|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
COMMENTS?
Posted By: Tom Boblitt
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2741278468&category=31719 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
COMMENTS?
Posted By: JC
Fake, Fake, and Fake! How did the card obtain paper loss, soiling, staining, and a stamp mark while keeping MINT corners. Plus it's the old "rare find" from Grandpa. I'm sure someone will bid on it though. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
COMMENTS?
Posted By: quan
border and uniform merge nicely into each other, looks real to me but who knows anymore with computers and printers at where they are. the grandpa story is hard to stomach (along with the starting bid)... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
COMMENTS?
Posted By: Lee Behrens
Can original CJ cards have the type of paper loss exhibited by by this listing. I would think that that type of paper loss be would really tough with the thin paper stock of the CJ's. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
COMMENTS?
Posted By: jay behrens
JC, I think you're caught up int the current "anything that's questionable is fake" frenzy. The card passes the boarder uniform test and that is not a stamp on the back. Look closely and you will notice that the lettering is backwards. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
COMMENTS?
Posted By: botn
I think that the card is ok. It is the story that throws me off. Well that and the starting bid. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
COMMENTS?
Posted By: Jon Canfield
if anyone can make out the cigar brand. Wouldn't it be pretty easy to verify if that brand was produced around the time period of the card? I realize the card may have been placed into a cigar box in the 1940's for example, but I would think it would take a significant amount of time for the reverse design to be left in the back of the card, without the card sticking to the box and creating paper loss... I may be wrong (as I often am) but just an idea on how to verify the age... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
COMMENTS?
Posted By: Jon Canfield
I had some spare time at work today, so I played a little with that writing imprinted on the back of the Cobb card. To start off with, I changed the brightness and the contrast to brighten the background and dull out the stats and bibliographical writing on the back of the CJ. I then filtered out all colors to get a “raw negative” of the back, again to try to focus in on the lettering imprinted. Finally, I rendered the picture and got a reverse, or mirror image, of the writing – so now it reads correctly. Below is a picture of how the card looked having applied these steps… |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
COMMENTS?
Posted By: JC
Yes, you are probally correct. I'm still in the Re-print frenzy. Let me explain in a different light why I would not bid on the card. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I was laughing at the comments....(for your amusement again!) | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 04-06-2009 01:38 PM |
Joe Jackson bat on ebay, comments? | Archive | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 1 | 10-12-2007 02:20 PM |
OT - Any comments on the autograph on this UD card | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 25 | 01-31-2006 06:39 PM |
Any Comments??? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 03-12-2004 04:21 PM |
Positive Comments on Full Count | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 06-20-2003 11:30 AM |