Ruth M101-5?

[ls7plus]

Check the print dot pattern with a loupe--preferably a 16X one. It should be regular and linear if printed from the original plate, rather than random (counterfeits were made by taking a picture of a real card, then re-screening it--they will show a random dot pattern and lack of clarity compared to one printed from the original plate). Then have it forensically examined for dating of both the ink and the lighter weight than normal cardboard stock. There are prototypes known but not graded with exactly the characteristics shown on your card (inner border; less foot showing due to different photo-cropping) which were in existence and appeared (very, very rarely) at shows long, long before this card exploded in value (a statement which I know will be controversial among the mainstream, but nonetheless remains true). THERE WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NO POINT IN MAKING A COUNTERFEIT WITH SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS THAN A REGULAR CARD, i.e., card stock, inner border, and different photo-cropping), BUT EVERY POSSIBILITY SAME WAS DONE FOR PURPOSES OF FINAL DESIGN DETERMINATION.

If you decide to do each of the above, pm me as to the results. The loupe exam is an easy one. Only have the forensic exam as to both ink and stock done if the print dot pattern is what is should be, i.e., regular, linear and identical to the regular version M101-4 and M101-5 slabbed by PSA or SGC. I have no idea what the forensic examination would cost, but get a well-qualified expert if you decide to pursue the matter, and a full and detailed report.

Best of luck,

Larry

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

There are prototypes known but not graded with exactly the characteristics shown on your card (inner border; less foot showing due to different photo-cropping) which were in existence and appeared (very, very rarely) at shows long, long before this card exploded in value (a statement which I know will be controversial among the mainstream, but nonetheless remains true).

With all due respect, that's bullshit untrue. (forgot my New Year's resolution).

[ls7plus]

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

[nolemmings]

When Fritsch made the reprints, he essentially took a photograph of an existing photo, which when used in the reprint process, caused there to be a slight cropping from the original. It's as simple as that. That is what you see here.

You claim that you saw "originals" or better yet, "prototypes" of the Ruth m101-5 all those years ago. Show me one. Show me a scan of one. Show me a catalog pic or any other depiction of one. Don't limit yourself to Ruth and Thorpe. Show me one of ANY card from m101-5--you get a couple of hundred to choose from. There are none, none that are not reprints. ZERO--are you following along here?

Your latest post sparked a memory of a thread several years ago when you spouted similar nonsense. There you claimed to be in possession of one of these "prototypes", and were asked repeatedly to show scans. You have had more than 5 years from that thread to do so, and yet, nada.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ghlight=thorpe

There I more kindly suggested that you were in error, and that your analysis concerning Thorpe and Ruth being the subjects of Mendelsohn prototypes was unlikely. I stand by that, and invite you again to post your scan and pray tell, since you seem to be the owner of a six-figure card, why it isn't properly slabbed so as to stand out from the many fakes that ignorant collectors like me would discard. Surely even if you don't wish to sell it you would want protections in place such that upon your passing, your heirs aren't wrongfully told that it is unauthentic, they being unable at that point to consult your expertise. Of course, maybe I am incorrect in my assumption, and that you actually have had your genuine Ruth prototype slabbed. If so, please provide us with the serial number if you are not inclined to show a scan.

[ls7plus]

Nice try yourself, or close, but no cigar! You acknowledged that when Fritsch made his reprints, he took a photo to do so, presumably of an original card, since that would be a heck of a lot easier than getting a hold of the original photo from which Mendelsohn produced the M101 Ruth's. THAT WILL PRODUCE A RANDOM, RATHER THAN LINEAR DOT PATTERN. THAT'S HOW MOST COUNTERFEITS HAVE BEEN MADE! How many cards have you looked at under a 16X loupe? Not very many, I suspect. AS STATED, I HAVE SEEN 2 RUTH'S AND ONE THORPE NOW MORE THAN TWO DECADES AGO WHICH HAD A LINEAR, REGULAR PRINT DOT PATTERN, MATCHING THAT OF A REGULAR M101 CARD, BUT WITH DIFFERENT PHOTO-CROPPING AND LIGHTER WEIGHT CARD STOCK, WHICH WOULD INDICATE THEY WERE PRINTED EITHER FROM THE ORIGINAL PLATE, OR A DUPLICATE ORIGINAL MADE FROM THE ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPH. Do you really think someone had a duplicate plate made from the original photograph, yet were dumb enough to print out the card on quite different stock with different photo-cropping (LOL)? Maybe just for their own amusement, perhaps? Or do you have some other explanation as to how to achieve such an original print dot pattern?

If I was the original poster to this thread, I'd certainly do a bit of investigation, the first of which will cost very, very little, merely to see if the second more costly step is even warranted. If the result shows a random, non-linear print dot pattern, the matter is at an end--simple test, simple conclusion. But if the result is positive, and does show a regular, linear dot pattern, I would at least consider consulting a qualified forensic paper examiner concerning the age of both the ink and the card stock, and possibly incurring the cost of the second step (which, admittedly, even if positive also, may not be sufficient to satisfy closed-minded graders at several of the TPG's). Better careful and thorough now, though, rather than sorry later. Alternatively, of course, you can do nothing and potentially lose out on a positive opportunity. Personally, I would want to learn more before coming to a conclusion based on insufficient facts, since I don't know everything, as you so obviously do. But as a lawyer specializing in litigation for more than 40 years, I certainly saw more than enough of conclusions drawn from insufficient facts--what a joy it has been getting them reversed in the Michigan Court of Appeals, Michigan Supreme Court, and U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for almost 40 years. Join the crowd!

