Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings
With all due respect, that's bullshit.
|
With all due respect, your opinion is bullshit. In the late '80's, I went to many, many shows with a loupe with which to examine cards and protect against purchasing counterfeits (yes, they were out there then--in fact, counterfeits of the '84 Fleer Update Gooden and Clemens were quite popular, as was Mattingly), and have seen both the Ruth (2) and Thorpe (1) with exactly the same characteristics: inner border, different photocropping, lighter weight card stock. I also handled them, and they were not made to appear old, but had the same characteristics to the touch and eye as say, the R316's, with similar stock. But then again, you know the old saying, "opinions are like
_______s; everyone has one.
On the other hand, I've seen many, many counterfeit or reprint Ruth's. Every single one I looked at had the random dot pattern characteristic of re-screening an original. If you're trying to make a passable counterfeit or even a desirable reprint, there is absolutely no point whatsoever in printing them on lighter card stock, with different border characteristics/photocropping.
That these two would be selected for proofs or prototypes would certainly not have been unusual--Ruth was a 20-year old phenom who went 18-8 with a 2.44 ERA in 1915, the year before the M101-4's and '5's were made, and Thorpe was still at the height of his popularity.
The above is simply based on actual observations long, long ago, when it is doubtful it would have been worthwhile to print up a bunch of such cards for purposes of profit. And if they had been, why are there not more of them WITH THE PROPER PRINT DOT PATTERN I SPOKE OF? HOW DID IT GET THERE? DID SOMEONE MAKE A DUPLICATE PLATE FROM THE ORIGINAL PHOTO THAT WAS USED FOR FELIX MENDELSOHN'S M101 SETS? To me, that would be "bullshit." Because you're ignorant with regard to a given subject doesn't make someone else's observations on that matter "bullshit."
Much more interesting than your comment would be knowing what the dot pattern of this particular card shows under magnification, and if it is indeed linear and regular as it should be, what a forensic examiner's opinion would be after testing both the ink and the card stock, which can be done by a qualified expert. Where did you get your degree in forensics from, by the way?
Larry A. Smith