N284 Buchner Gold Coin Checklist Add?

[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.

[RCMcKenzie]

Anson, forgive my ignorance on this question, do tpg's acknowledge your checklists? You have a great site and thank you for it. If someone like FKW finds a new T214 does he go to you now that Mr. Lemke has passed on? Is there an "official" checklist anymore?

Let's say, without further ado, the OP sends it to LOTG and Al comes on here and says, "no pixels." Doesn't the card still have major concerns? I might throw in a bid of like $200.

[packs]

All I would expect the TPG to tell me is whether or not the card was skinned. It cannot possibly be deemed both authentic and not skinned, because Buchners were not issued blank backed. If a TPG determined the card IS skinned, I would be interested in knowing how that assessment was made, considering the card is not described by the OP as being thin.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by packs

All I would expect the TPG to tell me is whether or not the card was skinned. It cannot possibly be deemed both authentic and not skinned, because Buchners were not issued blank backed. If a TPG determined the card IS skinned, I would be interested in knowing how that assessment was made, considering the card is not described by the OP as being thin.

I actually do think the OP described the card as thin. It may be worded incorrectly, but his Post #22 says the card is '50%' of the card weight. I took that mean 50% of the thickness of a regular card. Maybe he meant to say 50% 'more than' the weight of a standard card but the way it was worded indicates the opposite.

That was the one thing that stood out to me as different as the poster cuts I've seen/seen described, including mine, have been a thicker consistency. That said, I haven't seen a blank-backed poster cut in person, either, so can't speak to those.

[packs]

I guess it could be read either way. I personally read it as meaning it was 50% thicker, but I can see how it could also be worded in such a way that it was thinner. I assumed thicker because the OP mentioned how the size was larger than it should be.

[Cozumeleno]

Got it - yeah, I'm not sure, either. I took it as the opposite but seems unclear.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Anson, forgive my ignorance on this question, do tpg's acknowledge your checklists? You have a great site and thank you for it. If someone like FKW finds a new T214 does he go to you now that Mr. Lemke has passed on? Is there an "official" checklist anymore?

Let's say, without further ado, the OP sends it to LOTG and Al comes on here and says, "no pixels." Doesn't the card still have major concerns? I might throw in a bid of like $200.

Hi RCM -

I had success in helping to get the W542 strip card set labeled as such by PSA. A reader pointed them to my site and they now slab those cards as W542. Before, I think they had just been labeling them as generic or something. I also sent Beckett some info on a football postcard set where they were missing a card from the checklist that I had. They agreed it should be there and updated their checklist. But I can't say what else, if anything, TPGs have used it for.

I always gladly take checklist/set information, inaccuracies, and whatever else anyone cares to send my way. I've had many collectors email me with info, including cards that weren't checklisted before. I'm not presumptuous enough to call it the checklist of record or anything like that. But I do want it to be accurate as I know quite a few collectors use it. It's a one-man operation so I know it has errors just from the sheer amount of sets covered. My goal is just to make it as complete and accurate as I can.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

Anson, forgive my ignorance on this question, do tpg's acknowledge your checklists? You have a great site and thank you for it. If someone like FKW finds a new T214 does he go to you now that Mr. Lemke has passed on? Is there an "official" checklist anymore?

Let's say, without further ado, the OP sends it to LOTG and Al comes on here and says, "no pixels." Doesn't the card still have major concerns? I might throw in a bid of like $200.

AND THERE IT IS.A 100% concrete reason why someone would create this card for Two Hundred Bucks. ( maybe it should read a 200% concrete reason). Because Maybe......
As for the pixels 48 leafs fakes are printed 82 Ripkin fakes are printed, why not print this?
I took the OP post about card stock to mean it was on what looked like normal card stock but weighed about half what a real gold coin should. Which to me raised a Red Flag.
Maybe I am a skeptic and raise the Red Fag quickly ( but to be fair someone else raised one 2 hours before me) but I believe it is better to stand ready with the red flag than to hang the lollipop flag out.

[packs]

I am happy to be wrong because a new card this late in the game is an awesome find, but I just can't get past the fact that the front does not look right to me at all. Respect all opinions, but I do not see an authentic Buchner when I look at the image of the front.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by packs

I am happy to be wrong because a new card this late in the game is an awesome find, but I just can't get past the fact that the front does not look right to me at all. Respect all opinions, but I do not see an authentic Buchner when I look at the image of the front.

