[JustinD]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

Hey Justin, sometimes I find a card that simply appeals to me and I have it graded. It was graded because that's the way I wanted to retain the card, not to resell, flip it, or any other reason. In this case, it was a rookie card of a Hall of Fame player with what I think is a great picture of Larkin - especially the look on his face in the photo. The Conseco back simply makes it very unique. So, $22 to have this card protected for as long as I will keep it - that's ok. Also, I don't really care about the 7 grade either. I don't collect the 87 set for obvious reasons. With that said, if you can find 100 of the Larkin rookies with a Conseco back, in SGC 7 condition, I recommend you buy them!

Your comments regarding grading I find interesting. If you look at the grading standards, it shouldn't matter what is pictured on the front or the back. Other that verifying that it is an authentic card from that set, all grading does is provide their position on the quality of the card; surface, corners, centering, etc. etc. etc. So why shouldn't they grade it.

Thanks for the response and take.

Not insulting in any way, Just interested if your PC was indeed the reason. Please collect what you want my friend!

I have some older BGS errors and proofs myself because I like them, but all are Authentic grades. As for PSA, I have also not seen anything much like what Swarmee stated that is not a recognized variation numerically graded in a very long while due to the impact on registries. Those older PSA numerics that I have seen were not labeled differently and did not create slots because they had a print defect sub. In other cases like proofs, they are zero points toward a registry and thus of very little value. I think this is the fun of when PSA actually does add a variation.

The shock to me is likely somewhat explained by SGC not having a registry after thinking on it. If PSA started numerically grading common errors willy nilly, it would throw an F150 size wrench in the player registries with all the possibilities. That was my first thought when I noticed.

Ben, those are interesting even more as I think about it. They are legit sheet placement errors as the reverses are upside down, so no seeming horseplay on a created anomaly. To have perfectly centered wrong reverses of the same card is a true rare occurrence as the press operator would have had to place the sheets in wrong the same but perfectly opposite way twice...a snowball's chance in hell. How did you acquire from Score? Was it in the liquidation sale?