Hey, pennant guys

[thetahat]

Based on appearance in the pics alone, I’m on the fence. The graphic is spot on identical. With a repro you can usually see differences but not here. But the creasing is odd and it didn’t crack the paint. Most notably, the stitching on the back is unusual for a pennant that old, although it’s similar to “Epstein”. It actually resembles a Keezer as far as how it was stitched and the appearance of the tassels.

Obviously it will take a collector 0.1 seconds to know for sure upon holding it.

[ooo-ribay]

Originally Posted by thetahat

Based on appearance alone, I’m on the fence. The graphic is spot on identical. But the creasing is odd and it didn’t crack the paint. Most notably, the stitching on the back is unusual for a pennant that old, although it’s similar to “Epstein”.
Obviously it will take a collector 0.1 seconds to know for sure upon holding it.

The creasing is what screams “synthetic crap” to me. When did the Worthpoint one sell, Marc?

[thetahat]

Another significant difference is how close/far the stitching is to the edges of the spine. That suggests these were not made at the same time.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by ooo-ribay

The creasing is what screams “synthetic crap” to me. When did the Worthpoint one sell, Marc?

Having sold the authentic red one not too long ago, I can assure you that Jason is right. The red one had that super thick, lush, soft vintage felt and a much different spine. The purple one is very clearly cheap modern synthetic and is not of the era.

Not sure how or why it was replicated, but whoever did it somehow pulled off the graphics flawlessly.

[MK]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Having sold the authentic red one not too long ago, I can assure you that Jason is right. The red one had that super thick, lush, soft vintage felt and a much different spine. The purple one is very clearly cheap modern synthetic and is not of the era.

Not sure how or why it was replicated, but whoever did it somehow pulled off the graphics flawlessly.

Well now it will be interesting to see if the winner returns it after examining it in person and if it pops up again on eBay.

[Duluth Eskimo]

The red one looks as a pennant from that era should. The stitching, suppleness, and wear all look the part. The graphics have that 80 year crackle look to them. To me, this does not appear to be a modern repro, rather a late 60’s version of the original. I have bought from that seller before and I don’t believe there was any nefarious intent, just a mistake.

[thetahat]

Originally Posted by Duluth Eskimo

The red one looks as a pennant from that era should. The stitching, suppleness, and wear all look the part. The graphics have that 80 year crackle look to them. To me, this does not appear to be a modern repro, rather a late 60’s version of the original. I have bought from that seller before and I don’t believe there was any nefarious intent, just a mistake.

I agree, this isn’t modern. The felt does look more like a 1960s Trench … thin but not stiff. But if this was old soft felt, and stored away folded for 70 years, it would likely show similar creases, wouldn’t it? And I can’t get past the identical screening. I can’t see even the slightest aberration. I’m like 60/40 in favor of fugazi. It’s an odd pennant to remake and who was doing that in the 1960s?

[ooo-ribay]

Originally Posted by thetahat

I agree, this isn’t modern. The felt does look more like a 1960s Trench … thin but not stiff. But if this was old soft felt, and stored away folded for 70 years, it would likely show similar creases, wouldn’t it? And I can’t get past the identical screening. I can’t see even the slightest aberration. I’m like 60/40 in favor of fugazi. It’s an odd pennant to remake and who was doing that in the 1960s?

I know a guy who can make almost any pennant….repro and fantasies. 🤫