Ever seen a fake 1971 Topps Pete Rose?

[G1911]

Fake, though I don't recall encountering one of these before. Seems kind of pointless to fake VG 1971 Rose's, but somebody evidently has.

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by G1911

Fake, though I don't recall encountering one of these before. Seems kind of pointless to fake VG 1971 Rose's, but somebody evidently has.

They did a nice job, whoever it was.

I may send it off for autographing by Rose, which would seem fitting for this card!

[YazFenway08]

wow. it's like the other thread on "thin" or possibly fake 64 topps. Seems like a lot of effort, but if you can do a lot of them quickly, I guess every $10 in pure profit adds up?

How does the back look and how does it feel in hand? did they get the stock right?

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by YazFenway08

wow. it's like the other thread on "thin" or possibly fake 64 topps. Seems like a lot of effort, but if you can do a lot of them quickly, I guess every $10 in pure profit adds up?

How does the back look and how does it feel in hand? did they get the stock right?

Back looks nice. The paper stock feels right but it’s a bit less flexible than a normal card. Just a bit more rigid, I guess?

[G1911]

The back looks better than the front. The image doesn't 'feel right'.

The 64's are authentic. I have poor condition common 64's of that type that I can trace back 40 years. No one was faking penny cards; there's just multiple stocks used (even of the same color tone) in most Topps sets.

[Houseofd]

If you are looking for an obvious reason it’s fake, look at the lower case “t” in “Pete” on the front of the card and compare it to the real ones. Totally different font used in the fake version.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Houseofd

If you are looking for an obvious reason it’s fake, look at the lower case “t” in “Pete” on the front of the card and compare it to the real ones. Totally different font used in the fake version.

The "r" is different as well.

Again, why go through the effort?