Goudy Reprints

[CardPadre]

[CardPadre]

I would say the ad's highest praise of "matched closely" colors are an indication that they are still distinguishable from authentic copies and unlikely to be incorrectly slabbed by any major TPG.

I'd imagine the cardstock, even if high-quality, would not be quite passable either.



.

[Keith H. Thompson]

that dealers of the day, having seen both reprint and original, were furious. I do not share the poster's confidence that today's graders would reject a Charles Brooks reprint. Remember that "thousands" were sold. I would like a show of hands from anyone who has ever held and identified a Charles Brooks reprint.

My own feelings on the matter are rather simplistic. What difference does it make if a card in question was manufactured by the Goudey Gum Co. or by Charles Brooks? Both "look nice," and both have made their owners, auction houses, TPAs and dealers a lot of money. And will continue to do so.

But, I'm not sticking my head in the sand, either.

True story: I once gave complete 1934 Goudey Sets to each of my two sons as Christmas presents. To my eternal discredit, I put most of the cards in the old plastic acid binders, and stuffed the raw Gehrigs into their stockings without any regard to the damage that might result. I'm guessing there is very little value left.

But then, I never have been accused of having very good sense.

[CardPadre]

Looks like these were talked about in this thread a few years ago. Says the 1st Generation reprints were on similar cardstock as originals, later versions were thinner and had reprint on them. Someone from that thread had an image people were referring to, maybe an eBay listing.

https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=2101316

ETA: Here’s a site mentioning that these Sport Hobbyist reprints had black print on the reverse.



.