1989 Fleer Randy Johnson #381 Marlboro Errors - 30 Years Later

[steve5838]

I wanted to share something pretty cool with everyone. I was playing around with Adobe Photoshop to see if I could get better pictures of the Marlboro sign on some of the versions. I have no idea what I'm doing with the program but I took a scan of the two blue negative/stencil versions (shown in post #284), added a blue "color range" in Photoshop, and copied the resulting grey scale preview into the jpg file below. It probably means nothing but the result wowed me. The card on the left is one shown in the bottom of the #284 post (from the hand collated sets with the clear find) and the card on the right is the one shown in the top of the #284 post. Thought others might be interested too. Hope everyone has a happy new year.
Steve

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by steve5838

I wanted to share something pretty cool with everyone. I was playing around with Adobe Photoshop to see if I could get better pictures of the Marlboro sign on some of the versions. I have no idea what I'm doing with the program but I took a scan of the two blue negative/stencil versions (shown in post #284), added a blue "color range" in Photoshop, and copied the resulting grey scale preview into the jpg file below. It probably means nothing but the result wowed me. The card on the left is one shown in the bottom of the #284 post (from the hand collated sets with the clear find) and the card on the right is the one shown in the top of the #284 post. Thought others might be interested too. Hope everyone has a happy new year.
Steve

Cool, could you clear up any of the other versions sign area?

[steve5838]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Cool, could you clear up any of the other versions sign area?

I tried to do the same thing with the red negative card I have too but while that showed the Marlboro sign there were a bunch of scratches over it the grey scale picture. Not sure if it is my settings or that a don't have a very good red negative version. I think there are a wider variety of red negative variations than there are blue ones. I couldn't get this to work with any of my regular, non-stencil (i.e., non negative) box versions.

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by Athos01

By early, I'm referring to Fleer case codes around the 833XX or 834XX time frame. I'm not sure I have seen any cases earlier than 8324X, so these were definitely made early-on in the Johnson correction timeframe. But, it is very key to remember that the entire timeframe for the Johnson corrections was far shorter than the Bill Ripken correction timeframe. The Johnson cards were all fully blacked out ads prior to Fleer even touching the Ripken FF cards.

So, are these 'clear' Marlboro ad cards only in the early wax cases, or could some have been inserted into the rack and cello packs as well?

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

So, are these 'clear' Marlboro ad cards only in the early wax cases, or could some have been inserted into the rack and cello packs as well?

Highly unlikely since those packaging types followed the wax release. Not long after, if I understand it correctly, but they weren't immediately concurrently available.

[bnorth]

Cleaning my card room and found this refractor. I also have the superfractor someplace. I made them a few years ago.

[dealme]

I’ve been ripping through the packs of ‘89 Marlboros that I had hoarded looking for this card, but no luck.

In all seriousness, it’s been somewhat enjoyable looking through monster boxes of ‘89 Fleer cards to see if there may be one of these lurking. I have fond memories of going to shows with my dad and ripping wax packs in search of the Ripken FF. No luck so far, but I still have several hundred cards to sort through.

Interestingly enough, MLB Network aired a Randy Johnson special earlier this evening, which only added to the fun. I don’t think I appreciated how good he really was.

Cheers,
Mark


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve5838]

Circling back on my #211 post from 9/27/21... I finally caved and opened the (2) unopened boxes of 1989 Fleer #83261 that I purchased prior to tracking down the latest clear card. Unfortunately I only pulled one RJ card (scribble version). It just boggles my mind how quickly in the process these must have been "corrected". My latest project is tracking down pictures of all PSA 10s labeled "Marlboro Ad on Scoreboard" to get a better idea of the breakdown by variation. So far I have pictures for about 50 of the 94.
Steve

[jacksoncoupage]

Looking at completed sales for PSA graded Marlboro and Partially Obscured versions and these have really dropped in price, it is kind of crazy compared to six+ months ago.

