Fake common m101-4 OK'd by PSA

[nolemmings]

Not that this should set anyone back much if they bid and win it, but still...
https://www.ebay.com/itm/35469085652...Bk9SR7be-v7oYQ
I’m surprised this one got through as authentic—it clearly is not. You’d think that the submitter of a card in that condition would have asked and received a numeric grade, or that it would say “authentic altered” if trimmed, color added, etc. Rather irrelevant given that it is a reprint or fake, but maybe it should have raised a flag with PSA if it was only asked to give an “A” grade.

Also, I don’t recall seeing that kind of holder, with the larger inside bumpers to help contain the smaller card (at least on m101s). Is that relatively new? Here's the card in question:


Here's a real Saier for comparison
[/IMG]

[brianp-beme]

Perhaps PSA is just identifying that the back is authentically blank.

Brian

[bnorth]

Damn and I am the current high bidder.

[obcbobd]

Could you explain why you think it is fake?

Thanks

Bob

[BobC]

Originally Posted by obcbobd

Could you explain why you think it is fake?

Thanks

Bob

Notice the black, single line border around the image, and how on the real card there is virtually no white showing between the black border and the image itself? Now look at the space between the black border and the image on the fake/reprint. Also, see how the photos are differently cropped? Look at the ball in the upper left-hand corner, and the wording behind it in white that shows on the sign/scoreboard. Notice how the fake/reprint is cropped tighter and narrower? Just a couple easy to recognize differences.

Unless there was a difference in such borders and cropping in these issues between just the plain, blank-backed versions, and those that were created for and used by other distributors. I always thought the design and cropping were the same for all the different issues of these.

[charlietheexterminator]

Those are the newer PSA inserts so the smaller cards don’t move around. Now, unless I’m missing something, the card looks good.

Bob, I see what your talking about.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by obcbobd

Could you explain why you think it is fake?

Thanks

Bob

The card is either a doctored reprint or a counterfeit that used the reprint as a template.

Larry Fritsch created a reprint set of m101-5s many years ago. The cards clearly spelled out REPRINT in the lower right corner. Scammers tend to try and erase it or damage that area of the card, but I believe technology has basically allowed the cards to be reproduced with the reprint notice effectively gone. BTW, Saier is the same card number, photo, etc in both m101-5 and m101-4 so this “card” was never a m101-4 in the first place.

There are several threads over the years on how to spot the fakes. Basically, the tell is the space between the lined black frame of the photo and the photo itself—there should be none, or almost none. When the reprint was made, it cropped or shrunk the original photo a little and provided this space. Compare the two Saier cards I showed and you can tell the difference. Also see how the scoreboard in the back is cropped slightly on the left side of the fake. Finally, if you had the card in hand—albeit out of the slab—you would note that the reprints are on slightly thinner stock and are almost translucent, although counterfeits may have compensated for that.

Oops, I see where this was addressed while I was on the phone.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

The card is either a doctored reprint or a counterfeit that used the reprint as a template.

Larry Fritsch created a reprint set of m101-5s many years ago. The cards clearly spelled out REPRINT in the lower right corner. Scammers tend to try and erase it or damage that area of the card, but I believe technology has basically allowed the cards to be reproduced with the reprint notice effectively gone. BTW, Saier is the same card number, photo, etc in both m101-5 and m101-4 so this “card” was never a m101-4 in the first place.

There are several threads over the years on how to spot the fakes. Basically, the tell is the space between the lined black frame of the photo and the photo itself—there should be none, or almost none. When the reprint was made, it cropped or shrunk the original photo a little and provided this space. Compare the two Saier cards I showed and you can tell the difference. Also see how the scoreboard in the back is cropped slightly on the left side of the fake. Finally, if you had the card in hand—albeit out of the slab—you would note that the reprints are on slightly thinner stock and are almost translucent, although counterfeits may have compensated for that.

Oops, I see where this was addressed while I was on the phone.

Todd,

Thanks for confirming what I remembered about these.

[BobC]

.

[BobC]

.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

The card is either a doctored reprint or a counterfeit that used the reprint as a template.

Larry Fritsch created a reprint set of m101-5s many years ago. The cards clearly spelled out REPRINT in the lower right corner. Scammers tend to try and erase it or damage that area of the card, but I believe technology has basically allowed the cards to be reproduced with the reprint notice effectively gone. BTW, Saier is the same card number, photo, etc in both m101-5 and m101-4 so this “card” was never a m101-4 in the first place.

