[BryanBB1980]

It LOOKS like a A&G card. But there are no blue lithograph markings and branding on it. There is a blank back. There are intermittent black lines on the borders (as if scissor cut from something that held the border). There are no classic crosshair symbols indicative of a proof card. It is Tim Keefe who was not (I think) featured in the albums of A&G.PLus, the blank back makes it not look like an album cut.

Any ideas on what this is? The graders have all said same "It is an authentic 19th century card, but we have no clue what it is"

Any thoughts from other vintage collectors are greatly appreciated!!

[ricelynnevans75]

I'm not certain on that one though the thing that jumps out to me is the black lines at the edges of the card, almost as if it was in a collectible reprint sheet of some sort and hand cut from the sheet. Or possibly cut out from a box of some sort thus the blank back. Another possibility is printer scrap from back in the day though I don't think that is too likely.

What "graders" have said it's authentic 19th century?

[scottzoe]

I would be suspect of its authenticity as well and am assuming you have not sent it to PSA, SGC, or BVG. Keefe did appear in the 1887 Ginter set. There are several things that point to a reprint, the black lines at the top and bottom for one. The name is too low related to the picture, too wide across, and the "Richmond Virginia" text is missing. Even thought the Allen and Ginter "blue lithograph" could be missing from a print run, the Richmond Virginia would be the same color ink as the players name and since we see the black line at the bottom we know it is not offset. I agree with the thought that it may have been something along the lines of a collectible sheet since it appears hand cut on all sides.

Scott

[radarblip]

Not being able to see it in person really limits what we can say. My GUESS is it is some kind of a Proof Printing or Customer Approval item and was printed in sheet form, this being only one of the items. My impression holds a lot of assumptions though.

[BryanBB1980]

PSA. It made the rounds through some of their best people. The stock dates it back to 19th century. Thank you for your opinion. So I know it isn't a reprint or cut from a modern box. Printer scrap sounds like a possibility, but I really have no clue how to tell if it is or isn't.

Fund something called a N43. Looks similar-ish. Cut from a similar panel? Perhaps there were too many related issues and it is impossible to know for sure.

Thanks again,

B

I'm not certain on that one though the thing that jumps out to me is the black lines at the edges of the card, almost as if it was in a collectible reprint sheet of some sort and hand cut from the sheet. Or possibly cut out from a box of some sort thus the blank back. Another possibility is printer scrap from back in the day though I don't think that is too likely.

What "graders" have said it's authentic 19th century?

---

Agree pending the assumption. Though, I have sent it to PSA. This was also purchased in the 1980s and there wasn't a ton of reprint stuff back then that had the natural wear, thinness and lithography classic of 19th c content. IN fact, not even the modern stuff has the same tactile feel. Although I am not a professional, I have been an avid collector of 19th century cards for decades and would readily admit if it seemed to be a newer card. I have no ego on this, just want to figure out the mystery. Between PSA, the purchase date and my own eyes, it seems to be roundly accepted to be 19th c.

Although Keefe was in the A&G set, I do not think (and Im not sure) that he was part of the albums they issued with card-like images as part of the pages. They were"A" type albums, not the traditional set it itself. And again, that is just me attempting to remove possibilities. I could be totally wrong.

I would be suspect of its authenticity as well and am assuming you have not sent it to PSA, SGC, or BVG. Keefe did appear in the 1887 Ginter set. There are several things that point to a reprint, the black lines at the top and bottom for one. The name is too low related to the picture, too wide across, and the "Richmond Virginia" text is missing. Even thought the Allen and Ginter "blue lithograph" could be missing from a print run, the Richmond Virginia would be the same color ink as the players name and since we see the black line at the bottom we know it is not offset. I agree with the thought that it may have been something along the lines of a collectible sheet since it appears hand cut on all sides.

Scott

---

Not being able to see it in person really limits what we can say. My GUESS is it is some kind of a Proof Printing or Customer Approval item and was printed in sheet form, this being only one of the items. My impression holds a lot of assumptions though.

Thank you very much for the feedback. Totally understand that without the card in front of the eye, it is a hard game to play. But you have given some great leads that I can research to see if there is a match or not.