Recent sales really suggest a trend of "buying the label, not the card" when you examine exactly which versions sold for higher prices. Buyers don't appear to be very discerning as a lot of the higher sales were very corrected or more commonly found types but that had received the 'Marlboro Ad On Scoreboard' designation. Interesting stuff!

[steve5838]

I've noticed the same thing Dylan. Prices are definitely off from their highs. The br2s still seem to get snapped up quickly if the price is right. There was one br2 PSA9 last month that must have sold within minutes for 250... before I was even able to pull the trigger. Demand for the less clear versions isn't as strong though. It is hard for me to gauge demand until I see some high grade br2 or rg2's come to market... I'd be interested in how well they would sell.

For me the most desirable versions are still the ones with the clearest presentation of the Marlboro sign. I like ones that I can show others and they immediately see the difference vs the corrected card. On your site the versions in pictures 1, 2, 4, and 5 really stand out to me and continue to be the ones I seek out. Even though 2 and 4 aren't the rarest I believe demand is relatively strong for them because it is so easy to tell they are Marlboro versions. I was fortunate that one of my first graded card purchases was a BGS9 that happened to be the br2 version. It really piqued my interest more in the card. I used to be disappointed getting cards I thought would be less obscured only to open the mail and not be able to make out the Marlboro letters.

Collecting this card is a real challenge for the completist since the clear and blue versions are so rare... almost to the point of taking the fun out of it. I really dislike that part and think more people would enjoy the card if more of these versions came out of the woodwork. At least with the NNOF card we know there are at least a couple hundred graded examples floating around. The clear and blue version of this card... who knows - and the TPG's don't make it any easier on us. It seems there have to be more of these out there and it is infuriating that we don't really know how many might exist.

Steve

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by steve5838

I've noticed the same thing Dylan. Prices are definitely off from their highs. The br2s still seem to get snapped up quickly if the price is right. There was one br2 PSA9 last month that must have sold within minutes for 250... before I was even able to pull the trigger. Demand for the less clear versions isn't as strong though. It is hard for me to gauge demand until I see some high grade br2 or rg2's come to market... I'd be interested in how well they would sell.

For me the most desirable versions are still the ones with the clearest presentation of the Marlboro sign. I like ones that I can show others and they immediately see the difference vs the corrected card. On your site the versions in pictures 1, 2, 4, and 5 really stand out to me and continue to be the ones I seek out. Even though 2 and 4 aren't the rarest I believe demand is relatively strong for them because it is so easy to tell they are Marlboro versions. I was fortunate that one of my first graded card purchases was a BGS9 that happened to be the br2 version. It really piqued my interest more in the card. I used to be disappointed getting cards I thought would be less obscured only to open the mail and not be able to make out the Marlboro letters.

Collecting this card is a real challenge for the completist since the clear and blue versions are so rare... almost to the point of taking the fun out of it. I really dislike that part and think more people would enjoy the card if more of these versions came out of the woodwork. At least with the NNOF card we know there are at least a couple hundred graded examples floating around. The clear and blue version of this card... who knows - and the TPG's don't make it any easier on us. It seems there have to be more of these out there and it is infuriating that we don't really know how many might exist.

Steve

I agree with all of this.

Two things that really interest me when examining recent sales: If the card gets the Marlboro Ad notation, it sells well in a 10, even if it is actually a heavily edited version. Buyers who aren't obsessive about the minutia of these seem to be interested in the flip notation most.

Secondly, there are some great deals to be found on 9s and 9s with Ad Partially Obscured notations where the actual, specific variation type is, in my opinion, much scarcer than the typical, PSA labeled 'Marlboro Ad' type.

But like you said, the truly tough stuff seems to be selling outside of these trends for much higher prices.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by steve5838

I've noticed the same thing Dylan. Prices are definitely off from their highs. The br2s still seem to get snapped up quickly if the price is right. There was one br2 PSA9 last month that must have sold within minutes for 250... before I was even able to pull the trigger. Demand for the less clear versions isn't as strong though. It is hard for me to gauge demand until I see some high grade br2 or rg2's come to market... I'd be interested in how well they would sell.

