes that can be promlamatic. If you produce cards like this it is part of a "fantasy" set. And this is not a $50 or $100 one card problem. Hundreds of folks are burned every year with similar cards.
5 decades of roaming through flea markets ( even a couple in Europe) card shows paper, postcard, Antique shows. I have seen many items that first impression was $$ only to be disapointed when I looked closer. And even worse paid money then took it home and looked closer and was disappointed. Really I dont care if any of the deep pockets that have come out and said "it looks good to me" buy this card or a hundred like it. My concern is guy or worse kid in hobby out there hunting and falling into this type of trap. It hurts and if all I did was make a few folks look a little closer at their "find" I am ok with that. I have nothing in this and no personal grudge against anyone on board. But over the past few years I sent PM's to folks I thought had problem cards. Most said thanks and looked closer but a couple ended up getting passed on to other collectors. And I dont want to do that anymore.

It's some other guy's card. I don't know if it's fake or not. You think it's fake. I think it's possible that it's not. I pointed out some reasons, you pointed out your reasons. I don't know what else to say. My dad is a lawyer, but he collects silver and doesn't really know about cards. Take care.

[insidethewrapper]

Jay is right, get out a loupe and check the dot pattern to see if it's a modern card or not.

[buchner]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

still don't see it. You can get as worked up as you want and repeat yourself a dozen times. Neither one of us has the card in hand. Anomalies are just that. I can point out a dozen in the set. Nobody was trying to introduce a new card into the hobby that has no real value in an unpopular "set" (poster cards, cut cards, cards with backs). I am NOT saying it IS real. I'm saying more likely than not that it is. That's an OPINION. You say your comments are all factual yet just like me you don't have it in hand. Not like it's a blatant forgery that's easily pointed out. Jeff finds many unusual items as he searches the globe - mainly in Europe I believe. Not impossible this is an actual item - maybe a proof - a card that never was - something from an image on a trade card.

HENRY......Not unpopular with me

[bigfanNY]

So if your argument is that it is too expensive to create fake. Then Why would Buchner create one card in a different size than all the tens of thousands they produced? Given the size of pack specific size had to be followed. And on different card stock.
And if you say it could be cut from a sheet then your single card argument goes out the window. Because a sheet full a fakes definitely is worthwhile.
If anyone this weekend found a similar card and looked online ge could find a checklist that lists this card. Now the owner of site says he has not verified the card in the fine print. But the checklist has the card. This makes me sad.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

So if your argument is that it is too expensive to create fake. Then Why would Buchner create one card in a different size than all the tens of thousands they produced? Given the size of pack specific size had to be followed. And on different card stock.
And if you say it could be cut from a sheet then your single card argument goes out the window. Because a sheet full a fakes definitely is worthwhile.
If anyone this weekend found a similar card and looked online ge could find a checklist that lists this card. Now the owner of site says he has not verified the card in the fine print. But the checklist has the card. This makes me sad.

Judging by the harsh tone of your other posts, I realize your entire point is to elicit a reaction so that's fine. That's what happens on message boards. I'll play along with a single response.

I listed the card in the checklist on my site because the owner stated it had the same back as a regular Buchner card. As others have pointed out, there's no reason to really suspect foul play here. This is not an otherwise important card. The card's front looked legit to me from the front. It still does. You have a different opinion and you're entitled to that opinion. As others have stated, it is an opinion no less or more valid than ours. You can continue to state ad nauseam that it is but that does not make it so.

I removed the card from the checklist after the owner stated here that it had a blank back. And your 'fine print' statement is at best, wildly inaccurate, and at worst, entirely wrong. The statement mentions this thread in the regular article text, same font, same size. It's hardly fine print by anyone's definition. And if that 'makes you sad', I encourage you to visit other sites. There are plenty of them out there. Enjoy.

My firm belief is that it is a poster cut. For one thing, as I wrote in an article recently, there are more than one Buchner posters that were printed, even within the style that has print on the front. That was proven as I recently found a card with lettering on it that did not match up to the sole poster example I have personally seen (it's actually on the Net54 site). For another thing, as others have stated, there are plenty of Buchner poster cuts out there. They are not exceptionally scarce. And for another thing, there are other examples of cards that were printed that did not make their way into sets. That's not even considering things like extreme shortprints that were quickly pulled from production like the two cards in the T227 set. That a card could exist on a poster that was not subsequently put into production is hardly a surprise to me.

