 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
10-26-2020, 04:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Fake 1915 Cracker Jack in PSA holder...wow!
Unbelievable. It’s such an obvious fake I can’t even wrap my head around it. The perforations alone...
Reinforces the need to do your homework on slabbed cards. Caveat emptor, etc. Last edited by Jgrace; 10-26-2020 at 04:32 PM. 
|
|
#2
10-26-2020, 04:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
For posterity. Before they zero out the cert number...
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes.
|
|
#3
10-26-2020, 05:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Can someone explain the perforations issue to us non-CJ collectors? In the comparison graphic posted, it looks like both the 'real' card and the Dover reprint have perforations, just to a different extent. Is that the case, or do the originals have no perforations...or is it something else??
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land  https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. 
|
|
#4
10-26-2020, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
In the comparison above in this thread, a known Dover is being compared to the questionable card. Well not really questionable, honestly. It's a common trick for scammers to stain these cards, trim the edges, and rub off where it says REPRINT and stain over that spot to trick the unsuspected. Whoever doctored this one just chose to rub the perforation nubs down a little instead of trimming. Last edited by oldeboo; 10-26-2020 at 05:55 PM. Reason: addition
|
|
#5
10-26-2020, 06:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
But, I'm confused. Here is the graphic I mentioned. The 'real' card situated above the 'Dover Reprint' seems to have perforations across the top...
Mack Fake 2.jpg
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow.
|
|
#6
10-26-2020, 06:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Both cards in the image are fake. The top one is the one in the PSA slab...
To add: the texture/cardstock between the two cards is also immediately noticeable if you have them in your hands. It's completely ridiculous that PSA authenticated this reprint from 60 years newer. It would probably fluoresce under a black light because of the whitening in the card as well. Just atrocious!
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. Last edited by swarmee; 10-26-2020 at 06:18 PM.
|
|
#7
10-26-2020, 09:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Grading is subjective... it looked real to the grader...
 That's just unbelievable.
__________________
fr3d c0wl3s - always looking for OJs and other 19th century stuff. PM or email me if you have something cool you're looking to find a new home for. Last edited by Fred; 10-26-2020 at 09:19 PM.
|
|
#9
10-26-2020, 06:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
(Looks like John beat me to it)
I can see how it could be confusing. What the photos are showing is a regular un-aged Dover reprint card compared with the slabbed card, which is also a Dover reprint card which has been artificially aged. Neither card shown is original, both are reprints from the same source. Last edited by jerseygary; 10-26-2020 at 06:20 PM.
|
|
#10
10-26-2020, 06:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Wow, then those graphics really need to have 'Dover Reprint' written beneath both.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. Last edited by JollyElm; 10-26-2020 at 06:24 PM.
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Cracker Jack Joe Jackson 1915 Real or Fake? | wrm | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 4 | 04-08-2020 08:00 AM |
| 1915 Cracker Jack Set, Original, Reprint, or Fake? | UOFLfan7 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 10 | 06-10-2012 02:18 PM |
| 1914 Cracker Jack Adams, 1915 Cracker Jack O'Toole | Brian Van Horn | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 1 | 02-01-2012 08:19 PM |
| 1914 Cracker Jack Lord, 1915 Cracker Jack O'Neill | Brian Van Horn | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 0 | 03-11-2011 06:22 PM |
| 1915 Cracker Jack Doolan, 1915 M101-5 Konetchy | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 1 | 06-09-2007 11:29 AM |
Hybrid Mode
