1914 CJ Joe Jackson PSA 2 to SGC 5

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...postcount=3297

Seemed worthy of its own thread. Nice 65K bump.

Welcome, SGC.

[Popcorn]

Sadly when folks buy flips instead of actual cards this is what you get.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Popcorn

Sadly when folks buy flips instead of actual cards this is what you get.

The color on the 5, if that's an accurate scan, is weak. The face and hands lost all their vibrancy.

[Rhotchkiss]

Yikes. This and a T206 red Cobb SGC 6.5. Not good

[Popcorn]

Looking closer I’m not sure the Jackson’s are the same card. Of course we could not be sure unless someone still has it in a PSA 2.

[pokerplyr80]

That I agree with. Circling a couple of dots on the back of 2 cards that look similar does not prove they're the same card.

[Popcorn]

I own a print shop and any defect that happens to a sheet of paper like Baseball card goes on all the sheets printed until noticed by the printer. So similar dots, scuffing, hickeys ect can be the exact same on multiples cards. Like the 1990 Frank Thomas NNOF, that was a dent in the black blanket.

[orly57]

The OP on Blowout suggests that the red turned maroon because of the chemicals. It could be, but I’m thinking that the scans have something to do with it. What struck me was how the scratches between the face and the bat disappeared. Could it have been that they added color to that particular area, or the entire background? Could that explain the change in color? Is it even the same card?
Edit: There is a stain on the 2 that appears to be the same shape and size of a much lighter stain on the 5. Look at where it reads “Orleans,” then under that “late in 1910.” The stain goes on a bit south from there. It’s kind of shaped like Texas. Anyone else see that?

[griffon512]

Originally Posted by orly57

The OP on Blowout suggests that the red turned maroon because of the chemicals. It could be, but I’m thinking that the scans have something to do with it. What struck me was how the scratches between the face and the bat disappeared. Could it have been that they added color to that particular area, or the entire background? Could that explain the change in color? Is it even the same card?
Edit: There is a stain on the 2 that appears to be the same shape and size of a much lighter stain on the 5. Look at where it reads “Orleans,” then under that “late in 1910.” The stain goes on a bit south from there. It’s kind of shaped like Texas. Anyone else see that?

yes, and the largest green circle on the back shows a scattered mark that is differentiating. it's the same card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by orly57

The OP on Blowout suggests that the red turned maroon because of the chemicals. It could be, but I’m thinking that the scans have something to do with it. What struck me was how the scratches between the face and the bat disappeared. Could it have been that they added color to that particular area, or the entire background? Could that explain the change in color? Is it even the same card?
Edit: There is a stain on the 2 that appears to be the same shape and size of a much lighter stain on the 5. Look at where it reads “Orleans,” then under that “late in 1910.” The stain goes on a bit south from there. It’s kind of shaped like Texas. Anyone else see that?

When I blew up the Heritage scan I thought maybe those scratches were on the holder.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Popcorn

Sadly when folks buy flips instead of actual cards this is what you get.

What makes you think the buyer was buying a flip and not a card? This is a ridiculous statement. It's a shame the card appears to have been altered but that was a great looking 5, dead centered, in the holder of what was assumed to be a reputable grader. Had I been in the market for that card at the time with the available funds I would have been bidding.

Color is often hard to determine from online scans due to different scanner settings. That wouldn't have necessarily been a red flag.