Reprints - Good or Bad

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John H.</b><p>I love anything to do with baseball history but I have to admit that I have no original baseball cards older than 1952 Topps in my collection. What I do have is many of the reprint sets that have been issued over the years, including T205, T206, Cracker Jack, 1933, 34 & 38 Goudey, 1939 Play Ball, 1949, 51, 52 & 53 Bowman and 1952, 53 & 54 Topps. I also have Red Heart, Wilson Franks, Red Man Tobacco and probably some other sets that I can't think of at the moment. <br /><br />Does that make me a bad vintage baseball card fan? Is that going to make be a pariah on this forum? How does everyone else feel about reprint cards?<br /><br />John

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>I personally don't like them...they usually look glossy and fake. Nonetheless they're certainly a nice, inexpensive way to enjoy the images.<br /><br />pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>I'd rather have one dog-eared, tape-stained and well-loved T206 than reprints of every card ever made. I certainly don't hold anything against those who collect them. In fact, I'm always happy when I hear that anyone is interested enough in baseball history to be a collector of anything related to the game. On a personal level, though, I love the challenge of putting together a collection of vintage cards. Buying reprints are like buying shoes ... you can find them anywhere. Yet months often go by before a find a T206 I'm looking for and I can afford. There is a definite thrill to the chase ...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jP</b><p>something ive learned since being a part of this board is that reprints can be a bad and a good thing. depends on how you feel about them. i personally used to like the reprints because i wanted something to display some of the sets and particular cards of some of the HOF's (babe,cobb, etc.)that i like from the past. but i also have been burned and actually paid for reprints when i thought i was getting the real thing. <br /><br />still kind of nice to have something that you know you will never have the original of.<br /><br />so my answer lies with yes and no.<br><br>my collection: <a href="http://s102.photobucket.com/albums/m95/obaks/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://s102.photobucket.com/albums/m95/obaks/</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...by leafing through Frank Slocum's 1987 Classic Baseball Cards book, with images of tons of pre-war cards, including T206. That whets your appetite, so when you get the real deal it's extra special.<br /><br />After you've acquired a few of the real ones, you'll never be able to find the same enjoyment in the fakers.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys, <br /><br />A variation on this question, what do you guys think of the trend towards the reuse of classic sets. For instance in 2004 Topps reused the T-206, then came their reuse of Crackerjacks, recently they are using Allen and Ginter. The cards are nice and the stick in inserts. Do you guys purchase them.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i think reprints and the new topps vintage cards are nice. but i would not purchase them. i have the vintage card book(slocum) and with all the internet sites displaying vintage cards i can look at them this way(since i cant afford to own all i want). but there is nothing wrong with buying reprints to look at. it is a cheap alternative and kids can handle them without worry of damaging. if i were going to buy new stuff i would buy the cards with the vintage look rather than the ones that are silver or chrome.