Star basketball cards

rcmb3220

I've been looking into buying a couple common rookies from 83 and 85. I know that the jordan 85 was reprinted off the same plates and maybe some other big names. So I assume since they were reprinting one card that there are also reprints of others as well? We're the 83 cards reprinted?

Based on the colors of the borders I am assuming the sheets were not your typical 12 by 11 cards to a sheet. So maybe there are just certain teams that I need to worry about.

DM23HOF

The Jordan actually was never reprinted off the original plates; it's an unfortunate and pervasive hobby misconception. There was a detailed thread on this a while back; will try and dig it up.

vols1

Even if you had the same plates, it would be impossible to reprint without the exact same paper and ink.

ergoism

Beckett's pop report shows 358 graded for the Star 101 Jordan. If they had been reprinted, that number would be much higher.

Dpeck100

Star Jordan thread

hyperchipper09

Om eBay, seller and highly respected in the field of Star Co. B-Ball, Steve Taft has taken to adding counterfeit tips concerning certain Star Basketball singles in some of his descriptions.

Star Co tips

CDsNuts

A few points:

1) Star never reprinted any of the base team sets using the original plates. There are lots of counterfeits of the big RCs out there- many over the years sold by Big Boyd's but I think the counterfeiter got shut down and arrested. None were made by Star. In fact, I don't believe that they ever reprinted anything using the original plates.

2) Star's CEO illegally printed new sub sets and Jordan "promos" in the mid-late 90s to capitalize on the popularity of their '83-'85 sets. A lot of those sets were sold through Shop at Home (Lite All Stars, Crunch & Munch, a few others I think).

3) This is a better thread to look at for info from Steve Taft.

4) As to why PSA chooses not to grade Star cards? Who knows, but that decision has unfairly reinforces the idea that it's impossible to tell counterfeits from the real deal.


Lee

hyperchipper09

4) As to why PSA chooses not to grade Star cards? Who knows, but that decision has unfairly reinforces the idea that it's impossible to tell counterfeits from the real deal.


It's not as difficult as made out to be by PSA IMO. Could just be an overall laze on PSA's part not to grade them. Maybe that's more likely.

highballer

Question for the Star basketball card experts that contribute to this forum. I recently found an old copy of the Sportscard Counterfeit Detector, 3rd Ed. (1994) authored by experts Bob Lemke and Sally Grace. On p. 213 in the Star basketball section, there is the following statement:

"In early 1994 large numbers of early Star basketball products surfaced, being sold in unbagged sets and as singles. This prompted widespread rumors of counterfeiting and plunged the market for Star cards into further disarray. Despite vehement accusations on the part of Star Company officials that the cards were counterfeit, not a shred of evidence to support such a claim was ever advanced. A renewed investigation by the publisher of this book again concluded that the cards being called counterfeit were either the same rejects seen earlier or were reprints from genuine plates. At presstime it had been reported to the publisher by reliable sources that an independent investigation of the printing, paper and inks on the so-called counterfeits had been undertaken by a well-respected state crime lab which had concluded the cards were not counterfeit. Official announcement of the results is pending."

I've read the statements from expert Steve Taft on the reprinting issue, and how only the 2nd series 1985-86 cards were reprinted. However, I've never seen any statements directly challenging Bob Lemke's conclusion above, which I presume is where the whole reprinting from original plates belief/rumor started. Does anyone have comments on the Bob Lemke statement or know why it is not credible?

Thanks in advance.

vols1

Like all card companies Star contracted out it's printing. And I read the original printers of the first star cards went out of business so they were never able to duplicate any old cards.

i

<< <i>Question for the Star basketball card experts that contribute to this forum. I recently found an old copy of the Sportscard Counterfeit Detector, 3rd Ed. (1994) authored by experts Bob Lemke and Sally Grace. On p. 213 in the Star basketball section, there is the following statement:

"In early 1994 large numbers of early Star basketball products surfaced, being sold in unbagged sets and as singles. This prompted widespread rumors of counterfeiting and plunged the market for Star cards into further disarray. Despite vehement accusations on the part of Star Company officials that the cards were counterfeit, not a shred of evidence to support such a claim was ever advanced. A renewed investigation by the publisher of this book again concluded that the cards being called counterfeit were either the same rejects seen earlier or were reprints from genuine plates. At presstime it had been reported to the publisher by reliable sources that an independent investigation of the printing, paper and inks on the so-called counterfeits had been undertaken by a well-respected state crime lab which had concluded the cards were not counterfeit. Official announcement of the results is pending."

I've read the statements from expert Steve Taft on the reprinting issue, and how only the 2nd series 1985-86 cards were reprinted. However, I've never seen any statements directly challenging Bob Lemke's conclusion above, which I presume is where the whole reprinting from original plates belief/rumor started. Does anyone have comments on the Bob Lemke statement or know why it is not credible?

Thanks in advance. >>


Lemke's statement is credible and accurate.

highballer

Seems odd that Steve Taft and Bob Lemke have (had?) divergent opinions on this reprinting issue, particularly since Steve Taft is listed as a contributor in the Counterfeit Detector book. Perhaps Lemke's statement was never conclusive on the issue of reprinting -- just that the samples tested were not counterfeits.

Too bad these shop at home sets weren't legitimate -- this Olympic one would have been a nice issue. http://www.ebay.com/itm/131375745126

Aric

I'm having trouble interpreting exactly what Lemke is saying in that statement. What is he referring to when he says "the same rejects seen earlier?"

highballer

Aric,

The "same rejects seen earlier" seems to refer back to what is known as the Star 1985 2nd series reprints. Another few passages from pp. 212-213:

"To be sure, there are differences in the two 'types' of Star cards found in the hobby market. There are visible and measurable differences in the paper stocks. There are discernible differences in shades of ink used and the volume of ink used and the volume of ink coverage from card to card. There are differences in the surface gloss on the fronts of the cards. There are differences in the physical dimensions of the cards. There are most assuredly differences in packaging. On some cards, such as the 1986 Chicago Bulls team set, there are even design differences. None of which proves that these cards have ever been counterfeited. Rather, it is more likely that some of the cards present in the card hobby are pre-production press samples and/or factory rejects -- cards intended to be scrapped which were salvaged by parties unknown an recycled into the market."

The book shows a picture of the 1985 Star Jordan 117 "reject." It is very easy to tell the difference. The design difference referred to above is that the "reject" Jordan 117 does not have the four black pin-stripe marks around the bull's head logo or the inner black circle around the logo at all.

So, this is consistent with what many have read about the 1985 Star 2nd series: there were reprints of that series, but the differences can be identified (and in the case of the Jordan 117, it's pretty easy to spot). What is unclear to me is whether Lemke believes there are simply reprints in addition to these "rejects."