Have Collins McCarthy or Boston Store cards been reprinted?

[fkw]

Not often seen.......
There are some freak reprints... They are E135 on front but the card number was removed. Some if not all have backs that are not found on authentic cards ie Opie Dildock, Kendig's Chocolates. The backs are washed out looking and the card stock is thinner (plus the obvious missing card number with the same font as a E135).

I owned 2 about 8 years ago and they fooled me at first.

[Mark]

Earlier this year, I bought a Collins McCarthy Duffy Lewis which didn't look or feel right. Since I happened to have another on hand, it was easy to see the difference. One was "washed out," looking a little like a photo of a photo. And the card stock was not quite as thick as that of the real McCoys. I don't remember whether the number was on there or not, but I sent it back.

[ctownboy]

Thanks for the answers so far.

Another couple of questions.

1) I have read the cards are on thinner stock. I own some T205's and T206's. I also own some Star Player Candy cards (very thin stock) and some Fatima team cards (thin but not as thin as the SPC cards). Using those as a guide, how thick of stock are the Collins - McCarthy and Boston Store cards printed on?

2) Do these cards have a glossy surface (which I think I read somewhere) or not? I own a couple of Coupon cigarette cards and I can feel the difference in texture between them and a T206 card. Which will the Collins - McCarthy and Boston Store cards feel more like?

Thanks again,

David

[nolemmings]

Collins-McCarthy absolutely have been reprinted. I own a set, and have it stashed somewhere.

The images are whiter, not creamy, and are duller or muddier as well. The stock is thinner. The set I have is not going to fool the experienced collector for 10 seconds.

[nolemmings]

I dug them up, and here are a couple. I was a little harsh in my criticism--they are off-white and therefore somewhat creamy, whether or not it shows in these scans. Also, the images aren't horribly duller, probably because the originals aren't exactly the sharpest photos either. Still, the reprints (see back bottom right) are noticeably thinner, which makes them susceptible to bowing or curling (e.g. Rube), and are translucent.

[Leon]

Hey Todd
With a little white-out you can say the cards "might be reprints" and sell away on ebay!!

[ctownboy]

Thanks for the responses, everybody.

Now, here is the rest of the story.

Even though I don't have a lot of money, I still go out looking and asking for old ball cards and memorabilia. Recently a guy said he knew somebody that had some old cards. He took my info and then, a few days later, e mailed me a picture of a stack of cards numbering about 50. On top of the stack was a Joe Jackson with the number 82 at the bottom.

No other info was sent.

At first I thought the cards were Sporting News or one of the other similiar sets. Then, I looked in the big SCD price guide and found that Jackson was NOT numbered 82 in those sets. Then I found that Jackson cards in the Collins - McCarthy and Boston Store sets were numbered 82.

I got excited.

I went to look at the cards today (trying, along the way, to figure out how I was going to pay for them if they were real). Unfortunately, when I looked at the backs there was that ugly word REPRINT on them.

So, sorry for the false alarm and thanks again for sharing the information that you gave me,

David