|
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Not to rain on your parade but I am suspicious about the postcard. I think the fact that the price remained so low is indicative that others were as well. I hope it is real and right as rain but my gut says no. If I had it in hand, I could tell for certain but the back along with the clarity of the image on the front cause me to pause.
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
I am with Jason. I don't get a warm fuzzy on the authenticity of it. It might be good...but sure doesn't look like the other 250+ RPPC's I have from that time frame. It almost looks like a second generation photo.
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
I also am skeptical...most likely not real. What's with his eyes?
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
To give an idea here is what some real photo postcards look like from that era. BTW, I don't even like the way the back stamp looks.
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's not about the back stamp. You're right on that. The problem is that someone is making stamps for these postcard backs and stamping them on repro pictures. If you look at the way the stamp on the back looks, there is pooling on certain letters and the Cyko itself isn't fully stamped. I just don't think it looks right. I've looked at 1000s of PCs and that's my opinion.
The fact that it has a stampback that is correct for the era is moot. The question is the authenticity. And as for the price, many collectors saw it. I heard from two at least who would have bid this up into the 1000s. It didn't happen and that speaks to what postcard collectors felt about it. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
I saw it as soon as it was listed and placed a minimum .99 bid and watched it. I am also under the assumption that it is fake.
|
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think the postcard went so low because probstein put the era of the postcard at postwar 1942-80, so it probably didn't come up in a lot of searches (like mine!). The backstamp does indicate what Joey said: Link. As the others have said, hopefully, it's not a fake.
Last edited by glchen; 07-25-2013 at 12:00 PM. |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Collecting HOF RCs, t206 HOF tough backs, and other cards that look cool. ![]() Member of OBC (Old Baseball Cards), the longest running on-line collecting club www.oldbaseball.com --–----------- jimivintage@yahoo.com Jimi Last edited by jimivintage; 07-25-2013 at 11:53 AM. |
![]() |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Questionable Ruth postcard | JoeyF1981 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 07-16-2013 09:14 PM |
| Same Ruth Postcard? | Clutch-Hitter | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 02-01-2011 01:32 AM |
| The postcard that is not of Babe Ruth | Brian Campf | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 17 | 07-21-2010 11:04 PM |
| Unknown Ruth Postcard | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 02-07-2009 10:30 AM |
| Babe Ruth Postcard Help | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 10-28-2008 10:38 AM |