Reachs poster real?

Bought this today at the flea market.

It seems to have some sort of waxy like coating over it.
With the loup I'm not seeing any dot matrixing and the ink appears to be raised and not flat to the paper.

My boss doesnt think it to be right, but idkkkkk

What do yall think?

 

I hope you didn't spend a great deal of money on it.

Debora

 

Oh no, why not?

 

I can't speak for your poster specifically but this type of (reproduction) decorative piece was very common in the 1970s.

Debora

 

I second that emotion,Debora.

 

The lettering does not look professional. It might date to the '60s or '70s (don't know), but it may not be any kind of production piece. It might be some individual's attempt at creating a period piece. Might even be student work. Very strange: the image of the ball players is professional; the rest is not.

 

The leading is not professional, agree. Certainly not what one would expect of a period piece, especially during a period when craftsmanship (craftpersonship?) was so high.

Debora

 

I think someone made that for themselves. I'd have bought it too just for the image.

 

Hm, there's no copyright on it, which it could have been cut from the bottom, but usually it's tucked where it can't be.
The black ink is raised. You can slightly feel it when your fingers run across the page, but when you do put it next to a repop reachs poster you can see the wompy letters.
My boss said it looks like someone took marker and filled in the letters, but was getting thrown by the lack of dotting you'd see in a reproduction piece.


Could it be a early artists draft piece?

I paid only $10 for it, but have the intention to resell.
Id like to label and price it correctly.

 

I know nothing about baseball apart from the fact that the player is out, but it does look like the sort of cheap woodblock print that would have been issued to hundreds of news vendors who would be selling the guide.

It's not great art or craftsmanship, just a cheap advertising poster. It would not have had an original copyright notice, it would not have one in 1896 and would not need one, the publishers would have been delighted if anyone copied and distributed it, it is an advertisment after all.

 

I think someone took a faded poster and retouched it with magic markers. I concur with a 1970s repro.

 

Also, even if it were original I imagine the addition of the waxy coating would affect the value of it. It is not in original condition for an old poster.

I agree with others that it is a later piece, though. If not, somebody committed a crime by waxing it!

 

Here is a closed listing for a reproduction sign advertising the same publication, same year, but a different sign.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1896-Reachs...-Reproduction-8x12-Sign-8120842-/121771887373

 

The raised black of the illustration may indicate a photo silkscreen of an old image, the lettering added later.

 

Also, they forgot the apostrophe...

 

I'd suspect it does not date to 1896. The lack of the apostrophe is concerning, and I doubt an official poster would mis-state the name of the publication.
Comparing to this poster (supposedly an original of the repro in the ebay auction linked above)http://www.zazzle.com/vintage_sports_baseball_reachs_guide_cover_art_poster-228086287099329391
I see an obvious attempt to imitate the font, and even some of the decorative details (upper corners); but neither is accurately rendered. Compared to the original, both the font and the decorative details are crudely done.
I'd suspect an amateur attempt to create a vintage-looking poster, rather than an original or a reproduction of an original item.