Reprints and Fakes

[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