You probably don't believe there were printer's proofs of the '69 Topps Super Reggie Jackson, either, do you? But I own one (graded authentic by PSA before they stopped grading printer's proofs some time ago), and another, along with the Pete Rose from the set, went for about $900 some years ago in an REA auction. Perhaps the printer's proof/prototype Hal Newhauser card from the '40's doesn't exist either? Or, if it does, was that the only such card ever made?

Oh, and don't worry about my heirs--they certainly won't be hurting!

Best of luck as you stumble along your way,

Larry

[nolemmings]

40 year litigator, wow. Did you consult with Rudy Giuiliani on this one?

So where’s your evidence counselor? You claim to own one of these Ruth “prototypes”, and have for years now. You stated you had scans more than 5 years ago, ready to upload. I and others asked you to provide one. You are and have been silent. Why? You are the proud owner of perhaps the most iconic card in the hobby— made even more valuable by the fact that yours is a one-of-a-kind prototype–and have told us 5 years ago that scans were coming. Now nothing. Geez, and you’re having trouble understanding why someone would call bullshit?

Your “evidence” consists entirely of your recollection–shared by no one else who has come forward– that you observed certain dot patterns 30 plus years ago convincing you that the cards with a larger space between photo and frame were legit. So let’s establish foundation for your testimony, Mr. Darrow. Where was this, and when? Did you take notes? Who was the dealer who showed you the cards? What other witnesses were there who might be called to share your recollection (you fancy pants litigators call that corroboration)? All those years ago. How many genuine, “normal” Ruth rookies had you examined by that time, which might serve for comparison? How many m101s of any kind had you examined? Oh that’s right, you were on the lookout for fake Mattingly rookies, sleuth that you are, and were carrying a loupe. Got it. Unimpeachable for sure. Wait, why are we wasting our time with such silly questions–you’ve got the card to prove your point. Where is it?

Your lack of evidence is matched by the illogic or at least implausibility of your other explanations. I pointed out years ago that Ruth and Thorpe’s popularity in early 1916 was not so great as to explain why they would have been selected for salesman’s samples, as you claimed, particularly given other available players and the Chicago base of operations for Mendelsohn. You agreed, but then switched gears to suggest it was a prototype or printer’s proof. But such things are by definition internal, not to be made public, so why would it matter if it was Ruth or Thorpe, when Jimmy Archer or Al Mamaux would serve the purpose? Their popularity (which I believe you overstate anyway) essentially would be a non-issue.

Then there’s the matter of card numbering. You are suggesting that Mendelsohn made a prototype of Ruth and Thorpe, and that he numbered them 151 and 176 respectively. So the issuer already knew that he would have 150 cards alphabetized before Ruth, then another 24 before Thorpe, when he generated these prototypes. Sure, makes complete sense. And if your answer is maybe Mendelsohn made a prototype of the entire 200 card set, then I ask again, as I did 5 years ago, why are there no other examples of any other cards in existence. For that matter and again, why are even the Ruth and Thorpe “prototypes” not confirmed by anyone other than you?

Finally and again, you are basically stating that these “prototypes”, which are different than the final product only by the small difference in space between the photo and frame, were completely scrapped. Mendelsohn kept the same design, photo selection, team, player name and number fonts and number sequencing, but just decided he needed to start over because that little space difference was bugging him to distraction. Yep, I can see no other explanation.

Please put an end to this, and show us your card. Or, in your words, keep stumbling along.

[ramram]

Well, I gotta admit, I don't have much knowledge about this card but if I'm sitting in the jury right now I think Todd just won the case without even needing a vote.

Rob M

[ls7plus]

I at least have honest questions, but not enough real answers. Todd seems to have plenty of bluster, but not much else. I am suggesting that at least one answer is easily had by the original poster to the thread before taking any decisive action--examination of the print dot pattern by magnification. That will either lead to more questions or signal the end of the trail.

Personally, I will be pursuing my own answers in due course, but have absolutely no reason to hurry, as other priorities have easily superceded it (new condo in Florida; Z06 Corvette to go with it; no need for the money any such card would be worth, so no financial motivation on my part; and wouldn't be selling it in any event). My purchases are intended to be investments over the long haul--some will work out, some will not, but I believe a great deal will over the long term and to a great extent, especially as our hobby continues to grow in numbers and knowledge. How many countries did REA announce their auctions reach?!? My collection will serve as just a minor part of my estate, most probably auctioned off upon my death to assist in putting my niece, nephew and granddaughter's children through college, as well as directing a portion to the missionary work of the church.

Answers won't be that hard to come by, and whatever they may turn out to be, I can accept them--if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong (I'll have no problem admitting it--never have). The answers will, however, come from those qualified to give them, and not those apparently without the requisite expertise who are instead driven by ego and assumption--that's purely a fool's path.

Sincerely stated,

Larry