your thoughts on graded reprints

[Archive]

Posted By: jP

Here is a topic ive wanted to post for some time now. Not a very significant one but still would like to get some thoughts from fellow members.

1.)Do you think reprints of pre war cards are or will ever be of any value in the trading card market ? Graded and non-graded.There certainly seems to be a demand for them especially the Wagner,Cobb, and most HOF'S . I myself like them since in reality they are the closest i will get to them. i recently picked up a couple of BGS graded 1988 Galasso t206 reprints. graded NrMt i think ( i will post one up later)

2.)Do you own any graded reprint pre-war cards ? If so please share them with us.

thanks for your feedback. happy pre-war collecting!

[Archive]

Posted By: dd

Graded reprints are as solid as authenticated facsimile autographs.

[Archive]

Posted By: John S

I have no issue with reprints/graded reprints as long as they are properly marked. They should be marked or re-sized (or both) so even a layperson would have no problem identifying them as reprints. I own a few reprints for reference and torture (Wagner T206) only.

The only reason that reprints have any value beyond asthetics and reference is that people believe that they doctor a copy and deceive someone else. How many tea-stained artificially rounded and creased fakes are on ebay currently? The sellers of these items "play dumb" including their cards in lots of legit cards or offering a sentence disclaimer after a two paragraph explanation about their incredible attic find. They prey upon the ignorant and the gambler.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

reprints can be 'reprinted' again and again. All of your 1988 reprints can be reprinted today.

Will a collector care about getting the 1988 version or the 2006 version? I am going to guess no.

Reprints are cool if you just want to look through a whole set... so reprints do have their place. I wouldn't mind reprints of certain sets.

But I would think they have no value as collections, and there is no need to grade them.

jmho.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve f

In the wrong hands they can be quite lethal.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

maybe a spot varnish repeating the word 'reprint' should be required for all reprinted collectibles.

just a thought.

It would be clear (similar to watermark technologies to digital photos) and would pretty much be impossible to remove.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

When sellers describe a card as a reprint and it still sells for a relative lot of money...it just amazes me.....unless there's a shill in the woodpile....

http://cgi.ebay.com/1915-SPORTING-NEWS-RUTH_W0QQitemZ110007733207QQihZ001QQcategoryZ86841 QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Archive]

Posted By: jP

Joe D. i agree with you 100 % , reprints do have a place in the hobby atleast with me they do.

but i think in terms of my son who is only 5 and is very much into what i do when collecting.

"Will a collector care about getting the 1988 version or the 2006 version?"

i think my son may care, the 1988 reprints when he is in his 30's will already be around 50 years old. i would love to have many cards that are that old today.

But here is another thought that sticks in my mind, if a grading company grades a reprint and that reprint has a date of the year it was mfg. does that than make that card authentic for that specific year? if so i think my son will appreciate a 50 year old reprint of Cobb and Mathewson etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve f

In regards to that fake Ruth. Her alias (husbands ebay acct?)was dumped for selling counterfeits to myself and others.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

jp,

i think the year of the reprint would be irrelevant.

if a reprint would happen to become collectible, it would have to be tied to an external situation.... like a reprint given out on 'yankee reprint day' when derek jeter gives a retirement speech... or something like that. Even then, who knows if it should be a collectible.

I personally would never collect reprints.

Some of the great legal minds on this board may be able to help with copyright protection (if these images are now public domain or not). If they are public domain... any printer on any given day could decide to put out a run of reprint T206s or any other vintage set.

I would buy them for reference and enjoyment only. Don't ever pay a premium for a reprint.

jmho

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

My definition of authentic is that if the item is accurately
and sincerely described, it is authentic. If a 1988 T206 reprint
is described as a 1988 T206 reprint, it's authentic. If it's
auctioned as an original, it's fake. Many fakes are not reprints
or counterfeits, but original items that are badly misdescribed.

If your were an autograph expert, and someone came to you with a
Babe Ruth signed baseball and said "Is this an authentic Ty Cobb
autograph?," you would say "No." If he said, "Is this an authentic
Babe Ruth autograph?," you would say "Yes." If he said, "Is this
authentic?," you would say "An authentic what?" or "It's
an authentic Babe Ruth autograph." You wouldn't an issue an
'authentic' LOA that has a blank space where the collector fills
in the identity afterward. The word 'authentic' would be directly
tied to a description or identification you composed or approved.

I would purchase a reprinted poster for my wall, in that I
wouldn't want to place an original in the sun. There's
nothing wrong with purchasing reprint cards. Obviously how
much you pay for them is a consideration.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

EOM

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

At one time Burdick and others were collecting stuff that no one else had an interest in. Nothing like getting in on the ground floor. But I don't forcast reprints taking off any time soon.