Again, you are of the belief the card is not legitimate. And you may vehemently disagree with everything I just stated. Again, that's perfectly fine. Perhaps you are right and perhaps not. But to try to bully your thinking into everyone else is irrational and hurling insults because everyone isn't on your side is silly.

[bigfanNY]

First last night just before the post I looked at your site for the first time and the Toole was still listed in the checklist. I just looked now and it is gone that is all the response I was trying to elicit.
Second you point out all the known ad cards that this is similar to but forget to mention that the size is wrong and dose not match up to any other example.
What was the reason for the one off?
Like many of the responses you point out an example of an inconsistency that is similar to the OP card.( but the quality of the pic is poor so tough to be sure) but even if You buy into that. Why are there so many inconsistencies on one card?
Combine that with size being wrong, card stock and appearance of back.
As for hurling insults I dont think I responded to anyone personally. This is not a personal thing this is a fake card thing.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

First last night just before the post I looked at your site for the first time and the Toole was still listed in the checklist. I just looked now and it is gone that is all the response I was trying to elicit.
Second you point out all the known ad cards that this is similar to but forget to mention that the size is wrong and dose not match up to any other example.
What was the reason for the one off?
Like many of the responses you point out an example of an inconsistency that is similar to the OP card.( but the quality of the pic is poor so tough to be sure) but even if You buy into that. Why are there so many inconsistencies on one card?
Combine that with size being wrong, card stock and appearance of back.
As for hurling insults I dont think I responded to anyone personally. This is not a personal thing this is a fake card thing.

I promised myself ahead of time that I would keep this to one response. But you've stated a few inaccuracies that cannot be let go.

If you looked at the checklist last night and saw Toole still there, it was merely a cache issue with your computer as I removed the name several days ago. Either your computer's cache was very behind, you're mistaken, or you are blatantly making that up entirely. I am not sure which but I certainly did not wait until yesterday to remove the name. If I did, I'd have zero problem admitting it. The site is not my full time job.

Second, you absolutely did respond to people personally. In fact, virtually all of your responses here were in response to what someone else said. In one post, you demanded that the 'big guns' step up and do the right thing. In another, you indirectly called someone an idiot. In another, you mocked the OP for saying it was a period piece. Just because you didn't say their name? Come on. You ran around and took random shots at anyone that disagreed with you. It was rude and basically just uncalled for.

To your point about the design, so you basically took a card that looked similar but is clearly different, and determined that, since the two cards were not exactly alike that the one is obviously a fake. There are 143 cards in the set. If you look up all of the images of them on OC, you will see plenty of cards that are similar but not the same pose with plenty of discrepancies. And while the pose is not the same as any other in the set, neither are some others (i.e. Wood, Von Der Ahe, etc.).

You also seem hung up on this size and stock thing, so let's address that. There were at least three different types of posters. Your argument is that one card from any one poster is 1/8" taller so it's no good. I would be floored if all of the poster cuts were all exactly the same size. We're talking 1/8" here, not a full inch. And to the stock, how could you determine it is wrong without seeing the card in person? There are at the very least two, and more likely, three, different stocks based on this thread. The stock doesn't really tell us anything here if we can't see it in person.

You're entitled to your opinion and you may even be right. I do not believe you are but that's my own educated guess and nothing more. I could have this 100% wrong. Wouldn't be the first time by a long shot. But regardless of that, to say unequivocally that the card is an outright fake with so many variables seems just as reckless as you seem to think that saying it is real is.

[RCMcKenzie]

It would be helpful if the OP chimed in with some more info. Henry seemed to suggest that he knows of the OP as a seasoned collector. "Hey guys, I looked under a magnifying glass and it has pixels." or "hey all, found this at Piccadilly Circus in a non-sports scrapbook. Looks skinned."
I don't mind contrarian viewpoints. As a board soap opera, this thread seems mild. I sort of like "Buchner's" idea that the Toole and McClellan are not part of the set. One could also argue that the Van der ah is part of the celeb series and is not part of the baseball players set.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

I promised myself ahead of time that I would keep this to one response. But you've stated a few inaccuracies that cannot be let go.

