Some rare and expensive bakery goodies......

[Leon]

Brian- you keep saying there are no other examples. That is 100% wrong. I had and sold 3-4 other examples, in very poor shape, a few years ago. Now what?

Proof- we lost the scan but here is one I sold....

http://b-lauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=1777

[darwinbulldog]

I don't see how honesty has anything to do with it, unless there's some rule I don't know of whereby being honest precludes someone from making a mistake, but that's clearly what happened. Is it more likely for an honest person to have real cards and believe them to be fake (I've done this myself at least once) or for someone to have invested tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to create convincing fakes using appropriate images whose appropriateness would not have been known until several years into the future; and, having already demonstrated himself capable of reproducing the printing and cardstock that would have existed in real cards, to modify them sufficiently to convince two people that they weren't real, all the while having no intention of doing any of this for a profit but being motivated instead by the fun of investing years of income on a lark that quite likely no one else in the world would ever have found out about? Honest (and self-injurious) mistake or time-traveling spendthrift? You decide.

But good luck persuading the guy who missed the chance to pick them up for a few bucks.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I don't see how honesty has anything to do with it, unless there's some rule I don't know of whereby being honest precludes someone from making a mistake, but that's clearly what happened. Is it more likely for an honest person to have real cards and believe them to be fake (I've done this myself at least once) or for someone to have invested tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to create convincing fakes using appropriate images whose appropriateness would not have been known until several years into the future; and, having already demonstrated himself capable of reproducing the printing and cardstock that would have existed in real cards, to modify them sufficiently to convince two people that they weren't real, all the while having no intention of doing any of this for a profit but being motivated instead by the fun of investing years of income on a lark that quite likely no one else in the world would ever have found out about? Honest (and self-injurious) mistake or time-traveling spendthrift? You decide.


But good luck persuading the guy who missed the chance to pick them up for a few bucks.

LOL on the last line.

If the gentleman is making a clear, honest and declarative statement that "They are not real." and he has all of the examples then and now, save the amateurish Cobb, the cards are fake. He knew of what he spoke and he was being honest. He was not mistaken.

If people want to persuade themselves these cards are real, feel free. I will just smile knowing that the only 1921 Herpolsheimers that are out there, save one poor attempt, were from this gentleman who knew of what he spoke. They are fakes.

[Brian Van Horn]

Leon,

Wait a minute. What I said was there are not other examples of the Herpolsheimers other than the one amateurish Cobb. On the Merchants Bakery, I stated there are the ones listed on eBay and the ones you got the last time they were listed on eBay. I also stated I didn't know if there were any Merchants Bakery cards that got past you. Just a clarification.

The link you posted is for a Merchants Bakery. Just trying to keep the two topics clear and separated.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Leon,

Wait a minute. What I said was there are not other examples of the Herpolsheimers other than the one amateurish Cobb. On the Merchants Bakery, I stated there are the ones listed on eBay and the ones you got the last time they were listed on eBay. I also stated I didn't know if there were any Merchants Bakery cards that got past you. Just a clarification.

The link you posted is for a Merchants Bakery. Just trying to keep the two topics clear and separated.

Right you are on that point. I still stand by my thoughts on the Herpolsheimers being legitimate for all of the reasons stated. I find it a bit curious that you believe someone whom you have no idea of who they are except they had some cards they ignorantly wrote on. Just because they said they were honest (or you think they are and they might be, it doesn't really matter) doesn't make them an expert on cards. The cards are real.

[ctownboy]

Brian,

To me there is a difference between a guy saying the cards are "not real" because he has never seen them before and they are not checklisted and saying they are "not real" because he or someone he knows made them.

What is the reason in this case?

If he told you they are not real because he made them then I would say they are fake. If all he said was they were not real without any other reason then I would lean towards the cards being real and him saying they weren't because he hadn't found any others.

I have a 1928 Star Player Candy card of Buddy Myer. When a discussion of rare cards came about on the old board, I was a new member and said I had 15 of these cards and one was an uncatalogued Myer. People didn't believe it because the card wasn't known to exist. Then a scanned all of the cards. After that people not only believed it but the card was added to the checklist.

To me, if the Herpolsheimer's are one of a kind cards and they were found all together then I can see where a person would think they are "not real" and honestly say so. I mean, if the guy looked at every price guide and they are not listed, talked to a bunch of dealers and they never saw nor heard of these cards and did a web search and found nothing resembling them then he could honestly say they were "not real" and be wrong.

Just my two cents,

David

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

Brian,

To me there is a difference between a guy saying the cards are "not real" because he has never seen them before and they are not checklisted and saying they are "not real" because he or someone he knows made them.

What is the reason in this case?