There are several threads over the years on how to spot the fakes. Basically, the tell is the space between the lined black frame of the photo and the photo itself—there should be none, or almost none. When the reprint was made, it cropped or shrunk the original photo a little and provided this space. Compare the two Saier cards I showed and you can tell the difference. Also see how the scoreboard in the back is cropped slightly on the left side of the fake. Finally, if you had the card in hand—albeit out of the slab—you would note that the reprints are on slightly thinner stock and are almost translucent, although counterfeits may have compensated for that.

Oops, I see where this was addressed while I was on the phone.

Hopefully everyone else knows it is fake and I win it for the opening bid. Wouldn't be my first counterfeit card in a PSA slab.

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by BobC

Notice the black, single line border around the image, and how on the real card there is virtually no white showing between the black border and the image itself? Now look at the space between the black border and the image on the fake/reprint. Also, see how the photos are differently cropped? Look at the ball in the upper left-hand corner, and the wording behind it in white that shows on the sign/scoreboard. Notice how the fake/reprint is cropped tighter and narrower? Just a couple easy to recognize differences.

Unless there was a difference in such borders and cropping in these issues between just the plain, blank-backed versions, and those that were created for and used by other distributors. I always thought the design and cropping were the same for all the different issues of these.

Thanks

[BioCRN]

Here's a couple of mine for comparison, properly ID'd as a M101-5 for the blank back... The inner black border issue is very evident on the probable fake.

[Rhotchkiss]

Great explanation, thank you!

The grade given to a card is one thing -- its an opinion (whether we agree with it or not). But there is no excuse for a TPG, let alone the self-proclaimed "industry expert", to authenticate as real, fakes/reprints. For me, this is the #1, fundamental, most important function/job/obligation of a TPG.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

Here's a couple of mine for comparison, properly ID'd as a M101-5 for the blank back... The inner black border issue is very evident on the probable fake.

Very nice examples. Couldn’t the blank back version be either an M101-4 or M11-5 since Saier is the same number in both sets?

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

Very nice examples. Couldn’t the blank back version be either an M101-4 or M11-5 wind Saier is the same number in both sets?

Someone else might know, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about the sets to chime in on the issue, especially the M101 blank backs.

[Michael B]

On the originals the first base line and the 'runners line' (whatever it is officially called) are quite visible. On the 'fake/counterfeit' it is barely visible.

[nolemmings]

The differences are subtle and often very difficult to note. Fortunately, collectors do not seem to mind all that much, although I have seen some Ruth rookie card collectors get pretty fired up about it.

Generally speaking, the m101-5s are a little creamier in color and the m101-4 more white, especially on the back. I believe the stock used was just slightly different for the two sets, or at least the initial printing of m101-5. Here is another m101-5 Saier (SGC dated it wrong):


Here's an m101-4 Saier (not mine) that graded 6.5


Toning is also much more noticeable on the m101-5s, as seen by this Nunamaker, which I show as an example although the card numbers for him in the two sets are different which gives it away.

If you ever see an m101 with that kind of toning you can bet with confidence it is an m101-5.

[Baseball Rarities]

Hi Todd, not to hijack this thread, but what are your thoughts on these M101-4 cards? I saved this image somewhere along the line because I felt that they looked more like M101-5s as opposed to M101-4s.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Hi Todd, not to hijack this thread, but what are your thoughts on these M101-4 cards? I saved this image somewhere along the line because I felt that they looked more like M101-5s as opposed to M101-4s.

Not to hijack Todd's eventual response, as he is rightfully the ultimate judge on these sets, but after getting out the old magnifying glass to confirm the numbers shown on the graded cards:

Bender #13 (Bender not in M101-5 set)
Johnson #91 is M101-4 number (M101-5 is 90)
Cicotte #32 (M101-5 is 31)
Sisler #164 (M101-5 is 166)
Collins #34 (M101-5 is 33)

Adams #1 Either set
Rucker #148 Either set
Daubert #43 (M101-5 is 44)
Demaree #45 (M101-5 is 47)
Cady #25 (m101-5 is 23)
Vaughn #178 (M101-5 is 180)
Stallings #167 (M101-5 is 169)
Tesreau #173 (M101-5 is 175)

Brian

[KCRfan1]

Ben,

Why should you be expected to pay for the card if it's counterfit?

Ebay should back you on this and I would hope a reasonable seller would as well.

Or I could be expecting too much from both parties.....

