General Forum

I'm generally not a fan a reprints and don't own any (I hope). One objection is that they are too often passed off as originals, and that's a real problem. But, unlike with a book, part of what I like about a baseball card is the history, not just the content. I like that it's 100 years old, 50 years old, even 10 years old. Some kid in 1952 may have had that Mantle on his bookshelf. For a book, I care more about the words within. Although I do own a couple of beat up, very old books, and then the history thing kicks in again. Or art. I like art because I like how it looks. So a reprint of a Picasso is just fine...and affordable. But if I cared more about the age and the fact that the artist actually touched the thing, then I'd want orginals.

I've eased on my stance a bit over the last few years, and even vaguely thought about looking for some reprints. There are two T207 Cubs that are very rare and very expensive. I have the other eight Cubs from the set. I thought about supplementing by getting reprints, but it just wouldn't be the same. I've been stalking 1915 Cracker Jack cards, which are pretty expensive. There's a lovely 1993 set of reprints I could buy. But then why not just print out the cards on my color computer and call it day?

So in the end, I'm not opposed to clearly marked reprints, but I doubt I'll ever buy one.

v3

I have one of those Cracker Jack reprints, they are very small. Not sure what size the originals are, but the reprints could likely fit onto a quarter. They also have a blurb about the original set on the back, not strictly reprints. 

Something in the similar vein, but not exactly reprints. The 1956-57 Parkhurst set wasn't released that year for some reason I have not yet learned. However, it was released in 1994. I count it as a 1956-57 set, I'm not as concerned with when it was actually produced. It's a set for the 56-57 season, so it's 56-57. However, since I'm still fairly new to hockey, a lot of the players only appear in my collection from that set. I'm kind of holding off on scanning them in the hopes that cards actually issued in their lifetime can be the official representation of them in my Alphabetical Directory. Yet a lot of the same players appear in the 2004-05 In the Game Franchises release, and I have no mental block on scanning them, in fact I've been doing that for the last 4 days. It's a strange quirk I can't fully explain. 

Well i think reprints have there place in the industry ,  some cards you just can't get or afford , this gives a collector a owner ship of one even though not original  , on the other hand Heritage  type cards I do not like at all , I believe that card style  was for that year and other players that did not play or even born do not deserve  to be put into that frame work of that card ...

Chrome, Prizm, Finest & Refractor reprints are just awesome.  The pictures are usually sharper and the card color is generally much better.  Especially in sets after the early 2000's as some of those Finest could get a little green over time.  This falls into the same category as legacy cards for me as well.  Seeing prizm/refractors of players that only appeared on cardboard inspires me with the quality of the pics.  And any of these cards will never be mistaken as any original card and they also say reprint on the back.

Billy mentioned the 1996 Topps Stars RC reprints, I would also add that the Hockey Blast From The Past chrome and refractor set are amazing in hand (Gordy Howe in particular).  Also the 2012 Topps Chrome RC Reprint chrome and refractor sets in FB.

However, I admit that I am not nearly as keen on regualr cardboard reprints and very much understand some consternation with them.  But to see old cards in vastly improved technology is joy.

At the risk of sounding dumb, when you say heritage are you talking about baseball or new cards printed like they are an older set? What ive seen in football aren't reprints or old looking but just another set called heritage. Just asking what you mean really as im not afraid to ask, if I don't know something.

I don't collect them, but reprints definitely have a place in the hobby. The most important thing is that they need to have a clear notation that they are reprints otherwise they are just a counterfeit.

To David 657 ,  well sorry should have said that like example  topps 2020 Heritage  that is a copy of a old card that is what I am talking about I have been collecting  since 1963 and I believe in only Base set cards that is all I collect because that was and  is to me the heart of this whole thing of baseball cards , that's just me , I do like many other styles , with a doubt  but let the old cards rest in there years that they where produced , and I do agree with Corky that reprints need to be clearly marked

Well said Corky. I also wanted to state I love Heritage cards, The new starts in old layouts are really cool

and on the other/similar  side of Heritage, I like the topps archives (but not as much as heritage).  seeing Ty Cobb or Stan Musial on 1993 topps design is cool to me as well.

mark

Yes 100% Mark, forgot about them