PSA Mistake- Graded Exhibit reprints on ebay

[Leon]

Hi Fred
Unfortunately I don't know the answer to your question but thanks for updating the lists.

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Hi Gang:

Just stumbled across this old thread. Don't know how I missed it.

I would like to add a few things. First, as Dave mentioned you can add the Elston Howard to the gray back checklist.

I do not have Howard in the white back nor the Berra in the gray back. I wonder if they were switched? Can anyone confirm a white back Howard and/or a gray back Berra?

There is also ANOTHER white back set. Checklist is below:

Aaron
Adcock dark signature
Ashburn Cubs
Banks Portrait
Bauer NY on cap
Burdette pitching side view
Colavito batting
Drysdale glove at waist
Ennis
Fox
Jensen
Mathews name correct
McDougald Printed in U.S.A.
Sievers Senators lt. Bkgrd
Spahn M on cap
Torgeson plain uniform
Vernon batting
Woodling white signature
Zernial black signature

19 is a strange number for a set so there may be more out there. Or maybe I have one card from the other white back set mixed in.

These are all over ebay so you may want to check your cards of the above to be sure you do not have white backs.

Example:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1947-66-Exh...p2047675.l2557

And PSA is STILL MisIDing these. Another member here bought a Team Card off ebay that was graded by PSA recently and when he got it, it was white back. Perhaps he will share info in a follow up post.

Fred

[dougscats]

Thanks, Scott, for posting this thread.
I was relieved not to see DiMaggio's name on the two reprint lists.
May I take it then that these are real?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/2-DIMAGGIO-...p2047675.l2557


I post them to illustrate another point: that the back distinctions do not always seem to be clear-cut.
The backs of both DiMaggios do not look particularly cream-colored; one looks closer to gray than cream, and the other looks close to white.
The Mantle back looks closest to cream, but the front doesn't look as well-defined as the DiMaggios.

[tschock]

Another question for the experts. Should all the '70s and '80s reprints fluoresce under a black light? Some I have obviously do (like the '77 Duke Snider, as one example) but other '70s years don't seem to. Unless the ones I have that I am almost certain to be '70s reprints are actually real. Note these are all 'white' backs (not the gray ones).

[tschock]

Originally Posted by tschock

Another question for the experts. Should all the '70s and '80s reprints fluoresce under a black light? Some I have obviously do (like the '77 Duke Snider, as one example) but other '70s years don't seem to. Unless the ones I have that I am almost certain to be '70s reprints are actually real. Note these are all 'white' backs (not the gray ones).

Anyone with any experience with this?

[cammb]

If Scott says thet are reprints, then they are reprints. PSA be damned.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by cammb

If Scott says thet are reprints, then they are reprints. PSA be damned.

+1 and add Bob W

[Exhibitman]

One other way to tell is to compare the front of a good card with the suspect card. The reprints I've seen are all 2nd generation prints: made from cards that are halftone images rather than from original artwork. Like a photo copy of a photo copy. Even if the back color and stock is something you can't quite figure out, you can tell a reprint by the spottiness, hazy areas that are clear on a genuine card, and lack of clarity. I focus on the designation of origin and subject name when those are white, and on the background itself.

BTW (shameless plug) the first edition of my sports Exhibit book is nearly complete. I expect to have it out some time in May or June.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

One other way to tell is to compare the front of a good card with the suspect card. The reprints I've seen are all 2nd generation prints: made from cards that are halftone images rather than from original artwork. Like a photo copy of a photo copy. Even if the back color and stock is something you can't quite figure out, you can tell a reprint by the spottiness, hazy areas that are clear on a genuine card, and lack of clarity. I focus on the designation of origin and subject name when those are white, and on the background itself.

BTW (shameless plug) the first edition of my sports Exhibit book is nearly complete. I expect to have it out some time in May or June.

Make sure you post the book's availability, Adam. I'm good for a copy!