For me the most desirable versions are still the ones with the clearest presentation of the Marlboro sign. I like ones that I can show others and they immediately see the difference vs the corrected card. On your site the versions in pictures 1, 2, 4, and 5 really stand out to me and continue to be the ones I seek out. Even though 2 and 4 aren't the rarest I believe demand is relatively strong for them because it is so easy to tell they are Marlboro versions. I was fortunate that one of my first graded card purchases was a BGS9 that happened to be the br2 version. It really piqued my interest more in the card. I used to be disappointed getting cards I thought would be less obscured only to open the mail and not be able to make out the Marlboro letters.

Collecting this card is a real challenge for the completist since the clear and blue versions are so rare... almost to the point of taking the fun out of it. I really dislike that part and think more people would enjoy the card if more of these versions came out of the woodwork. At least with the NNOF card we know there are at least a couple hundred graded examples floating around. The clear and blue version of this card... who knows - and the TPG's don't make it any easier on us. It seems there have to be more of these out there and it is infuriating that we don't really know how many might exist.

Steve

Getting good pics of these cards is hard. I have found both for looking at and taking pictures of them it is best to do in direct sun light. Some of the darker tint versions will look like box cards under indoor lighting and as soon as you put in in sunlight the sign is easily seen.

Never had any luck scanning them. I have seen some pretty clear looking signs but the scan is so jacked up the whole card looks radioactive.

I had a guy tell me he used a certain light to get better pics but he never did say what kind of light. What works best for you all?

[steve5838]

Ben,

First off, that is an awesome card!! Is there a faintish white box over the sign and sort of a light blue tint? Kevin sent me a picture of a similar looking card he had purchased from Dylan a long time ago. Kevin: does this look similar to yours? I don't believe I have this version. Very cool!

Anyway, I use an Espon V600 scanner for my scans. Someone on the board posted a good set of instructions on using an Epson V600 scanner at

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...hlight=scanner

It works really well on this card. I bump up the brightness setting so the sign looks more like I see it in a well lit room.

Steve

[Athos01]

Yes Steve, that card looks identical to mine. At the time, we classified it as a "blue tint" because there seemed to be a light whitish box covering over the sign that made the red areas of the sign almost appear to have a bluish tint to it.

You guys are right, the prices do seem to be dropping. Unfortunately, folks need to pay closer attention to the ad itself, rather than the label. As we all know, PSA has been pretty inconsistent with their labeling. I have about 15 Marlboro Ad Blacked out PSA cards that are really more of the boxed versions whereby the sign is obscured and not fully blacked out.

If PSA is only going with 3 different versions, I would say only those cards where Marlboro is clearly visible - clear version, green/aqua tint should be labeled Marlboro Ad on Scoreboard. Anything not fully blacked out would fall under Marlboro Ad Partially Obscured, and then the Marlboro Ad Blacked Out versions.

But certainly, similar to the Ripken cards, there are so many different versions, it would be tough for the graders to identify and track them all.

[steve5838]

Thanks, Kevin. I agree with your logic about PSA labeling given they only use 3 different versions. It would certainly help clear some confusion. My only addition might be to include the r1 version along with the clear (n0) and blue (b1) versions under the Ad on Scoreboard label. I can see both sides for that one but the r1 does have clear sign lettering and cowboy.

[lowpopper]

So do we have a finalized order of true rarity?

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by lowpopper

So do we have a finalized order of true rarity?

How sure are you that these even come from packs??

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

How sure are you that these even come from packs??

I heard they all originated from Lenny like all the rare Ripken versions.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I heard they all originated from Lenny like all the rare Ripken versions.

Im sad to say that this went over my head. Do tell!

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

Im sad to say that this went over my head. Do tell!

A guy named Lenny had all the super rare Bill Ripkens. I can't remember his last name but he had some beyond amazing items. Sadly Covid took him.

[jp1216]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I heard they all originated from Lenny like all the rare Ripken versions.

