Have Collins McCarthy or Boston Store cards been reprinted?
 

Hello all,

I searched through the archives to look for an answer to this question but did not find any info.

So my questions are as follows;

1) Have the Collins - McCarthy and Boston Store cards been reprinted?

2) Other than saying "REPRINT" on them, how can you tell originals from fakes (if there are any fakes?)

I have never owned or even seen any of these cards in person (yes, I have lived a sheltered card collecting life) so I do not know what real ones look like or, even better, what they feel like.

Thanks in advance for your help,

David

As far as I know there are no reprints of these cards that were made. You could have someone making something off a computer, but as for "official" reprints I don't think there are any.

If you have specific questions LMK I am working on the Boston Store set so I have lots of cards.

James G

Kendig, Opie Dildock
 

Not often seen.......
There are some freak reprints... They are E135 on front but the card number was removed. Some if not all have backs that are not found on authentic cards ie Opie Dildock, Kendig's Chocolates. The backs are washed out looking and the card stock is thinner (plus the obvious missing card number with the same font as a E135).

I owned 2 about 8 years ago and they fooled me at first.

Earlier this year, I bought a Collins McCarthy Duffy Lewis which didn't look or feel right. Since I happened to have another on hand, it was easy to see the difference. One was "washed out," looking a little like a photo of a photo. And the card stock was not quite as thick as that of the real McCoys. I don't remember whether the number was on there or not, but I sent it back.

Thanks for the answers so far.

Another couple of questions.

1) I have read the cards are on thinner stock. I own some T205's and T206's. I also own some Star Player Candy cards (very thin stock) and some Fatima team cards (thin but not as thin as the SPC cards). Using those as a guide, how thick of stock are the Collins - McCarthy and Boston Store cards printed on?

2) Do these cards have a glossy surface (which I think I read somewhere) or not? I own a couple of Coupon cigarette cards and I can feel the difference in texture between them and a T206 card. Which will the Collins - McCarthy and Boston Store cards feel more like?

Thanks again,

David

yes
 

Collins-McCarthy absolutely have been reprinted. I own a set, and have it stashed somewhere.

The images are whiter, not creamy, and are duller or muddier as well. The stock is thinner. The set I have is not going to fool the experienced collector for 10 seconds.

well
 

I dug them up, and here are a couple. I was a little harsh in my criticism--they are off-white and therefore somewhat creamy, whether or not it shows in these scans. Also, the images aren't horribly duller, probably because the originals aren't exactly the sharpest photos either. Still, the reprints (see back bottom right) are noticeably thinner, which makes them susceptible to bowing or curling (e.g. Rube), and are translucent.
http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverh...ge/reprint.jpg

Hey Todd
 

Hey Todd
With a little white-out you can say the cards "might be reprints" and sell away on ebay!!:o

Thanks for the responses, everybody.

Now, here is the rest of the story.

Even though I don't have a lot of money, I still go out looking and asking for old ball cards and memorabilia. Recently a guy said he knew somebody that had some old cards. He took my info and then, a few days later, e mailed me a picture of a stack of cards numbering about 50. On top of the stack was a Joe Jackson with the number 82 at the bottom.

No other info was sent.

At first I thought the cards were Sporting News or one of the other similiar sets. Then, I looked in the big SCD price guide and found that Jackson was NOT numbered 82 in those sets. Then I found that Jackson cards in the Collins - McCarthy and Boston Store sets were numbered 82.

I got excited.

I went to look at the cards today (trying, along the way, to figure out how I was going to pay for them if they were real). Unfortunately, when I looked at the backs there was that ugly word REPRINT on them.

So, sorry for the false alarm and thanks again for sharing the information that you gave me,

David

Wow, I was not aware that a CM set was done, was it done with a BS back as well. If anyone has any extras of these reprints I would like to have some so LMK. Thanks

James G

The best way to know what an authentic card looks and feels like is to buy a couple low grade commons from an advanced dealer/collector. Use them for comparisons.


Thats whats good about being a "Type Collector". You have Many Different Examples to look at.

Shouldn't it be illegal to possess reprinted cards? Like certain kinds of pornography or counterfeit money?
Mark

Sure but if this should come up in the future I would like to have a reprint to both educate myself and others. I have plenty of real Boston Store cards so that isn't an issue.

James G

Here's my only Collins-McCarthy card. It's obviously a repro.....but, the price was right.....so I like it, anyhow.


<img src="http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/collinsmccarthyjoejax.jpg" alt="[linked image]"><img src="http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/collinsmccarthyjoejaxbk.jpg" alt="[linked image]">



TED Z

An old thread, but thought it might provide a little background to the question.

Does anyone else have E135 like cards, strips or partial sheets without numbers, blank back or printed?

Here are three strips that match the older description above, no numbers, thin stock and bit washed out, the backs appear to have glue or paste residue. There is no gloss to the fronts.

Scott,
I recall seeing the un-numbered E-135 counterfeit cards as far back as he 1980's, but not in panels. This series has been reprinted at least once, but counterfeited countless times, going back to 1972.....Its hard enough keeping up with the 'originals'....:)

I have several black back single all are hand cut.

Those strips just don't look right. All the cards are not uniform and the edges of the images all all different. My gut says they are some type of repro or fake item, but hard to say from the poor pictures.

I am 99% sure all my hand cut cards are typical stock with glossy fronts.

James G

Agreed on all points, here is a better shot taken with the scanner of a partial strip.

These are a cream/light tan not as white as the picture above makes them look.

That being said, where does one get cards without numbers or a sheet to make the reprints/reproductions from.

After more thought and conversation's I am still unsure of their origin.

you can easily cut off or crop out the numbers that is not a hard thing to do. and you can certainly just make a sheet by scanning and printing these.

Even back in the day you can do magic with printing.

James G

cool
 

I wanted to keep this on the front page in case any other e135 collectors have not seen it. I understand all that was posted, but find a couple of things interesting. First, I too have not seen any strips or panels of uncut E135s, real or otherwise, and find it odd that someone reproducing it would choose to eliminate the card numbers. Second, at least two cards are very slightly different in their presentation around the nameplate. Below are scans of “real” e135s--Milton Stock and Dick Rudolph. Note how the bottom line in the frame that surrounds the photo is interrupted or overlapped right above Stock’s entire name and Rudolph’s surname. This differs from what is shown in Scott’s cards.
https://photos.imageevent.com/imover...size/stock.jpghttps://photos.imageevent.com/imover...2018%20_2_.jpg
So how would someone reproducing/counterfeiting the cards “correct” or change them in this way, and for that matter, why? As for the authentic e135s, we know that there were two printings of the set, since changes were made to cards for Judge, Morgan and Russell. Maybe the scans I just showed are of one printing and Scott’s of the other, in which case his still could be repros or fakes. I would guess that Scott’s cards are from the latter printing, since I believe his Reb Russell card shown is a corrected photo of a follow-through pose believed to really depict Mel Wolfgang. This would also account for the Stock and Rudolph cards having their frame lines changed. I realize this does not resolve the issue of whether the cards are period or fake, and it is probably wise to go with the gut and say no, but I still find pieces like these interesting.