Is my Goudey Dimaggio a fake?

[BigLambowski]

All signs in my mind point to no but I by no means consider myself an expert. I buy/sell cards generally in the 50-70 period.







Any input would be helpful and if you need me to provide more I can! I posted the 2nd picture so you can see the size of it. Thanks for the help!

[bobbyw8469]

My gut says no.....does the card have some gloss to it or is dull?

[bcbgcbrcb]

Do you think the mark on the back might be covering up the word "reprint"?

[JollyElm]

What Phil said is exactly what I was thinking, so I did a bit of research…

On this reprint (bottom), you can see the reprint verbiage isn't centered under "Indian Gum," it's skewed to the right. Now look at your card (they aren't perfectly aligned in my picture). That exact area of the back has been obliterated. You can see the darkness under the purple and red ink, practically yelling out, "Look Mom, I scratched this part away!!!" To me, it is very, very sketchy.

It's important to note--and may or may not be pertinent--that the reprint I am showing here is card #250, NOT card #274 like yours. I was unable to quickly find one numbered 274, so you'd have to decide what weight to give it.

dimaggio2.jpg

[kamikidEFFL]

^^^^ I much agree with what was just said. Tough to see but looks like something was scratched out on the back but u can prob see that under a loop.

[vthobby]

I personally do not like the looks of that card. Easy way to find out. send it in to PSA or SGC.

Peace, Mike

[1952boyntoncollector]

I wouldn't buy that for a dollar..

[buymycards]

The telltale sign is the Goudey logo on the back. The ink in the logo should be crisp and clean, not all run together like this one.

[CW]

3 bad signs that I see right away...

1. the glossy surface. Prewar Goudeys do not have a glossy front, although I could be wrong with this year.

2. the already mentioned writing directly over the portion that would have the "reprint" designation.

3. Notice how your card has a nice, brownish patina to it, which would indicate a rough life, but the corners are fairly sharp. For a card to get that dark and "dirty", the corners would show similar wear. Most authentic Goudeys from that era will have a much whiter stock on the reverse.

Does not look good to me, I'm afraid to say. If it is fake, don't take it too badly -- treat it as a learning experience. You also helped others to possibly spot a fake in the future by starting this thread.

[Eggoman]

Why does that card say "One of a Series of 312 Baseball Stars," instead of 288???

[CW]

Originally Posted by Eggoman

Why does that card say "One of a Series of 312 Baseball Stars," instead of 288???

The #274 DiMaggio will read series of 312, while the #250 DiMaggio will read series of 288.

Rick also has a great point about the logo on the reverse. Here's a legit version...

[Eggoman]

I didn't know that! THANKS for the schoolin' !

[BigLambowski]

Thanks for all the replies. I wanted to get some input before adding a story behind the card so the story didn't influence any opinions on the specific card.

I bought this card probably about two years ago. At the time I had a decent amount of money to spend and was doing well with cards in the 50's-60's area. This card was posted on craigslist and was asking for $500 met the guy younger college student type that said he got the card from his grandfather who passed away. Wanted it to go to a collector (which looking back is a red flag imo) and not a reseller type. I think I paid 450-400 not sure exactly.

About a year later money was tight so it was time to "cash-in" sent it to BGS to get graded came back "questionable authenticity". I wanted to send it to PCA but just seems like a waste of money at this point and just need to chalk it up as a loss.

I agree with many you learn from this and move on. I also would hope someone else learns from this as well and I'll be sticking to the era that I am comfortable with moving forward.

Again thanks to everyone with your input and I just about want to rip this card in half!

[BigLambowski]

quick update after looking at some suggestions I decided to rub the bottom of the back of the card and you can tell it is a bit rougher than the rest so it sounds like he did scratch off the reprint and then put the initials over the scratch marks left behind.

[the 'stache]

It looks like most of the members who have posted here agree that it's not an authentic card. That was my gut instinct right off the bat, but it had nothing to do with the proximity of the marking at the bottom, and any obstruction of where the word reprint might be. In this instance, it was pretty easy to see that, and disqualify the card, or at least raise serious doubts. But there will be cards where that red flag isn't obvious, and as hobbyists, we need to look elsewhere. I always start with an examination of the typography. Usually, I will compare the card I am considering to another example from the same year and set under a loupe, or a microscope.

I'll explain why I felt that the DiMaggio card was a reproduction.

