N284 Buchner Gold Coin Checklist Add?
 

Hi. I've reviewed several of the published N284 Buchner Gold Coin checklists and can't find an entry for "Toole, Pitcher, Brooklyn". Is this card a checklist add or something different? Usual Gold Coin printed backside.

Jeff

I worked on the set a few years ago & never seen this one
Looks in great shape too!

Wow, that's incredible. Going to link here and add it to the checklist on my site. Great stuff.

I don't think I can remember another new player added to this series since I have been in the hobby. Nice find.

I'm a little leery, I've only owned a few, but it just doesn't look right.

I do not like the looks of this card. Jmho But I have handled a few hundred gold coins over the years..

Looks good to me. Congratulations Jeff, nice find.

It looks washed out like a lot of the 48 Leaf reprints look. I'm not sure that's an authentic card, but it could mean there is one out there.

It does look washed out or fake but that wouldn't make sense.

Oh wait, the checklist I found has a notation on this card and this thread! Haha, never mind. Agree it would be weird to reprint an unknown card. Maybe it's just the photo.

I think it is legit. Nice find, Jeff.

I think there are 5 different cards of Steve Toole in the Old Judge set featuring him with Brooklyn, KC, and Rochester.
Therefore since the N284 cards were also printed circa 1887, it's not unusual that Steve Toole was printed in this set.

For many years, the existence of an N284 Bill McClellan card was a mystery. In recent years, this card was confirmed.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Brooklyn already has a card for "Pitcher" in the set "Porter". It is possible to have more than one card per position in this set . Toole would make that 2 pitchers from Brooklyn. I believe Indy has 2 pitchers , Boyle and Healy.

Can we see a scan of the back? Maybe a better scan of the front?

I was wrong. Backside is not printed. Advertising cut-out?

Jeff

I would be wary of a blank backed Buchner. Guess that still wouldn't explain why it exists, but perhaps it was a card that appeared on a poster but wasn't actually issued for one reason or another.

Lots of blank backed Gold Coins out there

Feeling pretty vindicated right about now. Of course the question remains what is it?

Scraps or skinned, not legit. At least as far as I am aware.

Bummer - given the various N284 advertising posters that were printed, that wouldn't be surprising. Many of the poster cards have the traditional backs with ads but there have been references to blank-backed ones, too. Guessing it's one of those for a card that was not issued.

Just ran a search for them on the site and found this old thread. Seems there are a good number of these out there, though I've not seen any in person.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=88940

Sure that could be it.... send it in to a TPG and see what they say...maybe they could restore the back to it's original Reprint/ fantasy lettering.

A few more details. Toole card is about 1/8" taller than a printed back card. Toole card is printed on card stock, however it is about 50% of the card stock weight (thickness). Definitely a period piece. So what is it? Are there other examples of players used for advertising that did not get printed as a checklist card? Any idea of value as it stands?

Jeff

I don't know of any blank backed Buchners that were actually issued as cards. The only ones I've ever seen are cut from posters. Given that this card is unknown, I would have a hard time believing it was issued on anything other than a poster, and given the way the front looks, I'm still not sure about that either.

Definitely a period piece???? Lol

Toole
 

Its probably a period piece, but McClellan and Toole are not part of the set. They are different, for one thing, the Brooklyn players are wearing pin stripe uniforms.

With a blank back my guess is now an ad cut. Not uncommon in the hobby.

Unfortunately cards manufactured to defraud collectors are also not uncommon. This card is part of that unfortunate group.
Pose and coloration NG
Back NG
No pinstripes NG
Size wrong NG
Card stock wrong NG
While I agree that it is possible to "find" a card that has not been cataloged it is also much easier for the person who creates this type of fantasy / fake card say if he gets cought that it is not a counterfeit it is an original piece of art.
The person who created this card knows full well that a handful of cards cut from a poster do exist. And he exploits the doubt that it creates. I owned for over 30 years a 3 card strip of Gold coins that was cut from advertising poster. This is not one of those. Five glaring problems with this card. And yet hope springs eternal.

