Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Clark's Ruth and Gertenrich Cobb:<br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/Babe-Ruth-1921-Ty-Cobb-1922-Vintage-lot_W0QQitemZ220227220564" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/Babe-Ruth-1921-Ty-Cobb-1922-Vintage-lot_W0QQitemZ220227220564</a><br /><br />the blurriness and the clipped corner on the Cobb scared me away.

Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>They look artificially aged to me...and that clipped corner on the Cobb is too suspicious.

Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>Jimmy</b><p>More junk, from junk dealers<br /><br />Jimmy

Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>1880nonsports</b><p>can be really scary - especially little known or infrequently encountered examples. There's always a leap of faith somewhere on the continuum. There's possibly an alarm or two on these cards or the listing but nothing definitive. Guess in part that's why there are grading companies or forums like this board. I'm always leary of overly damaged rare cards - especially on the internet. I used to work at the Metropolitan Opera in NY. Great job and what went on behind the scenes and in it's bowels was incredible. My office abutted the scenic shop for a few years and some of the most interesting things I learned came from someone whose job it was to "distress" fabrics and scenery. The effects he could produce (RIP G - died from AIDS complications) were amazing. Even in person one could easily be fooled - and these were larger items - imagine cards. So much easier in cyberspace with fancy picture programs and uber copiers. If I were still collecting rare types and/or whatever - had the person offered but a single type and I wasn't already leary about buying on the internet and the card's "distess" - I could see myself pulling the trigger if I could afford it.... They "look" pretty good but I have no exemplars. Perhaps I could get Mr. Moralass to authenticate them online for me.

Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>One of the backs was printed the wrong way. I checked them both (the Clarks and Gertenrich) a few days back. I forget which one now but one of the back is facing the wrong way so I decided they were both fakes IMO.<br /><br />Also the seller sells new junk so the red flags were all out there.<br /><br />I stayed away.

Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>What's truly alarming is someone may have paid over a thousand dollars for these (if they even sold).

Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>They did sell and the buyer is someone who has experience buying expensive pre-war cards.

Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>As one of the most esoteric collectors out here I guess I field a few esoteric questions. The buyer emailed me after the fact to ask about them. I told him that I didn't like the way they looked from the scans as they looked too grainy to me. I told him I would make sure I have a money back guarantee. He said he has a money back guarantee and I told him that was a good thing....The seller is obviously a good seller with very good feedback....regards

Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>PS....... The Clark's back is facing the wrong way.<br /><br />I have only owned one Clark's card, but sold it a few years back (the scans of the example card in the 2008 SCD Catalog are my scans). <br /><br />The Clark's card I had (pictured in the 2008 SCD) had a large grease stain on it so its easy to match the front to the back to see what direction the back faces on an authentic card.<br /><br /><br />Plus 90% of all Gertenrich cards will have a spot of glue or paper damage in the middle of the back. This one doesnt have it and the detail of the baseball field is not as crisp and detailed as the 2 examples I own. <br /><br />The back of both cards has a washed out look and just looks homemade.

Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>You know as well as I do that many cards had their backs printed the wrong way so I don't think that in itself is the most telling feature. They just don't look sharp enough (even in their poor condition)for me to think they are real.....BTW&lt; I think I have several cards with wrong way printing on the backs....

Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>Matt Ranson</b><p>I would be scared away by the poor quality of the images. These could be legit but I want to see big scans before making a buy.

Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>seth</b><p>Prior to purchasing this ebay auction, I arranged with the seller for a money back guarantee. I thought there were some possible features of the scans that were questionable, but decided to give this a shot. They would be significant cards in any condition. I'll post an update after I know what's going on with them.<br /><br />Best,<br />Seth

Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>A plus, is the wear on the fronts. If they do turn out to be fake the doctored wear was done fairly good. That would be a deal if they are both good.<br /><br />

Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>IMO the corners look clipped, like someone was trying to artifically round the corners and did a horrible job. Why would someone clip the corners on those cards? For Seth's sake I hope they turn out to be real.

Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>I also think they're no good, but I suspect we'll know more once Seth has them in hand.<br /><br />First, as Frank said, the Clark's back is in the wrong direction, which raises serious flags.<br /><br />Second, although the font's look spot on, the "C" "A" "R" and "'" in Clark's look off to me (see below).<br /><br />Third, the detail looks muddy or unclear to me, like a copy, although that could be poor scans. You should be able to see some pretty clear detail like pennants above grandstand in the Lou G card (see below).<br /><br />Fourth, I just don't see cards from these sets tone like that. I admit I don't chase these sets to any real degree, but in my experience, these and their e12* counterparts tend to stay mostly white even when beat up, or at least don't turn that color. Sure these cards could have been exposed to something out of the ordinary to cause the toning--or that just could be artificial aging (which I believe).<br /><br />Fifth, lousy scans and Ruth + Cobb. Usual tell tale signs.<br /><img src="http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff265/nolemmings/net543.jpg">

Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>Fake!, detail is completely wrong. Authentic backs of these cards (as can be seen on Todd's scans) are sharp in their detail. Even in crappy condition the detail would be there, and these don't. These don't pass the smell test, and I hope the buyer gets his money back when he returns them. <br /><br />It is funny that he would have 2 cards from two totally unrelated sets and just happen to have Ruth and Cobb--very interesting! I always wonder where all the Al Mamaux and William Fewster fakes are!?!<br />-Rhett

Were These Authentic?
 

Posted By: <b>seth</b><p>the cards were not authentic.