Fake 1915 Cracker Jack in PSA holder...wow!

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

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??

A genuine card is just a normal straight cut like most other cards. The Dover reprints have the perforations. Printing anomalies are also very easy to pickup on the Dover reprints. Here is an example from Ebay of how the Dover cards came, I believe. You could easily tear them apart at the perforations if desired.

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.

[JollyElm]

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

[swarmee]

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!

[Fred]

Grading is subjective... it looked real to the grader... That's just unbelievable.

[jchcollins]

My question is, does PSA now make good on their grading guarantee and buy back that card from him at a genuine PSA 1.5 1915 CJ Connie Mack price?

They sure as hell should have to...

[Throttlesteer]

On a side note, I'm impressed he sent the card in June and already got it back

[wazoo]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

On a side note, I'm impressed he sent the card in June and already got it back

Lmfao I was thinking the same thing

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

My question is, does PSA now make good on their grading guarantee and buy back that card from him at a genuine PSA 1.5 1915 CJ Connie Mack price?

They sure as hell should have to...

Nope, the original submitter cannot make a claim on the grade guarantee. Someone would have to buy it and then make a claim.

[Rhotchkiss]

Dave Smith,

Sincere thanks for coming on here and telling your story - stories/incidents like these, posted on forums like this, help keep collectors’ eyes open and, sometimes, cause change in the hobby.

Ryan

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Nope, the original submitter cannot make a claim on the grade guarantee. Someone would have to buy it and then make a claim.

Well that sucks.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

My question is, does PSA now make good on their grading guarantee and buy back that card from him at a genuine PSA 1.5 1915 CJ Connie Mack price?

They sure as hell should have to...

Well, they did once buy back a fake Babe Ruth RC that they graded. But times have changed and they don't need to care any longer.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Well, they did once buy back a fake Babe Ruth RC that they graded. But times have changed and they don't need to care any longer.

Very sad but true.... They don't give two shits about the collector. It's only about profits, favoritism and stock price escalation. Truth be damned.

[drcy]

The most obvious part is the white on his shirt is so much whiter than the borders. They should be no difference, as, on the original cards, the white is the lack of any ink on the cardstock.

[jerseygary]

(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.

[JollyElm]

Wow, then those graphics really need to have 'Dover Reprint' written beneath both.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Wow, then those graphics really need to have 'Dover Reprint' written beneath both.

I think the top one should have "PSA Authenticated 1915 Cracker Jack" beneath it.

[oldeboo]

Originally Posted by swarmee

I think the top one should have "PSA Authenticated 1915 Cracker Jack" beneath it.

Good idea. I'll go back and add that in now. I just threw it together quickly and didn't think to add that or organize it better at least.

[oldeboo]

Here are some updates to the graphic to help anyone that was confused. I think it's a little easier to understand, although it is very busy for 1 image, so I apologize.

For anyone struggling with identifying some of the commonly distributed doctored reprints, it's usually a good idea to just go on Ebay and search "Mack Cracker Jack Reprint," as an example, you'll find the common ones at least. Obviously, there are ones much more sophisticated than these.

Edit: to be clear, the card which is slabbed is identified in the graphic as "PSA Authenticated 1915 Cracker Jack Dover Reprint." This card has been determined to be a Dover Reprint card by this board. PSA deemed it to be a genuine 1915 Cracker Jack card.