Re-Backed OJ??
 

Need some OJ experts to let me know their opinions.

Does this appear re-backed to you? The edges appear to me that it is.

Thanks
Craig

Back

It doesn’t look rebacked to me, or if it was, it was done many decades ago. A real OJ is a thin albumen photograph glued onto a thick piece of cardboard, so sometimes you get edges that look like this one when a card is worn. The true OJ experts can chime in if I’ve missed anything.

the card is a reprint IMO. The picture is blurry, corners evenly rounded. edges sanded off evenly, the staining on the back looks rubbed in and fresh compared to an older stain that would have probably blended together a bit more.

That is just my opinion

Something just doesn't seem right with the top, bottom & left sides being smaller than the backing. I also feel the wear is just so uniformed.

For me it is the wear on the card that is suspicious. As far as the reveal goes you have to take into consideration that it is a piece of film pasted to a piece of card stock. Taking that into account I would say its a good possibility to see separation on them.

Agreed. Reprint.

I've seen (and I own) apparently genuine OJs with similar wear, including slabbed ones. The only reprint OJs I've seen that weren't totally obvious fakes were derived from the photographic proofs at the Library of Congress, but those are all 1887 cards of major leaguers, and there were not aged like this. This still looks genuine to me. I'd be interested to hear what Jay Miller, Joe G., or other real OJ experts say.

100% agree. This is legit, and I don't believe it is rebacked either. Rebacked OJ's typically have different wear and tear than the front (if at all).

I appreciate all the info. I have 60+ OJs some with some separation but none so uniform at 3 sides.

I do believe it is genuine, just concerned with rebacking.

Jay & Joe do either of you care to chime in?

I can't tell unless I have the card in my hand. While I seriously doubt that it is a reprint, the fact that the photo does not reach the edges of the mount makes me suspicious that it may have been rebacked at some point. For a card like this, the difference in value between a rebacked card and an original one is pretty minimal.

Didn’t see this until today (not sure how I missed it). This is my card and it is not a reprint in any way, not sure what those that thought that were seeing? It doesn’t appear to be rebacked just a low grade OJ with some pretty extensive wear.

I too missed this as I was distracted over the Holidays. Rhett has handled more than a few 19th century photographic cards over the years. I would be surprised if this card is rebacked (all things considered). As for the albumen print (photo) falling short of the cardboard backing, not all that unusual on heavily worn card. The new N172 Healy pose recently discussed is another example of the same.

Nailed it
 

Nailed it

Thanks Joe and Rhett.

I had no doubt it was authentic, especially coming from Rhett. I did send you a message through eBay, no need to respond. I just don't own any OJs where the photo doesn't extend out so uniformity. All my original concerns are now mute.

Sincerely
Craig

Sometimes a scan or photo can make a card look a little different, with respect to edges, especially if there is a curvature to the card. Glad the concerns are muted :).....

can andrew be sued for liable because he called the card a reprint when it wasn’t?