These 2 Boston cards have different uniforms. There are all kinds of oddball actors and celebrities and police captains that are part of the set.

nope
 

still don't see it. You can get as worked up as you want and repeat yourself a dozen times. Neither one of us has the card in hand. Anomalies are just that. I can point out a dozen in the set. Nobody was trying to introduce a new card into the hobby that has no real value in an unpopular "set" (poster cards, cut cards, cards with backs). I am NOT saying it IS real. I'm saying more likely than not that it is. That's an OPINION. You say your comments are all factual yet just like me you don't have it in hand. Not like it's a blatant forgery that's easily pointed out. Jeff finds many unusual items as he searches the globe - mainly in Europe I believe. Not impossible this is an actual item - maybe a proof - a card that never was - something from an image on a trade card.

"This is most likely the pose the faker was trying to repoduce"
 

why? Why that one - why did he try and fail? Strange set and person to chose for the forger - nothing easier for them to tackle? Why oh why? BTW - while I'm at it - he took the time and the obvious skills and he couldn't think to replicate something like the laces or copy the right uniform? He ran out of time? He forgot? He wasn't too smart? That's some leap - hope there are flower petals at the bottom.

Why did he fail? He failed because the folks that drew the original Gold Coins were pretty good at it. Laces ears baseball no belt loops...many inconsistencies. And he was NOT trying to duplicate a card he was trying to produce a product that has value because it MIGHT BE SOMETHING....

And the Facts are Wrong size Wrong Back. Wrong card stock.
But one person here has even stated that even if it TPG's refused to holder it he would still believe it's good?? ...

And I am sure the person who produced the card is really enjoying this thread. Look at back how edges are dark from trying to force age if it was pasted in a scrapbook like the back indicates wouldn't the front have aged faster than the back? And the dollar sign written on the back is a wonderful subliminal message.

Jon, It would be easier to follow your position if you claimed it was an elaborate hoax to fool hobby experts. It's not a shoddy fake to make a quick buck off of rube, casual ebay collectors such as myself.. It's not a "manner of Cezanne" painting or an AG Anson, it's a Charles Jacque in a dead ringer manner of Jacque, a Buchner common.Rob

A one minute look at the card with a loope will tell if the card is good or not. My sense is that there is no economic incentive to forge a card like this, and it looks like most Buchners. My bet is that it was produced by Buchner, not a forger.

RC although it might be easier to follow It is what it is. One of a group of cards produced to generate money. I am not one of the 500 lawyers Leon says are on this board. But I know if you reprint/ counterfeit cards you sell them and get cought there are specific fraud statutes that can be promlamatic. If you produce cards like this it is part of a "fantasy" set. And this is not a $50 or $100 one card problem. Hundreds of folks are burned every year with similar cards.
5 decades of roaming through flea markets ( even a couple in Europe) card shows paper, postcard, Antique shows. I have seen many items that first impression was $$ only to be disapointed when I looked closer. And even worse paid money then took it home and looked closer and was disappointed. Really I dont care if any of the deep pockets that have come out and said "it looks good to me" buy this card or a hundred like it. My concern is guy or worse kid in hobby out there hunting and falling into this type of trap. It hurts and if all I did was make a few folks look a little closer at their "find" I am ok with that. I have nothing in this and no personal grudge against anyone on board. But over the past few years I sent PM's to folks I thought had problem cards. Most said thanks and looked closer but a couple ended up getting passed on to other collectors. And I dont want to do that anymore.

Well if you are up to a friendly bet then how about lunch at next years National when it is in our backyard? Plenty of time to work out authentication.... No gloating or flexing just a friendly conversation about 19th century issues with the guy who picked wrong picking up the check.

It's some other guy's card. I don't know if it's fake or not. You think it's fake. I think it's possible that it's not. I pointed out some reasons, you pointed out your reasons. I don't know what else to say. My dad is a lawyer, but he collects silver and doesn't really know about cards. Take care.

Jay is right, get out a loupe and check the dot pattern to see if it's a modern card or not.

Jonathan-My area is now SoCal. If I am at next year's National you are on though.

