Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy
The article showed how to spot a real '89 Ripken FF error from a fake. I thought it was very informative (not that I collect that kind of stuff) and there are clearly many differences between the two. Then, he showed a picture of the fake residing in a PSA slab. Look below, Steve. What more "proof" do you need? 
 |
I don't want to take this too far off the topic of the thread, and waited some time before posting what I did.
For those with no interest in modern stuff the short tale is this.
There's a handful of 89 Fleer Ripken errors that are very different from a normal 89 fleer card. On the site linked there are some good closeup scans and links to two different opinions about the odd card. One that lists a few reasons why it's fake, the other looks at it a bit more technically and reaches the opposite conclusion.
I'm ambivalent about the card. Some of the points that are made concluding it's fake are good ones. But the overall list has some errors of a technical nature that at least to me make it less credible.
There are a few things in the analysis that concludes it's real that I find convincing.
I wouldn't say that either analysis is a home run. I'd also say that at the moment I think the card is probably fake, but not as poor a fake as it's claimed to be. And I can easily see it passing at any grading company.
There are a few things that would convince me either way, but I haven't seen either addressed yet by anyone.
If I was doing the authenticating/grading I'd decline slabbing it pending more information.
I'd be happy to discuss the Ripken in detail over in the postwar section. (Or by email) I don't think it's productive or desirable to continue that discussion here.
Steve B