reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens&nbsp; </b><p>Back looks too white. Opinions?<BR><BR>Jay

reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>here's the link<BR><BR><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2726529591&category=31 719" target=_new>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2726529591&category=31 719</a>

reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>B C Daniels</b><p>as per the funkie dimensions and the fact a coin shop pawned it and has no clue that it is junk.

reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>Craig</b><p>Agreed, an obvious reprint.

reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>julie</b><p>"classic baseball Cards" has half real T3s and half (or more than half) reprints--which of course, they tell you about. But if they didn't tell you, you wouldn't know the difference! Why is this one so garish?

reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>The back of authentic T3 cards is never white like that, its more of a cream color, even on high grade examples. Also the front on authentic cards has an orange peel like texture and doesnt photograph with that glossy look with the colors so bright and dark, as in these reprints. I told the seller that his card is a reprint, and I asked the size, he says that it is normal baseball card size (2.5" by 3.5"), like all the T3 reprints Ive ever seen. Has anyone ever seen a reprint/reproduction T3 in the normal 5.75" by 8" size?? Frank

reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>julie</b><p>...

reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>Lyman Hardeman</b><p>Greetings. Although this is the first time that I have posted on this board, I've been reading and enjoying the threads for some time. Just had to add my 2 cents to the very valid points already made about this "reprint" thread.<BR><BR>In addition to the "white back," "funky dimensions" and "orange peel texture," already mentioned, to me the most telling sign of the reprint is the cross hatch (moire) pattern in the scan. One would not see this pattern if the scan had been made from an original color lithograph--the printing process used on the T3. Because a dot pattern is introduced in the reprint process, this shows up as a cross-hatch in the background of the scan of the reprint.<BR><BR>Since the size of the card on eBay is often not known and the surface texture is often inconclusive, the moire pattern is often the best way to detect a reprint scan when viewed on a computer monitor. <BR><BR>Fortunately, the seller has removed the auction from eBay.<BR> <BR>

reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>When I redimension scans to make them smaller for ebay, I sometimes see some funky translations of print patterns - sometimes it changes a beautiful image to something with cross-hatches, diagonals, etc. I had one card that I simply wouldn't sell on ebay because it always looked like a reprint when posted - I think it was an e93.

reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>LJH</b><p>You make a good point that a cross-hatch (moire) pattern does not always "prove" that the card is a reprint. Let me try to clarify.<BR><BR>If the original card is a color lithograph (as with the T3), then it has always been my experience that it will produce a scan without the cross hatch.<BR><BR>However, if the original card (or a reprint of a lithograph) is printed using a process that uses a dot-pattern (sometimes referred to as a halftone), then the cross-hatch pattern is likely to occur in the scan when viewed on a computer monitor. An original E93, in effect, is a colorized halftone, and when viewed under magnification the dot pattern is readily seen. It is therefore subject to the cross-hatch effect even though it is an original vintage card.<BR><BR>Under magnification, you will not see such a dot pattern on a lithographed card such as an original T3, and therefore the scan produced from an original T3 will not show the cross-hatch pattern. <BR> <BR>Hope this helps. --LJH<BR>

reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>Firstly and except in blatant cases, I shy away from making a definitive opinion based on the moire pattern in an online image, as modern scanners can do all sorts of funky things. I find it essentiall, if not always possible, to view an item in person before making a final decision.<BR><BR>It has correctly been stated moire patterns are created when making a scan of a card made up of the half-tone dot pattern (ala all those tiny dots in a 1957 Topps or Exhibit card). Lack of a moire pattern doesn't prove anything, as many 1957 Topps or such have been scanned without such a pattern. But if you see such a moire pattern on a Harper's Woodcut or Old Judge or Fatima card, it can be reasonably assumed that the card is a reprint. <BR><BR>I have not seen a T3 in person in some time, and I don't know how they images were made (dots versus no dots). If they don't have the dot pattern, then it would seem unlikely that a moire pattern would appear in a scan of a genuine card.<BR><BR>Note on T206s and related E cards. The half-tone was used differently for these cards, and the half-tone dots (and resulting moire pattern) in the Portrait cards usually appears only in part on the image. So if you see a T206 Portrait and there is moire pattern in the face (for example) but not in the background colors and white borders, this is evidence that the card is gentuine.<BR><BR><BR><BR>

reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>One of the more intesting cases is the 1958 Topps baseball issue, with their seemingly solid background colors. The background colors that are primary colors (in the printer's sense, not neccesarily as we were taught as kids. Meaning, that the primary colors for modern halftone prints is not Red, Yellow an Blue) will not potentially cause a moire pattern in a scan, as they are solid color. However, backgrounds of secondary colors (such as orange) can create a moire pattern in a scan. This is because to create the secondary color the printers created dot pattern of two colors.<BR><BR>In short, some 1958 Topps backgrounds can create moire patterns, and some can't.

reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>One last point, which is mostly unrelated by I think is interesting, is that the primary colors for old (say, Pre-WWII) half-tone color prints was red, yellow and blue. Meaning if you put under a microscope a 1930 color magazine picture ad, you will find that the each primary color dot is either red, yellow or dark blue (additional colors could have been used, like black. But the basic colors are those three). However, in more modern times, printers changed two of the primary colors. So part of determing the age of a color half-tone print is by isolating the tiny dots and determining its color. Many modern counterfeits are identified because the individual dots are the wrong color.

reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>BROOKS NEWELL</b><p>I ASKED SELLER FOR EXACT MEASUREMENTS............ANSWER WAS... STANDARD............ASKED WHAT HE/SHE CONSIDERED STANDARD..........NO REPLY IN TWO DAYS.....I'M NOT IMPRESSED

reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>Brian C Daniels</b><p>and you'll start seeing nearmint E-98's!<BR><BR>In groups of 65 no less!

reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>I had an e93 Wagner that I scanned and changed the dimensions on the scan about six different ways. Each time the result was different - it was purely a function of how the software re-interpreted the colors/patterns of pixels combinations in order to reproduce the image in a different size. Sometimes that meant cross-hatches, sometimes something different. <BR><BR>The best way to combat this problem is to scan the item at the resolution that will produce the exact size image you plan to use in your auction, then upload the image to a web-site and include a link in your ebay posting - I can send html code for this if anyone needs it.<BR><BR>And I have no doubt that a "pure" scan of a real T3 would look different than a pure scan of a reprint - I have some of the reprints, as well as real ones.

reprint?
 

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>For example, the color of that single tiny dot that is circled (magnified at over 100X) offers more information about the authenticity of that early baseball card, premium or poster than a consultation with Bill Mastro at MastroNet's luxurious offices.<BR><BR><img src="http://www.cycleback.com/dot.JPG"><BR><BR>If this was a magnfication of what someone claimed to be a super rare 1910 Ty Cobb premium, I would say that it was a modern fake.