Reprint???

[talkin2rob]

I was rummaging through some cards and found a card that looks too good to be true. I'm pretty sure this is a reprint the more I look at it. I'm not very knowledgeable in cards older than 75. I've got a few older ones, but they are just cards I picked up to say that I own them.
So, here's the card in question....



I recently found out I had another old card that was a reprint and it got me questioning a lot of cards now. There is nothing on it denoting a reprint. The card is slightly larger than other 56s I have. And of all the weird things is that it has a bubble gum stain on the back. Lol

What are your thoughts?

[rednecksims]

Originally Posted by talkin2rob

I was rummaging through some cards and found a card that looks too good to be true. I'm pretty sure this is a reprint the more I look at it. I'm not very knowledgeable in cards older than 75. I've got a few older ones, but they are just cards I picked up to say that I own them.
So, here's the card in question....



I recently found out I had another old card that was a reprint and it got me questioning a lot of cards now. There is nothing on it denoting a reprint. The card is slightly larger than other 56s I have. And of all the weird things is that it has a bubble gum stain on the back. Lol

What are your thoughts?

To me the ink looks off. Not sure how to explain the gum stain.

[Leon]

To me the edges look artificially aged, and as pointed out, the colors look a little off, but I am not 100% on it.

ps..why is the gum stain positioned like that?

[Kurri17]

Could that be tape residue rather than gum stain?

[rednecksims]

You also may be able to tell the difference in printing when comparing to other 56s. Use a loop or magnify glass. Also feel the paper stock and see if they feel different.

[talkin2rob]

The card stock feels about the same. Similar flexibility. It looks slightly brighter than the others I have. But it's hard to compare stock because the others are not in good condition.

[JustinD]

Not in hand it looks questionable.

The edges definitely look artificially aged.

[talkin2rob]

One other thing I forgot to mention...both pictures were taken from a phone and the flash was on both times. It does not appear glossy. That was the giveaway on a card that turned out to be a reprint.

I guess the stain could be tape, but doesn't tape usually leave residue? The "stain" is smooth like a real stain.

[Bestdj777]

I'm leaning towards real, albeit with a crappy trim job. To me, it looks like someone took a dull knife to the edges resulting in that appearance. The rest doesn't raise any red flags and the stain looks natural, rather than artificial. It might be gum but also may be rust or something else it was stored on. As I said, I could be wrong and it is hard to tell without it in hand.

[71buc]

I don't have an opinion one way or another. I am far from an expert. However, that being said, I have never seen another 1956 Mantle with that white spot on the "c" in Mickey's signature or the white line on the "Y" of Yankees.

[jchcollins]

My general rule after years of collecting and one time actually being burned, is if that you have any, even the slightest, reason to question a card's authenticity, then it is probably a fake or a reprint. This used to be less common because the reprints were generally very bad and very noticeable, but today there is a virtual cottage industry online with people making new, "old" cards, complete with fake aging to add to the appearance that it's the real deal. Sometimes these are made on cheap color inkjet printers and are very obvious. Other times they are very well done and look very close to legit. This is one of the problems with 21st century collecting, and the fact that increasingly more collectors are apt to buy a high priced item without seeing it and holding it in their hands first than say, they would have back in the 1980's. I am not a fanatic about professional grading, but I will look for PSA cards online even in lower grades if I'm spending more than a moderate amount of money just to safeguard against this kind of thing.

[savedfrommyspokes]

The centering appears (too) spot on, and the white back appears brighter than most of the WB cards from 101-180 (which have a duller looking finish than the lower #d WBs) I have. Reprint.

[talkin2rob]

Thank you all for your input. Because of a situation out of my control, I am having to sell cards. I did not want to attempt to sell something that was questionable or a fake to someone that may not know.
Again, thank you all very much for sharing your knowledge into spotting and identifying fake or reprint cards.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by talkin2rob

One other thing I forgot to mention...both pictures were taken from a phone and the flash was on both times. It does not appear glossy. That was the giveaway on a card that turned out to be a reprint.

I guess the stain could be tape, but doesn't tape usually leave residue? The "stain" is smooth like a real stain.

No, the old cellophane tape leaves a stain like that....

Z