If he told you they are not real because he made them then I would say they are fake. If all he said was they were not real without any other reason then I would lean towards the cards being real and him saying they weren't because he hadn't found any others.

I have a 1928 Star Player Candy card of Buddy Myer. When a discussion of rare cards came about on the old board, I was a new member and said I had 15 of these cards and one was an uncatalogued Myer. People didn't believe it because the card wasn't known to exist. Then a scanned all of the cards. After that people not only believed it but the card was added to the checklist.

To me, if the Herpolsheimer's are one of a kind cards and they were found all together then I can see where a person would think they are "not real" and honestly say so. I mean, if the guy looked at every price guide and they are not listed, talked to a bunch of dealers and they never saw nor heard of these cards and did a web search and found nothing resembling them then he could honestly say they were "not real" and be wrong.

Just my two cents,

David

David and Pete,

I appreciate the input. I like the Allegheny set since I live in Pittsburgh which is in Allegheny County. I still have no interest beyond the local connection.

As for the gentleman, the discussion was quite simple. "They are not real." At that time that was all I needed. I did not need, and still do not need to find a sample from this set for comparison to another set from the 1920s. Here is one bit of conjecture:

Let's say this gentleman was a printer. He printed up a couple sheets, one white, one tan and then wrote on the back what he wanted for each card.

This is not conjecture:

I meet him at the Robert Morris show and ask about the cards. He states, "They are not real." He wrote what he was selling the cards for on the back of many, but not all of the cards.

No other cards, save the amateurish Cobb has surfaced. There are no duplicates. The monopoly was with-and is still traceable-solely to this gentleman.

He doesn't know what he is talking about? It is possible (conjecture) he was the creator of the cards. Did I ask? It would not have occurred to me at the time. I would also not have asked at the time and, frankly, would not ask now if presented the same scenario about how he knew because the statement was definitive, declarative, straightforward and honest. I also would not ask to compare the compare the cards to the stock of other card sets from the time because 1.) The honesty would have knocked that thought from my mind and 2.) Even if it did not knock the thought from my mind, I would have been insulting an honest man.

[packs]

Just putting this out there but if you bought one of these cards your opinions on the matter could be tainted. It would be best to view this objectively and as though you don't have something at stake.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by packs

Just putting this out there but if you bought one of these cards your opinions on the matter could be tainted. It would be best to view this objectively and as though you don't have something at stake.

Thank you.

[bn2cardz]

I find the Herp conversation humorous.

Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Using Occam's Razor here is what we are left with.

Facts: A gentleman has them for sale and when asked he states they are not real.

Brian's assumptions:
1)They guy knew what he had
2)The guy had a printer
3)The guy had access to vintage paper
4)the guy had access to vintage ink
5)the guy only printed 1 or 2 sets to sell at a single show
6) this guy knew about other images to use that weren't known to the rest of the hobby until future discoveries in other sets

The counter assumptions:
1) The guy didn't know that the cards were real and thought they were fake

Using Occam's Razor it is easy to go with the fact the cards are real.

[packs]

Just wondering about the Allegheny cards. Has there ever been a patent found for the game? I'm wondering what dates them to the period other than insight from hobby veterans. I know the cards have the registered date printed on them, but is there evidence that supports the fact that the game was registered in 1904?

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I find the Herp conversation humorous.

Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Using Occam's Razor here is what we are left with.

Facts: A gentleman has them for sale and when asked he states they are not real.

Brian's assumptions:
1)They guy knew what he had
2)The guy had a printer
3)The guy had access to vintage paper
4)the guy had access to vintage ink
5)the guy only printed 1 or 2 sets to sell at a single show
6) this guy knew about other images to use that weren't known to the rest of the hobby until future discoveries in other sets

The counter assumptions:
1) The guy didn't know that the cards were real and thought they were fake

Using Occam's Razor it is easy to go with the fact the cards are real.

Andy,

It is humorous. I have been laughing the entire time. Now to sharpen Occam's Razor:

3. The paper did not need to be vintage. The same paper has been used in printing for years. If you don't believe me, ask a printer. Have modifications be made over the years? I am sure they have, but the paper for the most part is the same. It is a cheap product and cheap products remain cheap because, in part, they are mostly not modified.

4. I never said the guy had vintage ink.

Clarification:

5. He printed and then brought to shows the cards from the sheets.

6. The guy knew the sets. The discovery of other images was in regard to this generation of collectors. Older collectors would have run across the Davenport or the Henry, etc.

The cards are fakes. Why? Not because of assumptions, but honesty.

