Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve on January 12, 2018 at 9:02pm

Here is the Gehrig

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• image.jpeg, 20 KB

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on January 13, 2018 at 6:18am

the mantle is just awful.   The gehrig looks like a repro.

Permalink Reply by CJCollector on January 13, 2018 at 6:26am

I saw that last night from Ebay seller Kagraw1111.

This is one of the most laughable Mantle forgeries I have ever seen on Ebay.

In my opinion, both bids are shills.

This is a piece-of-crap-forgery.  Pathetic.

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 13, 2018 at 8:48am

Awful.

Permalink Reply by Steve on January 13, 2018 at 10:25am

Definitely shill bidding.

Permalink Reply by Ivan Cruz on January 13, 2018 at 8:01am

I saw the signed baseballs on ebay. They look fine to me. You people are just trying to get rid of the competition by writing negatively and expressing your opinion. remember opinions are like A-holes, everyone has one.

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on January 13, 2018 at 8:07am

Then I ASSume you will be bidding on them correct?

Permalink Reply by Ivan Cruz on January 13, 2018 at 8:13am

000_1061.JPG

people say my honus wagner is fake but i care to differ.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• 000_1061.JPG, 546 KB

Permalink Reply by Ivan Cruz on January 13, 2018 at 8:14am

000_1058.JPG

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• 000_1058.JPG, 702 KB

Permalink Reply by CJCollector on January 13, 2018 at 8:16am

Ivan, this is an Autograph website.

You might want to send your "Wagner" to PSA or SGC to determine whether it is an original or a reprint.

Permalink Reply by Steve on January 13, 2018 at 10:27am

Why don't you show a picture of the front, not a poor reproduction picture of the back.

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on January 15, 2018 at 12:18am

Ivan, the card is a reprint. The layers of the paper used to produce T-206 cards from 1909 through 1911 is vastly different. Tearing the edges off to simulate wear only revealed even more of the paper's internal characteristics for scrutiny, exposing the modern internal fibres.

But hell, don't take my word for it. try a simple experiment. Buy a cheap T-206 common. Not a later reprint T-206 like this one you posted an image to here. Buy a 108 year old card. VG will do. Won't cost much. Then wet it and note how the back of the card ripples. It certainly won't ripple with those pleated lines this modern paper does. Also, rip a corner off and note the internal layers once exposed. Again, vastly different.

Trying to fool people that have handled tens of thousands of vintage 1900 through 1920s cards by telling them that this is vintage T-206 paper isn't easy as you think.

Even funnier is the guy with the spliced T-206 Wagner that's been trying to convince people for years that it's legit. Hint: It's a T-206 common with the top ply of paper sanded off and then the bottom ply of the two-ply reprint sanded off and both real back and fake front glued together, and it looks it.

Here's the catch. The vintage T-206s are made up of multi-ply stock. That is, edge on, the paper is multi-layered like a paper match from a book of matches. If you had enough time and a sharp enough blade, you could separate a T-206 into 20 or more cross cuts, like a CAT scan does. Not so with the more modern paper. Not that many layers on those.

And BYW, the Mantle signature is a horror.

But humor us. Let's see the front of the Wagner and I'll identify which reprint (there's dozen of them) it is. How's that?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page