Reprints?

[GasHouseGang]

I also remember the furor reprints created around forty years ago. The general consensus that seemed to emerge was that reprints were OK but that they should be printed in such a way as to make it obvious they were not originals (different size card, type font, color, etc.), or have REPRINT stamped in big enough letters that any attempt to remove said letters will be obvious to anyone who might otherwise be fooled.

[tonyo]

I like a well done reprint to occupy spots of very expensive cards (or cards I just don't want to spend the market value on) in collections, but the condition has to be very very similar to the other authentic cards in my set.
I've tried a few times, but so far I only have two that I really like that fit in well with the rest of my set. One is a t206 Honus Wagner with a Broadleaf back, of course I don't have a Honus, nor do I have a Broadleaf back. This reprint takes care of two holes in my t206 set. I also have a 67 Seaver that looks very very similar to my other 67's.

I'd love to find a 33 Goudey Lajoie that fits my 33 Goudey Set.

I've bought a 48/49 Leaf Satchel Paige and an e90 Cobb before thinking they would look fine amongst my others, but they don't.

I also have that 52 topps reprint set from the 80's, but they don't do it for me now that I own several real ones.

Also have a monster reprint that I bought from BST Auctions (vintagetoppsguy I think) back when I was trying get the monster to let me quit.


I'll probably sell both of those sets one day when I take a notion.


Along with a 40 playball Paul Waner that I bought thinking it was real, I believe that is it for me on reprints (as far as I know anyway)