Who is the Cracker Jack expert?

[obcmac]

I have a question that I'd like to send to the cracker jack expert...except I don't know who that would be. Where should I direct the question?

[Bicem]

Just post it, others may have the same question.

[fkw]

Lots of E145 experts here...

[FrankWakefield]

I agree... if you post your question you'll get opinions from several folks who know a bit about the two series of Cracker Jack cards; and you'll probably be asking about something that's puzzled a few others. Several of the guys here know a right smart about 'em.

[obcmac]

Basically I've seen a number of cards that look like these in slabs...I saw a Wagner at the national...and the Johnson on the BST looks very similar. Am I crazy to think they're all fakes? Always rounded or worn corners, always dirty, never caramel stains, never 1914, never any foxing. I have about 75 other CJ's many in the lowest of low grades, and none have the dirt, few have rounded corners (folds and tears yes), most have caramel staining etc...

Mac

[FrankWakefield]

From looking at the images I think the cards are authentic. A black light REALLY does help resolve any doubts you might have. And holding the cards help. 1914 cards are virtually paper. 1915 cards are thin cardstock.

CJs that got flour-pasted into scrapbooks survived well. They can be found today, fairly clean, with decent corners. Cards that were carried in grimy hands, pants pockets, and the like are sometimes in the condition of those you posted. Some 'clean' cards have been bleached a bit. I'd think if those cards were merely soaked, a bit of the dirt would loosen without any color loss. They'd look less worse, but not really very good.

I think those are real. If you only look at CJs in slabs you're less likely to see cards in the condition of those you've posted. If you look at all CJs, or just raw CJs, you're more likely to see them.

[Bicem]

those look ok to me and from the same original collection.

[obcmac]

The one other thing about these cards is that they are a bit thicker than other 1915's. Find any cj that is dirty, with heavily rounded corners...and I will bet you that it's from 1915, has no caramel stains, will show a heavy line of dirt at one edge and will be noticably thicker that other 1915's. I can send mine out as loaners if you want to compare.

[fkw]

I cant ever recall seeing a fake E145-2 with the back upside down.

I know someone can make a homemade fake like this, but all the doctored reprints Ive seen have the back NOT upside down.

Cards in condition like the 2 you pictured are common, missing corners and dirt. and they are the easiest to tell if the back is upside down too

Dont know about the thickness variations though, I do know that E145-1 are slightly thinner than E145-2

[fkw]

PS. also I think the cards might seem thicker because well used and played with cards (dirty), the paper may "fluff up" a bit from handling IMO. The paper stock of CJs is a porous rough textured paper similar to a thin construction paper. Most/Many E145-2 will not have the staining because they were obtained as a complete set from company, while all E145-1 cards were obtained from the boxes of CJ.
Id think the higher grade/clean cards were stored in a way to keep them pressed and thus they might seem thinner??

Thats the only thing I can think of on why well used worn cards might seem thicker.


Another example.... Well worn R319 Goudeys always seem thicker than the sharp clean NRMT ones.

[brianp-beme]

Interesting point about the rounded corners...I have seen plenty of well-rounded corners, but usually they seem to occur on cards that are thicker, like Goudeys. Does a thin issue (like the Cracker Jack cards) naturally round, or is it more likely to chip and break away with age, as I have seen in countless Cracker Jacks?

By the way the cards do look authentic...except the corners do strike me as odd.

Brian

[fkw]

1914 E145-1


1915 E145-2

[FrankWakefield]

FKW, I agree with what you say about the reverses. Thing is with the scans way up there is that the reverse on the top left matches up with the card on the bottom right, as evident by the way that corner is missing. So I think these are 1915 cards that he's posted. The way the original scans are it's initially a bit deceptive.