Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfanNY
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.
|
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.