Highest regards,

Larry

[AustinMike]

This is an interesting thread and I thought I'd pick some of the experts' brains, if I may. I recently purchased the Mantle in the attached photos (the one on the right in the front photos and the one on top in the back photos). The story on the card is that it (along with other Exhibit cards) was issued for the Canadian National Exhibition (CNE) in 1969 to honor the new Montreal Expos. I searched the web and didn't find anything about it. I did find that there is an annual CNE that has been going on for a number of years. I couldn't find anything supporting the story of these cards being printed for the 1969 CNE. As shown in the photos, the card itself is slightly smaller than a normal Exhibit (in both the length and the width) and has a slightly different cropping of the Mantle picture. The card front doesn't appear to be quite as crisp as the normal card, but it does seem pretty close to me. The card back is not cream colored but not exactly gray like in the previous pictures. In addition, this Mantle isn't on the earlier list of reprints. So, the $64,000 question, real or reprint? Also, when did the Exhibit Company officially stop printing the cards we consider "normal" or official cards?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

This is an interesting thread and I thought I'd pick some of the experts' brains, if I may. I recently purchased the Mantle in the attached photos (the one on the right in the front photos and the one on top in the back photos). The story on the card is that it (along with other Exhibit cards) was issued for the Canadian National Exhibition (CNE) in 1969 to honor the new Montreal Expos. I searched the web and didn't find anything about it. I did find that there is an annual CNE that has been going on for a number of years. I couldn't find anything supporting the story of these cards being printed for the 1969 CNE. As shown in the photos, the card itself is slightly smaller than a normal Exhibit (in both the length and the width) and has a slightly different cropping of the Mantle picture. The card front doesn't appear to be quite as crisp as the normal card, but it does seem pretty close to me. The card back is not cream colored but not exactly gray like in the previous pictures. In addition, this Mantle isn't on the earlier list of reprints. So, the $64,000 question, real or reprint? Also, when did the Exhibit Company officially stop printing the cards we consider "normal" or official cards?

Cardboard stock is wrong and if the image is not as crisp, odds are it is a reprint, counterfeit or whatever you want to call it. I've never heard about an expo edition.

Larry, my book is out.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/adam-warsha...-23637151.html

[whiteymet]

Hi Guys:

I have had this set of 8 CNE Exhibits for years and have wondered if they were legit or not. I decided to put them in my Exhibit Reprint album however.

I think there is another thread somewhere here that talks about them being issued at a Canadian National Exposition where someone did research on the Exposition.

For those interested the set consists of Aaron, Berra batting, Cash, Clemente, Kaline with two bats, Mantle, Maris and Mays

Fred

[dabigyankeeman]

I just got some Exhibit cards from Deans. You pay a little more with Deans but buying them raw I hope I can trust them over people I never heard of.

The Willie Mays in batting pose has a gray back, could it be a fake? I read somewhere that cream is fine, but gray is usually but not always fake. So I wonder, can I trust that Deans would know its real, or is this a crapshoot?

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

I collect Exhibits also and definitely agree with Scott. Most seller of Exhibits do not post images of the backs of cards - which is the only way I know of to detect reprints - unless you have a hi res scan. Good eye Scott.

Oops! Do I need to delete the back scan of the graded exhibit I currently have on BST?

.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by dabigyankeeman

I just got some Exhibit cards from Deans. You pay a little more with Deans but buying them raw I hope I can trust them over people I never heard of.

The Willie Mays in batting pose has a gray back, could it be a fake? I read somewhere that cream is fine, but gray is usually but not always fake. So I wonder, can I trust that Deans would know its real, or is this a crapshoot?

Send it back. All grey and white backs are repros,reprints, counterfeits, whatever you want to call them

I have even seen PSA grade these in their own unknowing way!

Fred

[Buythatcard]

Glad I saw this thread. I had 3 Exhibits up for sale on my eBay account. After reading this thread, I cancelled these 2 listings.

Jackie Jensen 1947-66 Exhibits - White Back
Nelson Fox 1947-77 Exhibits - Grey Back

I have a 3rd on out there which is as Stan Musial 1953 Exhibits Canadian.

Just recently won these Exhibits that were part of a mixed lot.

Any thoughts on the Musial card?

[whiteymet]

Howard:

You done good! The Jensen and Fox are bad the Musial is good

Fred

[Buythatcard]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Howard:

You done good! The Jensen and Fox are bad the Musial is good

Fred

One out of three is not bad. The other 2 will move to my fireplace. Thanks for the feedback.