Be well--Jay

Or a scan of any of the shaded areas at a high resolution. 400? 600Dpi ?
The difference between 1800's printing, mid 1900's, and computer printer is obvious.

I can maybe see someone good with an image editor making a "new" card and missing a few things. (Given the examples shown, I'm not seeing much difference in the shoes) But to then go and get that image printed the old fashioned way? Just not seeing that, the cost would be more than the card is worth.
The image shown doesn't have enough detail to know.

Buchner
 

HENRY......Not unpopular with me :)

So if your argument is that it is too expensive to create fake. Then Why would Buchner create one card in a different size than all the tens of thousands they produced? Given the size of pack specific size had to be followed. And on different card stock.
And if you say it could be cut from a sheet then your single card argument goes out the window. Because a sheet full a fakes definitely is worthwhile.
If anyone this weekend found a similar card and looked online ge could find a checklist that lists this card. Now the owner of site says he has not verified the card in the fine print. But the checklist has the card. This makes me sad.

Judging by the harsh tone of your other posts, I realize your entire point is to elicit a reaction so that's fine. That's what happens on message boards. I'll play along with a single response.

I listed the card in the checklist on my site because the owner stated it had the same back as a regular Buchner card. As others have pointed out, there's no reason to really suspect foul play here. This is not an otherwise important card. The card's front looked legit to me from the front. It still does. You have a different opinion and you're entitled to that opinion. As others have stated, it is an opinion no less or more valid than ours. You can continue to state ad nauseam that it is but that does not make it so.

I removed the card from the checklist after the owner stated here that it had a blank back. And your 'fine print' statement is at best, wildly inaccurate, and at worst, entirely wrong. The statement mentions this thread in the regular article text, same font, same size. It's hardly fine print by anyone's definition. And if that 'makes you sad', I encourage you to visit other sites. There are plenty of them out there. Enjoy.

My firm belief is that it is a poster cut. For one thing, as I wrote in an article recently, there are more than one Buchner posters that were printed, even within the style that has print on the front. That was proven as I recently found a card with lettering on it that did not match up to the sole poster example I have personally seen (it's actually on the Net54 site). For another thing, as others have stated, there are plenty of Buchner poster cuts out there. They are not exceptionally scarce. And for another thing, there are other examples of cards that were printed that did not make their way into sets. That's not even considering things like extreme shortprints that were quickly pulled from production like the two cards in the T227 set. That a card could exist on a poster that was not subsequently put into production is hardly a surprise to me.

Again, you are of the belief the card is not legitimate. And you may vehemently disagree with everything I just stated. Again, that's perfectly fine. Perhaps you are right and perhaps not. But to try to bully your thinking into everyone else is irrational and hurling insults because everyone isn't on your side is silly.

First last night just before the post I looked at your site for the first time and the Toole was still listed in the checklist. I just looked now and it is gone that is all the response I was trying to elicit.
Second you point out all the known ad cards that this is similar to but forget to mention that the size is wrong and dose not match up to any other example.
What was the reason for the one off?
Like many of the responses you point out an example of an inconsistency that is similar to the OP card.( but the quality of the pic is poor so tough to be sure) but even if You buy into that. Why are there so many inconsistencies on one card?
Combine that with size being wrong, card stock and appearance of back.
As for hurling insults I dont think I responded to anyone personally. This is not a personal thing this is a fake card thing.

I promised myself ahead of time that I would keep this to one response. But you've stated a few inaccuracies that cannot be let go.

If you looked at the checklist last night and saw Toole still there, it was merely a cache issue with your computer as I removed the name several days ago. Either your computer's cache was very behind, you're mistaken, or you are blatantly making that up entirely. I am not sure which but I certainly did not wait until yesterday to remove the name. If I did, I'd have zero problem admitting it. The site is not my full time job.

Second, you absolutely did respond to people personally. In fact, virtually all of your responses here were in response to what someone else said. In one post, you demanded that the 'big guns' step up and do the right thing. In another, you indirectly called someone an idiot. In another, you mocked the OP for saying it was a period piece. Just because you didn't say their name? Come on. You ran around and took random shots at anyone that disagreed with you. It was rude and basically just uncalled for.