Leonard Helicher (RIP) had a card business and took out ads in local papers. It lead to Fleer employees smuggling out cards to sell on the side. Yes, Lenny had quite a stash. Lots of rare items but none of them 'originated' with him. He bought/sold FF related items for many years. He is missed. Coming up on 2 years already....

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by jp1216

Leonard Helicher (RIP) had a card business and took out ads in local papers. It lead to Fleer employees smuggling out cards to sell on the side. Yes, Lenny had quite a stash. Lots of rare items but none of them 'originated' with him. He bought/sold FF related items for many years. He is missed. Coming up on 2 years already....

Originally Posted by bnorth

A guy named Lenny had all the super rare Bill Ripkens. I can't remember his last name but he had some beyond amazing items. Sadly Covid took him.

Wow, very fascinating! To keep up that interest for so many years is an accomplishment itself. But yes, a sad ending.

[steve5838]

Originally Posted by lowpopper

So do we have a finalized order of true rarity?

I have little doubt the clear (n0) and blue tint (b1) versions are the rarest ones. After that, I have no idea. I believe there are only 3 known cards of the n0 version and 5 known cards of the b1 version. If anyone out there has some n0 or b1 cards please shout out and we can update these numbers. Regardless I don't think final talleys will be high. Steve

[bnorth]

Here are the 3 different green scribble versions. Anybody else have all 3 versions?

[Hatorade]

There was a previous thread about these cards and someone mentioned the 1985 mother’s cookies cards that had the Marlboro ad edited from a couple of them. I wanted to include those images from Jack Murphy Stadium here since that has become part of the topics being discussed in this thread. Also pictured is a more modern card, of an old image, of Randy pictured in front of another almost complete image of a Marlboro ad. More info coming soon.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Hatorade

There was a previous thread about these cards and someone mentioned the 1985 mother’s cookies cards that had the Marlboro ad edited from a couple of them. I wanted to include those images from Jack Murphy Stadium here since that has become part of the topics being discussed in this thread. Also pictured is a more modern card, of an old image, of Randy pictured in front of another almost complete image of a Marlboro ad. More info coming soon.

Those are cool, thanks for sharing.

[steve5838]

Originally Posted by hatorade

there was a previous thread about these cards and someone mentioned the 1985 mother’s cookies cards that had the marlboro ad edited from a couple of them. I wanted to include those images from jack murphy stadium here since that has become part of the topics being discussed in this thread. Also pictured is a more modern card, of an old image, of randy pictured in front of another almost complete image of a marlboro ad. More info coming soon.

That is really cool. Thanks for sharing the pictures. On a somewhat similar note, I cropped the Marlboro sign from the stadium picture on your FB page and pasted over top of it a cropped scan of the sign on the clear version. I could make the clear sign version look a little lighter by putting it under better light but I didn't. Anyway, then I increased the transparency little by little on the clear sign card picture. My idea was to make a GIF of this and maybe using other versions too but I haven't figured that out. Steve

rj4.JPG

[steve5838]

I wanted to circle back on the two light blue box stencil cards I referenced in post #249. I was able to get a few $50 PSA submissions and couldn't resist getting these slabbed. PSA just returned the cards. Overall nothing unexpected. PSA disagreed with me and both got the "Ad Partially Obscured" label.
Steve

rjblueboxdefault_fullcolor_clarity.jpgrjblueboxdefault2_fullcolor_clarity.jpg

[Hatorade]

What is usually a simple answer for 99.9% of cards is a problem too much of the time for PSA with the Marlboro error variations.

Let’s start with what should be an easy question. What is this card? Let’s say you own a 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson card and you ask yourself this simple question. According to PSA what is this card?

For pretty much any sports card ever produced you can answer this simple question by naming a few characteristics about the card. What player is on the card? What manufacturer produced the card? What year was the card produced? What is the card #? For the vast majority of cards ever made this will give you the answer for what card this is according to PSA.

Those questions don’t answer which of the above three variations the card is according to PSA. So what does PSA do to determine which of the versions they will label the card? Has anyone ever seen the definition of Ad on Scoreboard or Ad Partially Obscured or Ad Completely Blacked Out according to PSA? They’ve been using these labels for several years. With some of the biggest Marlboro collectors contributing to this thread I would think someone here could let me know the definition of each according to PSA?

[Athos01]

PSA is very inconsistent with grading these for sure. I have many that would be classified as ad obscured that were marked as blacked out.

I would tend to say that if the Marlboro words are legible (usually with only a lighter red tinting), PSA usually will call it Marlboro Ad on Scoreboard, especially if there is no dark red box covering the ad.

Any green tints/scribbles usually seem to be labeled Marlboro Ad Obscured, and if it stands out clearly to PSA, a dark green box covering the ad will also get this same label.

This is similar to all the Ripken varieties, PSA does not seem to want to identify all the different varieties, and only identifies 5 different, whiteout, white scribble, black box, black scribble and FF.

[hockeyhockey]

Originally Posted by Hatorade

What is usually a simple answer for 99.9% of cards is a problem too much of the time for PSA with the Marlboro error variations.

Let’s start with what should be an easy question. What is this card? Let’s say you own a 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson card and you ask yourself this simple question. According to PSA what is this card?

For pretty much any sports card ever produced you can answer this simple question by naming a few characteristics about the card. What player is on the card? What manufacturer produced the card? What year was the card produced? What is the card #? For the vast majority of cards ever made this will give you the answer for what card this is according to PSA.

Those questions don’t answer which of the above three variations the card is according to PSA. So what does PSA do to determine which of the versions they will label the card? Has anyone ever seen the definition of Ad on Scoreboard or Ad Partially Obscured or Ad Completely Blacked Out according to PSA? They’ve been using these labels for several years. With some of the biggest Marlboro collectors contributing to this thread I would think someone here could let me know the definition of each according to PSA?

it's a great question and PSA may not even know the answer to it themselves.

i have a bunch of them, all that you can certainly see the marlboro sign. and all of them are ad obscured. i've seen tons of them online that are marlboro on scoreboard that look like they barely have the sign on it. i'm at a shoulder shrug with this at this point, but would love to hear anyone else that knows more about it.

[steve5838]

Originally Posted by Hatorade

What is usually a simple answer for 99.9% of cards is a problem too much of the time for PSA with the Marlboro error variations.

Let’s start with what should be an easy question. What is this card? Let’s say you own a 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson card and you ask yourself this simple question. According to PSA what is this card?

For pretty much any sports card ever produced you can answer this simple question by naming a few characteristics about the card. What player is on the card? What manufacturer produced the card? What year was the card produced? What is the card #? For the vast majority of cards ever made this will give you the answer for what card this is according to PSA.

Those questions don’t answer which of the above three variations the card is according to PSA. So what does PSA do to determine which of the versions they will label the card? Has anyone ever seen the definition of Ad on Scoreboard or Ad Partially Obscured or Ad Completely Blacked Out according to PSA? They’ve been using these labels for several years. With some of the biggest Marlboro collectors contributing to this thread I would think someone here could let me know the definition of each according to PSA?

What is this card? My vote is that it is a card with a range of parallel versions (something I've heard others express and that just seems to fit my perception). My uneducated guess is that it was targeted for correction very early on due to the clarity and boldness of the sign in the clear version. I don't believe the sign would have been an issue on any of the tinted ones, but the clear sign is really in your face in comparison. I can imagine someone in quality control looking at the cards after an initial print run, seeing the clear sign on this particular card, and saying something like ok, we have to do something to take the focus away from the Marlboro sign here... if they had noticed the FF at this point the history of that card would be quite different too.

