1949 Jackies on Memory Lane

[Leon]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Despite the sarcasm a trip to an AH office might not be a bad idea before dropping a couple hundred grand on a card.

As for the 52 Mantles in this discussion the improved color in the heritage scan may have played a role, but I believe the centering difference alone is enough to justify the difference in price.

I had that discussion (scans) with Heritage at the National. The way they do scans of cards isn't with a scanner. It is with a camera. Any difference in colors is not intentional....and I am as cynical as the next guy but trust me, I doubt any good AH is doctoring scans in today's age. And I don't think I am too naive....but please keep going...it's interesting.

.

[frankbmd]

I must admit that in my "Diminutive Surface Scuffing" thread that I did "doctor" the scans of the 55 Topps cards to make it easier for the naive among us to see the presumed defects. I suppose that some would argue that all my scans are "Doctored", but for the aforementioned thread I used SET (Scuff Enhancement Technology). So there , now I feel better.

[orly57]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

I must admit that in my "Diminutive Surface Scuffing" thread that I did "doctor" the scans of the 55 Topps cards to make it easier for the naive among us to see the presumed defects. I suppose that some would argue that all my scans are "Doctored", but for the aforementioned thread I used SET (Scuff Enhancement Technology). So there , now I feel better.

Frank, I was more concerned with Brian's Hornsby card. It was in an SGC 2 holder in the Spring '14 REA auction, and recently appeared in a psa 9 holder. Obviously it has been doctored, though it may just be the scans.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by orly57

Frank, I was more concerned with Brian's Hornsby card. It was in an SGC 2 holder in the Spring '14 REA auction, and recently appeared in a psa 9 holder. Obviously it has been doctored, though it may just be the scans.

I have cracked it out of the PSA9 holder and am about to resubmit. Crossing my fingers for a PSA10 grade. After what I like to call a bit of card manipulation, I might just have a shot.

Brian (better late than Ernie Nevers)

[brian1961]

I join you all in asserting the superiority of the SGC 96 Jackie. I just cannot fathom why PSA would award a card with such a large, ugly fish-eye a MINT 9. They're totally wrong. At the very least, the label should have their qualifier for a print spot. Without taking another gander, even if the PSA Jackie has perfect centering, perfect print registry, strong color, and no other print spots, when I look at that card, my eyes go to "fish-eye" sore. The SGC 96 looks regal and presents perfectly.

Anyone bidding on the PSA crumb bum is obviously buying the holder, 'cause when the time comes and they open up their "new prized card", the fish-eye is gonna start winking at them with all its might. Regret is a powerful emotion, and they're going to get quite a dose of buyer's remorse.

---Brian Powell

[MW1]

Originally Posted by brian1961

I join you all in asserting the superiority of the SGC 96 Jackie. I just cannot fathom why PSA would award a card with such a large, ugly fish-eye a MINT 9. They're totally wrong. At the very least, the label should have their qualifier for a print spot. Without taking another gander, even if the PSA Jackie has perfect centering, perfect print registry, strong color, and no other print spots, when I look at that card, my eyes go to "fish-eye" sore. The SGC 96 looks regal and presents perfectly.

Anyone bidding on the PSA crumb bum is obviously buying the holder, 'cause when the time comes and they open up their "new prized card", the fish-eye is gonna start winking at them with all its might. Regret is a powerful emotion, and they're going to get quite a dose of buyer's remorse.

---Brian Powell

I visited Memory Lane this last week and the PSA 9 Jackie Robinson is much nicer than it appears in the catalog or website. The borders are whiter and the color is much more vivid in person. The corners are also extremely sharp. Sure, it has the print mark, but other than that, it's a pretty spectacular card.

[BeanTown]

Clarity isn't that good, light strike and an obvious print dot (defect) in the card but because the corners are sharp and borders are white it's still OK to slab it a 9. Grades of 9 and 10 should be for special cards that do not have any issues IMO. Will also add if any no named collector submitted that card it gets a 7 "SEVEN" all day long and they would be happy with it to being accurately graded.

Would love to know who the consignor was of the card?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

I had that discussion (scans) with Heritage at the National. The way they do scans of cards isn't with a scanner. It is with a camera. Any difference in colors is not intentional....and I am as cynical as the next guy but trust me, I doubt any good AH is doctoring scans in today's age. And I don't think I am too naive....but please keep going...it's interesting.

.

The issue isn't scans versus pictures, obviously, as both can be adjusted. Intentional or not, it's hard for me to believe the hobby's biggest AH is not aware of the character of their pictures and the fact that they are relatively, shall we say, bright.

[Peter_Spaeth]

On the subject of 52T Mantle colors, what up with this one?

[orly57]

If that card weren't in a holder, I would bet a thousand bucks it is fake. But since it's in a bvg holder, I would only bet $500.

[orly57]

Sgc was behind by 50% yesterday, but just passed the PSA.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by orly57

Sgc was behind by 50% yesterday, but just passed the PSA.

Maybe the quality card will win out. I saw both at the national and it was clear the sgc card was a lot nicer. Not that it's not from the scan. But my initial prediction could be wrong if potential bidders got a chance to see both in person over the weekend.

[darwinbulldog]

The SGC card now leads by just over 15%. I'm thinking that'll hold, as long as we're making predictions.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by orly57

If that card weren't in a holder, I would bet a thousand bucks it is fake. But since it's in a bvg holder, I would only bet $500.

I have never seen a fake card in a BVG holder.

[orly57]

I was joking Leon.