1919 Reds Pennant

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by gratefuldog3

Me again, I just got home from a perfect day of hell at work to find three missed calls from the seller. As I was listening to my messages, he called again. He has read the thread and is as concerned as I am. Being a stand up guy he has already refunded my Paypal account, and wants me to open the package and take a peek. He's giving me the time I need to make a logical decision.Really, what else could I ask for? It would be great if all the bad talk about this guy would stop. He has been nothing but reasonable from the beginning. He even refused to end the auction early! I tried and I know one of you who have posted here offered him 1800.00 to do the same. Which I'm confused by, for obvious reasons. I do appreciate this thread. It's just a shame it didn't start until after I dropped the bomb. Oh well, no harm done. In review, seller did the right thing. I'm glad that for once my hunch in a person was correct.

I never posted anything bad specifically about the seller... just the item! I think he is probably a stand-up guy who was guilty only of being a trusting soul. He likely had no reason (or the necessary expertise) not to believe the person from which he acquired the pennant. The only thing he is guilty of is a bit of naivety and perhaps negligence (given the supposed high-ticket item he was selling). I wish every seller would go to the detail he did, regarding his description. The problem is not so much the seller, as it is the people feeding this deceiving material into the marketplace. It's kind of analogous to the illegal drug trade...

I am sorry we couldn't get you the necessary insight sooner, and draw these conclusions before the action closed. I could never see the photos on ebay (just red X's appeared) and a friend (Mike H.) had to email me the photo personally. So I saw it late in the game. If you look at my first post within this thread, you will see that I was just a bit leary at the start, and became convinced of its un-authenticity as the evidence mounted. Seeing the span between 1927 and 1958 really clinches the fact that these were made to commemorate "monumental" subject matter (way after the fact).

There is no way that these similarities (felt, materials, stenciling, font, stars, shape, red strip, etc.) would all be identical over a 31 year stretch. This isn't shocking... this has been going on with ad signs, broadsides, fans, and even card reprints for a long time (Max - I think you are the safest of us all, with vintage books!)

Anyway, I am sorry this info came out later than ideal, but at least I believe we helped you in the end. It is great that this seller has issued the PayPal credit so promptly. On a wider scope, I hope we've enlightened other collectors, so perhaps fewer people will be duped in the future. To me, that's what this forum is all about. I know that many people here have helped me on numerous occasions (and that's what makes this such a great resource!)

Thanks,
Mark

[baseballart]

"(Max - I think you are the safest of us all, with vintage books!)"

Even in books, there are issues, specifically with reproduction dust jackets. They are normally very easy to tell, but for some expensive books, I have heard of rogues who have used these with the intent to deceive.

Max

(Now if there were more of us interested in baseball books, other than me, Barry, Tom, Mike D. and ....anyone else? anyone???)

[barrysloate]

It's a dying art, Max.

[gratefuldog3]

I have to tell you, it looks really damn good. I can't believe someone would go through so much trouble to come up with this. If you put a price on time, who ever did this, almost earned the three grand. I wish you could all hold this in your hands, and see for yourselves. It really looks legit. If it wasn't for your posts,I would have never questioned it. So, thank you, and I know the seller thanks you too. Scott

[GoldenAge50s]

I just want to repeat a question from Post #22 that got lost in the shuffle of Scott coming forward as the Buyer.

Is it possible that the Cincy pennant is an authentic period creation & the Ruth & Negroe Lg of later vintage are just fake copycats?

The Sellers extensive close-up photos & Scott's reaction above make this more interesting to know your thoughts Mark, and others as well.

[mcgwirecom]

In the last pennant, the 1927 Yankees with the Ruth photo, I believe that photo is from the tour of Japan which I believe happened later than 1927.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by GoldenAge50s

I just want to repeat a question from Post #22 that got lost in the shuffle of Scott coming forward as the Buyer.

Is it possible that the Cincy pennant is an authentic period creation & the Ruth & Negroe Lg of later vintage are just fake copycats?

The Sellers extensive close-up photos & Scott's reaction above make this more interesting to know your thoughts Mark, and others as well.

It's possible I suppose, albeit a longshot. If the 1919 Cincy Pennant was the sole original, and the others are all more recent copycat/fantasy pieces... why would they choose that obscure style as their "template"? And how would they have access to the same exact felt, same stenciling, etc. 30+ years later?

A "stretch" theory (just speculating here...) Maybe these were all made up in the late '50s/early '60s to commemorate great players/teams of Baseball's History. They chose some awfully good subjects... 1919 Reds, Negro Leagues, 2 different Ruths, etc. This would explain why the pennant looks vintage to Gratefuldog, and would also explain the vast array of "epic" subject matter.

The materials do look old, but the historic details/timing pointed out in this thread preclude them from being original to the time period. So maybe they're somewhat vintage 1950s commemoratives, rather than items created specifically to deceive.