I don't think the TPG's have a standard process in place for assigning their label descriptions to this card. I don’t know how it actually works at PSA but here is my theory on why labeling for this card has not improved and may actually be been getting worse. We know there are at least 3 clear examples that have been graded by PSA. Around the same time the last one was graded (around September 2021), I saw a bunch more otherwise "Ad on Scoreboard" cards labeled "Partially Obscured"... and yes, I bought these up. My thought is that if a PSA grader's reference is the clear version all others look somewhat Obscured (particularly if there isn't a standard process they follow for identifying the version, e.g., holding under a given light brightness or scanning under the same settings, etc.). I'm wondering if during the "research" stage their staff searches online, sees all these photos of the 3 known clear cards (which for better or worse now appear much more often in web searches) and incorrectly assumes this clear card is the "typical" Ad on Scoreboard version.

While other versions try to correct the ERR of the Marlboro sign in different ways and to varying degrees the clear one has no correction applied at all. I believe it would be helpful if the label on the card better reflected the version of the card so that population numbers would be available for this particular “no-tint” version. If it would help operationalize things at the TPG's I'm actually in favor of some aggregation of versions with labels with something like: 1. No tint, 2. Blue Tint, Red Tint, Green Tint, 5. Low Tint, 6. Scribble, 7. Red Stencil, 8. BLUE Stencil, 9. Partially Obscured, 10. Completely Obscured. I agree this will likely never happen but dream it could. I've tried unsuccessfully for some time to get PSA to let me add a "set" of the Ad on Scoreboard variations but unfortunately to them everything with this label is just the same card.

Steve

[steve5838]

Case in point for buying the card and not the label -- particularly for this card. I'm not sure how anyone could label this one as Ad Obscured. Regardless I'm very happy with the non-preferred label discount.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by steve5838

Case in point for buying the card and not the label -- particularly for this card. I'm not sure how anyone could label this one as Ad Obscured. Regardless I'm very happy with the non-preferred label discount.

Very nice pick up.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by steve5838

Case in point for buying the card and not the label -- particularly for this card. I'm not sure how anyone could label this one as Ad Obscured. Regardless I'm very happy with the non-preferred label discount.

I have two Randy's at PSA currently (since 2/2021) and both would qualify for their "ad on scoreboard" label but both have received "ad partially obscured" labels. Even after submitti ng a request for correction, PSA has doubled down.

[Statfreak101]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

I have two Randy's at PSA currently (since 2/2021) and both would qualify for their "ad on scoreboard" label but both have received "ad partially obscured" labels. Even after submitti ng a request for correction, PSA has doubled down.

Same here - although I have not had them double down yet...I reported the error on the cards, and they haven't moved...been there over a year now.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by Statfreak101

Same here - although I have not had them double down yet...I reported the error on the cards, and they haven't moved...been there over a year now.

1st in the sub had "ad blacked out" note

2nd in the sub had "ad on scoreboard" note

Sent the correction request for the 1st one and PSA changed them both to "ad partially obscured" which suggests to me that they felt confused by them and took a lazy way out. I emailed in reply to their "we have reviewed your requet" email and they have not updated them. Order has since moved to assembly.

[Statfreak101]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

1st in the sub had "ad blacked out" note

2nd in the sub had "ad on scoreboard" note

Sent the correction request for the 1st one and PSA changed them both to "ad partially obscured" which suggests to me that they felt confused by them and took a lazy way out. I emailed in reply to their "we have reviewed your requet" email and they have not updated them. Order has since moved to assembly.

Imagine if someone at that company took the time to learn about this card.

[steve5838]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

1st in the sub had "ad blacked out" note

2nd in the sub had "ad on scoreboard" note

Sent the correction request for the 1st one and PSA changed them both to "ad partially obscured" which suggests to me that they felt confused by them and took a lazy way out. I emailed in reply to their "we have reviewed your requet" email and they have not updated them. Order has since moved to assembly.

This sounds awful but similar to experiences I've had getting these graded. Did they ever revise the labels after receiving your email? I hope it worked out for you.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by steve5838

This sounds awful but similar to experiences I've had getting these graded. Did they ever revise the labels after receiving your email? I hope it worked out for you.

No reply to the email. Order moved to QA2 five or six days ago. Looks like they are committing to them. I will probably try again once they are in hand.

