Re-Backed OJ??

[chlankf]

Need some OJ experts to let me know their opinions.

Does this appear re-backed to you? The edges appear to me that it is.

Thanks
Craig

[chlankf]

Back

[trdcrdkid]

It doesn’t look rebacked to me, or if it was, it was done many decades ago. A real OJ is a thin albumen photograph glued onto a thick piece of cardboard, so sometimes you get edges that look like this one when a card is worn. The true OJ experts can chime in if I’ve missed anything.

[T205 GB]

the card is a reprint IMO. The picture is blurry, corners evenly rounded. edges sanded off evenly, the staining on the back looks rubbed in and fresh compared to an older stain that would have probably blended together a bit more.

That is just my opinion

[chlankf]

Something just doesn't seem right with the top, bottom & left sides being smaller than the backing. I also feel the wear is just so uniformed.

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by chlankf

Something just doesn't seem right with the top, bottom & left sides being smaller than the backing. I also feel the wear is just so uniformed.

For me it is the wear on the card that is suspicious. As far as the reveal goes you have to take into consideration that it is a piece of film pasted to a piece of card stock. Taking that into account I would say its a good possibility to see separation on them.

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

For me it is the wear on the card that is suspicious. As far as the reveal goes you have to take into consideration that it is a piece of film pasted to a piece of card stock. Taking that into account I would say its a good possibility to see separation on them.

I've seen (and I own) apparently genuine OJs with similar wear, including slabbed ones. The only reprint OJs I've seen that weren't totally obvious fakes were derived from the photographic proofs at the Library of Congress, but those are all 1887 cards of major leaguers, and there were not aged like this. This still looks genuine to me. I'd be interested to hear what Jay Miller, Joe G., or other real OJ experts say.

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

I've seen (and I own) apparently genuine OJs with similar wear, including slabbed ones. The only reprint OJs I've seen that weren't totally obvious fakes were derived from the photographic proofs at the Library of Congress, but those are all 1887 cards of major leaguers, and there were not aged like this. This still looks genuine to me. I'd be interested to hear what Jay Miller, Joe G., or other real OJ experts say.

100% agree. This is legit, and I don't believe it is rebacked either. Rebacked OJ's typically have different wear and tear than the front (if at all).

[MW1]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

the card is a reprint IMO. The picture is blurry, corners evenly rounded. edges sanded off evenly, the staining on the back looks rubbed in and fresh compared to an older stain that would have probably blended together a bit more.

That is just my opinion

Agreed. Reprint.