Question for Mr. Heitman re: renumbering 1933 Goudey cards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Mr. Heitman, you wrote in another thread something about Goudeys that I had never heard of. I'm not a hobby verteran, so I'm not surprised to hear something new. But since I am a Goudey collector, this piqued my interest. I thought I'd start a new thread since this would be a tangent to the Wagner thread.<br /><br />Mr. Heitman wrote: "Back in the '50's, and even earlier than that, there was a group of hobby veterans who, in their spare time, liked to redo older sets of cards. They would make changes--like completely renumbering the 1933 Goudey set, or changing backs."<br /><br /><br />Can you elaborate what you mean by "renumbering the 1933 Goudey set"? Do you mean they re-printed all the cards, but just changed the number of the card on the back? If so, were the re-printed cards on the same card stock (or similar) to the Goudey set? If a collector (or grader) today saw one of those, could they distinguish the re-print from the real thing (other than the different number)?<br /><br />I have heard of a Leo Durocher card with #106 on the back. Is that an exmaple of one of the re-done, renumbered Goudey cards? What about this #161/#124 Al Spohrer card? Is this card below an example of one of the redone, renumbered Goudey cards?<br /><br />Thank you very much for your knowledge and information!<br /><br /><img src="http://www.goodwinandco.com/site/goodwinandcocom/img/dataset/auction/200702lg/380a.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://www.goodwinandco.com/site/goodwinandcocom/img/dataset/auction/200702lg/380b.jpg"><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>William Heitman</b><p>I don't believe a collector could distinguish these particular cards from originals. The answer to all of the other questions you pose is, I believe, yes. I'll leave it at that to avoid further controversy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Cmoking,<br /><br />Is that Spohrer card yours? Can you illuminate it with black light and see what happens??<br /><br />Somewhere I read that Durocher actually appears with 2 numbers. But now I am doubting the authenticity of the extra one.<br /><br />Anyone else have mis-numbered Goudeys?<br /><br />Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Frank, that card was in the recently closed Goodwin auction. It was almost mine, I was the underbidder.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>I'm curious as well. How could they reproduce the artwork so faithfully as to not be detectable by experts - identical artwork, identical typefaces, and randomly changing numbers - without owning the original printing plates? What technology existed in 1950 that would enable people to make virtually identical artwork but change some information on the backs (the Piedmont on the Wagner, the numbers on the Goudeys), while being otherwise completely undetectable?<br /><br />I mean, they'd have to have access to the exact same typefaces, lay them out exactly the same way, with exactly the same spatial relationships between all the letters, borders, and artwork. It would have had to be absolutely perfect in every way so as to be undetectable.<br /><br />And wouldn't they have had to print entire SHEETS of these cards? I mean, I'm fairly certain it wouldn't have been economical for a bunch of guys, just messing around, to create an entire sheet of, say, 33 Goudey Durochers, using identical stock to the '33 Goudeys, identical ink, and then print just a handful, with 4 colors on the front and green on the back.<br /><br />No? Or am I misunderstanding?<br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>WP</b><p>Al you are exactly right so these hobby pioneers could produce exact replicas the likes of which can't be produced today, however they had no idea how to cut the cards straight. Highly doubtful look at the borders on the pictured card wavy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>This type of info affects almost all of us!<br />If they did this on '33G's imagine what else could have been reprinted.<br /><br />I am surprised that collector's seem uninterested in this thread.<br /><br />I recently posted a question about size varience....and that too fell on deaf ears....really disappointed.<br /><br />I wonder what the real agenda is in remaining silent.<br /><br />Mark<br />mrios@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>The lack of interest in the thread doesn't surprise me. If this was about T206s, this thread would have a hundred posts. It seems board members are mostly concerned with pre-WWI cards ...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I'd certainly like to hear more about this. In particular, I'd like to know:<br /><br />Did these early collectors have the original printing plates?<br /><br />How did they select the correct inks?<br /><br />How did they find the right paper?<br /><br />Why have only 2 of the renumbered Goudeys have shown up over the years?<br /><br />What other sets did they reprint?<br /><br />If this was just innocent fun and not an intent to fool anyone, why isn't the story more widely known? I would think an honest collector would have warned the entire hobby (a very small group back then) once he realized that his joke cards were being passed of as real.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>I'm sorry, but with all due respect to Mr. Heitman, I think it's important to point out the illogic of this. People are reading it and talking about it and expanding on the concept, and considering the possibility that a roomful of old-time collectors may have been messing around with vintage inks, vintage papers, and vintage presses in some mad scientist/card geek laboratory in 1950, creating undetectable forgeries that are floating around the hobby today.<br /><br />And printing them on strips.<br /><br />While changing the numbers and backs, just for the heck of it. And creating rare back variations that only a few people know aren't really real.<br /><br />And they did both T206s and '33 Goudeys - two completely different types of cards, completely different sizes, completely different stock - and both are undetectable. They got the inks right, they got the colors right, the typography, the images. Every image was produced absolutely perfectly. The fakes are completely undetectable - the only way to know the difference between the real ones and the fake ones is to be an old-time collector and to have been let in on the secret, which has been kept safe within the Hobby Pioneers Secret Society since 1950.<br /><br />So since nobody else has said it yet, and people are repeating it as if it's fact now, I'll say it:<br /><br />That's ridiculous.<br /><br />Sorry.<br /><br />-Al<br /><br />edited for clarity.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>Al,<br /><br />Agreed. Something else needs to be said. This story brings into question the credibility of Mr. Heitman's statements about the PSA 8 Wagner. Now the card may very well have been trimmed, but I was basing my comments in the other thread (about crossing over to SGC AUTH) on Mr. Heitman's story of meeting the Wagner on its way to getting the trim. I no longer regard him as an unimpeachable source.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i think the reason there are not many responses @ this thread is just a lack of knowledge. i respect mr heitmans opinions (and i do not think he is trying to cause a stir) imo he heard stories and is just passing these on to us. true or not we will never really know,but i like when someone does step forward with things they have heard. much like the tread on ghost images and blankbacked cards we can chose to believe what we want. my opinion is if such "counterfits" do exist i am surprised that they are not more widespread,and reported of by elder hobby veterens. for those who have never seen the #106 durocher i copied its sale from the halper catalogue.here is what i do know: if in fact copies exist that can fool all, they can not be called fake. please take the time to read the discription of the durocher. it leaves much open to speculation and mr. heitmans story. <img src="http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l239/dcc1/goudey106.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>btw the durocher card sold for $7475.00(wobp) in 1999 (sept 23-29)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Harry Wallace (HW)</b><p>I find it very hard to believe that Goudey cards were reprinted in the 1950's. <br /><br />Robert Edwards helped run the Halper sale and I would trust his knowledge of the Durocher card as being genuine.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>Rob Lifson? I think he is an unimpeachable source.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>With a story of this magnitude it is essential to have documentation. Just recollections of this taking place half a century ago is not enough to convince me. Not saying it isn't true, but you can't solve a case with hearsay. Only evidence will suffice.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I would not know how to explain the Spoher, but the Durocher could easily have changed #s after a proof run to make completing the set impossible, as we know Goudey did. I agree with Barry that we need some evidence stronger than a rumor heard thirty years ago. If these were produced as Mr. Heitman heard, then one would presume that there would be a lot more of them around now. They were produced, according to the rumor, but serious hobby figures, so their productions surely would have remained in the hobby over the years. The lack of more evidence and more examples makes me skeptical.<br />JimB