Brian,
These "two things we can't get around" make no sense to me--
1. Maybe you can't get past your opinion of the guy's honesty, but why you think anyone else should be so completely convinced by this I can't imagine. Not that I disbelieve the conversation took place, but all conversations are open to interpretation, and I see no reason to buy your account as the only way to read this guy.
2. I don't find it hard to believe at all that every known card 100 years later, or almost every one, could come from the same little hoard. I believe every M101-4 Burgess-Nash I've seen comes from one of two small groups.
I think Rhett's point is compelling: if it were so easy to create convincing fakes on old paper, surely someone would have done it with T206s long ago-
The nice thing is that we don't all have to agree on this, and it won't create any problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn
Rhett,
The two things we can't get around are:
1. The guy's honesty.
2. Every single example out there, save the amateurish Cobb that was on eBay a few years ago, came from this guy's collection.
If the guy says they are fakes, they are fakes. He may have had two sheets in his run and they may have been of different tone. I do not know. I did not ask him. His honest straightforward statement was all I needed in the conversation. The handwriting on the card on the left was the $2.00 he was asking and the $1.00 on the right was the amount he was asking for that card.
As for the back design, I still think it is a retro look, but that is my opinion.
|
08-27-2014, 12:37 AM
no real dog in the fight, but
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode