Potentially fake D350-3 Standard Biscuit backed cards on eBay

[rhettyeakley]

I was looking over at the recent PWCC thread and noticed Val talking about some 1921 D350-3 Standard Biscuit cards that recently sold on ebay. It is a set that I collect pretty aggressively so I was a bit bummed I had missed them, that is until I looked at the scans.

Something isn't right with these cards, which were VERY high grade for the issue and look like they were printed yesterday with crazy sharp corners. That being said the thing that is "off" about them is the printing on the back.

I have collected these for years and below is the back of one of the cards from my collection, please notice how crisp the printing is on the back of the card and how well-delineated the individual letters and even the little tick marks are all around the edges. The backs were most likely printed by the same company producing the cards themselves and one would expect the "clarity" of the print to be similar on the front and the back...



Now, here is one of the backs from the recent ebay auctions, notice how "blurry" the back printing is, especially the tick marks around the edges. It almost looks like someone made a rubber-stamp of some sort and just stamped the back of the cards...



I have been collecting these for years and have 10-15 of them in my collection and have never seen backs like the ones that just sold, I just wished I had seen them when they were live so that perhaps I could have alerted the forum to their dubious nature.

Not having the cards in front of me I don't want to speak to the authenticity of the cards themselves as they may be legitimate blank backed W575-1 cards (probably not though but will hold off judgement) that have had a deceptive back added to increase value. I appreciate everyone else's opinions on the matter.

[h2oya311]

Looks like you are on to something based on the two scans. The printed back on the SGC graded example appears slightly thinner than your example, but perhaps it is simply the difference in scan size that deceives me. Can you crop the SGC example back so that they are approximately the same size to see if there is a difference.

Also, is it common for the front to be perfectly centered but the back to have that "diamond cut" look?

[Leon]

The SGC graded one (above) looks like a stamped back whereas the other one looks printed from a press. Something looks fishy but maybe there were period ones with stamped backs?....Whether there is something amiss or not, I don't know, but it seems strange...here are a few more from my collection...

[nolemmings]

Hopefully Mark M. has some input as to known or rumored fakes of this West Coast issue. The backs are definitely different than previously known examples. There is some similarity among Standard Biscuit, Holsum and Herpolsheimer to suggest that the same printer was involved in all three sets and yet as Rhett said these from ebay last night lack the clarity and evenness of printing found in the others. The cards also looked a bit too white or "un-toned" to me also, although the '21s show less toning than the '17s (see Leon's post) and it could just be the scans.

If it's a stamp it's a very intricate one; otherwise it could just be a less precise printing from a different printer--we know there were at least two printings of this set because of the "80 photographs" language found sometimes. Still, apart from the uneven inking, what also bothers me is the inconsistent printing/inking within the various cards themselves that sold last night. One looks generally washed out, no bold distinction between "Standard Biscuit" and message text, blurred "Cal.", another looks a little more heavily inked on the right-side letters and frame, another on the left, etc. A different printing would not show such inconsistency would it? This too supports a stamped backing, and although that would not mean they were fake per se, it would really make me skeptical that these are period with genuine backs (although I'd love to have one or two in hand to see)

[nolemmings]

Here are a few more of the known examples for comparison:

[oaks1912]

The card in question has printing on the reverse that is inconsistent with any Standard Biscuit I've seen before. Without having the card in hand to examine, I'd withhold any opinions as to the card's authenticity, but the back is enough reason to post a yellow flag

[tkd]

Looks like the Lelands 1921 D350-3 Standard Biscuit Ruth SGC 4 just sold for $60,658.80.

[tiger8mush]

Hi gang,

Picked this up in a lot recently, it wasn't pictured but was noted as being E135. When I received it, the back was mostly covered in scrapbook, except a small spot in the middle that appeared to say "Standard Biscuit Company" in blurry blue font.
So I soaked it for about an hour (only meant to do it for 10 mins, but lost track of time). The scrapbook paper was floating freely from it, but I noticed the water had a light blueish tint to it, which normally doesn't happen when I soak a card. As you can see, the back is a D350-3 in blurry blue font.

Thoughts? I'd be happy to send it to someone more knowledgeable for inspection if needed. Thanks!
Rob

tiger8mush@yahoo.com

[nolemmings]

I believe Hodge is in E121 series of 120, not series of 80. No 1921 Standard Biscuits correlate with E121-120 to my knowledge. Nor have I seen one with blue ink. Finally, the design that surrounds/boxes the text is different from the 1921 SBs, which follow an alternating two thin line and one thick line pattern (see some examples from this thread). So whatever the authenticity of the card front, this is not a D350-3 card. Sorry.

[tiger8mush]

Thanks Todd!

