Despite precaution this is disturbing......

[nolemmings]

So here's the fake:

[GregZakwin]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

So here's the fake:

Even if that were real it's the worst 3 I've seen in a long time.

[oldjudge]

Looks like someone cracked a holder. That’s a bad fake—really bad. If the other reprint card was put in this holder, that would be scarey.

[nolemmings]

FWIW, that was not the same style holder as the real card that matches that serial number (no gold foil on back).

While we're on the subject, here's another fake that sold, despite my notifying the seller well in advance for him to pull it:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1916-M101-5...orig_cvip=true

[bobbyw8469]

Both holders appear to have major frosting. Buyers need to be aware of what a frosted holder looks like apparently.

[jerseygary]

I don't care what kind of holder it's in, that's one of the worst fakes I've seen - you can easily tell that by the back advertising lettering which was set on a contemporary computer using modern typefaces. That and the front looks like a Kinko's color copy circa 1987.

[Leon]

I hate it when I inform someone something is a very easily identified fake and they act like I have no idea (on those cards I usually do) what I am talking about and sell it just like it is anway.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

FWIW, that was not the same style holder as the real card that matches that serial number (no gold foil on back).

While we're on the subject, here's another fake that sold, despite my notifying the seller well in advance for him to pull it:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1916-M101-5...orig_cvip=true

[ruth_rookie]

What bothers me most of all about this is the fact that a reprint somehow found its way inside a legitimate SGC holder with an authentic flip that doesn’t say “reprint”. If I’m an employee of SGC, I immediately bring this to the attention of my boss and other SGC brass.

[nolemmings]

That is not a legitimate flip. The legitimate flip is associated with a blank-backed Ruth.