To your point about the design, so you basically took a card that looked similar but is clearly different, and determined that, since the two cards were not exactly alike that the one is obviously a fake. There are 143 cards in the set. If you look up all of the images of them on OC, you will see plenty of cards that are similar but not the same pose with plenty of discrepancies. And while the pose is not the same as any other in the set, neither are some others (i.e. Wood, Von Der Ahe, etc.).

You also seem hung up on this size and stock thing, so let's address that. There were at least three different types of posters. Your argument is that one card from any one poster is 1/8" taller so it's no good. I would be floored if all of the poster cuts were all exactly the same size. We're talking 1/8" here, not a full inch. And to the stock, how could you determine it is wrong without seeing the card in person? There are at the very least two, and more likely, three, different stocks based on this thread. The stock doesn't really tell us anything here if we can't see it in person.

You're entitled to your opinion and you may even be right. I do not believe you are but that's my own educated guess and nothing more. I could have this 100% wrong. Wouldn't be the first time by a long shot. But regardless of that, to say unequivocally that the card is an outright fake with so many variables seems just as reckless as you seem to think that saying it is real is.

It would be helpful if the OP chimed in with some more info. Henry seemed to suggest that he knows of the OP as a seasoned collector. "Hey guys, I looked under a magnifying glass and it has pixels." or "hey all, found this at Piccadilly Circus in a non-sports scrapbook. Looks skinned."
I don't mind contrarian viewpoints. As a board soap opera, this thread seems mild. I sort of like "Buchner's" idea that the Toole and McClellan are not part of the set. One could also argue that the Van der ah is part of the celeb series and is not part of the baseball players set.

First you didn't just tell yourself that you were going to keep your response to one reply you stated it in your previous post. Which was like the 4th time you posted in the thread. But please do not limit yourself and keep on posting to the thread.
For clarity I never "demanded" anyone do anything. I responded to a post that said me stating the card was a fake and said that it was reckless and I said That I think saying the card looks good without examining the card in person was more reckless. When the OP who has clear vested interest said it was definitely a period piece with nothing to back that up. Yes I wrote LOl. I thought it was funny.
I think guessing having a hunch is fine But this thread says New Buchner not what is this? It is not a card that is part of the Buchner set. A few folks have chimed in and said the card needs to be examined closely. I 100% agree and did not respond to them but those that just chime in and say I think it comes from an imaginary sheet that no one has seen before again I think that is dangerous. It gives license to card fakers to keep em coming.
I can count and know my opinion is not the popular one but if I stop and the thread fades away and the card then Becomes a card cut from an unknown sheet that no one ever saw. And it gets passed on to another collector. I do not think that is the right thing to do. And you can call me Rude or any other name you like. But I think I am doing the right thing.
I will stop when 2 things happen, 1) the card is listed in the fake category based on the last couple of posts opinion is moved away from this card being part of Gold coin set. And 2) the thread title is edited to say Gold coin fake or unknown issue.
The size of the card is the size of the card. And 1/8 inch is significant. And larger I believe is more significant than smaller because as I stated before ciggarette pack size is a known so either the card fits or it dose not. As I stated I owned a 3 card strip of gold coins all St Louis players if I remember correctly and all matched up in size. So again saying that you can imagine a card from an imaginary sheet being a different size is in my opinion a very weak argument.
As for the fact this pose dose not match up and you say "Von der ahe" is a unique card
Yes that card was definitely a one off pose, But St. Louis was a big team in 1887 Old judge also did a series of "Champions" but Toole was not a significant figure. And again the Wood stealing base is consistent with Old judge and other issues of the day that used similar poses. This pose is different because it is so poorly drawn Ears, Baseball ...
The card stock looks artificially aged and the color not consistant with other cards cut from sheets (in my opinion) that is why I say stock dose not match up. Both of those things I can see from the picture and do not need to hold in my hand.But agree 100% in hand this should be a much easier decision.
So to sum this up I know mine is not popular opinion but I think sitting on the sideline in this case is the wrong thing to do.

Jonathan, let's say I was a lawyer and decided to take your side... I believe your strongest argument is that it is a unique pose, and I agree it is unusual for a new subject to "pop-up" after all these years. I agree that the card is not ready to be checklisted. We need more information.

