1934-36 Diamond Stars identification help

[brianp-beme]

I think I partially re-deposited what had been withdrawn from my memory bank. The card is a 103 Bill Dickey, or it could be the #11 Dickey, as the card has back damage in the area where the number is located. I remember that, according to the list in the link I posted previously, the card fit the supposed specifications of neither number #11 or 103. This is where my memory is still fuzzy, as I don't recall whether it had a blue back and a 1935 copyright date, or a Green back with either a 1935 or 1936 copyright.

It will be some time before I can get back with more details, so until then sit tight, card collecting community, but make sure you move around occasionally to prevent maladies related to inactivity.

Brian

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

make sure you move around occasionally to prevent maladies related to inactivity.

Brian

Too late for that...We are card collectors after all...........

[talkin2rob]

Thanks for the responses. I'm sure someone will be able to diagnose this. If not, the card will be tossed back into the depths of the closet collection.

[SAllen2556]

I think there's only one way you could have Steve O'neil in green ink, and that would be if it's a reprint. There's one pretty high quality reprint set out there and they often pop up on eBay. If you post a scan of the front it might be easier to tell.

[talkin2rob]

I wasn't aware there were reprints of this set. Here's a picture of the front. It's the best I can get from taking a picture on my phone. I can scan it if that would be better.

[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.