Thanks again,

B

---

Final bit I forgot to mention: This was purchased along side a John Ward (now PSA 5.5 slab) from an elder gentlemen who inherited them from his father in the 1980s. The graders at PSA, and many professionals, who look at the 2 cards side-by-side see the same thing. Identical printing, aging characteristics, lithography, paper stock....but the markings are disparate and obscure if not unknown. The old man story is meaningless, but the side-by-side comparison from a same purchase point collection,on top of the PSA graders opinions, put the idea this is a newer card out of the picture.

The only way it could be a fake is if it was done by someone mimicing 19th century lithorgaphy with incredible detail that is identical. The PSA graders put it under the testing regimen hat ensures it had the same ink and paper stock etc. If it was a Cap Anson 10, then maybe someone could do that. BUt for this? It simply doesn't add up.

Scrap card, proof/salesmen sample are good ideas and I will look around and try and find examples.

Thanks to everyone who responded as any ideas are appreciated. I hope my further explanation helps guide toward the reality.

[ricelynnevans75]

Don't know if you get the alerts or not but I'm sending you a PM.

PSA. It made the rounds through some of their best people. The stock dates it back to 19th century. Thank you for your opinion. So I know it isn't a reprint or cut from a modern box. Printer scrap sounds like a possibility, but I really have no clue how to tell if it is or isn't.

Fund something called a N43. Looks similar-ish. Cut from a similar panel? Perhaps there were too many related issues and it is impossible to know for sure.

Thanks again,

B

---

Agree pending the assumption. Though, I have sent it to PSA. This was also purchased in the 1980s and there wasn't a ton of reprint stuff back then that had the natural wear, thinness and lithography classic of 19th c content. IN fact, not even the modern stuff has the same tactile feel. Although I am not a professional, I have been an avid collector of 19th century cards for decades and would readily admit if it seemed to be a newer card. I have no ego on this, just want to figure out the mystery. Between PSA, the purchase date and my own eyes, it seems to be roundly accepted to be 19th c.

Although Keefe was in the A&G set, I do not think (and Im not sure) that he was part of the albums they issued with card-like images as part of the pages. They were"A" type albums, not the traditional set it itself. And again, that is just me attempting to remove possibilities. I could be totally wrong.

---

Thank you very much for the feedback. Totally understand that without the card in front of the eye, it is a hard game to play. But you have given some great leads that I can research to see if there is a match or not.

Thanks again,

B

---

Final bit I forgot to mention: This was purchased along side a John Ward (now PSA 5.5 slab) from an elder gentlemen who inherited them from his father in the 1980s. The graders at PSA, and many professionals, who look at the 2 cards side-by-side see the same thing. Identical printing, aging characteristics, lithography, paper stock....but the markings are disparate and obscure if not unknown. The old man story is meaningless, but the side-by-side comparison from a same purchase point collection,on top of the PSA graders opinions, put the idea this is a newer card out of the picture.

The only way it could be a fake is if it was done by someone mimicing 19th century lithorgaphy with incredible detail that is identical. The PSA graders put it under the testing regimen hat ensures it had the same ink and paper stock etc. If it was a Cap Anson 10, then maybe someone could do that. BUt for this? It simply doesn't add up.

Scrap card, proof/salesmen sample are good ideas and I will look around and try and find examples.

Thanks to everyone who responded as any ideas are appreciated. I hope my further explanation helps guide toward the reality.

[scottzoe]

You may also want to check in with the guys at net 54 baseball. There are many collectors who are far more informed than me on Tobacco cards and oddities. It would not surprise me if one of them posts a picture of what it may have been cut from.

Scott

[BryanBB1980]

You may also want to check in with the guys at net 54 baseball. There are many collectors who are far more informed than me on Tobacco cards and oddities. It would not surprise me if one of them posts a picture of what it may have been cut from.

Scott

Great advice! I certainly will try again. Last I checked, they were not accepting new members. But perhaps that was temporary.

Will do as advised.

Thank you,

B

[dustin12368]

send info to the guy who runs this site, he seems to have many connections not to mention cool reads.
http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/