1934-36 Diamond Stars identification help

[SAllen2556]

Yep. Reprint. Look at a real one on eBay and you'll probably be able to tell.
The borders on yours are too white. Looks too glossy too.

[talkin2rob]

Thank you for that. I've never gotten into this set and did not know anything about them. Looks like this will be filed in trash. lol

[conor912]

Good call, Scott. I agree, way too much gloss to be legit.

[brianp-beme]

I agree with the analysis of the front. I better check that Dickey for bogusness. You have to admit the back is pretty authentic looking.

Brian

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

I agree with the analysis of the front. I better check that Dickey for bogusness. You have to admit the back is pretty authentic looking.

Brian

Just catching up in this thread but I was going to say the back paper didn't look like it had enough texture leading to incredibly crisp print. I love these cards and their Deco feel, the backs just aren't that pretty from a print quality and paper quality standpoint.

[brianp-beme]

I refuse to have anyone criticize me for dragging my feet. Half a year later and here is my follow-up on the Diamond Star Dickey I mentioned previously in this thread. First off, it appears authentic. As you can see in the scan the back damage has obliterated the number. The batting stats are for 1935, and the copyright is 1934, and the print is blue.

What I have determined is that this is card #103 (not #11) issued in 1936. I found images of 3 #103 Dickey backs online, and they all have the same 1935 stats, 1934 copyright and blue print.

What caused my confusion in the first place is actually the Old Cardboard listing for the Diamond Stars set (which, by the way, is the best I have come across) which indicates that the copyright should be 1936 for the Dickey card #103. In fact, it indicates that all the high # cards (97 through 108) should have a copyright date of 1936. I believe this info is inaccurate on their site. I have the following high # cards, and I have listed the copyright dates seen on them:

97 Lopez 1935
98 Rowe 1935
99 Traynor 1935 (thanks Epro-9)
100 Averill 1935
101 Bartell 1934 (thanks Epro-9)
102 Mungo 1934 (thanks John)
103 Dickey 1934
104 Rolfe 1935 (thanks Epro-9)
105 Lombardi 1935
106 Lucas 1935 (thanks beme)
107 Hack 1935
108 Berger 1935

Can anyone else chime in on the copyright date shown on the other cards (99 Traynor, 101 Bartell, 104 Rolfe, 106 Lucas)? I assume the Old Cardboard site has the copyright dates of this whole high # grouping incorrect. If it appears so after responses, I will contact them so they can update.

I wonder why the Dickey and Mungo cards have a 1934 copyright? I would assume it was just an oversight by the producers.

Brian

[brianp-beme]

97 (28) "Al" Lopez - - B6
98 (33) "Schoolboy" Rowe - - B6
99 (27) "Pie" Traynor - - B6
100 (35) Earle Averill - - B6
101 (15) Dick Bartell - - B6
102 (19) Van Mungo - - B6
103 (11) Bill Dickey - - - B6
104 (29) Robert Rolfe - - B6
105 (36) "Ernie" Lombardi - - B6
106 (46) "Red" Lucas - - B6
107 (34) Stanley Hack - - B6
108 (25) Walter Berger - - B6

Above is a copy/paste of Old Cardboard's #97 through 108 section of the Diamond Stars set. The 'B6' in their listing designates blue print and a 1936 copyright, and the 3rd column that it is seen in is for cards with 1935 stats (the dashes are supposed to line up for cards with 1933 stats and then 1934 stats, and indicate that the card does not exist with this year's stats on the back).

Brian

[swarmee]

http://www.oldcardboard.com/r/r327/r327list.asp
Are you saying he's reading it wrong? Looks right to me based on the original formatting on the webpage.


#102 Mungo has a 1934 copyright date and 1935 stats.