1921 Herpolsheimers graded w/o mark

[molenick]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Michael,

Which post? You stated that in your last post last night. By the way waving you good morning.

In post 280 I said "Well, it is too late to continue arguing. But can you do me one favor and please stop saying "waiving"? That means putting a player on waivers (among other definitions). I think we can all agree that "waving" is the correct word."

In post 281 you seemed to agree with me and blamed it on a cold. You said "Waving goodnight and my cold obviously has had one side effect."

Then in post 287 (which I quoted in my post 290) you said "as he waived his hand over the case".

In order to find at least one thing we can all agree on, can we agree that any form of the word "waive" is not correct for describing someone waving his hand at the cards?

[Brian Van Horn]

Sorry, but still have the cold. Let's wave on.

[frankbmd]

Herpolsheimer's Impact on Climate Change should be explored further. Carbon 14 dating to establish the age of the paper/cardboard used in the creation of all the real and faux Herpolsheimer exemplars is needed information. Who among you is certain of the value of Herpolsheimer carbon credits? Isn't everyone who deals in Herpolsheimers breaking the law including auction houses? Aren't more federal agents needed to monitor the Herpolsheimer card market? These are all relevant questions that need to be answered. You can't make this up, but I can.

Furthermore the gentlemen in 1999 and 2004 who espoused the Fabricated Herpolsheimer Hypothesis (FHH) need to be identified and subpoenaed for questioning. Was he/she/they really a dealer(s)? Where was he/she/they born? Were he/she/they an interplanetary refugee transported to earth via asteroid? Is this all part of an intergalactic conspiracy? My friends on this forum, I fear, are merely scratching the surface of the FHH.

My advice is to forget the cards and invest in the Herpolsheimer short pants market, or should you "short" the Herpolsheimer long pants market. My advice to Leon is to be wary of Herpolsheimer pants flippers. Where there's a flipper, there's a scammer.

Carry on.

[scooter729]

Despite trailing right now by 28,000, another week of this thread and Brian will surpass Leon for most lifetime N54 posts!

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Herpolsheimer's Impact on Climate Change should be explored further. Carbon 14 dating to establish the age of the paper/cardboard used in the creation of all the real and faux Herpolsheimer exemplars is needed information. Who among you is certain of the value of Herpolsheimer carbon credits? Isn't everyone who deals in Herpolsheimers breaking the law including auction houses? Aren't more federal agents needed to monitor the Herpolsheimer card market? These are all relevant questions that need to be answered. You can't make this up, but I can.

Furthermore the gentleman in 1999 or 2004 who espoused the Fabricated Herpolsheimer Hypothesis (FHH) needs to be identified and subpoenaed for questioning. Was he/she really a dealer? Where was he/she born? Was he/she an interplanetary refugee transported to earth via asteroid? Is this all part of an intergalactic conspiracy? My friends on this forum, I fear, are merely scratching the surface of the FHH.

My advice is to forget the cards and invest in the Herpolsheimer short pants market, or should you "short" the Herpolsheimer long pants market. My advice to Leon is to be wary of Herpolsheimer pants flippers. Where there's a flipper, there's a scammer.

Carry on.

Frank for president except one clarification. The gentleman in 1999 and the one who sold the cards on eBay in 2004 were two different gents.

[frankbmd]

Brian, Post #295 has been edited to reflect your critique. However the 1999 gentleman could have been morphed into the 2004 gentleman, so I have left the pronouns ambivalent.

Do we have a Net 54 pronoun authority? I would respectfully decline such a position.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Brian, Post #295 has been edited to reflect your critique. However the 1999 gentleman could have been morphed into the 2004 gentleman, so I have left the pronouns ambivalent.

Do we have a Net 54 pronoun authority? I would respectfully decline such a position.

Frank,

I agree. The guy in 2004 could have been a "fake" of the 1999 version. Oh, I am so sorry. I may have to put one version of the gentleman on waivers and wave him goodbye. Oh, the humanity!

It's between you and Alfred E. Neuman for president next November.

[horzverti]

Very amusing thread. To try to keep it entertaining, here are a few theories:

1. Brian is trying to save face – he is remaining firm in his belief the 1921 Herpolsheimer's are fakes because he holds a ton of regret because he didn’t buy the entire lot of 39 cards for about $85 total at the show in 1999.

……or……

2. There were actually 40 cards and the extra card was a second Ruth in better condition. On a whim, Brian bought it for $5. He keeps pushing the thread as a genius move for increased interest in the set, ahead of selling his card for good money. Brian’s post #279, “The "1921" Herpolsheimer cards are fakes, but will probably have more findings in the future. Wow, the possibilities. I'll leave out the incentives for the possibilities because they are obvious.” This is satire...I don't know of more Ruth examples.

……or……

3. Brian never attended that show in 1999 and has never seen the first group of cards before they were sold a while back. The wizard-like, wand-waving “dealer” was just a dream. So just trolling to troll?

……and the truth……

4. Being more serious now….Rhett explained in his post #218 that the checklist of players match perfectly with those included in other similar 1921 sets. The previously unknown subjects (the new 1/1s) which were found in this 39 card group confirm Rhett’s theory. Considering how far the knowledge in the hobby has advanced since the 1970s through the internet, shared resources and die-hard collectors like you; Rhett is also correct that these cards could not have been made in the 1970s. Logically, the cards are original, they date back to 1921 and are pretty rare. “They’re real…and they’re spectacular!”

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by horzverti

Very amusing thread. To try to keep it entertaining, here are a few theories:

1. Brian is trying to save face – he is remaining firm in his belief the 1921s are fakes because he holds a ton of regret because he didn’t buy the entire lot of 39 cards for about $85 total at the show in 1999.

……or……

2. There were actually 40 cards and the extra card was a second Ruth in better condition. On a whim, Brian bought it for $5. He keeps pushing the thread as a genius move for increased interest in the set, ahead of selling his card for good money. Brian’s post #279, “The "1921" Herpolsheimer cards are fakes, but will probably have more findings in the future. Wow, the possibilities. I'll leave out the incentives for the possibilities because they are obvious.”

……or……

3. Brian never attended that show in 1999 and has never seen the first group of cards before they were sold a while back. The wizard-like, wand-waving “dealer” was just a dream. So just trolling to troll?

……and the truth……

4. Being more serious now….Rhett explained in his post #218 that the checklist of players match perfectly with those included in other similar 1921 sets. The previously unknown subjects (the new 1/1s) which were found in this 39 card group confirm Rhett’s theory. Considering how far the knowledge in the hobby has advanced since the 1970s through the internet, shared resources and die-hard collectors like you; Rhett is also correct that these cards could not have been made in the 1970s. Logically, the cards are original, they date back to 1921 and are pretty rare. “They’re real…and they’re spectacular!”

1. Ball one

2. Ball two

3. Ball three

4. Once again from the link in yesterday's post 240 which was originally meant to dispel my argument:

https://archive.org/details/LanstonM...e/n23/mode/2up

A typographical specimen booklet containing borders and ornaments for casting on the Lanston Monotype Composition Caster, Lanston Monotype Type-Caster, Lanston Monotype Giant Caster and Monotype-Thompson Type-Caster. This booklet is from a Lanston Monotype specimen book (binder) bearing the general title "Monotype Type Faces." It is undated, but based on internal evidence elsewhere in the binder it is from the late 1930s or early 1940s.

A set can be faked and by a person who works as a printer.

Thank you for the walk. I enjoyed advancing to first base.

LOL!

Only a little below 29,700 before we reach 30.000 posts for this topic.