Thanks for the additional comments. It’s clear that this is not a checklist series add, however I don’t consider it to be “fake”. If it was produced for/by the Gold Coin company for advertising purposes, then it’s a genuine cut-out from a period banner, poster, counter card, etc. Even if it did not make if off the production floor (i.e. a proof), I’d still consider it to be genuine. Maybe that helps to explain the inaccuracies like color, striping, or whatever.

I still have two questions that I’d appreciate your help with –
(1) Can someone with a N284 advertising cut-out and a N284 series card verify that the cut-out card is slightly taller than the series card?
(2) Does anyone have an advertising cut-out card for a player not on the N284 series checklist?

Jeff

act like you’ve been there before.

Act like he's been there before Lol... what about the big guns that stepped up and said this card was good? When do they do the right thing? Or is ok for the OP to go to the national and sell this card and say" so and so and so and so both said it was good so I am completely justified in passing on this modern fake off as a possibility cut from an advertisement that no one has ever seen?
Folks jump and down 24/7 about card doctors and fakes. And once the back of that card was posted there was no longer a debate if the card was good it is a modern FAKE. Everyone makes mistakes me more than most but letting this drag on is just beyond the bounds of what I thought net54 considered ethical.

you drew a lot of conclusions from a one sentence post. scott was right. bravo. no need to flex.

Don't like to lie :)

Jeff - I have an advertising cut and it is on significantly thicker stock than the regular cards. I'll check the size of mine tonight vs. one of my 'regular' cards. Mine is the type with the Buchner advertisement on back, however, while yours appears to be the other blank-backed version, so even that might not help too much.

As you stated, just because it isn't a checklisted card doesn't mean it is not a legitimate poster cut. I haven't seen one of the blank-backed types in person so can't speak to your stock and how it should look/feel, as well as the size of it. You'd probably need someone with one of those to weigh in.

There is almost no way you can be certain it is fake or real, given the photo and info we have. Saying so, imo, is reckless. I still think it is from an ad but am not sure. If I had it in hand I could be about 95%- 99% but just from a scan the percentage is more like 65% - 70%. Again, just my half cent of wisdom from experiences.

Not my opinion that says this is a fake it is my experiance. Handling ad cards hundreds of regular Gold coins and fakes such as these that seem to pop up here on east coast at flea markets and small shows. Everyone has an opinion...and just like the case with this card opinions can hurt less experienced card collectors.
Fact card is wrong size ad cards are same size as regular cards if cut to proportion.
Fact Color is wrong for a Brooklyn player
Fact This player has never appeared on any known Gold coin ad.
Fact I can see from card back stock is wrong for an ad card.
Would it help to have the card in hand...of course it would..
And my first suggestion to the OP after I told him it was fake was to send to A TPG. Saying "I think it's good go ahead and pass it on" that in my OPINION is reckless.
I dont have the deep pockets some here do and getting burned even for a couple hundred bucks of my limited hobby funds hurts.

Looks fine to me. I collect the fronts whether they have the ad or not. Is it skinned? Sending it to a tpg would not change my opinion,although seeing it in hand might. Why would someone make a "fantasy card" of Toole?

Ok I will keep this simple 4 easy question1-Do you have any other players with same pose as posted? 2-Any other Brooklyn players without the pinstripes ? 3- Ever seen this player on an Ad for gold coins? 4-Backs of any of your ad cards look like card posted?
As for reason Money lots of the fakes.
And this is a Card not an autograph opinions dont count it is either real or it is not. This is not a Gold Coin. Simple side by side comparison will show this to be a fact.

Too hard? Ok I will break it down even more simply than
1- wrong size
2_wrong stock
3-wrong pose
4-Wrong colors
5-wrong back

Look at the card start at back ground( close but inconsistent with All known examples)
Then feet the shoes are way to simple they dont match All known examples)
Uniform no shading again simple drawing not up to the quality of Gold coins
Hands holding what? , hands are again to simple and baseball is not even round. Not matching all known examples...

This is just too simple it dose not Match any known examples and a close look shows drawing to be a MUCH POORER quality than ....again all known examples

When as a young man you were sent out for some shinola did you fall for the stinky brown bag with Shinola written on it or did you inspect it a little closer and come home with the right thing?

You may be right. And I agree that the motive is almost always money. But if that is the case,and it may be, what is this like a $50 scam? I will stick to my percentages. Would really love to fondle:) it a little bit.