Here is an actor/celeb card from ebay's "macyjordy" next to a Von Der Ahe I have. These look similar in design and unlike the baseball players.

For clarity's sake, my first post to you is what I was referring to when I said I was only going to reply once. I had not intended to reply to you again until you said things that were patently false.

I am not saying you need to stop declaring the card is fake. You may do that as many times as you wish. My issue is you came in here, taking backhanded shots at people merely to get your point across. We're all adults here and we can act like it.

Regarding the rest of your comments about the card, we're basically going in circles here. We clearly have a difference of opinion, which is 100% fine. Enjoy your evening.

I'm not trying to argue here, but why would a card that may have been printed on a poster (and not many times apparently since this is the only one seen so far) that may not even have been printed to be a part of the actual set have to fit in a cigarette pack to be a period piece? It's only 1/8" long for crying out loud. That's nothing. And if it was just printed on a advertising sheet is it that out the realm of possibility that it might not be the actual size considering a lot of advertising show product larger than actual size? I just don't get this argument. I don't get many of them to be honest, but just wanted to comment on this particular one right now. :rolleyes:

Hey Andy -

In short, because the known poster cuts are generally the same size as the regular cards. Are they all 100% exact? Nope. Out of curiosity, I just pulled out my poster card and a regular card, and the poster card is about 1/16" of an inch larger. Both are entirely legitimate cards. They are generally about the same size but ever so slightly different.

That, of course, is very common. 1/16" is a minute amount in pre-war card standards. Could a different card be an additional 1/16" off? To me, quite easily. Especially when you consider the variances in even pack-issued cards. T206s, for example, easily vary by that much -- sometimes more than that.

The size argument pertains to the card the OP posted not a hypothetical other card from a hypothetical other sheet. Look at the OP card the borders are pretty tight. If the borders were larger than normal top to bottom I agree the 1/8 inch might be a possibility.
And two two seperate guesses were put forth one that it was a proof card. That is where the card size and the pack size argument came in. I said why would Buchner spend the money to produce a proof card that would not fit in a pack.
The second guess was that this is a card cut from a sheet. Again to my knowledge no other card cut from a known sheet varies this much. Could a card be cut from a sheet have some extra border sure but if it was cut from a known ad sheet I think it would pick up some extra color on the top or bottom if it was an extra 1/8 inch.

I do agree that the two cards in your post look very much like they cold have been drawn by the same artist. And it shows that the Von der ahe has another card from the set with a similar pose. That would leave the Wood as the only card from the set with no other card using the same pose. And as I stated before many issues of the time used a similar sliding pose on a very small percentage of players.
As for the unique pose being the strongest argument Again I agree it is up there.But it is the large number of inconsistencies that convinced me. When it was first posted all I said (and I was not the first ) was I did not like the look of the front. Then the back was posted and I downloaded the image and looked closer.
But I hope the OP brings it to a show soon where it can be looked at and this thread can be put to bed.
Happy collecting Jonathan

I do have to agree
 

there are reasonable questions and now there's a serious red flag at least for me - after looking over the initial part of this thread again I saw where the back was posted - don't know how I missed it - I can't figure out how part of the pencil pricing could be missing - if that's a paper pull OR excess paper (has to be one or the other - looks like excess paper) the writing would have to be there before it was obscured/pulled (gluing). At what point after it's manufacture would it have been procured to be priced (have value) and subsequently glued into something and then removed? That part makes little sense if in fact it's the actual card back. I'm assuming the OP didn't have the card in hand and someone sent him pictures? He apparently hasn't said anything. I'm going to look this over again tomorrow. I should have told you going into this that only my wife is ever right :) I might be coming over to your side now John and I'd be scared if I were you!

I guess my question is, why does the dollar sign have to be in relation the pricing of the card? I have cards with all kinds of writing on the back. Couldn't it merely be someone scribbling something unrelated to the card itself?

It would not make sense for the card to have a blank back and be issued as the other known cards were. It would also not make sense for the card to appear on an advertising piece and then not be issued with the set.

