Suspicious?

[Stonepony]

That offering is a mess and I wouldn't touch it. However if it's unaltered and would cross to a 4 someone could get a deal.

[iowadoc77]

Originally Posted by Stonepony

That offering is a mess and I wouldn't touch it. However if it's unaltered and would cross to a 4 someone could get a deal.

True story, but those are 2 significant IFs.

[CW]

I wonder if the marks that appear to be on the surface of the card are actually on the holder. Goodwin's scans have the brightness and contrast turned up so much that sometimes surface flaws on the holder really show up. This part of the description leads me to believe this might be the case....

...with an absolutely robust aqua blue background, possibly the finest we have ever come across, to compliment its un-improvable contrast.

The reverse description also mentions no surface issues, although the scan looks like it's scuffed up. Could it be the holder? Looks like a phone call might clear it up if anyone is interested in bidding.

the back depicts super clean registration with no surface issues whatsoever

[Peter_Spaeth]

I still don't see what should be a more prominent missing pixel on the left side in variation B.

[CW]

That's a good point, Peter.

Here's a MINT 9 copy of that variation with the "missing pixel" clearly shown and, as you said, it's non-existent on the Goodwin card...




And here's an example of a card with the marks on the holder being magnified by the Goodwin scan (this is the scan from the Goodwin page and I remember confirming with Bill that the white marks were not on the actual card)