RPPC's--Looking for some expertise--

[dougscats]

I just bought several, what are labeled Real Photo Postcards:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1924-Jack-F...vip=true&rt=nc

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1929-Babe-H...vip=true&rt=nc

I know nothing about these "cards."
One is dated 1924, the others 1929.
Is that when they were allegedly printed? [I have my doubts; they don't look that old, and they all look like they've come from the same lot.]

Seller says, Reverse Side Early Ink Stamp of “PHOTO POSTCARD”.
All of them have erasure under the Photo Postcard stamp on the back.

Can anyone fill me in on these RPPC's/reference a link?
Thanks.

[frankbmd]

Maybe he means he that he had to get up “early” to stamp the photos himself.

[Leon]

I don't like them for being real photo. Too grainy and too black and white.
Here is a real photo postcard which was tinted and I thought kind of cool.

[seablaster]

Their overall appearance doesn't look at all consistent with the time period indicated. The fact that the erasures performed were so heavy as to remove the text present is a major red flag.

[Snapolit1]

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but the first thing that came to mind is that they are clearly not postcards.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by seablaster

Their overall appearance doesn't look at all consistent with the time period indicated. The fact that the erasures performed were so heavy as to remove the text present is a major red flag.

And the erasures are on the same spot on both cards. Like where a modern era zip code may have been. What an usual coincidence!

[cubman1941]

I am a long ways from an expert but I have a few photo postcards from the same time period. My thought was that a photo postcard was meant to be sent thus would have a place for a stamp/address. I may be mistaken. This is one I have from the same time period

[dougscats]

Thanks for the replies thus far.
Jim, the ones I have, the photos themselves do look consistent with yours, though mine have a name printed on them.

I can still return these,
but I'd just as soon keep them if they're real.

I've looked at them under a pocket microscope, and they are real photos, not prints.

For those of you interested in real photos, Here are links I found on Google:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_photo_postcard

https://www.collectorsweekly.com/postcards/real-photo

http://www.metropostcard.com/guiderealphoto.html

http://www.postcardvalues.com/realphotopostcards.html

Any other expertise about RPPC's in general, or in particular as to whether or not these are real, would be appreciated.

Let me add that there are two lines erased under the Photo Postcard stamp.
The first line says: S ... [Sports?] Cards B ? Collectors
The second line ends in a number--[I can discern ... 62 on three of them]--could be a zip code at the end of an address.

Here are the other two cards:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1929-Dale-B...vip=true&rt=nc

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1929-MAX-CA...vip=true&rt=nc

[h2oya311]

five-digit zipcodes didn't start until 1963.

[dougscats]

Thanks Derek.

I can recollect that, 1963.
But I forget what they had before the zip code.

Of course, the erased number needn't be a zip-code,
but it would be one reason to erase it if it were.

I wrote of my concerns to the seller, who looks reputable.
He replied:

They are definitely from the period, and came with many other items I purchased from the 1920's.
People sometimes applied stamps for their businesses to a card when they purchased them, years
after they were made. That is all I know about these postcards.

The suggestion is that the erased Sports Cards Collector's stamp may have been stamped long after the cards were printed.

Brooklyn Dodgers collector that I am, right now I'm leaning towards keeping them.

[Michael B]

I do not think you got an absolute answer to your question though several, including Steve offered the correct opinion to a point. These are absolutely not RPPC's. It is a case of forest for the trees. You gave all of the correct information and no one fully addressed the issue. RPPC's and most standard postcards are 3½ x 5½ inches, period. They are also thicker than a photograph at about one-half a millimeter. A regular photo on non fiber paper is usually one-half to a little over one-half that thickness. Since RPPC's are on thicker paper, which is pretty much cardstock, they tend to curl a lot less. With many of the older ones the finish is matte not glossy,, though I do have one from 1908 with the glossy finish. The later one's which one person showed were printed on a glossy stock which was possibly RC (resin coated) paper. I have seen a few photos printed on the RPPC paper without the back markings. I also have a few photos that were printed on that paper with some of the back markings but are much smaller at about 3½ x 3½, but I believe they were done that way on purpose. Most true RPPC's will have some markings on the back to indicate it is a postcard. I believe the person who is selling those photos is full of dog excrement. He went to a lot of trouble to erase the extra wording on the back, while damaging them, to try to foist them off as RPPC's. The images below show RPPC's from 1920 and 1924 with margin and non-margin fronts and very simple and fuller RPPC backs. I did make statements that seem to be absolutes. There are exceptions, but I feel that what I said is a good overall guideline.