A few of the funniest fake t206 SLers you'll ever see

G1911 · #1 03-23-2025, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucas00

I cannot find the set these originated from. The typical 1980s reprint sets all copied the original font and list clearly they are reprints. And they don't have fake backs with super bad cuts.

Look a little harder and you will see tons of these floating around, you can probably find 30 more from this reproduction on eBay in a few minutes. Fantasy fake backs and color combos were normal on 80�s reprints and you can find hundreds of them from multiple reprint runs on eBay every day of the year.

Lucas00 · #2 03-23-2025, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Look a little harder and you will see tons of these floating around, you can probably find 30 more from this reproduction on eBay in a few minutes. Fantasy fake backs and color combos were normal on 80�s reprints and you can find hundreds of them from multiple reprint runs on eBay every day of the year.

So yes they were meant to deceive lol. Not sure how you got to "they weren't meant to deceive" if the back literally has the word reprint removed. Like I thought before, the real 1980s reprints have it clearly listed, shown here.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/25680501835...mis&media=COPY

jingram058 · #3 03-23-2025, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucas00

So yes they were meant to deceive lol. Not sure how you got to "they weren't meant to deceive" if the back literally has the word reprint removed. Like I thought before, the real 1980s reprints have it clearly listed, shown here.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/25680501835...mis&media=COPY

These are meant to deceive. He's talking about the set these were from, which were marked "reprint", that were used to make these fakes.

G1911 · #4 03-23-2025, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucas00

So yes they were meant to deceive lol. Not sure how you got to "they weren't meant to deceive" if the back literally has the word reprint removed. Like I thought before, the real 1980s reprints have it clearly listed, shown here.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/25680501835...mis&media=COPY

�. No fucking shit the seller of these is trying to deceive. The cards themselves were not meant to be deceptive, which is why all the details are wrong and completely different. This was an honest reprint set, not intended to be confused with the originals. The seller here is trying to pass them off as real and scratched off the �reprint� tag. If you want to play this game, read and make sure you�re right before you play.

Lucas00 · #5 03-23-2025, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

�. No fucking shit the seller of these is trying to deceive. The cards themselves were not meant to be deceptive, which is why all the details are wrong and completely different. This was an honest reprint set, not intended to be confused with the originals. The seller here is trying to pass them off as real and scratched off the �reprint� tag. If you want to play this game, read and make sure you�re right before you play.

Maybe word your post better? I've never seen somebody lose their temper that fast and be so oblivious at the same time. It's obviously not clear that's what you meant in your first post. It looked like you were referring to the cards I posted about saying they were an honest attempt. Hence James post above clarifying.

G1911 · #6 03-23-2025, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucas00

Maybe word your post better? I've never seen somebody lose their temper that fast and be so oblivious at the same time. It's obviously not clear that's what you meant in your first post. It looked like you were referring to the cards I posted about saying they were an honest attempt. Hence James post above clarifying.

It is not complicated. This is not a difficult line to follow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jingram058

If you're going to fake something, why change everything to make it patently obvious it is fake?

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Because these weren�t meant to deceive - these are from an early full reprint set that was an honest effort and never supposed to be confused with the originals.

The question is why every aspect of the reprint has been changed - and the answer, like it or not, is because this reproduction run was a legitimate one that was not meant to deceive people. No difficult words were used. That we are talking about the set is explicitly stated and included, not assumed in the on sentence statement.

Before you choose to play this game:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucas00

So yes they were meant to deceive lol. Not sure how you got to "they weren't meant to deceive" if the back literally has the word reprint removed. Like I thought before, the real 1980s reprints have it clearly listed, shown here.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/25680501835...mis&media=COPY

Make sure you read the post you are trying to correct and mock correctly.

Lucas00 · #7 03-23-2025, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

It is not complicated. This is not a difficult line to follow.

The question is why every aspect of the reprint has been changed - and the answer, like it or not, is because this reproduction run was a legitimate one that was not meant to deceive people. No difficult words were used. That we are talking about the set is explicitly stated and included, not assumed in the on sentence statement.

Before you choose to play this game:

Make sure you read the post you are trying to correct and mock correctly.

You are trolling at this point and wasting my time. If you can't comprehend how your original statement can be taken numerous ways then I can't help you lol. Ignoring your future troll replies. Not going to delve this into 20 pages of argument replies like 3/4 of your posts turn into.

Beercan collector · #8 03-23-2025, 07:02 PM

What the hell is with people arguing on this site - If it has re-print on it it’s not meant to deceive - if “re-print” has been removed it’s meant to deceive

Leon · #9 03-24-2025, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

…. No fu#$^&* shit the seller of these is trying to deceive. The cards themselves were not meant to be deceptive, which is why all the details are wrong and completely different. This was an honest reprint set, not intended to be confused with the originals. The seller here is trying to pass them off as real and scratched off the “reprint” tag. If you want to play this game, read and make sure you’re right before you play.

Stop with the F bombs.

And I agree with post #17
.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
T206 For Sale SLer	Maxjacks	T206 cards B/S/T	1	12-30-2023 12:17 AM
FS - T206 SLer Ted Breitenstein PSA	Edwolf1963	Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T	1	02-07-2011 07:02 AM
F/S - T206 HOF, SLer and Common	Edwolf1963	Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T	2	10-02-2010 03:28 PM
O/T The funniest FB	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	12	10-19-2007 05:07 PM
Fake Ruth Autograph? Maybe more Fakes too?	Archive	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	33	07-31-2007 07:29 PM