N284 Buchner Gold Coin Checklist Add?

[RCMcKenzie]

Jonathan, let's say I was a lawyer and decided to take your side... I believe your strongest argument is that it is a unique pose, and I agree it is unusual for a new subject to "pop-up" after all these years. I agree that the card is not ready to be checklisted. We need more information.

Here is an actor/celeb card from ebay's "macyjordy" next to a Von Der Ahe I have. These look similar in design and unlike the baseball players.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Jonathan, let's say I was a lawyer and decided to take your side... I believe your strongest argument is that it is a unique pose, and I agree it is unusual for a new subject to "pop-up" after all these years. I agree that the card is not ready to be checklisted. We need more information.

Here is an actor/celeb card from ebay's "macyjordy" next to a Von Der Ahe I have. These look similar in design and unlike the baseball players.

I do agree that the two cards in your post look very much like they cold have been drawn by the same artist. And it shows that the Von der ahe has another card from the set with a similar pose. That would leave the Wood as the only card from the set with no other card using the same pose. And as I stated before many issues of the time used a similar sliding pose on a very small percentage of players.
As for the unique pose being the strongest argument Again I agree it is up there.But it is the large number of inconsistencies that convinced me. When it was first posted all I said (and I was not the first ) was I did not like the look of the front. Then the back was posted and I downloaded the image and looked closer.
But I hope the OP brings it to a show soon where it can be looked at and this thread can be put to bed.
Happy collecting Jonathan

[1880nonsports]

there are reasonable questions and now there's a serious red flag at least for me - after looking over the initial part of this thread again I saw where the back was posted - don't know how I missed it - I can't figure out how part of the pencil pricing could be missing - if that's a paper pull OR excess paper (has to be one or the other - looks like excess paper) the writing would have to be there before it was obscured/pulled (gluing). At what point after it's manufacture would it have been procured to be priced (have value) and subsequently glued into something and then removed? That part makes little sense if in fact it's the actual card back. I'm assuming the OP didn't have the card in hand and someone sent him pictures? He apparently hasn't said anything. I'm going to look this over again tomorrow. I should have told you going into this that only my wife is ever right I might be coming over to your side now John and I'd be scared if I were you!

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

there are reasonable questions and now there's a serious red flag at least for me - after looking over the initial part of this thread again I saw where the back was posted - don't know how I missed it - I can't figure out how part of the pencil pricing could be missing - if that's a paper pull OR excess paper (has to be one or the other - looks like excess paper) the writing would have to be there before it was obscured/pulled (gluing). At what point after it's manufacture would it have been procured to be priced (have value) and subsequently glued into something and then removed? That part makes little sense if in fact it's the actual card back. I'm assuming the OP didn't have the card in hand and someone sent him pictures? He apparently hasn't said anything. I'm going to look this over again tomorrow. I should have told you going into this that only my wife is ever right I might be coming over to your side now John and I'd be scared if I were you!

I guess my question is, why does the dollar sign have to be in relation the pricing of the card? I have cards with all kinds of writing on the back. Couldn't it merely be someone scribbling something unrelated to the card itself?

[packs]

It would not make sense for the card to have a blank back and be issued as the other known cards were. It would also not make sense for the card to appear on an advertising piece and then not be issued with the set.

I think someone made a fantasy card for reasons we'll never know. If the set was produced prior to the start of the 1887 season, Steve Toole had only played 13 career games before inclusion. I don't know the careers of the other common players, but had anyone had a briefer career?

[1880nonsports]

many years ago - the guy had played but a game or two IIRC (Unglaub?).
As to the writing on the back - some of it appears to be UNDER a scrap of paper - how would that happen - when something is priced it is never glued BACK into an album - see above..... I give up at this point leaning in the direction of not a real GG card but damned if I can make sense of it either way. If proven it IS a fantasy card I would like to buy Jonathan dinner and a brew at next years national for his impressive spidey senses as I would have taken the bet he offered Jay. I suppose we may never know? Surprising Jeff has not posted again...…...

[barrysloate]

I don't have an opinion on whether or not this card is real, simply because it is too difficult to authenticate off a scan. As almost everyone has said, I'd have to have the card in hand to make a determination.

But I disagree that this is too minor for someone to counterfeit it. I think any time you find a new player in a long catalogued set, that is a very big deal. I get it that N284 is not the most widely collected and respected 19th century set, but could you imagine the excitement if an uncatalogued player was discovered in the N172 set? That's front page news.

And if the Toole was real and placed in an auction, and two or three well heeled collectors who had complete or near complete N284 sets decided to go head to head, I would expect it to achieve a very big number.

But of course it has to be real first.

[Cozumeleno]

I'd agree with that, Barry - minor, inconsequential player but a pack-issued card of him would definitely sell for a lot of money.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I don't have an opinion on whether or not this card is real, simply because it is too difficult to authenticate off a scan. As almost everyone has said, I'd have to have the card in hand to make a determination.

But I disagree that this is too minor for someone to counterfeit it. I think any time you find a new player in a long catalogued set, that is a very big deal. I get it that N284 is not the most widely collected and respected 19th century set, but could you imagine the excitement if an uncatalogued player was discovered in the N172 set? That's front page news.

And if the Toole was real and placed in an auction, and two or three well heeled collectors who had complete or near complete N284 sets decided to go head to head, I would expect it to achieve a very big number.

But of course it has to be real first.

I gathered from the OP that he got the card for a song without realizing that it was anything but a Buchner common until he looked it up in Lemke's book and realized it was uncatalogued. He could clear that up if I'm wrong.

TPG's don't grade uncatalogued cards as far as I know. As has been said, if it is made in the style of 19th printing, it would be very expensive, if it's just a computer image, it would be very cheap.

Why not make the unknown 25th T227 card instead of a very obscure subject from an uncollected set. To "complete the set" as stated on the ad backs, you need all the actors and police captains. I would hazard a guess that no one has ever completed the whole set. The pops on some of these cards are very low.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by 1880nonsports

there are reasonable questions and now there's a serious red flag at least for me - after looking over the initial part of this thread again I saw where the back was posted - don't know how I missed it - I can't figure out how part of the pencil pricing could be missing - if that's a paper pull OR excess paper (has to be one or the other - looks like excess paper) the writing would have to be there before it was obscured/pulled (gluing). At what point after it's manufacture would it have been procured to be priced (have value) and subsequently glued into something and then removed? That part makes little sense if in fact it's the actual card back. I'm assuming the OP didn't have the card in hand and someone sent him pictures? He apparently hasn't said anything. I'm going to look this over again tomorrow. I should have told you going into this that only my wife is ever right I might be coming over to your side now John and I'd be scared if I were you!

But why would a counterfeiter write a price on the back of the card, then glue it to something, then tear it off again? Wouldn't they just glue it to something and then pull it off again. And if it's fake and they did glue it to something then pull it off then they were really thinking a lot about aging this fake card. But if they were trying to age it (or damage it) so much, why does the front look so nice? I'm just being devil's advocate here. I'm leaning slightly towards the card being fake at this point, but still wonder about this stuff regarding it possibly being real too.