[ANOMALY]

I have an opportunity to buy this ungraded Ruth D 350 -1 ...... suspicious yes but I also noticed it appears to be the same card as one auctioned off in a Mile High Auction years back. enclosed is the link to the auction

https://www.milehighcardco.com/spect...-lot63709.aspx

here are the photos of the current offering - looking closely all the markings and creases are exactly the same. the back is printed fine (no stamping) Why would it have been broken out of a PSA holder. The lower corners seem sharper BUT they both have the same markings

https://www.ebay.com/itm/25635441697...3Avlp_homepage

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by ANOMALY

I have an opportunity to buy this ungraded Ruth D 350 -1 ...... suspicious yes but I also noticed it appears to be the same card as one auctioned off in a Mile High Auction years back. enclosed is the link to the auction

https://www.milehighcardco.com/spect...-lot63709.aspx

here are the photos of the current offering - looking closely all the markings and creases are exactly the same. the back is printed fine (no stamping) Why would it have been broken out of a PSA holder. The lower corners seem sharper BUT they both have the same markings

https://www.ebay.com/itm/25635441697...3Avlp_homepage

Run

[Rhotchkiss]

I own the standard biscuit PSA 2 Ruth that was sold in mile high. It sits in my safe. Not sure what you are looking at, but whatever it is, it’s not my card. And there are only 3-4 known Ruth SB combos.

If it quacks like a duck….

[Rhotchkiss]

I just looked at the eBay listing - that is fake.

Honestly, these types of postings/questions burn me up - yea right! Go ahead and buy for $3500, a super rare Ruth Rookie, unslabbed, from a guy out of Puerto Rico with 11 feedback. Use your fucking head - does anything (literally one thing) about that sound legit?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I just looked at the eBay listing - that is fake.

Honestly, these types of postings/questions burn me up - yea right! Go ahead and buy for $3500, a super rare Ruth Rookie, unslabbed, from a guy out of Puerto Rico with 11 feedback. Use your fucking head - does anything (literally one thing) about that sound legit?

Well at least he asked. Of course if there was any chance it was real he just outed it lol.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by rhotchkiss

i just looked at the ebay listing - that is fake.

Honestly, these types of postings/questions burn me up - yea right! Go ahead and buy for $3500, a super rare ruth rookie, unslabbed, from a guy out of puerto rico with 11 feedback. Use your fucking head - does anything (literally one thing) about that sound legit?

lol.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I just looked at the eBay listing - that is fake.

Honestly, these types of postings/questions burn me up - yea right! Go ahead and buy for $3500, a super rare Ruth Rookie, unslabbed, from a guy out of Puerto Rico with 11 feedback. Use your fucking head - does anything (literally one thing) about that sound legit?

What seems legit from all this, and my takeaway, is that there are guys in Puerto Rico.

Brian

[Fred]

Originally Posted by ANOMALY

I have an opportunity to buy this ungraded Ruth D 350 -1 ...... suspicious yes but I also noticed it appears to be the same card as one auctioned off in a Mile High Auction years back. enclosed is the link to the auction

https://www.milehighcardco.com/spect...-lot63709.aspx

here are the photos of the current offering - looking closely all the markings and creases are exactly the same. the back is printed fine (no stamping) Why would it have been broken out of a PSA holder. The lower corners seem sharper BUT they both have the same markings

https://www.ebay.com/itm/25635441697...3Avlp_homepage

Yeah, why would it be broken out of a PSA holder? Because it wasn't. Someone is going to be rather disappointed with a $3500 fake Ruth.

[Fred]

I was getting confused reading the thread. Is the D350 in POST 9 the "suspect" card?

A little research seems to indicate that these cards could have come with blank backs which allowed advertisers to put their own stamps on them. If so, how much more $value does the "Standard Bisquit" stamp add to the card (as opposed to a blank back version)?

In an effort to educate myself on the D350, I went to the Old Cardboard website and found the following info:

Subset Name D350-1
Year of Issue 1916
Card Size (inches) 1-5/8 x 3
Num. of Cards in Set 200
Cards Numbered? yes yes no
Related Sets: M101-4, D329, H801-9


D350-2
Year of Issue: 1917
Card Size (inches) 2 x 3-1/4
Num. of Cards in Set 200
Cards Numbered? yes
Related Sets: E135, D328, H801-8



D350-3
Year of Issue: 1921
Card Size (inches) 2 x 3-1/4
Num. of Cards in Set 80
Cards Numbered? no
Related Sets: E121, D327

Note: The D350 Type 1 and 2 subsets are listed in the American Card Catalog and in the Sports Collectors Bible with Type 1 as an 80 card set of "large" (2 x 3-1/4 inch) cards and Type 2 as a 200 card set of 1-5/8 x 3 inch cards. The sets as defined above are consistent with most hobby checklists today but are not consistent with the descriptions in the ACC and SCB.

I'm no expert on this issue but if I were to guess, I'd guess the cards in POST 4 look suspect only because the stamps appear to be very "light".