Reprints and Fakes

[39special]

Originally Posted by steve B

A few different companies have made reprints over the years. There's the Dover books, CMC which did a full set of T206, Fritsh cards? That did a bunch of sets, Sports collectors company? (The 70's one that did some T206s in B+W as a collectors set) Topps did the 52 set, as sort of a precursor to the other sets they did I think as "archives" and I'm sure a bunch of others I've missed. very few of them can be mistaken for the originals.

That's the commercial ones that were sold as reprints. They were ok for people that wanted a full set but couldn't afford it. Personally I'd rather have a worn original common that a set of reprints.

The outright fakes are anonymous until the faker is caught.

The first fake I bought was in 1978 and cost all of $2. Between then and when the 63 Rose was counterfeited I saw a handful of fantasy cards that wouldn't really fool anyone, and a spectacular 51 Bowman Mantle. That one was really strange, everyones initial reaction was "wow that's nice! " Followed by a long pause then " I mean, it's a really nice fake, right? " It was really close, but just seemed "wrong" in some way.

These days reprints can be made by nearly anyone with a bit of software and a decent printer. Not usually convincing reprints, but not horrible. I bought a couple Goudey reprints that looked pretty good in scans but were obvious once I had them. I knew they were going to be reprints- Ruth and Gehrig for $10 each. I'm probably going to frame them somehow as a display item.

Steve B

Thanks Steve

I have seen the reprints that were marked reprints,but wasn't sure if a company printed reprints without marking them reprints.
I don't have a problem with companies reprinting cards as long as they mark them as such.

[the 'stache]

Reprints and outright forgeries are a big concern to me as a budding vintage and pre-war collector. So, before putting any substantial amount of money into a particular card, I make sure to buy a common for the same set. Once I have it, I'll buy the card I want, and compare them side by side under magnification. Even the most convincing reprint or fake should have discernible differences.

And I agree with the OP. Reprints should clearly be marked as such. This is one of the reasons you should always ask for a picture/scan of the back of a card. Not only to see the back's condition, but to check for the tell tale signs of a reprint.

[GasHouseGang]

Reprints should not only be marked as such, but changed in some obvious way. Whether they change the size of the card (say a 1952 Topps changed to a standard new card size), or change the ink color used on the back, the reissue should be obvious even to the casual observer. This is how Topps treats the reissues they create for some of their new sets. They generally add some foil print or other marking as well to the front. If you make it too close to the original and just add a small "reprint" to the back, someone is bound to erase the word reprint and try to pass it off as a slightly damaged original.

[Rickyy]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

Reprints should not only be marked as such, but changed in some obvious way. Whether they change the size of the card (say a 1952 Topps changed to a standard new card size), or change the ink color used on the back, the reissue should be obvious even to the casual observer. This is how Topps treats the reissues they create for some of their new sets. They generally add some foil print or other marking as well to the front. If you make it too close to the original and just add a small "reprint" to the back, someone is bound to erase the word reprint and try to pass it off as a slightly damaged original.

Great point...too many legit reprints have morphed into fake originals over the years... the more difficult to fake the better...

Ricky Y