I have another 6-7 (various visibility of letting and cowboy) ready to go but hesitate due to the fact that buyers seem to be purchasing the slab regardless of accuracy. A “partially” notation is a loss of death if you’re looking to sell.

[Statfreak101]

Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage

No reply to the email. Order moved to QA2 five or six days ago. Looks like they are committing to them. I will probably try again once they are in hand.

I have another 6-7 (various visibility of letting and cowboy) ready to go but hesitate due to the fact that buyers seem to be purchasing the slab regardless of accuracy. A “partially” notation is a loss of death if you’re looking to sell.

I am dealing with a similar situation/timeline - just had an order move to Q1 recently that includes 7 Marlboro Randy's - all of which I disputed as an error when they came back "Ad Partially Obscured."

No luck in them revising the labeling either...can't wait to get these back in hand, and then find some recent ones that have been floating around out there that say ad visible that are actually less visible than the ones they have of mine.

[steve5838]

Originally Posted by Statfreak101

I am dealing with a similar situation/timeline - just had an order move to Q1 recently that includes 7 Marlboro Randy's - all of which I disputed as an error when they came back "Ad Partially Obscured."

No luck in them revising the labeling either...can't wait to get these back in hand, and then find some recent ones that have been floating around out there that say ad visible that are actually less visible than the ones they have of mine.

The only versions I've had luck getting PSA to change their initial labeling decision on are the br2 and rg2 versions (possibly the gr2 version as well but I can't recall offhand). They have never changed the initial label designation for me on other versions. That said, I have bought br2 and rg2 versions that were "incorrectly" labeled Ad Partially Obscured on EBay and PSA has agreed the labeling is a Mech Err and relabeled them for me as Ad on Scoreboard (free of charge and very quickly). Also, I've had some luck submitting one obvious Ad Partially Obscured card at the same time I submit several Ad on Scoreboard cards. We shouldn't have to re-teach the PSA graders about this card like this every time we submit for grading but I guess that is what it has come to...

[Hatorade]

With these responses you would think that PSA just makes up which label they apply. It seemed that way to me too, so I figured I would email PSA to ask how they determine which version they label the card.

1989 Fleer Randy Johnson #381

I'm interested in getting my collection of 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson cards graded, but I wanted to make sure I send the cards in labeled correctly. I have several variations of the cards ranging from the ad being very noticeable through the completely blacked out and not noticeable. I've seen several versions of PSA graded cards listed with no description, Ad on Scoreboard, Ad Partially Obscured, Complete Black Out and Completely Blacked Out as a description on the card. Can you please let me know what guidelines PSA uses to determine what you label as an Ad On Scoreboard, Ad Partially Obscured or some of the other descriptions. Thanks for your help.

PSA responded with this email:

“In regards to your question on varieties for the 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson #381, there are only 3 versions: Marlboro Ad, Ad partially obscured and Ad completely blacked-out. Our research department has seen all three numerous times. The first is clear, second is dim but still legible and the third cannot be read as “Marlboro” at all. We use the descriptions that the Standard Catalog provides.”

I tried to find the definition in the Standard Catalog to see what it said but I wasn’t able to ever come across it.

So, PSA has very vague and ambiguous definitions that they use combined with a completely random application of their standards when reviewing the cards.

If no one, including PSA, knows the difference between Ad on Scoreboard, Ad Partially Obscured and Ad Completely Blacked Out then why do they consistently sell for such different prices?

[steve5838]

Originally Posted by Hatorade

With these responses you would think that PSA just makes up which label they apply. It seemed that way to me too, so I figured I would email PSA to ask how they determine which version they label the card.

1989 Fleer Randy Johnson #381

I'm interested in getting my collection of 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson cards graded, but I wanted to make sure I send the cards in labeled correctly. I have several variations of the cards ranging from the ad being very noticeable through the completely blacked out and not noticeable. I've seen several versions of PSA graded cards listed with no description, Ad on Scoreboard, Ad Partially Obscured, Complete Black Out and Completely Blacked Out as a description on the card. Can you please let me know what guidelines PSA uses to determine what you label as an Ad On Scoreboard, Ad Partially Obscured or some of the other descriptions. Thanks for your help.

