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

[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.

[ullmandds]

sounds like a job for the forensics team in seattle!

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Thank you.

Says the guy being completely non-objective and basing his opinion on one guys "honest" (subjective) opinion.

To packs' point I assumed they were not real because by default I am skeptical of new "unknown" sets and purchased none of the cards the first time they were offered on eBay. Only after looking at a handful of the cards in person after the fact and comparing them to known E121-like cards have I come to the conclusion that the cards are original.

Brian, just to be clear there are no "tan" cards... The only reason the two above look different is because one was laying directly on the scanner bed and the other is in a PSA holder.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Says the guy being completely non-objective and basing his opinion on one guys "honest" (subjective) opinion.

To packs' point I assumed they were not real because by default I am skeptical of new "unknown" sets and purchased none of the cards the first time they were offered on eBay. Only after looking at a handful of the cards in person after the fact and comparing them to known E121-like cards have I come to the conclusion that the cards are original.

Brian, just to be clear there are no "tan" cards... The only reason the two above look different is because one was laying directly on the scanner bed and the other is in a PSA holder.

Rhett,

Thank you for that clarification. So we have cards that are of the same tone. The number of cards now may have only been on one sheet. I was basing my extrapolation on the way they appeared in your scans. Please note one and all I would not remember two different tones from a conversation from 2001 at the latest.

Again, thank you for the clarification.

[darwinbulldog]

Presumably if people are biased by whatever beliefs would be self-serving then those who have bought them may be subject to some bias of overconfidence in the cards' authenticity and those who have not bought them may be subject to some bias in the opposite direction. Most of us fall in the latter camp. Let's exclude everyone else, though, in the interest of a very conservative sense of the board's opinion. Is there a single person other than Brian here, among the hundreds of us who have not bought them, who believes they are fake? I don't mean that as a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely curious about it.

I too would have assumed it was just trolling, but I've seen Brian posting on here for a long time, and he always seemed like a reasonable person.

[nolemmings]

I own one of these, and am quite confident it is real.

Brian, I don’t doubt you heard what you state and that the man who told you that the cards were not real honestly believed it–I’m just convinced he was wrong. Sure he would have an incentive to investigate and would want to sell them for more if real, but that doesn’t mean he can;t be wrong. As others have said, unless he made them himself, instructed that they be made or witnessed their production, his is really little more than an opinion.

I can easily see a scenario where he did not know what he had, and consulted with known resources-- all the catalogues and his fellow dealers-- to come to his conclusion. Please remember that fake Henry Johnson’s and Kendigs were circulating during this time–cards that use the very same fronts as these Herpolsheimers/W-575s/E121s. It was even a bit of a hot button, BOLO type situation within the hobby-- I remember some bad HJs emanating from a Festberg auction and posting about it here if not the old Full Count board back around 2000-2001. I even called Lew Lipset at the time and he spoke of these cards being faked. It could very well be that the consensus of those dealers at the RM show was to conclude that these were not genuine basically because no one had seen them, they were not catalogued and other fakes with the same fronts were then circulating. Add to that any dealer with cock-suredness or bravado barking authoritatively to your guy that he “knew” these to be fake and there you have it. Fake it is.

I do not believe it would have been insulting to ask this man how he acquired these cards or if he knew anything about their history–anything to give you more information. These questions are asked all the time with no disrespect. Of course I do not fault you for not asking, but to place so much weight on such a terse statement is misplaced, IMO.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Presumably if people are biased by whatever beliefs would be self-serving then those who have bought them may be subject to some bias of overconfidence in the cards' authenticity and those who have not bought them may be subject to some bias in the opposite direction. Most of us fall in the latter camp. Let's exclude everyone else, though, in the interest of a very conservative sense of the board's opinion. Is there a single person other than Brian here, among the hundreds of us who have not bought them, who believes they are fake? I don't mean that as a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely curious about it.

I too would have assumed it was just trolling, but I've seen Brian posting on here for a long time, and he always seemed like a reasonable person.

I think I still am .

[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?

[the-illini]

maybe I missed this, but a person that you know well enough to unequivocally vouch for his honesty has a bunch of interesting cards and says "they are not real" and you didn't bother to ask why?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by the-illini

maybe I missed this, but a person that you know well enough to unequivocally vouch for his honesty has a bunch of interesting cards and says "they are not real" and you didn't bother to ask why?

Agreed!

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by the-illini

maybe I missed this, but a person that you know well enough to unequivocally vouch for his honesty has a bunch of interesting cards and says "they are not real" and you didn't bother to ask why?

One, the guy was definitive, direct and honest in his response.

Two, the cards, for the most part, had the prices written on the back.

Three, I had an issue with the frame of the advertisement on the back which I thought was retro in look.

Add these together and I would not ask why.

[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.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

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.

Response to each "clarification"

3- It would have to be vintage. Vintage paper and modern paper are NOT the same. For just one example, modern paper has brighteners that wasn't introduced until the 40's this is a reason vintage card collector's use a black light. So you are coming up with a new assumption in place of the vintage paper one, and that is that no one bothered using a black light on one of these cards.

4- As stated with the paper, ink has changed over the years along with the printing process. This has not stated stagnant since 1921. So, again if you don't believe that he used vintage printing techniques than you are assuming no one that has seen them no how to tell a vintage printing from a modern printing.

both above assumptions can be researched more at Judging the Authenticity of Early Baseball Cards by David Rudd Cycleback

5- That wasn't a clarification, that is pretty much what I said. That he brought these cards with the intention of only selling the 1 or 2 sets. Having worked in the printing industry I know for a fact that it would have cost more money to produce this set and the designing of it for just 1 or 2 sets.

6- So this older collector had access to these rare images and decided to add them to a set. This is still an assumption just replacing the other one.


And honesty only goes as far as your knowledge. You can honestly be mistaken which is where the counter argument comes from and since this is the only assumption on the counter argument it still wins when using Occam's Razor.

[slidekellyslide]

Is Brian being for real? This just comes off as a complete troll thread.

Vintage paper is not easy to come by, nor is vintage ink. The most likely scenario is that this "honest" fellow came across these cards in a collection, could not find them in a book or online and assumed they were fantasy cards and priced them as such.

[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.