Hey, pennant guys

[thetahat]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Fake spine. Looking at the stitching....

A. The vertical stitches are way too small/close together for Trench

B. The horizontal stitching at top and bottom of spine does not allow for a stick to go through

Trench never sewed them like this (nor did anyone else that I'm aware of).

Yep. You got it. Also I’m not sure this is cloth. The printing looks different, as if it is rubberized so that it wouldn’t crack. I think this pennant was reproduced at some point and this is one of them.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by thetahat

Yep. You got it. Also I’m not sure this is cloth. The printing looks different, as if it is rubberized so that it wouldn’t crack. I think this pennant was reproduced at some point and this is one of them.

Wow, that is scary good. Who in the world would have the capability to make something like this, and for what purpose? Would it be worth their while to make just one, and if there were more than one, wouldn't you experts have spotted them coming out on the market? On the other hand, M&N and others have put out some realistic repro/fantasy pennants, so I guess the technology is available. But I'm amazed someone could think they could get away with faking these and go to the trouble of doing it to make a few bucks. Of course, as we've seen in cards and autographs, where there's money to be made, anything's possible, so why not memorabilia, too?

[perezfan]

Good questions and observations, Hank!

Looking at the first picture of the full pennant, I can definitely see some puckering and cracking of the scroll portion. I am not sure about the "rubberized" graphics theory, as a result. Plus, all of his other pennants for sale are authentic. I know there are reproductions of this pennant, but think this one is authentic with a replaced spine.

I have seen countless pennants where the body of the pennant is perfect, but the spine has multiple moth nips and holes. For some reason, the bugs seemed to favor the spine portion for their "meal".

To me, it makes the most sense that this pennant was nicely stored away for most of its life (which would explain the lack of wear), but that moths got to the spine. I think someone replaced the spine at some point, and the "seamstress" simply didn't properly replicate the original style of stitching.

[murphusa]

College Basketball

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by murphusa

College Basketball

Gorgeous!

[Fballguy]

Originally Posted by murphusa

College Basketball

That same graphic appears on a fairly highly coveted late 60's Lew Alcindor pennant. Used to sell for in excess of $200 but there was a recent find of 20 or so. Not sure if that had any impact on sale price. Whoever has them hasn't flooded the market with them so maybe not.

[ooo-ribay]

I see the 1955 Dodgers pennant is no longer available. Did it sell or was it pulled?

[rlevy]

It was pulled within a couple of hours of when it was listed. I assumed it was for an off-eBay sale until I saw Greg's posting questioning its authenticity. So no way to know why it was pulled at this point.

Greg, are all these 1955 Brooklyn scroll pennants only made of cloth?

Rick

[thetahat]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Good questions and observations, Hank!

Looking at the first picture of the full pennant, I can definitely see some puckering and cracking of the scroll portion. I am not sure about the "rubberized" graphics theory, as a result. Plus, all of his other pennants for sale are authentic. I know there are reproductions of this pennant, but think this one is authentic with a replaced spine.

I have seen countless pennants where the body of the pennant is perfect, but the spine has multiple moth nips and holes. For some reason, the bugs seemed to favor the spine portion for their "meal".

To me, it makes the most sense that this pennant was nicely stored away for most of its life (which would explain the lack of wear), but that moths got to the spine. I think someone replaced the spine at some point, and the "seamstress" simply didn't properly replicate the original style of stitching.

The seller is a good guy, I have bought from him before. I think it’s a genuine mistake. These are very good repros. I’ve seen these before. Below are pics of the scroll on (a) authentic and (b) the one in question. There are clear differences. (I have three of these and the scrolls all match.) You can see it with “ALSTON, Mgr.” and the alignment of “NEWCOMBE and WALKER” for example. Mark, I see the puckering you see but I think that’s from the material bring felt and not thin smooth cloth. I don’t see any cracking.

So that doesn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it isn’t circa 1955, just that it’s a different screen, and I’m not sure why there would be two different with the same names … just my opinion

[thetahat]

Here are a couple other versions of the ebay pennant, note the similar stitching and the use of blue threading on the back (which should be red). The third link is to an authentic '55. Can also see a difference with respect to the placement of the year.

https://auction.lelands.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=88844

https://www.josportsinc.com/products...mpions-pennant

https://www.ebay.com/itm/16566251892...4AAOSwOY1jF3j1

[Domer05]

I was inclined to agree with Mark's explanation: most likely, someone sewed a new replacement spine + tassels to a genuine '55 pennant. Why not? You've got a perfect, otherwise mint pennant that will sell for crazy money; but for some unsightly moth bites on the spine. Easy fix: swap out the spines. (Only us pennant nerds would notice!).