Crap am I really agreeing with you twice this year???

[chalupacollects]

Damn, was wondering why this thread has been still at the top. Now I'm hooked on what the card turns out to be!

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

AND THERE IT IS.A 100% concrete reason why someone would create this card for Two Hundred Bucks. ( maybe it should read a 200% concrete reason). Because Maybe......
As for the pixels 48 leafs fakes are printed 82 Ripkin fakes are printed, why not print this?
I took the OP post about card stock to mean it was on what looked like normal card stock but weighed about half what a real gold coin should. Which to me raised a Red Flag.
Maybe I am a skeptic and raise the Red Fag quickly ( but to be fair someone else raised one 2 hours before me) but I believe it is better to stand ready with the red flag than to hang the lollipop flag out.

Anson, thanks for the reply.

Jonathan, the printing experts have stated it would cost a lot of money to make it appear like a 19th century card. I assume they mean it would cost more than $200. $200 is what it will probably cost to buy Jay and Henry dinner (ha-ha). Without anymore input from the OP, I'm going to lose interest in this topic. He hasn't offered it for sale that I know of, and I'm not 100% sure he even has it in hand at this point. Rob

[bigfanNY]

Agreed waiting with anticipation for update from OP but again it is not easy to get it in the hands of a few knowledgeable collectors unless you attend a decent sized card show. Maybe it will turn up at the national?
Maybe the OP will share his plans.
As for the printing cost it can vary widely. If image was taken from a previous source vs artist drawn ( I use that term loosely). So I would not rule out some level of printing.

[RCMcKenzie]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

Agreed waiting with anticipation for update from OP but again it is not easy to get it in the hands of a few knowledgeable collectors unless you attend a decent sized card show. Maybe it will turn up at the national?
Maybe the OP will share his plans.
As for the printing cost it can vary widely. If image was taken from a previous source vs artist drawn ( I use that term loosely). So I would not rule out some level of printing.

The biggest red flag to me is that he is less interested in the card that he posted than all of the posters in this thread. He ignored my question about where he found it. He didn't have to say "Big Ed's card shop in Kerrville." He could just say "card shop", but he didn't. He's in Cali per his id line. There are lots of experts around there.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

AND THERE IT IS.A 100% concrete reason why someone would create this card for Two Hundred Bucks. ( maybe it should read a 200% concrete reason). Because Maybe......
As for the pixels 48 leafs fakes are printed 82 Ripkin fakes are printed, why not print this?
I took the OP post about card stock to mean it was on what looked like normal card stock but weighed about half what a real gold coin should. Which to me raised a Red Flag.
Maybe I am a skeptic and raise the Red Fag quickly ( but to be fair someone else raised one 2 hours before me) but I believe it is better to stand ready with the red flag than to hang the lollipop flag out.

48 Leaf, the printing is so poor a kid with a potato and some ink could fake most of one (Thanks Terry Pratchett!)

82 Ripken fakes are modern printing duplicating modern printing and were done in quantity.

Making a single gold coin the old fashioned way? With the right sort of shading and mix of solid and halftone areas. (If it's halftone and not one of the earlier types)
That takes a lot. There are art lithographers who could do it, but I believe it would cost more than a couple hundred. Of course there's probably some kid in China who can knock them out for $5 each.

I'd still like to see a high res scan. If it's done recently, like anytime postwar, it will be obvious.

The only point that seems a red flag, is the image size on the card. It does seem odd that they'd make one that had an image size much different than normal. I don't know the set well enough to know if the image size varied a lot or was consistent.

[bigfanNY]

Thanks Steve:
The point I was trying to make was that the absence of pixels would not be enough to say that the card was produced in the 1880's. That there are a number of ways to produce a card like this using less expensive printing technology than 1887 period lithography with stone or metal plates.
I used the 1948 leaf and Ripkin rookie examples to show that even common fakes dont have pixels.
As I stated earlier similar fakes I have come across did not show pixels under a 15x loop.

[packs]

The Buchner's I've handled all have this creamy type of image on them. I don't know of another way to describe it other than "creamy". When I look at the scan provided by the OP I see a washed out image that doesn't have a lot in common with the Buchner's I've handled.