Goudey Ruth opinion

[FrankWakefield]

It's not a genuine 1933 card. It's a reprint that's been intentionally worn and soiled a bit. That's what you're gonna find if you break that card out.

I think if you illuminate that card while in the slab with a black light, then the card will fluoresce and then that wishing and hoping won't be standing in the way of thinking it's legitimate. A bit of uv light would be easily done... why hasn't that been done?

As mentioned above, if you've handled a few Goudey cards you'll soon sense their weight, and you'll recognize the feel of the layered cardstock upon which they're printed. But a downside of having the card in a slab is that you can't touch the card unless you break the card out.

A Dover reprint? I'm not sure. They aren't really glossy, but the Dover cards have a look that would seem glossier than Goudey's (which aren't really glossy at all). Dover cards are thinner, easier to slightly bend.

Once a reprint card is mistakenly graded/encapsulated, then the likelihood of detecting that diminishes. Whoever has the graded card wants to believe it is what the slip at the top says it is, and anyone who looks at the card will be distracted by looking at the slip. 5 senses... we aren't gonna listen to a card, nor are we gonna taste a card. So that leaves 3 senses to evaluate a card: sight, smell, and touch. Smell is almost a non-factor, but it could be if someone has used a nonpolar solvent that leaves a residue that can be smelled (lighter fluid would be an example, and having smelled that maybe a person would look more closely for signs of why it was used, and also look for fading of bleeding of the print ink). We are down to limiting ourselves to two remaining senses, touch and sight. Once the card gets slabbed then touch is eliminated.

Obviously, once a reprint is graded as authentic then it becomes slightly less likely that people will notice that it is a reprint. Do graded cards deserve more scrutiny? Maybe.