Sidenote: I always wondered why moths seemed to like spines and tassels over other parts. The reason is the spines + tassels were made with genuine wool even in the 1950s and 60s. That wasn't always true for the bodies, which were typically wool/rayon blends by the 1950s. So, if you were a moth, you wouldn't waste your time with the bodies unless it was a ca. 1910s pennant made from 100% wool.

Anyway, then I looked at the screen printed graphics and noted something that gave me pause. According to my research on Trench, and my conversations with Mr. Storm himself, these pennants were made a certain way. First they screen printed the graphics in white (called an underbase). Then, they applied all secondary and tertiary colors via an airbrush + blockout stencil.

I'm not sure I see evidence of this process/look on this '55 pennant.... The pink in the bum's shirt looks like it was printed using pink (not white) paint. We can even see evidence of the royal blue shining through it, because they used unleaded (contemporary) paint, which lacked the opacity that Trench's white leaded paints were known for. That's why both the white scroll and the pink shirt look a little blotchy.

Just an observation. I hope I'm wrong ... because it's a convincing reproduction and it would fool many a buyer.

[thetahat]

Another thing that jumps out is that the black in Emmet’s derby and beard is jet black on the eBay pennant, the authentic versions like all with the bum have more a granite shade.

Also … you’ll love this … Emmet’s eyebrows are supposed to match his hair (gray). The eBay pennant has EK with black brows.

[thetahat]

Originally Posted by Domer05

I was inclined to agree with Mark's explanation: most likely, someone sewed a new replacement spine + tassels to a genuine '55 pennant. Why not? You've got a perfect, otherwise mint pennant that will sell for crazy money; but for some unsightly moth bites on the spine. Easy fix: swap out the spines. (Only us pennant nerds would notice!).

Sidenote: I always wondered why moths seemed to like spines and tassels over other parts. The reason is the spines + tassels were made with genuine wool even in the 1950s and 60s. That wasn't always true for the bodies, which were typically wool/rayon blends by the 1950s. So, if you were a moth, you wouldn't waste your time with the bodies unless it was a ca. 1910s pennant made from 100% wool.

Anyway, then I looked at the screen printed graphics and noted something that gave me pause. According to my research on Trench, and my conversations with Mr. Storm himself, these pennants were made a certain way. First they screen printed the graphics in white (called an underbase). Then, they applied all secondary and tertiary colors via an airbrush + blockout stencil.

I'm not sure I see evidence of this process/look on this '55 pennant.... The pink in the bum's shirt looks like it was printed using pink (not white) paint. We can even see evidence of the royal blue shining through it, because they used unleaded (contemporary) paint, which lacked the opacity that Trench's white leaded paints were known for. That's why both the white scroll and the pink shirt look a little blotchy.

Just an observation. I hope I'm wrong ... because it's a convincing reproduction and it would fool many a buyer.

It has fooled many buyers, see the link to the one in the Leland’s auction.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by thetahat

Here are a couple other versions of the ebay pennant, note the similar stitching and the use of blue threading on the back (which should be red). The third link is to an authentic '55. Can also see a difference with respect to the placement of the year.

The comparison clinches it, no doubt. Now the question is, why was it made? And that's where the scary part comes in: I hope we're not in for a generation of repros good enough to be floating around shows and auctions without question.

[thetahat]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

The comparison clinches it, no doubt. Now the question is, why was it made? And that's where the scary part comes in: I hope we're not in for a generation of repros good enough to be floating around shows and auctions without question.

Good question. It’s not a Mitchell and Ness which usually leaves enough of a difference in the graphics to know it’s a repro. I think these were made to be passed off as real. As for repros to pass as “real”, yes they can fool the casual collector who wants a neat display for his favorite team, but I’d think that all of us here could tell by feel if not sight.

Of course it’s the casual collector who plays a significant role in determining value (or lack thereof) …

[Fballguy]

The seller is a good guy. I've bought many pennants from him and he seems to get quite rare ones too. The spine and tassels are obviously wrong, but I wouldn't have suspected anything off with the body, unless maybe I held it in hand.

[Duluth Eskimo]

This pennant has been sold as “genuine” for years. I have pointed this out to auction houses, eBay sellers, etc all to no avail. This pennant was made in the 80’s - 90’s, but I don’t have any details. The only thing that makes sense is a Mitchell & Ness from their earliest production. Mitchell & Ness made very high quality reproductions and sold them along with their jerseys in their catalogs. I used to have an account with them and would buy jerseys to get autographed. There are other pennants too (black 59 White Sox, etc) that get too passed off as authentic. They generally only reproduced very rare desirable pennants that most collectors could never find. You need to remember that the only place you could find pennants back in the day was at shows or antique shows. There were no auctions with photographs for the most part. We take for granted the 1000’s of pennants you scroll through on eBay every day. Anyways, this is a repro.