Jonathan, I respect your opinion on this, I'm just not as passionate about my take on this. TedZ mentions a 4th or 5th Brooklyn player found, McClellan, originally catalogued by Burdick, but only recently known. From Lipset's book, Brooklyn cards did not fit the 8 subject pattern of most teams. I looked through my 50 or so cards and I do not have any Brooklyn players.
This card has all the trademarks of the series' artwork. The belt and spats on this card match the style of other cards I have. I have seen different colors on Boston uniforms. I don't have all the answers. It's not my card. If you are right, then the creator of the fake has a better understanding of the set than I do.

The McClellan shown on the old cardboard site also has no pinstripes.
And at least two other subjects have poses that are not duplicated.

I'd have to see the details up close. Modern printing should be really obvious.

Thanks for chiming in SteveB. Same uniform. To the OP, Jeff, where did you find this card?

Yes maybe the person who faked this card used this uniform as model.( but I think I have seen this player and that card had pinstripes not 100% but I will follow up) But look close he still did a awful job, clearly got shoes wrong the real card like all the real gold coins is more detailed they have laces. The card from the OP just has a simple stright line. Simplified uniform no shading just a few stright lines. And the hands have no thumbs ( I just looked at 50 Gold coins on REA site and all of them have thumbs) and as I pointed out before the item in his hand that is supposed to be a baseball is not round. Any other gold coins have these characteristics? The 2 unique poses you mention both are the right size and have full gold coin backs. So you are never going to post another real gold coin that shares all the characteristics of this card as a fake by definition it shares a few known characteristics.
If you choose to look past the obvious signs that this is neither a gold coin or a gold coin ad card. Then go right ahead but it is a fake. And I for one dont think it is good for the hobby to encourage fakes.
If a guy at a flea market sells 20 or 30 of these types of fakes each year it becomes worth his while. That one is here on Net54 and more than one person thinks it is real shows clearly why people have been doing this sort of thing for decades. If you can suspend reality and sell a story folks believe what they want to be the truth. But in this case you have to ignore a whole lot of clear facts...Again
Wrong size, wrong back, The drawing itself is inconsistent with all known examples.

This is most likely the pose the faker was trying to repoduce. Side by side you can see all the mistakes. Face being one of the keys. But even the shadow is wrong. I admit no thumb but pose shows no ball unlike the OP card which shows a ball that is completely off scale. And is not even round. Like I said a few similarities just enough to make you get greedy and stop thinking.

Here are 3 blank backs. The Orr is very thick, the other 2 are very thin. I'm not trying to win the argument. I have no vested interest in the card. When I see evidence that it's a fake I will happily admit I was mistaken. What size is he saying the card measures? I am not seeing that. Rob

.

Thanks for the feedback and images Rob. The Toole card measures about 1/8" taller than a standard printed back card.

Jeff

Better picture showing more detail.

I know I know
 

I'm an idiot. That said - I'd buy the card. No-one so far is offering a reasonable explanation for WHAT THE MOTIVATION would be. Nearly impossible to replicate artistically and with proper stock/inks without time and money for little return on a common in a lightly collected set and ostensibly no reason other than perhaps a personal project like the Krause guy....

I absolutely believe your first sentence ..me too but not in this case I have seen to many folks burned and learned this lessen. You are exactly why cards like this get produced. You see this card and the first impression is that it is old. You overlook the fact that they did not, as you say "artistically reproduce the card" they produced something similar. Possibly on older card stock but could be aged ( that is one of the things You cannt tell without card in hand). So you start from the premise that it is real. Careful inspection shows that there are alot of inconsistencies but not enough to tip the scale of your "First Impression". People buy cards on Ebay where the seller says "I think this is a reprint so I am selling it as one". Thoughts like even if it's not a gold coin at least it's old, even if it's not a Gold Coin maybe even rarer than a Gold coin. Money /greed combined with the ego boost of look at me I found something. Powerful stuff. But hot like a coal and you get easily burned.
You can collect whatever you like your money. But the OP came here asking if it was a non cataloged Gold Coin. And the answer to that is NO.
I used the Shit vs Shinola example before it is a very old saying. Both are brown and if you rub them into your shoes the become darker brown. But one dont smell so good.

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.