thoughts on this 1940 play ball Joe Jackson
 

probably better to post this here, was assured its real, opinions please.

http://home.comcast.net/~paymentz/TT572.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~paymentz/TT573.jpg

Very nice beater

so, its a real beater? or a fake beater?

Looks good to me....

real

Looks good to me - 1940 PB reprints are pretty easy to spot with a completely different material used than in 1940 and often appear faded with gloss. The paper loss to the back looks like it should imo also.

Looks good

JoJax
 

+1 for real

I had originally posted a reply under a parallel thread in the BST section, but I suspect that a faker wouldn't deface it with such paper loss on the back.

Having said that, I actually don't know of any tricks or tells to spot fake 1940 Play Balls, so if anyone has any tips I would appreciate it too. Appreciate the comment about the reprints/fakes being printed on different material and appearing with gloss, but those features wouldn't necessarily be detectable when not holding the card in person (ie, looking at scans and buying online).

Thanks
--S

Look at this first scan of a real Willaims F/s on ebay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1940-Play-Ba...item19d444b66e

Then look at this scan of a reprint also f/s on ebay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/TED-WILLIAMS...item1c2a6cf544

The reprint is no where near as clear with a "faded" appearance imo. There is an overall lighter quality to the printing. Reprint backs, if they ever show a scan of the back, are white in color opposed to the cradboard natural color of the cards. Maybe there are different reprints out there, but these are what I see. In person, they have a gloss, different feel, stiffness and glow brightly under a black light. Hope that helps.

Interestingly, I don'r recall seeing a fake with extra paper residue on back.