It's an interesting theory, but I still tend to believe they are fantasy pieces created for the sole purpose of making money in a manipulative manner.

[gratefuldog3]

What blows me away is the reverse of the piece. You can see what looks like natural bleeding through of the ink. That would take a hell of a long time to have a " stamp " bleed through a canvas type material. Also, the overall toning of the piece is remarkable. I really don't know what the hell to think. I was psyched.. If any of you guys live in the Boston area and you'd like to see the pennant, give me an e-mail and we'll try to hook up. I have until Monday to make my decision, and before anyone thinks anything derogatory, that was the date I gave the seller. He gave me a few weeks. I don't think I should take that long in fairness to him. Really is hard to conceive anyone would create this to deceive.

[baseballart]

I don't know if you're a member of the 1919 Black sox group on yahoo, but I can post a link to that group as well as to the SABR-L group to see if anyone not on net54 has seen an original of the 1919.

Max

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by gratefuldog3

Really is hard to conceive anyone would create this to deceive.

This has been a really interesting thread, and I hope whatever you decide works out for you. But I don't understand your statement above. The pennant sold for $3,000-plus. Doesn't that seem to be incentive for fraud? And I'm not suggesting the seller committed fraud or even knows that the pennant is a fake. But you've got to concede that when a crook sees an item that has about $10 in raw materials sell for this kind of money, it's easy to see how he'd conceive the idea to deceive.

Good luck with this.

[GoldenAge50s]

One other thing to consider is that 4 other bidders besides Gratefuldog bid over $550 for that pennant and judging by their other items bid on seemed to be possibly knowledgeable collectors of pennants & vintage baseball.

I'm positive the Seller wasn't expecting anything near the high bids it generated.

No doubt I'm convinced the last 3 are more recent poor copycats, but I still have this gut feeling the Cincy pennant has merit, even more so considering what Gratefuldog has said upon inspection.

I wish the real truth could be known.

[perezfan]

Well, believe what you like...

The overwhelming evidence points to these all being made at the same point in time. The style, workmanship and materials are all virtually identical. If you put all four together in a group, I don't think many people would single out the Reds Pennant as the higher quality original.

[rhettyeakley]

Regardless of whether it was a well done fake or not it doesn't change the fact that it is still fake. I don't doubt that you have vintage sack-cloth (or something like that) that these were made on, but the thing that looks really bogus to me is the actual stencilling of the letters and stars. The letters and stars look "worn" because there are portions of each letter that aren't as dark as the rest BUT it is not honest wear to ink that was applied to the surface 90 years ago. If you look at the letters most of the "wear" is on the inner portion or "middle of each letter (or star) which is just WAY too uniform of a wear pattern. In real life there would be areas of the pennant that exhibited more wear than others NOT areas of wear to each and every letter and star uniformly across the entire piece. Looks like way too much effort was put in to make the "antiqued" look for it to be honest wear. As soon as I saw the piece and took a step or two back it was painfully obvious this was done for one of two reasons...1.) to deceive, or 2.) to make a cool "period looking" piece that would display nicely (in other words a modern "craft".) Bottomline it just doesn't "look right", the other pennants are just icing on the cake. Get your money back and never look back!

PS--Barry thanks for noticing my "red flag" comment above, I couldn't help myself!

[sporteq]

WOW...some one got RIPPED OFF... I believe 100% it's a fake!! Nothing about the pennant looks vintage. Stay away from this type/style of pennant!!!

Have fun,
aL

[william_9]

I don't know enough about the subject matter to feel strongly one way or the other, but here are a couple of thoughts.....

For it being genuine folk art - it looks old and it's crude. It's very likely not a commercial product. Based on other known examples, the artist clearly had an interest in the subject and we can now see that there are other pieces to the puzzle. I'm wondering if all of these pieces may have once been sewn together to form something larger like a blanket or quilt? The technique looks naive and child like, as if it was made from scrap material for personal enjoyment. Also, the stitch style would suggest that it was tacked down to temporarily hold it's shape before a final sew on a machine. That's significant if were intended to be part of a larger piece.

For it being fake - in two words, bleed through. The dirty surface is somewhat expected but it looks overly dirty. The fact that ink bleeds through to the back suggests to me that it has taken a bath at some point, and not to get cleaned. Dirty + water damage always makes me suspect that something is up.

A simple test that may tell you something, or nothing, is to slightly trim some of the fray from the canvas and the felt and the thread. If it burns clean, then it's likely all natural fiber, and thus, likely old. If it burns and melts, it's newer. The odds of it containing synthetic fibers in the 1920's, I would think, be slim to none. The canvas and thread would be cotton and the felt would be wool. Of course, it could be made in the 1990's from salvaged materials from the 1920's. Who's to say for sure?

[gratefuldog3]

"Conceive the idea to deceive" If that's true, I'm disgusted. Everyone needs to see this.....I'm so confused......It really looks the part.