Does PWCC tell the truth? - baseball signs

[ruth-gehrig]

PWCC may know cards but but they aren't showing their expertise on some memorabilia here. This first listing claims this piece was showed to several "experts" at the most recent Sports Collectors Convention and "the consensus was consistent". Please elaborate on what that consensus was because I know it wasn't "genuine" if experts took even a 1 second glance. Sizes are off, colors are off and quality isn't even close. Take a look......

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1912-T202-H...C/142922100759
Fake
13" x 18.5"

https://www.robertedwardauctions.com...ising-display/
Genuine
40" x 60"


Next up is 1941-1942 Ted Williams/Joe DiMaggio Advertisement. Not even close to being genuine much like the first example. Heritage recently sold a genuine one. Check both links.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1941-Louisv...C/142923130640
Fake
11" x 12"

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/c...umbnail-071515
Genuine
21" x 25"

[murphusa]

The only times I have seen the red joe and ted was on the back cover of a magazine

[bobfreedman]

I had a lengthy discussion with someone about the Hassan piece and as near as I can tell us it’s a newspaper clipping because the “real” ones are very large and sell for $100k. Everything else about the Hassan piece was wrong as well. Wrong colors, wrong size, wrong texture, but other than that, it was ok.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

I had a lengthy discussion with someone about the Hassan piece and as near as I can tell us it’s a newspaper clipping because the “real” ones are very large and sell for $100k. Everything else about the Hassan piece was wrong as well. Wrong colors, wrong size, wrong texture, but other than that, it was ok.

All true I'm sure, but still worthy of consideration.

[Brent Huigens]

I want to comment on this thread. Agreed that advertising signs are not our expertise so I want to be data driven in our assessment of this and try not to assume. This is what I can say:

1) Despite the original post's accusation, we have indeed shown this item to four different people unrelated to PWCC, all of whom educated collector/investors, and one of whom I do consider a memorabilia expert (as does PSA/DNA).
2) Everyone who has held this piece agrees that it's old. It's only those looking at auction images who remain doubtful (and I don't blame folks for this). Agreed that no 'authority' on the issue has commented; I'm not sure who that would be.
3) Obviously this is a different product from the REA sale of 2006. Aside from the size, the print quality is far inferior, as are colored inks used, and even the design is notably different (including a Hassan advertisement on the Mathewson panel).
4) The guess that this was a newspaper advertisement is interesting... would explain the print quality and faded red coloring (common flaw in cheaper red inks used in the pre-1930s). However, in my opinion, this is absolutely NOT a newspaper add adhered to a thicker card stock backing. The process of trying to glue thin paper stock (which this is not) to a thicker card board backing (this is about 1/16") would induce wrinkles, tears, delamination, misalignment at the edges, and other obvious flaws which are not present on this piece. The die-cut aspects of this piece clearly convey mass production in my opinion, not an at-home art project.
5) To the best of my ability, referencing vintage cardboard on trading cards, the wear, staining, and overall patina of the piece is absolutely old. It's possible this was a reproduction from 30-50 years ago, but this was not produced recently as I don't believe the faded red, staining and oxidation on the piece could be reasonably reproduced. I suppose someone looking to commit fraud could be capable of anything, but I don't see the upside in this case for such an act... the cost to fake this item to a degree that fools someone like me would be exceedingly expensive...I don't see the upside.
6) While I do believe the piece is vintage, I can't say for certain its circa 1910 and it could be a reproduction of some kind from later on. Why a manufacturer would reproduce something like this (costly) is hard to fathom due to it's size and esoteric nature...who would want it? But I have to remain open to this possibility. What I do feel is true is that if this were a reproduction, I'm sure the manufacturer made more than one and somebody should be able to find a historical sale of some kind for the repro so we can know either way. I have tried to find such a sale and been unable.


Personally, I believe this to be genuine piece from 1910 era. Clearly a lower production quality advertisement than the REA example, perhaps meant to be displayed above the Hassan products within the store. It's size and format would make sense for such a thing. The REA example is so large and brightly printed that I don't see it used in close proximity to Hassan products, but rather perhaps displayed elsewhere to drive traffic.

