Goudy Reprints
 

as they were labelled in an ad in "The Sport Hobbyist" by Charles Brooks, probably sometime between 1957 and 1962. I have a scan of the ad, but as usual I do not know how to prepare it for Net54. The ad reads

32 different Authentic reprints including two Gehrigs, Ruth, Hornsby, all Hall of Famers and Superstars. The originals would cost over $300.00. Printed on high quality guaranteed long lasting card stock.

"The colors match up very closely and the backs are matched closely as well, making the final product as good as the original except for the fact that they are just too good." John Stommen

TOO Good to be true, thousands have already been sold.

Only $3.00 per set plus 25 cents for postage. GOUDEY REPRINT SET II. 32 additional only $3.00. Second set features three Ruth's, Cobb all 64 cards $6.00

The Sport Hobbyist, Box 3731 N, Detroit, Michigan 48215
______

When these Reprints were first sold, many dealers (especially Lew Lipsett and George Lyons) were furious because they obviously might undercut and compete with their stocks of original Goudeys. They frequently vented in "The Trader Speaks." Everyone agreed that without a forensic examination, there was no way to distinguish reprint from original. And, of course, there was no incentive to do so, then, or now.

Does any Net54 member believe it to be possible that these reprints now might reside in slabs that sell in six figures?

I find it hard to believe that they were that indistinguishable, but stranger things have happened.

Interesting. I wonder if these reprints were the same thickness...1933 Goudey cards are of pretty thick cardboard. And I wonder if that group of 64 reprints included some Sport Kings cards, being that Cobb was not in the 1933 (or 1934) Goudey sets, but was included in the 1933 Sport Kings set.

Brian

I sent you a message with my email to send a pic of the ad, would love to see it. I will add it to this thread as well.

FYI, the ad would have been after your estimated timeframe due to the zip code.

Yes
 

The Sports Hobbyist was published in a different format well into the seventies.

Goudy Reprints
 

I would say the ad's highest praise of "matched closely" colors are an indication that they are still distinguishable from authentic copies and unlikely to be incorrectly slabbed by any major TPG.

I'd imagine the cardstock, even if high-quality, would not be quite passable either.



.

I'll repeat
 

that dealers of the day, having seen both reprint and original, were furious. I do not share the poster's confidence that today's graders would reject a Charles Brooks reprint. Remember that "thousands" were sold. I would like a show of hands from anyone who has ever held and identified a Charles Brooks reprint.

My own feelings on the matter are rather simplistic. What difference does it make if a card in question was manufactured by the Goudey Gum Co. or by Charles Brooks? Both "look nice," and both have made their owners, auction houses, TPAs and dealers a lot of money. And will continue to do so.

But, I'm not sticking my head in the sand, either.

True story: I once gave complete 1934 Goudey Sets to each of my two sons as Christmas presents. To my eternal discredit, I put most of the cards in the old plastic acid binders, and stuffed the raw Gehrigs into their stockings without any regard to the damage that might result. I'm guessing there is very little value left.

But then, I never have been accused of having very good sense.

Goudy Reprints
 

Looks like these were talked about in this thread a few years ago. Says the 1st Generation reprints were on similar cardstock as originals, later versions were thinner and had reprint on them. Someone from that thread had an image people were referring to, maybe an eBay listing.

https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=2101316

ETA: Here’s a site mentioning that these Sport Hobbyist reprints had black print on the reverse.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...091b1fba88.jpg


.

The Charlie Brooks reprints came out around '76 and the first run was printed on very similar stock to an original Goudey but without the reprint mark. Opportunists quickly realized that you could dip these in tea, and put them in the oven for a few minutes to replicate 40 years of aging and then selling them at flea markets, antique fairs, etc for a whole lot more than the dime a card that they paid. There was an outcry at the time by contemporary collectors. A second printing was on similar stock but contained the reprint stamp which was often 'scuffed' off on the back side. Within a year a third printing came out which utilized a thinner stock of paper. All three are distinguishable by anyone familiar with real Goudeys and how they wear, along with the printing quality. Still they will pop up occasionally in longtime collections. A few have even managed to migrate into slabs

The reprints I've seen / handled fluoresce when illuminated with uv light.

Da black light is an affordable underutilized tool for folks collecting pre WWII cards.

I think Frank has it right
 

the reprints can easily be identified by black light.

Or did I miss the point ?
 

Would a 1933 or a 1934 Goudey also "handle fluorescence" ?

Genuine 1933 and 1934 Goudey cards would not fluoresce when exposed to uv light.

A slight exception might be if the card was soaked or cleaned be a modern cleaner that contains brighteners... some modern laundry detergents have them.

Brighteners started getting added to paper in the late 1940s. If you pick up your black light, turn off the light in a room with books and papers, you can quickly get the concept... old books and old papers won't fluoresce or shine bright violet from the light. New manufactured paper and books will shine bright.

Black light flashlights are inexpensive. Look on Amazon, Target, Walmart, or eBay online. These are an affordable way to avoid expensive mistakes with ball cards, autographed items, and photographs.

I remember them.
 

I remember them well and my first reaction when holding them was, "What's all the fuss about? These are easy to distinguish from the originals."