Does anyone have 1976 SSPC cards that are definitely genuine--or know how to tell?
 

I believe it's generally accepted that a counterfeit issue of the '76 SSPC set was made in the early 80s, using original printing plates. The counterfeit job apparently was well-done -- I've never seen an explanation for how to tell the orignals from the reprints, aside from the Nolan Ryan card (a "d" added to the end of his first name was removed from the regular printing but not the counterfeit printing).

So does anyone know of a way to differentiate the "real" cards from the fakes? Or does anyone have cards that they would trade or sell that they know are original, because they purchased them back in the 70s, or bought them from someone else who purchased them in the 70s? I'm looking for just one common (card 452, Kerry Dineen). Actually, I have one, but I just don't know whether it's an original.

Looking forward to any thoughts...

76 SSPC Set
 

I have a complete set I bought late 70's (can't remember when) for sale. Any interest let me know
.Roland

Sspc
 

This might help a little.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=149675

http://baseballcardpedia.com/index.php/SSPC

https://shlabotnikreport.wordpress.c...-1975-or-1976/

I have no idea why I kept them....I was just a boy at the time, but I have the correspondence that went with the set I originally purchased which included the delays caused by the lawsuit and an offer to refund my money as they were unsure the set would ever be produced.

Thanks everyone. But I'm starting to think that there's simply no way to tell the originals and reprints apart.

I actually purchased both the regular and error sets quite some time ago and not at the same time. The regular set I bought in the early 90’s in Nevada and the error set I bought about 6-8 years later. I can’t recall where and it may have been on eBay.

On visual inspection, they both look-feel the same. So whoever may have printed the error set must have known what the card stock was for the first printing. And that is pure speculation on my part with no proof at all to back up the assumption.

I have a scale that measures in grams and will weigh a like card from both sets along with a caliper to see if there are any measurable differences that I can see between the two.

Not sure if any of this data will prove or disprove anything. But what the heck, it sounds fun to me.

It will take a bit and I will update this thread with what I find.

Cheers,

B. T.

I sampled 8 different cards from each set that I own and measured them.

The 'regular' set averaged 2.49.. x 3.49.. in height and width.
The 'error' set had the exact same results.
The thickness was .65 mm on every card I measured for thickness on both sets.

I still need to weigh them and will update this post with those results shortly.

Height, width, and thickness were basically the same between the two different sets. Picture cropping was consistent between the two sets as well. I did not see any real significant differences between the two sets. Nothing that jumped out at me anyway.

So, whoever printed the 'error' set had a good knowledge of what the regular set was printed and cut on. Speaking about the cuts, both sets look to be cut the same between the two sets.

All of this above are strictly my assumptions based on what I measured between the both sets. Purely speculative on my part and nothing more. But it does tend to shed some light on the two different sets and how well they mirror each other.

Sure seems like a whole lot of work to generate a number of supposed error sets years after the original printing had come and gone years before. IMHO

Butch Turner