1933-1935 Goudey

[Archive]

Posted By: Pat

Can somebody please help me to identify if I have stumbled across rare cards, or just some dreaded reprints? I have located 24 cards from 1933 - 1935, The cards display no markings of a reprint and appear identical to cards I have seen from that era( but in much better condition) they are enclosed in plastic screw cases to protect them, but I dont think it matters, if they are reprints. Do reprints display tell tale signs, and if so, can somebody please help?

I would scan a copy of them into this message but my scanner has gone to a shallow grave in the county landfill, thanks to a recent Florida thunderstorm!

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

Most of the known types of Goudey reprints are usually easy to spot but I would have to see a scan to be certain. Most of the differences will be in the cropping of the photo area of the card, the width of the borders, The card stock, the ink color of the back, and the ink colors of the front.

If you can get your hands on an authentic card from the set (lower grade is OK) then you can compare the way the cards were made, surface texture, thickness of stock, print quality, ink colors, cropping, etc.

Here is an example of cropping differences in the R319 #181 Ruth card
(but remember there are many types of reprints so it is not the same for every type)

Elbow area on Reprint
Elbow area on Authentic

Top of Hat on Reprint
Top of Hat on Authentic


Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: Pat

I appreciate the assistance, I am working on getting a scan into the computer. You mentioned the ink on the back of the card...what can I look for with the ink? The example does help some, But I dont have that particular card...Hard for me to tell. I do have a Gehrig(#92), Ruth(#53), and a Jimmy Foxx(#1-1934). Would you happen to have any examples of these I may be able to compare them with?

Again thank you so much for any assistance you can provide!

JPF

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

For most common cards, Search eBay for pics, or you can Google Images on the Internet.
Most reprints, especially the Goudeys (R319, R320) dont get the color of the back quite right, they are usually printed in black or the wrong shade of green. Also if there is damage or scuffs to the spot between the "GOUDEY GUM CO." and "BOSTON" on the R319 cards thats a good sign it is a reprint as well.
If your cards are all star players, the odds are they will be reprints.

But cant be certain unless I can see a picture.



Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

here are scans of those three cards.
honestly, I'd be surprised if your cards were real. but good luck.
if I were you, I'd read what fkw writes very carefully!

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

authentic R319 #53 Ruth cards
http://cgi.ebay.com/1933-Goudey-53-Babe-Ruth-SGC-50-4_W0QQitemZ190001958953
http://cgi.ebay.com/1933-Goudey-53-Babe-Ruth-ASA-4-VG-EX-PSA-Authentic_W0QQitemZ260001869771

The spots to look at is the pinky finger on left border, Some reprints have the finger cropped more. Also look at the distance between the "G" in "George" and the border. Also look at the shadow under the hat and the eye sockets, on most reprint this area will be dark and gives Mr. Ruth a racoon look. Also compare the green ink on back, it should be the exact same color and sometime there is a slight hint of wet sheet overprint on the back from the sheet above it (the light red strip at bottom is most easily seen)

authentic R319 #92 Gehrig
http://cgi.ebay.com/1933-GOUDEY-LOU-GEHRIG-92-GRADED-GAI-5-5-EX-NICER_W0QQitemZ300001415060

Spots to look at are the top of the bat extending into the border, the distance between the second "G" in "Gehrig" and the border, the distance between the top of the hat and the border, etc. On back the very light wet sheet overprint at bottom (red strip).

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

On the R320 cards like the Foxx. I always look at the bottom edge of the picture, there should always be a thick blue line below the small B&W portrait of Gehrig (some reprints chop off the blue line), and the bottom of letter "y" in "Says" will be chopped off on some reprints as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: PhilB.

Are you saying that you feel these two Ruth's are, in fact, authentic? I was curious myself.