OJ collectors and Scott Brockelman

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Not too long ago there were a bunch of OJs being offered by a seller that weren't "original" OJs. Scott won a McCarthy version of one of these cards. Also, I think it was JC that also saw them and deteremined that they weren't actual OJs.

There was some type of stamp on the back of these cards but I can't remember what compay name was on the stamp. There is an OJ for sale on ebay by a different seller than the original person pushing these cards. Is this the same stamp on the back of the card being offered in the following ebay auction:


http://cgi.ebay.com/1887-Old-Judge-248-Arthur-Irvin-Philadelphia-Nationals_W0QQitemZ5267524790QQcategoryZ86839QQrdZ 1QQcmdZViewItem

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

original OJs). An OJ with a confectioner's stamp on the back--why not? It's got a blank back, hasn't it?

Note: the color of the card is just like my Mack--which I MADE that color to enhance the visability of the picture...maybe should check this out, as well as the size.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Not only is the color of the card questionable, but with the sellers conditions: "Any description of the items contained in this auction is for the sole purpose of identifying the items, and no description of items has been made part of the basis of the bargain or has created any express warranty that the goods would conform to any description made by the seller..

Return Policy

*All information listed is intended to be as accurate as possible, but errors are possible. No item may be returned or refused based on this information which is provided as a service to our customers." you could get a flash gordon genuine decoder ring instead of an OJ and have no recourse.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Julie,

Thanks for the input but I was hoping to find someone that remembered a particular stamp on the back of some cards that an ebay seller recently tried selling. Two forum contributors had actually seen these cards and if I recall correctly, both questioned whether or not the cards were real because of the size of the cards and because of the appearance of the cards.

You're absolutely right, any blank back card could have stamp on the back, that's not in question. What's in question is whether or not this particular card has the same stamp on it as a few other "questionable" cards recently sold (or attempted to be sold) on ebay.

You're right, it does look kind of real. I would just hate to win something on ebay and hassle with a return because it wasn't real.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Gill, this sounds like the seller I started a thread about because of that return policy a weeks ago. I had your same exact thtought when I read that disclaimer. It also kept me from bidding on his cards? He may be covering his arse with that policy, but wonder if you realizes that it is probably costing him more money than it is saving him in agrivation.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Mosley

Fred,

It is definitely the same stamp for the same company in Lancaster, PA that was on the other cards.

If I remember, the first seller of these cards was from down in Florida.

I'm not making a statement one way or the other on their authenticity but I can guarantee you 100% that its the same stamp as the ones that came up a couple of months back.

Regards,

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Nick

He's also selling a Buchner Gold Coin graded by PRO!

He has several other PRO cards for sale. He has a PSA 5(MK) where he does not disclose the qualifier anywhere in the text.

He has what looks to me to be a fake 1915 CJ (http://cgi.ebay.com/1915-Cracker-Jack-E145-45-Fred-Luderus-Philadelphia_W0QQitemZ5243895610QQcategoryZ86841QQ rdZ1QQcmdZViewItem).

BTW, he bought a different OJ with the same back stamp a few weeks ago.

Bottom line: I wouldn't go near his auctions.

Nick

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

Despite his disclaimer of liability and return policy wording, my understanding is that if you pay with a credit card and the card is not genuine, you can cancel payment on your credit card and return the card to the seller. Is anyone thinking this is correct?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

i would assume so. All you have to do is go thru your CC company and regardless of what his return policy, your CC company isn't going to let him try and rip you off.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: pete

briefly and saw a couple of net54 users....he has good feedback, do you think just these latest cards are funny?
pete-

my best pitch was the one that made it to the plate!

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

wait for a more user-friendly auction...

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Thanks for the feedback. The whole reason for the question is because a few of these sold on ebay recently and there have been two, probably very qualified, opinions that these cards are possibly/probably not real OJs issued from 1887-1890. The cards dimensions are smaller than normal. I will email the seller and request the dimensions. I'll post the response in this thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

The seller was nice enough to respond quickly and very cordially - here's the reply:

Approximately 1 1/4 plus by 2 1/4 plus.....as you know, per the 2005 Standard catalog of baseball cards,...actual size varies

Catalog indicates 1 7/16 x 2 1/2. Yes, there is a varying degree of sizes to OJs but the catalog dimensions seem somewhat accurate for cards on the smaller end of the spectrum. I've seen many cards > 2 1/2 length but not too many < 1 7/16 wide.

