No problem with the dealer, just the card......

[Brian Van Horn]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1934-GOUDEY-...item27e981ed82

[Leon]

Maybe I don't know what to look for but besides the obvious condition issues is there a telltale sign of something else?

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Leon

Maybe I don't know what to look for but besides the obvious condition issues is there a telltale sign of something else?

I believe it's the blank space on the back of the card between Goudy Gum Co. and Boston. Someone seems to have removed the word reprint.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by howard38

I believe it's the blank space on the back of the card between Goudy Gum Co. and Boston. Someone seems to have removed the word reprint.

I believe I have seen the word "reprint" in several different places near where you are suggesting as well as exactly where. I can't really make that out.. but my eyesight isn't what it used to be.

[SAllen2556]

Funny. I sent this guy a note about this very card in July. It's a very obvious reprint I think (or I thought). He responded and said he stands behind all his cards. He must, because this has been re-listed a few times. He obviously thinks it's real.

[conor912]

I agree...not real. Whoever did the aging did a good job on the corners and back, but I don't believe the ink on a real one would rub away like that on the front. Goudeys were wet printed (which is why many have the wet transfer on the back of them) and the ink literally soaked into the cardboard. It looks here to be a thin coat of ink jet ink that rubbed away.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by Leon

Maybe I don't know what to look for but besides the obvious condition issues is there a telltale sign of something else?

Please note the whiteness of the borders. It is not the same kind of whiteness as an original card and the paper loss on the front is such it screams reprint.

[MW1]

Colors are completely wrong. Borders are too white. Bottom of inner picture image is cropped. Wear is contrived. Obvious reprint.

[howard38]

.