I think someone made a fantasy card for reasons we'll never know. If the set was produced prior to the start of the 1887 season, Steve Toole had only played 13 career games before inclusion. I don't know the careers of the other common players, but had anyone had a briefer career?

I bought a JU JU drum
 

many years ago - the guy had played but a game or two IIRC (Unglaub?).
As to the writing on the back - some of it appears to be UNDER a scrap of paper - how would that happen - when something is priced it is never glued BACK into an album - see above..... I give up at this point leaning in the direction of not a real GG card but damned if I can make sense of it either way. If proven it IS a fantasy card I would like to buy Jonathan dinner and a brew at next years national for his impressive spidey senses as I would have taken the bet he offered Jay. I suppose we may never know? Surprising Jeff has not posted again...…...

I don't have an opinion on whether or not this card is real, simply because it is too difficult to authenticate off a scan. As almost everyone has said, I'd have to have the card in hand to make a determination.

But I disagree that this is too minor for someone to counterfeit it. I think any time you find a new player in a long catalogued set, that is a very big deal. I get it that N284 is not the most widely collected and respected 19th century set, but could you imagine the excitement if an uncatalogued player was discovered in the N172 set? That's front page news.

And if the Toole was real and placed in an auction, and two or three well heeled collectors who had complete or near complete N284 sets decided to go head to head, I would expect it to achieve a very big number.

But of course it has to be real first.

I'd agree with that, Barry - minor, inconsequential player but a pack-issued card of him would definitely sell for a lot of money.

I gathered from the OP that he got the card for a song without realizing that it was anything but a Buchner common until he looked it up in Lemke's book and realized it was uncatalogued. He could clear that up if I'm wrong.

TPG's don't grade uncatalogued cards as far as I know. As has been said, if it is made in the style of 19th printing, it would be very expensive, if it's just a computer image, it would be very cheap.

Why not make the unknown 25th T227 card instead of a very obscure subject from an uncollected set. To "complete the set" as stated on the ad backs, you need all the actors and police captains. I would hazard a guess that no one has ever completed the whole set. The pops on some of these cards are very low.

Anson, forgive my ignorance on this question, do tpg's acknowledge your checklists? You have a great site and thank you for it. If someone like FKW finds a new T214 does he go to you now that Mr. Lemke has passed on? Is there an "official" checklist anymore?

Let's say, without further ado, the OP sends it to LOTG and Al comes on here and says, "no pixels." Doesn't the card still have major concerns? I might throw in a bid of like $200.

All I would expect the TPG to tell me is whether or not the card was skinned. It cannot possibly be deemed both authentic and not skinned, because Buchners were not issued blank backed. If a TPG determined the card IS skinned, I would be interested in knowing how that assessment was made, considering the card is not described by the OP as being thin.

Hi RCM -

I had success in helping to get the W542 strip card set labeled as such by PSA. A reader pointed them to my site and they now slab those cards as W542. Before, I think they had just been labeling them as generic or something. I also sent Beckett some info on a football postcard set where they were missing a card from the checklist that I had. They agreed it should be there and updated their checklist. But I can't say what else, if anything, TPGs have used it for.

I always gladly take checklist/set information, inaccuracies, and whatever else anyone cares to send my way. I've had many collectors email me with info, including cards that weren't checklisted before. I'm not presumptuous enough to call it the checklist of record or anything like that. But I do want it to be accurate as I know quite a few collectors use it. It's a one-man operation so I know it has errors just from the sheer amount of sets covered. My goal is just to make it as complete and accurate as I can.

I actually do think the OP described the card as thin. It may be worded incorrectly, but his Post #22 says the card is '50%' of the card weight. I took that mean 50% of the thickness of a regular card. Maybe he meant to say 50% 'more than' the weight of a standard card but the way it was worded indicates the opposite.

That was the one thing that stood out to me as different as the poster cuts I've seen/seen described, including mine, have been a thicker consistency. That said, I haven't seen a blank-backed poster cut in person, either, so can't speak to those.

I guess it could be read either way. I personally read it as meaning it was 50% thicker, but I can see how it could also be worded in such a way that it was thinner. I assumed thicker because the OP mentioned how the size was larger than it should be.

