![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Matt
Does anyone have any authentic '33 Goudeys where the ink on the back has bled? None of my authentics have ink bleed - all the lettering looks very crisp. I want to know if ink bleed is a sure sign of a forgery. Also, any scans of authentic bled backs (if they exist) would be appreciated. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Steve Murray
I'm sitting here at the airport in Vegas |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Matt
Hi Steve - thanks for the response. I'm referring to the letters on the back bleeding so that they don't look sharp and crisp. As an example - in the word BOSTON on the bottom right of the back, with bleeding you would barely be able to make out the holes in the top and bottom of the 'B' |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Jim VB
Many of my Goudey's have this and they are all authentic. (They were, for the most part, my Dad's.) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Matt
Jim - thanks for the response. If I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying would explain a transfer of ink from the front of one card to the back of another, or vice versa. I don't think it would explain the letters on the back bleeding so they don't look very sharp. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Jim VB
If you're just talking about the printing on the backs, I'd love to see an example. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Matt
Bump now that scans have been provided |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dennis
matt that card back looks authentic. goudey reprints are pretty easy to spot. the reprints are usually thinner stock and glossy on the frt. usually the frt will exhibit a lot of wear(from scammer trying to put wear on it) and still have a polished look.if held to a bright light bulb a real goudey will block the light. a reprint will show the frt of the card if held with the back to a light bulb. if it feels like others you have and all that is wrong is that bleed i would say the card is 100% real. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Matt
dennis - thanks for the reply. Actually, I was just using that card as an example of what I meant by bleeding - I'm 99% certain that card is a forgery - |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Matt
So, no one has any authentic Goudey's that exhibit the back ink bleed shown above? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Ken W.
Here's a 1934 example of the wet printing from the back of one card transfering to the front of this card. Pretty sure this is authentic. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Matt
again; thanks for the input - that's not what I'm asking about here. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Jim VB
Matt, |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Matt
You should be able to see a difference between teh B in the word BOSTON in the scan I posted (you have to click it to enlarge it) and the backs that others posted above. In the one I posted you can barely make out the white in the loops of the B. It's as if someone took the entire back of the card and changed it from regular font to bold font. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
T202 -- Red back ink v. Black | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 19 | 11-07-2024 09:28 PM |
question on diamond star back ink | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 11 | 08-26-2008 11:25 PM |
Glue removal from '33 Goudey back? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 06-13-2008 08:01 AM |
removal of ink from a card | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 02-25-2007 06:08 AM |
E94 Doolan missing ink back from SGC | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T | 5 | 06-24-2006 07:37 PM |