This is the back of my 1934 Frankie Frisch Goudey card, scanned at 600 dpi.


And now, the back of the 1938 Goudey Joe DiMaggio in question.

Now, before I go any further, having provided the back of one of my cards, I have to say that the extent of my experience with Goudey cards doesn't go beyond 1935. I've never handled a 1938 Goudey card before, let alone this DiMaggio. But I do know the company had been having financial problems. 1938 marked a return to color cards after two black and white releases. So, I do not know what corners might have been cut in 1938 in an effort to cut costs. I'm not familiar with any changes in production technology employed by Goudey. This is purely speculation. But, in this case, speculation would be enough to keep me from buying the card, if it were something available to me.

Typically, when you see inconsistencies in typography quality, it's a sign of a reproduction. And it's my opinion that is what is being witnessed here.

The bold sans-serif font used by Goudey in the element we will be examining is a 50 point Franklin Gothic SB. I don't happen to have a license for that exact font. What I do have, and am using here, is the Franklin Gothic medium font. I am using a faux bold effect on it to more closely approximate the one used by Goudey. It's pretty close, though as you can see, it's not quite as heavy, and there are some slight inconsistencies in character tracking.



Now that we have this comp set up, look at the rendering of the Big League logo on my card, compared to the DiMaggio card's logo below. The picture of the DiMaggio was taken with a camera, and we know that a flash was used, as it's obvious on the card front provided. Still, I think there are some flaws obvious in the characters themselves. Inking inconsistencies, or little breaks in the letters.

More obvious though, at least to a trained eye, are differences in the letters themselves. Look at the first E in "league". The intersection of the top horizontal bar, where it meets the vertical bar, is not clean. The interior angle created should be close to 90 degrees. It is in the second E at the end of the word. Also, looking at the second E, the middle, shorter horizontal bar appears rounded at the end. Look, too, at the "A". On my card, the two vertical bars meet, creating an interior point inside. The "A" on the DiMaggio does not do that. It appears that the two bars are intersected by another horizontal bar before they meet.

Now, could these issues be attributed to issues within Goudey's production, or quality control measures in 1938? I suppose so. But if I were in the market for this particular DiMaggio card, the "little things" popping up, which would appear even more obvious under a loupe, or a magnifying glass, would absolutely preclude my buying it. When you add in the writing conveniently placed where the word reprint would appear, it's just too many warning signs for me.

Edit: I hope this helps.

[Volod]

Anytime anyone selling a vintage card mentions his grandfather - or any other relative - is a good time to run screaming from the room.

[con40]

Goudeys do not have a glossy surface. This card is printed digitally and it's easy to tell by the way the print areas glisten off the paper surface. If you look closely you'll actually see that the "toner" used is raised off the surface. Ink soaks into the paper and is imperceptible on the surface of the card since it permeates the paper stock.

This was probably printed on a digital Indigo press and cut down.

Sorry, but I'm 100% certain.

[buymycards]

When I go to card shows, both as a buyer and a seller, I bring along an "authentication kit", which includes a black light, a 100x microscope, and a loupe.

I also carry beat up commons for most of the common sets that I can use to compare to the cards I am considering purchasing. I have a beat up T206, T205, Cracker Jack, 1933 and 34 Goudey, 48 Leaf, one card from each of the Topps and Bowman sets from 1948 through 1975, and some other sports, such as a 1979/80 Topps and OPC hockey, 85/86 Fleer basketball, and others. The kit doesn't take up much room and it has saved me some money, especially when looking at Gretzky and Jordan rookies, and it seems like a lot of fake CJ's show up at card shows.

When I first started collecting pre war cards I got burned a couple of times on the old Yahoo auction site, so I am now very careful about what I purchase. I thought I was getting a great deal, and I got greedy and I ended up with some fakes.

Rick

[BigLambowski]

Originally Posted by buymycards

When I first started collecting pre war cards I got burned a couple of times on the old Yahoo auction site, so I am now very careful about what I purchase. I thought I was getting a great deal, and I got greedy and I ended up with some fakes.

Rick

I think this last part pretty much nails it down seriously. I was so quick to make a decision because I thought it wasn't going to last very much and I could see the 200%+ return on investment when I should have slowed down and made a sound decision because we all know he wasn't going anywhere.

Interesting break down on the back of the card, easy to get mesmerized by the front of a Goudey (first time).

You learn and move on thanks everyone!