Dumb question, but I have to ask....(1933 Goudey Ruth)

[hangman62]

Its..... GOOD !

[kemdawg]

Originally Posted by hangman62

Its..... GOOD !

Do you really think so?

[NiceDocter]

Card stock looks thin and fake. sorry........

[JustinD]

The back is really close, but the front just looks off and the borders look big. Without a better scan I find it questionable.

[clydepepper]

I agree with Leon:

The centering and corners look far too perfect.


.

[buymycards]

First of all, never buy a $10k card after looking at a shadowy cell phone photo. If the seller really wants top dollar from this card he will provide some decent scans, and he will spend a few bucks to have it graded.

One of the things that I look for on Goudeys is the logo's on the front and back. On an original Goudey the circle and the printing within the circle will be very precise. On many of the fakes, the thickness of the ink on the circle will vary and the printing within the logo will be grainy. The one that I am showing is real, but has a little water damage.

Also, on your card, the front of the card appears to be glossy and the paperstock appears to be modern. You might want to try a black light on the card if you are able to see it in person.

[irv]

I nothing about these cards but is it normal to have a big space between "Goudey Gum Company" and "Boston" like this card shows?

I know my eyes aren't the greatest, but it looks like something has been erased in that space?

[steve_a]

I have the same reprint, it is really well made. An ebay seller slipped it in with some cards that I bought. Mine is beat up a bit, crease with rounded corners. It passes all of the usual quick tests including bleed-though. The paper stock isn't quite right however and under a loupe you do not see the "dot matrix" print pattern front with solid ink in the back font.