[parkerj33]

all, here is an archived thread from 2007, referring to the heitman claim:

Posted By: William Heitman

Back in the '50's, and even earlier than that, there was a group of hobby veterans who, in their spare time, liked to redo older sets of cards. They would make changes--like completely renumbering the 1933 Goudey set, or changing backs. They felt that these changes would make it obvious that these were reprints. Boy, were they wrong. Trouble is that they (many were affiliated to card producers, i.e. Topps, Bowman, Gum, Inc., etc) had access to vintage presses, inks and paper, and the ones they did turned out really good. I saw many of these when I was young and listened to my father laugh at just how good they were and just how stupid anyone would be to believe them to be real. "Strip" cards are not called that because they were printed on strips(which they very obviously were), but because they were originally sold to the public the very same way they were printed. Printing cards on sheets with multiple rows of cards was an advent of the '30's, the very same time that hobby veterans started to talk to each other and out of which grew this unusual idea of redoing old sets of cards. I've seen some of these cards surface over the years and cause a real stir in the hobby. A lot of it is wishful thinking. Unfortunately, a lot of the stir is the product of just plain lack of knowledge. The preferred method of storing cards that were collected until plastic sheets came along was in neat little rows in cardboard boxes(Velveta boxes were especially good). With that method of storage, after just a few years a fake looks just about as aged as a card that is ninety years old that was stored that same way. Reprints have been around for years and years. They weren't originally done to fool anyone, but, unfortunately, they do.

Post 76 in this thread:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...eferrerid=4250

followup discussion in this thread
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...eferrerid=4250