[Brian Van Horn]

Leon,

In all due respect, they are fakes. The guy for all I know may have been a printer and printed a couple of sheets of cards, one in one shade of paper and the other in another shade. This guy was honest. He knew of what he spoke and the cards eventually ended up with a guy in Maryland who posted them on eBay. Ask yourself, why have there been no other examples, save one homemade Cobb, which have surfaced? All of the cards have come from one source and that source stated "They are not real."

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Leon,

In all due respect, they are fakes. The guy for all I know may have been a printer and printed a couple of sheets of cards, one in one shade of paper and the other in another shade. This guy was honest. He knew of what he spoke and the cards eventually ended up with a guy in Maryland who posted them on eBay. Ask yourself, why have there been no other examples, save one homemade Cobb, which have surfaced? All of the cards have come from one source and that source stated "They are not real."

Brian- I don't think empirical evidence will convince you more than a guy that knew so much about cards he wrote the prices on them. No sane person can argue with you on that.

On a related note here is a card with only one set known. I heard the guy that had these said they aren't real either. They must not be...

[Brian Van Horn]

Leon,

I know nothing about this other set which you posted and have no interest in the set. I understand the point you are making with the comparison, but the man's honesty, his monopoly on the market and the fact that only a homemade copy of Cobb from the set has surfaced since our discussion all point to one thing and that is the cards are fake.

One thing I do worry about at this point is that there may be an unscrupulous printer who reads this post, acquires one of the cards and sets out to produce more cards circa 2014 with the price tag of a rare 1921. That is a nice little potential Pandora's Box. The one check is that he would need to have the same level of knowledge of the sets as the original creator of this fantasy set.

[frohme]

These cards - in their various guises and ACC numbers/names/categorizations - were used for advertising purposes across a wide variety of product spaces (food, entertainment, clothing etc...) and time - the images were certainly used into the 20's (licensed or otherwise)

As such, they likely went through a variety of steps before they ever made it into distribution, some of which might see the content being generated by an honest-to-goodness print manufacturer using that (licensed?) content for the express purpose of making advertising material in the form of "cards".

For example ...

Back in 1921, Joe Jr (son of the owner of Joe's Auto Body) had a run of advertising material requested, featuring an ad for his Dad's shop on the back of the cards. The ad company ran the "for approval" copies off and gave them to Joe Jr. Dad said we don't have the money for that ... and the advertising campaign died right there, never making it to production. Joe Jr kept the promos, and never considered them "real" because that print run - effectively customer "proofs" - were never acted on, but kept for whatever reason .. Joe Jr - or maybe Joe III sometime later - found them and brought them out.

If they were printed on appropriate equipment at that time, for the express purpose marketing/advertising like other cards of the generation, with licensed images, etc... they're real (to me). If they were printed years later on different printing hardware with different ink, using old images simply as "fantasy" cards, sure, they're fake... I think the empirical evidence says that's not the case.

Maybe some other printer put the time/$$ into a project for reward and it got axed due to use of unlicensed content or some other legalities. Does not change the above statements much, IMO.

I think even the honesty of the guy selling them, but calling them "not real" is sort of moot, if you did not question him as to what he meant by "... they're not real ...", the above example being a case in point... :

1. If you asked him, and he said "they were a licensed advertising run we were having made by printing company X for our family's clothing store but grandpa decided not to use it..." would you call it a promo, a proof, or simply "fake"?
2. If you asked him and he said "my dad worked at a printing company - we printed them for the advertising company, but their customer decided not to use them ..." dad kept them because he thought they were neat, but we never printed any more... would you call them "promo", "scrap", "fake" ...
3. If you asked him and he said "my dad was best friends with an ad/printing company owner and they gave my dad the stuff because they were going to throw it away, but they knew he was into beisbol ... "
4. If you asked him and he said "dad lived next door to an advertising company and went through the trash... "

Not having any context except your memory about the conversation and no further details makes this a "he-said" conversation. Not that it is not worthy of discussion, but your insistence on that as the key point as to the fakeness makes me wonder if there is not a middle ground somewhere that is more like reality... one in which the cards - for all intents and purposes - are ones that were licensed and printed for a legit reason and qualify as real under most definitions, but were considered as "not real" by the holder because he knew that they never saw the light of day for their "intended" purpose.

Yes, there are equally stories on the "fake" side, I'm just trying to make the point that under the circumstances, outcomes from natural events that might explain both: the quality/reality of the cards, and an involved(?) person's contention to the contrary are not at all implausible.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Leon

Brian- I don't think empirical evidence will convince you more than a guy that knew so much about cards he wrote the prices on them. No sane person can argue with you on that.

On a related note here is a card with only one set known. I heard the guy that had these said they aren't real either. They must not be...

I was about to cite the same example. I have a hard time believing the herps are fake.