Bottom line, obviously I don't have definitive answers, but this is as much as I know.

[CW]

Brent, do you know if this piece was viewed under a black light?

Originally Posted by Brent Huigens

I want to comment on this thread. Agreed that advertising signs are not our expertise so I want to be data driven in our assessment of this and try not to assume. This is what I can say:

1) Despite the original post's accusation, we have indeed shown this item to four different people unrelated to PWCC, all of whom educated collector/investors, and one of whom I do consider a memorabilia expert (as does PSA/DNA).
2) Everyone who has held this piece agrees that it's old. It's only those looking at auction images who remain doubtful (and I don't blame folks for this). Agreed that no 'authority' on the issue has commented; I'm not sure who that would be.
3) Obviously this is a different product from the REA sale of 2006. Aside from the size, the print quality is far inferior, as are colored inks used, and even the design is notably different (including a Hassan advertisement on the Mathewson panel).
4) The guess that this was a newspaper advertisement is interesting... would explain the print quality and faded red coloring (common flaw in cheaper red inks used in the pre-1930s). However, in my opinion, this is absolutely NOT a newspaper add adhered to a thicker card stock backing. The process of trying to glue thin paper stock (which this is not) to a thicker card board backing (this is about 1/16") would induce wrinkles, tears, delamination, misalignment at the edges, and other obvious flaws which are not present on this piece. The die-cut aspects of this piece clearly convey mass production in my opinion, not an at-home art project.
5) To the best of my ability, referencing vintage cardboard on trading cards, the wear, staining, and overall patina of the piece is absolutely old. It's possible this was a reproduction from 30-50 years ago, but this was not produced recently as I don't believe the faded red, staining and oxidation on the piece could be reasonably reproduced. I suppose someone looking to commit fraud could be capable of anything, but I don't see the upside in this case for such an act... the cost to fake this item to a degree that fools someone like me would be exceedingly expensive...I don't see the upside.
6) While I do believe the piece is vintage, I can't say for certain its circa 1910 and it could be a reproduction of some kind from later on. Why a manufacturer would reproduce something like this (costly) is hard to fathom due to it's size and esoteric nature...who would want it? But I have to remain open to this possibility. What I do feel is true is that if this were a reproduction, I'm sure the manufacturer made more than one and somebody should be able to find a historical sale of some kind for the repro so we can know either way. I have tried to find such a sale and been unable.


Personally, I believe this to be genuine piece from 1910 era. Clearly a lower production quality advertisement than the REA example, perhaps meant to be displayed above the Hassan products within the store. It's size and format would make sense for such a thing. The REA example is so large and brightly printed that I don't see it used in close proximity to Hassan products, but rather perhaps displayed elsewhere to drive traffic.

Bottom line, obviously I don't have definitive answers, but this is as much as I know.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

I had a lengthy discussion with someone about the Hassan piece and as near as I can tell us it’s a newspaper clipping because the “real” ones are very large and sell for $100k. Everything else about the Hassan piece was wrong as well. Wrong colors, wrong size, wrong texture, but other than that, it was ok.

The ebay description says "made from cardstock". That and the fact that it is color lead away from its being a newspaper clipping.

I would think that looking at the litho characteristics under a 10x would solve the issue quickly, but if four experts looked at it, I'm sure they did it using a magnifier.

Given how big the REA one was (60") and the fact that it is (was?) the only known example, it makes sense that whoever created these would have made smaller versions that could have been used for more varied purposes. The fact that this one is different from the larger one (box at bottom right of display on smaller one) supports this idea.

[MGHPro]

I'm not going to comment on my thoughts on authenticity... but I can tell you that i could have a dozen of these printed on any media you wanted by the end of the day and it wouldn't cost a lot . Printing technology is amazing .

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by MGHPro

I'm not going to comment on my thoughts on authenticity... but I can tell you that i could have a dozen of these printed on any media you wanted by the end of the day and it wouldn't cost a lot . Printing technology is amazing .

Matt, a 10X loup overrules today's printing technology.