Most counterfitted pre-war cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

Obviously...I would have to say T206, Goudeys, Cracker Jacks...but what next? How many other issues have been reproduced as much? I don't know that I've ever seen a fake D304 or N172..? Anybody?

[Archive]

Posted By: Turner Engle

Fro-Joy's

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Pelaez

Are you including reprints as part of your fake question?

[Archive]

Posted By: david Poses

a few months ago a guy was selling obak "reproductions" on ebay for about $5 per card. they looked exactly like the real thing. he advertised them as reproductions and didn't claim they were real, but i'm sure some unscrupulous buyer could have bought a few and turned around and sold them as the real thing.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I have a couple of really good fake D304s that I bought at a show more than ten years ago. I had no idea for years until I traded them to a fellow board member who informed me of their inuathentic qualities.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Most popular pre-war cards have been faked at some time or other, if just on a home computer printer. There are more professional reprints of the Goudeys and T206s, so they have the volume. As noted, the Cracker Jacks are popular targets as well. The professional reprints of the T206s look significantly different than the real ones, so aren't hard to id. Many have too wide borders and others have different front text font. The reprint Goudeys are better, so can fool more in an online auction. If you're a newbie it's recommended you buy a 1933 Goudey Ruth either graded or from a reputable seller, as that's a popular card to reprint or fake.

As many homemade computer prints were handcut, they have funky edges that give it away, or at least makes it suspicious. A good looking Goudey Ruth may have odd, uneven edges, for example (and the seller doesn't say anything about it being trimmed). An N172 computer reprint may have a funky cut (and the seller say no refunds and his hampster needs a double bipass).

In person, if you collect an issue most to all reprints and counterfeits will be identified easily as the look different than your real cards. I was contacted by a woman who just started collecting cards, and asked me about one of her T206s that looked different than the other ones. I looked at it in person and it was a reprint. Here was a woman who was a newbie to cards, didn't know what she had, but saw that this T206 looked different than the others she had. The key was she had other T206s to compare to.

Collectors, even experienced ones, will have their troubles with cards they've not seen before. This is why they have their black lights, microscopes, dog sniffers ("Fetch the real Fro Joy, boy. Fetch!") and such.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

One reprint set which apparently hasn't hit the market (Thank God!) are the T207s. About 10 years ago someone (Fritsch?) issued a reprint set although I have never seen it. I am not talking about the Lewis and Lowdermilk cards which say how much the card is worth now on the backs, this was supposedly a reprinted set. I guess so few love the brownies that the reprint set never took off...

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

There hasnt been many E cards that have been reprinted or faked or is it me? I can't recall seeing any E94's or E98's or the likes I thought looked overly fishy

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc

There are no good intentions when it comes to making a reprint. Some will argue, it is nice to own the same kind of card without spending thousands. That is crap! It should be a form of copyright enfringement and treated as a true crime - along the lines of theft. The only way it should be allowed is if the company plainly states on the card it is a reprint. Otherwise, why make one unless you have crooked ideas?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

A rule for reprints should be that it is that the reprint should be substantially different than the original. I'm not talking about a slightly different font or 'reprint' that can be erasured off-- but different colored border, significantly different size or such. Reprinting the Mona Lisa in the form of an umbrella or lip gloss case should cause no worry. But there's no good reason for making reprints baseball that closely resemble the originals-- with that I agree.

As far as acceptable reprints go, I would think a standard sized postcard set of famous baseball cards (historical description on back) would be neat. A person could buy the set, send them out as postcards and no one (but the truly ignorant) would make them for the originals.

And what undergrad college student collector wouldn't want the famous baseball cards shot glass set.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

David, you are onto something, they should simply make the reprint in a significantly different size than the original.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Here is an example of a 1941 PlayBall counterfeit. The ebay seller I won this card from had "fake" major stars from Tobacco issues,
Goudey's, National Chicle, and PlayBall's. Some of the cards he counterfeited are.....

T206 Cobb, Matty, and Young

1933 Goudey (all four Ruth's)

1934 Goudey (both Gehrig's and Lajoie).

Nat. Chicle Nagurski

1939-40-41 Joe Di Maggio and Ted Williams cards




TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

One of my first ebay vintage card purchases was a fake D304 Lajoie. Other than that I would say the most often seen are probably Fro-Joy's and 1928 Babe Ruth Candy Company cards.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

Leon I know it would have been a few years ago. But do you remember what you spent on the D304? Did it go for market value or significantly less as in you were one of the only ones fooled at the time?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jerry

Don't just think because it is an obscure set or common player it's not Counterfit. I was buying a bunch of cards from a dealer and wasn't looking very closely at the cards because they were relatively inexpensive. I had bought obscure raw cards from this dealer before with no problems. I found out later that these 2 Common D350 Standard Biscuits were counterfit. I should have caught it at the time but wasn't expecting such an obscure set to be counterfit, and wasn't paying attention. The funky cuts should have been a give away.
A board member showed me a D350 Cobb that he bought off Ebay that was counterfit and it looked just like my 2 commons. The dealer said he would make good on these 2 , next time I see him.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

1938 Goudeys, particularly the DiMaggios, have been reproduced quite often. Unfortunately I've found that even astute prewar collectors get duped on a phony DiMaggio from time to time.

A couple of things to look for:

1) The back of a 1938 Goudey should be printed in green ink. Many of the reprints I've seen are printed in black ink.
2) The stock should be thick, similar to a 1933 Goudey. The cards should have no gloss at all.
3) The front of the cards should be uniform in the color of the stock. If you look at a '38 Goudey (shown below), you'll see that there's a border that runs around the card. The paper stock on both the outside and the inside of the border should be the same color - it's a plain, off-white color. Many of the reprints have WHITE stock on the outside of the border and off-white stock on the inside, or vice-versa. If the stock color is different on the inside than the outside, then you have a reprint.

The DiMaggio is one of the more important gum cards, and so the reprints seem to pop up pretty often. Be very careful if you're looking at a raw one on eBay.

Not how the stock color inside and outside the red border of this DiMaggio is the same color.



Also, there were several '38 Goudeys that were reprinted in that old baseball card book done by Dover Publishing. The words "A Dover Reprint" should appear along the bottom of the back of the card, in the center. If there's a scratch there, or if that portion of the card is otherwise obscured when you're looking at a scan, don't bid on it.

I've probably exchanged emails with ten different guys who have been duped by bad '38 DiMaggios over the last few years; just following the three rules above would have saved every one of them a headache.

And just so everyone knows, the first #274 DiMag that I bought was a fake as well.

-Al