If you looked at the checklist last night and saw Toole still there, it was merely a cache issue with your computer as I removed the name several days ago. Either your computer's cache was very behind, you're mistaken, or you are blatantly making that up entirely. I am not sure which but I certainly did not wait until yesterday to remove the name. If I did, I'd have zero problem admitting it. The site is not my full time job.

Second, you absolutely did respond to people personally. In fact, virtually all of your responses here were in response to what someone else said. In one post, you demanded that the 'big guns' step up and do the right thing. In another, you indirectly called someone an idiot. In another, you mocked the OP for saying it was a period piece. Just because you didn't say their name? Come on. You ran around and took random shots at anyone that disagreed with you. It was rude and basically just uncalled for.

To your point about the design, so you basically took a card that looked similar but is clearly different, and determined that, since the two cards were not exactly alike that the one is obviously a fake. There are 143 cards in the set. If you look up all of the images of them on OC, you will see plenty of cards that are similar but not the same pose with plenty of discrepancies. And while the pose is not the same as any other in the set, neither are some others (i.e. Wood, Von Der Ahe, etc.).

You also seem hung up on this size and stock thing, so let's address that. There were at least three different types of posters. Your argument is that one card from any one poster is 1/8" taller so it's no good. I would be floored if all of the poster cuts were all exactly the same size. We're talking 1/8" here, not a full inch. And to the stock, how could you determine it is wrong without seeing the card in person? There are at the very least two, and more likely, three, different stocks based on this thread. The stock doesn't really tell us anything here if we can't see it in person.

You're entitled to your opinion and you may even be right. I do not believe you are but that's my own educated guess and nothing more. I could have this 100% wrong. Wouldn't be the first time by a long shot. But regardless of that, to say unequivocally that the card is an outright fake with so many variables seems just as reckless as you seem to think that saying it is real is.

First you didn't just tell yourself that you were going to keep your response to one reply you stated it in your previous post. Which was like the 4th time you posted in the thread. But please do not limit yourself and keep on posting to the thread.
For clarity I never "demanded" anyone do anything. I responded to a post that said me stating the card was a fake and said that it was reckless and I said That I think saying the card looks good without examining the card in person was more reckless. When the OP who has clear vested interest said it was definitely a period piece with nothing to back that up. Yes I wrote LOl. I thought it was funny.
I think guessing having a hunch is fine But this thread says New Buchner not what is this? It is not a card that is part of the Buchner set. A few folks have chimed in and said the card needs to be examined closely. I 100% agree and did not respond to them but those that just chime in and say I think it comes from an imaginary sheet that no one has seen before again I think that is dangerous. It gives license to card fakers to keep em coming.
I can count and know my opinion is not the popular one but if I stop and the thread fades away and the card then Becomes a card cut from an unknown sheet that no one ever saw. And it gets passed on to another collector. I do not think that is the right thing to do. And you can call me Rude or any other name you like. But I think I am doing the right thing.
I will stop when 2 things happen, 1) the card is listed in the fake category based on the last couple of posts opinion is moved away from this card being part of Gold coin set. And 2) the thread title is edited to say Gold coin fake or unknown issue.
The size of the card is the size of the card. And 1/8 inch is significant. And larger I believe is more significant than smaller because as I stated before ciggarette pack size is a known so either the card fits or it dose not. As I stated I owned a 3 card strip of gold coins all St Louis players if I remember correctly and all matched up in size. So again saying that you can imagine a card from an imaginary sheet being a different size is in my opinion a very weak argument.
As for the fact this pose dose not match up and you say "Von der ahe" is a unique card
Yes that card was definitely a one off pose, But St. Louis was a big team in 1887 Old judge also did a series of "Champions" but Toole was not a significant figure. And again the Wood stealing base is consistent with Old judge and other issues of the day that used similar poses. This pose is different because it is so poorly drawn Ears, Baseball ...
The card stock looks artificially aged and the color not consistant with other cards cut from sheets (in my opinion) that is why I say stock dose not match up. Both of those things I can see from the picture and do not need to hold in my hand.But agree 100% in hand this should be a much easier decision.
So to sum this up I know mine is not popular opinion but I think sitting on the sideline in this case is the wrong thing to do.