I've got a few of these cards and I couldn't find anything less than 1 3/8 wide. The 2 1/4 length is interesting. The shortest cards I have measure around 2 1/2.

I checked a few others of the same variety (script name, position and team designation at bottom) and the smallest I could find is 1 3/8 x 2 5/8.

Does the 1/8 width and 1/4 length dimensions make that much difference - YES, it would be very noticeable.

I'm not telling people to stay away from this auction - but the phrase "caveat emptor" may apply since the other cards that sold on ebay with the same back stamp were also of the same dimensions (1 1/4 x 2 1/4) and they were inspected by a couple of savvy collectors that believe that there may be some doubt as to the date of production and their legitimacy as being authentic OJs.

I'm in no way trying to say that the ebay seller is trying to scam anyone nor am I saying the seller is not a reputable seller.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

as the winner of one of the early auctions of one of these "questionable" cards, i will state my brief opinion.

they are NOT N172's, i do believe them to be pre 1900, probably reproduced by photographing authentic old judges to be used for this particular merchants use. all of them have blurring of the photos and appear to have flaws or degrees of wear on the host card that was used. i don't think they are a modern reproduction as the stock, albumen photo and back stamp all appear contemporary.

regardless as non N172's i would place the value at about 10% of the real thing. again they appear to be of the 1890's era and would/could have more value if perhaps tied to the merchant and his history.

scott

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

well, a little research has turned up a joseph royer in lancaster, PA before the turn of the century who was a confectioner. seems he was a very prominent candy maker who taught one milton hershey the business, of course hershey became a household name to this day.

i believe the cards are contemporary ad pieces made from real old judges by a photographic image process, this makes them somewhat more valuable as early victorian baseball trade cards, especially with the connection of royer. i doubt anyone couls have concocted such a fraud in this day and age and just happened to pull royer out of the air.

but still not N172's

for all you chocolate lovers, royer also invented the large chocolate hollow easter rabbits. yet another good reason for slabbing your cards if handling them while eating the large chocolate rabbit, he ain't M&M's and WILL melt in your hands.

scott

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

i am bumping this so folks can see the data i added in the post above.

scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Scott--If you are so inclined would you send me one of the cards to look at. There were some photograph reproductions of Old Judge cards made pre-1980 that sound alot like these, albeit without the handstamp on the back. Those reproductions are somewhat smaller than the real cards and are a brown yellow in color. I have two and would be happy to compare them.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

jay,

i will be glad to send it to you for your thoughts, i was unaware of the reproductions you speak of, but this definitely sounds like one of them. if so, someone apparently came up with a vintage stamp or got one made? to make these mock ups.

if the stamp was a real 1800's joseph royer stamp that the forger used, it would have been worth more than the cards!

scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Keith O'Leary

I can tell you what Scott says is true and 50 West King is now Rick's Deli.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Gantt

I can add another odd log to the fire. I have had for years a Cracker Jack (of Gandil, if my memory serves me correctly) with a Royer stamped ad back. It is clearly not a contemporaneous Cracker Jack issue (having an odd surface sheen) and, indeed, appears to me to be a period reproduction of the front. The stamped back is otherwise blank. I have always guessed that Royer, perhaps in the early 20s, after Gandil had become infamous, had simply had the card reproduced as a giveaway advertising his business. The appearance of Royer ad Old Judge reprints seems consistent.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Dan,

Can you please post a scan of the back of the card.

Thanks!

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Gantt

Luddite that I am, I still do not own a scanner. I will, however, try to find the card and post a recitation of the stamped material from the back as accurately as possible.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Dan,

Is the stamp similar to the picture below:

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Gantt

I've just found the Gandil Cracker Jack card that I mentioned in an earlier post. The Gandil is a horizontal pose. The back has none of the information normally found on Gandil's Cracker Jack. Instead, there is advertising printed or stamped vertically on the back. The top two-thirds contains a Coca-Cola ad, depicting a head shot of dark-haired young woman holding a filled glass with words reading "Everybody Drinks Coca-Cola." Beneath that, filling the bottom third, is the identical language in essentially the same type-fonts as in the prior post, with each line centered right to left:

JOS. R. ROYER,
Wholesale and Retail
Confectioner,
50 and 52 W. King St.
LANCASTER, PA.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

That's some great informaton. There are copy OJs and Cracker Jack cards (about 25 years difference in distribution) with the Royer stamp. I wonder what it all means. It would be interesting to see someone come up with a period of time that Royer occupied the address in the stamp or it could be interesting to find other issues of reproductions printed with this same stamp the back.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Scott reports that the Royer OJs are albumen photos likely circa 1890.

