Anyone an expert on T205 originals Vs T205 Repints

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>zach</b><p>I would love to get some information on how to identify a genuine T205 vs a reprint t205. I have an opportunity to purchase a large lot from a source that i dont know if i can trust. They look good to me but i am not an vintage card expert. your help would be greatly appreciated.<br />Thanks,<br />Zach

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>The original T205 borders were gilded with a coating of tiny gold colored flecks. The printers <br />put glue on the borders then powdered them in gold flakes, the flakes sticking only to the <br />glued areas. The metal is now well tarnished not unlike an old penny. If you turn the cards at an <br />angle to a light, you can see how the roughish metal shines compared to the rest of the cards. <br />As the metal coating is made up of lots of tiny flakes of metal, instead of being painted or <br />stamped on, it is roughish and not super smooth. Reprints will either have no<br />metal or, I suspect, a metal that is much smoother, shinier, bright and untarnished.<br /><br />I would think that if the cards have tarnished metal borders, that's about a good a sign as any.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Also to add to Dave's good description. <br /><br />The T205 cards tend to chip easily, even high grade examples have some small chipping to the gold border. If you see cards with wear but the borders have no chipping, its a fake.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>To add a little more on this...the ink used for the reprints on the back is a different color. Many of the reprinted ones are easy to tell just from the borders. There was a lot on ebay that got pulled this week that had a large amount of T205s incl. some true rarities that at first glance looked real but you could tell from the back scans that they were the reprints. Post some scans and I am sure that some of us who have handled many T205s (Shawn, Barry, Frank, etc.) can give you some extra help.<br /><br />Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Actually, T205's should be among the easiest cards to distinguish real ones from fakes, because there is simply no way to reproduce the look and texture of the gold border. It is a little hard to express in words, but if you could examine just one real one for a moment, you would be able to spot a fake in a second. If that gold border feels smooth to the touch, it's a fake.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>All of the above is true... good stuff.<br /><br />I suggest buying 2 or 3 worn raw T205s. Once you see the real ones in hand, it is quite easy to distinguish them from fake or reprint cards. I bought a box of reprints for about $10 years ago, just so I could read all of those little biographies. They're nothing like the real ones.<br /><br />Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>There are a number of sport and non sport cards with gilding, including at least one Allen & Ginter non-sport. I've always considered the gilding the equivalent to an Upper Deck hologram. Just put the card into the light and see if it shines correctly-- not unlike checking out a hologram to see if it says UD. <br /><br />And if a collector picks up an unknown but old looking postcard of Christy Mathewson, tarnished gilding on the edges is about a good a sign as any that the card is vintage. Few if any forgers are going to gild a reprint, and even if the did I don't know how they'd tarnish it.<br /><br />Below is an brief article on gilding and modern metal printing that I wrote a number of years ago. It includes microscopic images of the two type of printing, illustrating how they clearly differ.<br /><br /><a href="http://cycleback.com/gild.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cycleback.com/gild.htm</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brett</b><p>Speaking of t205's..... would anyone be interested in buying this miscut t205 i am waiting for in the mail ? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1170102683.JPG">