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

swarmee · #1 10-26-2020, 06:30 PM

Quote:

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 · #2 10-26-2020, 06:40 PM

Quote:

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 · #3 10-26-2020, 07:44 PM

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.

JollyElm · #4 10-27-2020, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

That graphic works better, and spells it out more clearly. The busy-ness is fine, methinks, but I do have one last piece of advice to think about. Sorry. With regards to the PSA authenticated Dover reprint, someone seeing the graphic may not realize that PSA thought it was an original CJ card, know what I mean? Looking at it in a vacuum, someone may think that the graphic shown is a closeup of a card with a PSA label stating that it is a reprint. Perhaps I'm too much of a perfectionist, but it is worth mentioning.

oldeboo · #5 10-27-2020, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyElm

That graphic works better, and spells it out more clearly. The busy-ness is fine, methinks, but I do have one last piece of advice to think about. Sorry. With regards to the PSA authenticated Dover reprint, someone seeing the graphic may not realize that PSA thought it was an original CJ card, know what I mean? Looking at it in a vacuum, someone may think that the graphic shown is a closeup of a card with a PSA label stating that it is a reprint. Perhaps I'm too much of a perfectionist, but it is worth mentioning.

Understand, no doubt. When I first discovered this card on Ebay, I was the first one to post about it in another thread, then this one was created and I added the same two images. The first one was of the front and back of the whole slab, then the variation of the second image to point out how it was indeed a Dover Reprint. That was my only intent. I just wanted to show it so people could see it closer, although someone who is legally blind could see those perforations and all of the issues. I figured there would be a heavy resistance from people who love PSA and they would say that the card was either simply questionable or a doctored slab. My intent was to show the whole slab to show that there was no apparent doctoring and details of the card to show why it wasn't genuine. Certainly don't want it to be deceiving at all, but don't want to really change it again unless someone really needs it.

I mean what is this card? A reprint? A forgery? Yeah, sure PSA thinks it's genuine, but I'd rather call it what it is...a reprint, albeit doctored.

It's plenty clear enough in this thread that PSA was fooled by a terrible reprint and did not put reprint on the slab. They were just plain fooled and couldn't detect the card with their expertise.

I added the whole slab picture back into the above and edited this in:
"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."

DWS44 · #6 10-27-2020, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchcollins

but one of the guys on the FB groups

I mean to ask earlier...if possible, would you mind sharing (or PM) a link to the FB discussion on the card? I generally don't associate much with social media, but it might be interesting to read the discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

I just got around to reading your post... Sorry if you took it to mean I was questioning your integrity. I never meant to do that.

No offense taken. The way things were playing out, I don't blame anyone for questioning the situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldeboo

Here are some updates to the graphic to help anyone that was confused.

Nice graphics that you put together...hopefully they help others to not do what I did with mine. One small point of correction if it is of any value...the area you note as "light" across the bottom of the card is actually just a reflection of the plastic liner inside the case. The darker color is consistent through the bottom of the card. If it really had that lighter area, it would have probably made it even more suspicious beforehand.

If you all want to play with some pics...here are a couple of original shots that I took of the card before sending it off:

https://imgur.com/GcHWZsE

https://imgur.com/VGYfNem

I also took one more in good light showing the bottom of the card in the PSA case that came out with less reflection from the liner:

https://imgur.com/UyiXKKT

jchcollins · #7 10-28-2020, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWS44

I mean to ask earlier...if possible, would you mind sharing (or PM) a link to the FB discussion on the card? I generally don't associate much with social media, but it might be interesting to read the discussion.

The one group I know it was mentioned in on Facebook was the PSA traders Keep It Real group. I don't know if I can link the thread directly, but here is the link to the group:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/PSACARDS/

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