The Royer CJs can not date prior to 1914, and are probably later.

Could they both have produced around the same time?

What is the relationship between Coca Cola and Cracker Jack?

[Archive]

Posted By: Keith O'Leary

I took the liberty of calling the Lancaster Historical Society research department. They have an extensive business directory collection. Joseph R Royer opened his confection business at 52 W King Street in 1882 and was in business at that address until 1910.

 

This should answer ALL questions .

 

Keith

 

[Archive]

Posted By: Daniel Bretta

In business at that address until 1910. I guess that makes the cards counterfeit. Why would Joseph Royer go through the trouble and expense of making these cards and stamping them with the old address?

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

It sure makes the CJ even more interesting. It seems a bit elaborate for a hoax.

[Archive]

Posted By: Daniel Bretta

Doesn't really seem that elaborate to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Dan: what I meant was - why put on the Coca Cola ad, if you are faking a reproduction (now a fake fake is a new concept for me)?

[Archive]

Posted By: Daniel Bretta

You put on the Coca Cola ad to entice Coke collectors at the flea market.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Gantt

The idea that these are some sort of hoax trumped up years later seems extremely far-fetched to me. I've had the Cracker Jack Royer for far more than ten years. Apparently, the Old Judge Royer's have only recently surfaced. An oddly disjointed hoax, I'd think, at least in terms of timing. (And who would have done the research to find a real, old-time business to peg them to? Why not just make up a firm name?)

Also, Keith, I'm willing to bet that the Historical Society people did not say that Royer went out of business in 1910. My bet is that they're basing their information on census records, which show him in business at that location in 1910 but not in 1920. If this is the case, he well could have been at that location when the Cracker Jacks first appeared.

All in all, I found it a chuckle that Old Judge Royers appeared. I'd be fascinated to find an expert who could tell me how the Old Judge and Cracker Jack reprints for Royer were made.

[Archive]

Posted By: Keith O'Leary

Hi Dan.

 

I called them back to make sure. They were looking at business directories that were put out by year. Royer was first seen in the directory for 1882, was last seen in 1910 and was not in the 1911 one.

 

Now....some more fuel (found this out just now) for ponder. This morning, he had only mentioned the 52 W King St address. I asked about the 50 W King addy. Heres what he told me:

 

in 1882 the candy store opened at 52 W King and he lived at 50 W King

in 1886 he saw evidence of the same arrangement

in 1888 he moved his residence to 510 N Queen

1n 1894 he moved his residence to 144 College Ave

 

 

 

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Gantt

As they say, it just keeps getting curioser and curioser. Why would anyone, after 1914-15, reissue a baseball card with advertising for a defunct confectioner? Certainly, the Coca-Cola reference in that time frame makes sense, but why Royer at that address if he was no longer in business? And who would just pick that name and address for inclusion on hoax cards as disparate in time frame as Old Judges and Cracker Jacks? How thoroughly odd.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Here's something else to add. I have one of those small OJ type of reprints. It measures 1 1/4 x 2 3/8. It resides in an SCD quick grade holder that is still sealed. I purchased it on ebay a while back. It appears to be albumen on thicker than typical OJ cardboard stock. There is no stamp on the back, it is blank.

This is an odd ball OJ in my collection and I've never really considered it a true OJ because of it's variance and difference from other OJs I've handled.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Mosley

Perhaps Joseph Royer Jr. got hold of dads business stamp and liked how it looked so much that he stamped a couple of the Cracker Jacks that he collected at the time?

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

as i recall the original seller of these, stated that he had the items for over 20 years, i don;t think these are recent concoction, and 20+ years ago? what could they have possibly been worth, very little.

the cracker jack is an interesting item.

would like to see a scan of it.

scott

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Gee, if we had Hal involved in this, we would already know that the Coca Cola/Royer/Cracker Jack thing was Ty Cobb's initial marketing adventure. And we would be looking for examples of Texas Tommy Type 1 Royer overprints.