Got it - yeah, I'm not sure, either. I took it as the opposite but seems unclear.

AND THERE IT IS.A 100% concrete reason why someone would create this card for Two Hundred Bucks. ( maybe it should read a 200% concrete reason). Because Maybe......
As for the pixels 48 leafs fakes are printed 82 Ripkin fakes are printed, why not print this?
I took the OP post about card stock to mean it was on what looked like normal card stock but weighed about half what a real gold coin should. Which to me raised a Red Flag.
Maybe I am a skeptic and raise the Red Fag quickly ( but to be fair someone else raised one 2 hours before me) but I believe it is better to stand ready with the red flag than to hang the lollipop flag out.

I am happy to be wrong because a new card this late in the game is an awesome find, but I just can't get past the fact that the front does not look right to me at all. Respect all opinions, but I do not see an authentic Buchner when I look at the image of the front.

Crap am I really agreeing with you twice this year??? :)

Damn, was wondering why this thread has been still at the top. Now I'm hooked on what the card turns out to be!

Anson, thanks for the reply.

Jonathan, the printing experts have stated it would cost a lot of money to make it appear like a 19th century card. I assume they mean it would cost more than $200. $200 is what it will probably cost to buy Jay and Henry dinner (ha-ha). Without anymore input from the OP, I'm going to lose interest in this topic. He hasn't offered it for sale that I know of, and I'm not 100% sure he even has it in hand at this point. Rob

Agreed waiting with anticipation for update from OP but again it is not easy to get it in the hands of a few knowledgeable collectors unless you attend a decent sized card show. Maybe it will turn up at the national?
Maybe the OP will share his plans.
As for the printing cost it can vary widely. If image was taken from a previous source vs artist drawn ( I use that term loosely). So I would not rule out some level of printing.

But why would a counterfeiter write a price on the back of the card, then glue it to something, then tear it off again? Wouldn't they just glue it to something and then pull it off again. And if it's fake and they did glue it to something then pull it off then they were really thinking a lot about aging this fake card. But if they were trying to age it (or damage it) so much, why does the front look so nice? I'm just being devil's advocate here. I'm leaning slightly towards the card being fake at this point, but still wonder about this stuff regarding it possibly being real too.

The biggest red flag to me is that he is less interested in the card that he posted than all of the posters in this thread. He ignored my question about where he found it. He didn't have to say "Big Ed's card shop in Kerrville." He could just say "card shop", but he didn't. He's in Cali per his id line. There are lots of experts around there.

48 Leaf, the printing is so poor a kid with a potato and some ink could fake most of one (Thanks Terry Pratchett!)

82 Ripken fakes are modern printing duplicating modern printing and were done in quantity.

Making a single gold coin the old fashioned way? With the right sort of shading and mix of solid and halftone areas. (If it's halftone and not one of the earlier types)
That takes a lot. There are art lithographers who could do it, but I believe it would cost more than a couple hundred. Of course there's probably some kid in China who can knock them out for $5 each.

I'd still like to see a high res scan. If it's done recently, like anytime postwar, it will be obvious.

The only point that seems a red flag, is the image size on the card. It does seem odd that they'd make one that had an image size much different than normal. I don't know the set well enough to know if the image size varied a lot or was consistent.

Thanks Steve:
The point I was trying to make was that the absence of pixels would not be enough to say that the card was produced in the 1880's. That there are a number of ways to produce a card like this using less expensive printing technology than 1887 period lithography with stone or metal plates.
I used the 1948 leaf and Ripkin rookie examples to show that even common fakes dont have pixels.
As I stated earlier similar fakes I have come across did not show pixels under a 15x loop.

The Buchner's I've handled all have this creamy type of image on them. I don't know of another way to describe it other than "creamy". When I look at the scan provided by the OP I see a washed out image that doesn't have a lot in common with the Buchner's I've handled.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring."

Here's a 78 Topps Bartkowski, a T213-3 Matty, and a Buchner at 1200 dpi. The OP could buy a Buchner and compare it to what he has under a magnifying glass. It may not be definitive, but it's better than nothing.