Fake common m101-4 OK'd by PSA

[BioCRN]

Here's a couple of mine for comparison, properly ID'd as a M101-5 for the blank back... The inner black border issue is very evident on the probable fake.

[Rhotchkiss]

Great explanation, thank you!

The grade given to a card is one thing -- its an opinion (whether we agree with it or not). But there is no excuse for a TPG, let alone the self-proclaimed "industry expert", to authenticate as real, fakes/reprints. For me, this is the #1, fundamental, most important function/job/obligation of a TPG.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

Here's a couple of mine for comparison, properly ID'd as a M101-5 for the blank back... The inner black border issue is very evident on the probable fake.

Very nice examples. Couldn’t the blank back version be either an M101-4 or M11-5 since Saier is the same number in both sets?

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

Very nice examples. Couldn’t the blank back version be either an M101-4 or M11-5 wind Saier is the same number in both sets?

Someone else might know, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about the sets to chime in on the issue, especially the M101 blank backs.

[Michael B]

On the originals the first base line and the 'runners line' (whatever it is officially called) are quite visible. On the 'fake/counterfeit' it is barely visible.

[nolemmings]

The differences are subtle and often very difficult to note. Fortunately, collectors do not seem to mind all that much, although I have seen some Ruth rookie card collectors get pretty fired up about it.

Generally speaking, the m101-5s are a little creamier in color and the m101-4 more white, especially on the back. I believe the stock used was just slightly different for the two sets, or at least the initial printing of m101-5. Here is another m101-5 Saier (SGC dated it wrong):


Here's an m101-4 Saier (not mine) that graded 6.5


Toning is also much more noticeable on the m101-5s, as seen by this Nunamaker, which I show as an example although the card numbers for him in the two sets are different which gives it away.

If you ever see an m101 with that kind of toning you can bet with confidence it is an m101-5.

[Baseball Rarities]

Hi Todd, not to hijack this thread, but what are your thoughts on these M101-4 cards? I saved this image somewhere along the line because I felt that they looked more like M101-5s as opposed to M101-4s.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Hi Todd, not to hijack this thread, but what are your thoughts on these M101-4 cards? I saved this image somewhere along the line because I felt that they looked more like M101-5s as opposed to M101-4s.

Not to hijack Todd's eventual response, as he is rightfully the ultimate judge on these sets, but after getting out the old magnifying glass to confirm the numbers shown on the graded cards:

Bender #13 (Bender not in M101-5 set)
Johnson #91 is M101-4 number (M101-5 is 90)
Cicotte #32 (M101-5 is 31)
Sisler #164 (M101-5 is 166)
Collins #34 (M101-5 is 33)

Adams #1 Either set
Rucker #148 Either set
Daubert #43 (M101-5 is 44)
Demaree #45 (M101-5 is 47)
Cady #25 (m101-5 is 23)
Vaughn #178 (M101-5 is 180)
Stallings #167 (M101-5 is 169)
Tesreau #173 (M101-5 is 175)

Brian

[KCRfan1]

Ben,

Why should you be expected to pay for the card if it's counterfit?

Ebay should back you on this and I would hope a reasonable seller would as well.

Or I could be expecting too much from both parties.....

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Not to hijack Todd's eventual response, as he is rightfully the ultimate judge on these sets, but after getting out the old magnifying glass to confirm the numbers shown on the graded cards:

Hi Brian - Thanks for the response, but I should have worded my question better. All of these cards come from a single M101-4 find, but the toning on them threw me off. I have always associated cards like these with the M101-5 set, but these are M101-4s. I was curious how common it is to find M101-4s with this sort of toning.