1949 Jackies on Memory Lane

[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]

With a relatively major print flaw that detracts/distracts that much from the appearance, it should not be a 9. I wouldn't object to an 8, but still, that's not a 9. As a cynic, I too wonder who submitted it.