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Not to hijack Todd's eventual response, as he is rightfully the ultimate judge on these sets, but after getting out the old magnifying glass to confirm the numbers shown on the graded cards:

Hi Brian - Thanks for the response, but I should have worded my question better. All of these cards come from a single M101-4 find, but the toning on them threw me off. I have always associated cards like these with the M101-5 set, but these are M101-4s. I was curious how common it is to find M101-4s with this sort of toning.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

Ben,

Why should you be expected to pay for the card if it's counterfit?

Ebay should back you on this and I would hope a reasonable seller would as well.

Or I could be expecting too much from both parties.....

I would actually like the counterfeit card in the PSA slab. I collect weird stuff and if it went super cheap I would have been happy to own it. I own several weird oddball graded cards.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Hi Brian - Thanks for the response, but I should have worded my question better. All of these cards come from a single M101-4 find, but the toning on them threw me off. I have always associated cards like these with the M101-5 set, but these are M101-4s. I was curious how common it is to find M101-4s with this sort of toning.

Good question!! I too was taught that toning is the give away

[TiffanyCards]

Thanks for sharing. I’ll be adding it to my Altered Card Database of over 6k Altered, Fake, Mislabeled or Stolen cards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by TiffanyCards

Thanks for sharing. I’ll be adding it to my Altered Card Database of over 6k Altered, Fake, Mislabeled or Stolen cards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow, that's a helluva database, thanks for putting it together. Is it available to view?

[TiffanyCards]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Wow, that's a helluva database, thanks for putting it together. Is it available to view?

https://www.tiffanycards.com/altered-card-database


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

Hi Brian - Thanks for the response, but I should have worded my question better. All of these cards come from a single M101-4 find, but the toning on them threw me off. I have always associated cards like these with the M101-5 set, but these are M101-4s. I was curious how common it is to find M101-4s with this sort of toning.

Kevin,

Your examples are the exception to the rule, and show how subtle the differences can be between the two sets. Maybe you shouldn’t bet with confidence when seeing a toned back In short, telling the difference is an inexact science. Fortunately, it only comes into play when trying to decide in which set the otherwise 27 identical-looking cards belong. For those who don’t know, these would be card #s 1-7; 65-71; 141-153 and 198-200 (excluding #s 2, 145 and 146, which have caption changes). Frankly, since Ruth, Rixey and Alexander are the only players of any real significance within that group, I haven’t spent a lot of thought trying to discern the toning differences on the others. I can just say that having hundreds of these cards scanned and viewed side by side, one can see that in general, m101-5 cards tend to tone or “age” differently, whether due to slight stock differences or otherwise, at least among the blank backs. It has been my belief that because there were multiple print runs of each set and possibly different printers or print times, chances are that slightly different stock was used.

I will try to give a more in depth explanation review of the toning differences later but would like to point out another “tell” from the group you posted. Several m101-4 advertisers and some m101-4 blanks have cards with a processing anomaly not found in m101-5 (at least I don’t recall seeing it), and your posted group shows this trait. Specifically, these show one or often two light pressure line indentations that can be found in basically the same spots: a horizontal line about 40% down the card and a vertical line extending from the bottom about 15% from the right side. Here is a Walsh as an example–you can see the lines although they are not overly distracting (to me anyway):



Look closely and you can see the horizontal line on several of the cards in the group you posted, and the vertical line on at least the Rucker. Again, none of the m101-5s seem to have this condition, whether blank-backed or advertisers, so it is a good indicator that a card displaying it is from m101-4.

[Baseball Rarities]

Thanks for the explanation Todd and the M101-4 print line info.

[obcbobd]

I've got a blank back with ghost print. Is this common?

[nolemmings]

Very very uncommon.

[bnorth]

Got a notice from eBay that my bid was canceled and the listing was ended. Said seller made error in listing.

[PhillyFan1883]

I have to compliment Todd on all his great findings and pointers.

Collecting both sets - I agree with the back nuances Todd mentioned and will just add most not all of the time the m101-5s can have that creamy I call it an
“orange burnt hue” compared to a more white on the -4s..the problem is not all -5 have this orange hue making it tricky for the 27 cards in question.. also m101-5s can be white backs adding to the confusion. Fun sets to collect and still underrated.

I also concur on the -4 print indentations and I have a theory they were early run m101-4s. I say that because most of the blank back Stanage portraits you will see have the print indentations. Attached are some fun toughies..