Fake or real?

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

What does the '68 Mantle measure side to side??

It's only juuuuuust short of 2.5 in. - about 1/32 in.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by ASF123

It's only juuuuuust short of 2.5 in. - about 1/32 in.

Q.E.D., in my book.

Everyone jumped on that Mantle pretty quickly, because it just didn't look right. The other cards certainly seem to pass the visual 'smell test' (yes, that makes no sense at all), so hopefully they are okay.

[ASF123]

Is there any known method of counterfeiting that would reproduce the dot patterns that make up the photos of cards from this era so well that it's virtually indistinguishable (to the admittedly untrained eye) from a real card?

When I load a hi-res photo of the 68T Mantle into the photo viewing software on my laptop and zoom in, the lack of a dot pattern is obvious, showing a different printing method. For the other two, I can't spot any readily noticeable differences. The only thing that occurs to me is that on the 64T Kubek and Terry, there are no dots, just a blank white space, for portions of the uniform that are close to the camera and in the sun (i.e. super ultra white). The Mantle has the dot pattern across his whole uniform, but so does Clete Boyer, who is also posed a little further away from the camera.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by ASF123

The only thing that occurs to me is that on the 64T Kubek and Terry, there are no dots, just a blank white space, for portions of the uniform that are close to the camera and in the sun (i.e. super ultra white). The Mantle has the dot pattern across his whole uniform, but so does Clete Boyer, who is also posed a little further away from the camera.

The other guys who've helped you have more experience than I do. But from my experience, this variation of patterns among different colored areas of the same card is common and totally normal.

As far as your other last question, I've never had a legit card w/ the right pixel patterns that didn't pass all the other typical "real" tests. But I'm also curious if it's ever happened out there.

[jingram058]

Technology has increased exponentially with everything, so it only stands to reason that fakery with baseball cards would improve as well, and that is the case. Fakes used to be obvious. Not so anymore. There are any number of high grade fakes out there. PSA and others have admitted this. Many get found out, but many others make it all the way through the grading process. Unfortunate but true. When something becomes valuable, let the games begin. Humans are only human after all, no matter how much experience you might have evaluating baseball cardboard cards, and the ego to go with it.

[ASF123]

Update: The seller, who seems to have a bit of a "quirky" communication style, has been apologetic and says he has refunded my money for the '68 and it should process in 24 hours. Also said I could keep the card to save on return postage and because he wouldn't sell it again anyway. He offered to refund all three if I wanted to return the '64 and the Mays as well.

Thank you very much to all who have given advice and weighed in. This board has been a huge help for me in navigating the current market after a long absence.

[jchcollins]

The giveaway to me on the '68 is the rather perfectly uniform slight rounding of all 4 corners. Most cards don't age that way.

[stlcardsfan]

Just today I thought I had a deal on this ‘65 Mantle. $100 on Craigslist. The pictures on the site and those texted to me had me hopeful, but after a 30 minute drive I knew it was a reprint the second I saw it in person.

[ASF123]

Interesting - how were you able to identify the fake '65? Same type of things as with the '68 above?

[jchcollins]

If you've collected for a long time and handled lots of vintage cards, you just know.

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

If you've collected for a long time and handled lots of vintage cards, you just know.

Well that doesn't help me much .

[stlcardsfan]

That’s true Andrew. Experience is the best defense. And even there it is hard to detect in an electronic image.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by ASF123

Well that doesn't help me much .

If you want to take a crash course on identifying fakes from a particular issue, pick up a handful of commons from that set. For example, if you're hunting down a '65 Mantle, buy a small mixed lot of 1965 Topps cards. Make sure a couple of them are Yankees, so you become familiar with the way Topps printed that logo and team name.

After you get the cards, spend some time with them. Handle them raw and thoroughly check them out. You'll pick up on things a camera/photo cannot properly capture - qualities such as texture, fine print details, and the way light reflects off the surface.

You're also likely to begin developing an "eye" for spotting photos of fakes.

The best thing about this approach: the cheap common was printed using the same materials/equipment as the expensive HOFer. The experience and knowledge gained with the dollar cards will translate well when you go to make more expensive purchases.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by ASF123

Well that doesn't help me much .

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be condescending or anything with that response. I just think it's true. If you've handled a considerable amount of vintage cards, that's way better preparation to spot fakes and reprints in person than spending 10x that amount of time looking at real vintage cards online. There is a certain texture to them, and even a certain smell. 1950's cards are different from prewar cards, and 1970's cards are different from 1950's cards. In many cases with fakes, the gloss and color on the surface of the cards can be way off, and if you've spent a lot of time flipping through stacks of mid or lower grade commons from the era in question, you are going to notice that kid of thing in a couple of seconds. Another thing that's much easier to see in person with older cards is the halftone dots that make up the pictures, from the printing process of the day. If you compare that in many cases to reprints or modern cards, you will see that they don't have this.

These kinds of things are what I mean. Of course it's more difficult now, when I grew up collecting you could walk into any one of about 3 or 4 cards shops locally and handle vintage cards. These days you would probably have to start by buying some of them online.

Since we are talking about the '65 Mantle - some things I would look for with fakes there is the white borders being too white, the card overall being too glossy, and that magenta / pink inner border at the bottom. Legit copies of this card can have some variation with how bright this pink is, but based on how it was printed - a fake or reprint is almost always going to get that slightly wrong. As mentioned already, get some common '65 Yankees and see how this border looks. Once you've seen a few, a fake one is going to stick out like a sore thumb. To me another dead giveaway with this card is some combination of what I just mentioned with dead nuts perfect centering. You just don't see it that often. The real card was frequently cut to be off-center, often times with some degree of tilt to the picture. Perfectly centered copies exist, sure, but if you have a random otherwise midgrade card that someone is selling on Craig's List or eBay, the odds of it being perfectly centered are kinda low. Most fakers get this wrong, since modern cards are generally much better consistently centered than their vintage predecessors.