1941 Play Ball Card Question
 

I have been an autograph dealer for many years and rarely venture over to this side of the board as I deal primarily in autographs , I recently purchased an autograph collection that included a near complete set of unsigned 1941 Play Ball Cards.

Most were purchased by the original collector at least 10 years ago , but what they all seem to have in common is that they are in astonishing condition. Bright colors , solid corners with some of the borders almost white in color. Am I just being overly cautious ?

Have pictured some here front and back. My question is this , What is the most accurate way to tell an original 1941 Play Ball card from a reprint ?

By the way some of the vertical lines in the scans are the result of my scanner and are not on the card. Any input from collectors familiar with the set would be greatly appreciated ,
Thanks in advance
___________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Autograph Updates e-mailed weekly , subscribe here
http://stinsonsports.com/newsletter/

I am not an expert on 1941 Play Ball, from the scans they look ok to me.

If others think that these cards look good might this be a candidate for the set break that has been discussed on the boards? I know 1941 Play Ball came up a lot as a potential set.

nice cards... look good to me, with the PB's from that year I just look to color saturation. The colors on repros won't soak into the card as well in the backgrounds, once you've had two next to each other, one real one not, it would make more sense. But those look great.

Larry Frisch issued a complete reprint set years back, but the backs are snow white and say 'reprint.' Your backs are off white/toned like the originals.

For the original cards, the fronts, and only the fronts, of the cardstock was coated in a smooth white substance before printing. This was to make the colors look sharp and because there were no white inks used (no ink = white). The front of the cardstock was essentially enameled before printing, while the backs were not (au natural). The backs have just monotone text, so back enameling needed. In fact, paper coated in a white substance is called 'enameled paper.' They did this front-only enameling for many original vintage card issues, including the T206s and vintage Topps cards. So the front white borders (where there is no ink) and the backs on the originals should have different tones, feel and gloss. The front should be smooth white, while the back should have a more matte, natural cardstock feel.

If you look at any original T206 or 1950s-70s Topps regular-isse card, you'll see that the fronts have a different gloss and feel to the backs. That's because the fronts only were enameled before printing. Comparing the front to back gloss/texture, and the backs having a different natural cardstock texture, is one of the bet ways to identify an original.

I agree that they look original since the backs show aging in the acidic paper on which they were printed.

Nice pick up!

Cheers,
Mike

JimStinson
 

Thanks to everyone , I saw the white backs which actually say reprint but also saw some older reprints that have gray color on the reverse that were being sold as originals but appeared to be reprints to me , In response to earlier post yes the fronts actually look almost hand "painted", while the reverse on all is that light brown. Again thanks to one and all and if anyone that contributed should ever have any vintage autograph questions I will be happy to return the favor with what I know best.
________________
jim@stinsonsports.com