PSA responded with this email:

“In regards to your question on varieties for the 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson #381, there are only 3 versions: Marlboro Ad, Ad partially obscured and Ad completely blacked-out. Our research department has seen all three numerous times. The first is clear, second is dim but still legible and the third cannot be read as “Marlboro” at all. We use the descriptions that the Standard Catalog provides.”

I tried to find the definition in the Standard Catalog to see what it said but I wasn’t able to ever come across it.

So, PSA has very vague and ambiguous definitions that they use combined with a completely random application of their standards when reviewing the cards.

If no one, including PSA, knows the difference between Ad on Scoreboard, Ad Partially Obscured and Ad Completely Blacked Out then why do they consistently sell for such different prices?

This is very interesting. I think the problem is that PSA hasn't defined a stable baseline for their comparison. I wish they would provide an example of what they mean by "clear". Right now they seem to be using relative clarity instead of absolute clarity when determining which label to use and this is causing a lot of inconsistencies. Imagine the grader looks online and sees a picture of one of the handful of clear ones out there. Now, looking at the definitions for their three labels he would give any br2, rg2, gr2 a label of Partially Obscured (since these are dim but still legible relative to the no-tint clear one they saw online). However, if someone sent in a br2 and a rg3 for grading I bet the grader immediately sees the difference in sign clarity between the two and gives the former the Ad on Scoreboard label (since it is relatively clear) and the later Ad Partially Obscured (since in comparison it is dim but still legible). The recent increase in clear card pictures online has changed what was previously a semi-stable baseline of "clear" on their scale and made things worse.
At a minimum I really do think there should be at least one new label description (at the beginning of PSA's scale) for "no tint".

[jacksoncoupage]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/30445003074...p2047675.l2557

Interesting sale. I tried several times, on a few forums, I believe, to point out this variation but most replies seemed to think that it is was just me unable to catch the boxed sign but I have definitely pulled my copy out more than once and thoroughly examined it under different light sources and concluded it is a fully flush blackout over the area.

Sadly, rare or not, it will likely never catch on as a "must have" among the varieties but this certainly has to be among the tougher transitional versions being so close to the final one and with so few samples having turned up (unless I missed some, which is highly likely).

[steve5838]

I wanted to share my recent correspondence with PSA below regarding the labeling of the clear version. It changes nothing but does hint that more than three of these cards may exist. Steve


My research request to PSA:
Jun 14, 2022, 07:42 PDT

The below sites indicate there are 3 known examples of the 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson w/ No Tint. All 3 are graded PSA 9 w/ certs 63221829, 15790561, 15790562. I request PSA add 1 new labeling category for “Marlboro Ad No Tint” so the label more accurately describes this version. The benefit to PSA is recognizing a no tint version will define a objective baseline for comparison in grading this card, i.e., you can more easily define other label categories in comparison to a defined No Tint version.


Response from PSA:

Jun 14, 2022, 13:11 PDT

Steve

Thank you for submitting your request to the Customer Request Center.

I do understand this suggestion, and how this would affect our labeling process. We do realize there are many versions of this card, but we have chosen to recognize our current varieties to simplify the identification process. There is a lot of room for interpretation, and degrees of obscurity, which leaves a lot of different versions. Our research management have identified the hallmarks of each for PSA staff to follow, and to try to define each variation would be difficult to process.
We do appreciate the suggestion, but we are going to stick to our current standards.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Regards,




Response from me:

Jun 14, 2022, 13:45 PDT


Thank you for the response. I definitely understand not wanting to differentiate between all of the versions of this card. I fully agree there are many, many versions of this card that differ in the level of tint over the Marlboro sign and it can be arbitrary on where to draw threshold tint levels. I only reached out about this particular no-tint version because it differs from all other versions due to having absolutely no tint over the Marlboro sign. Also, having a special label designation for this version likely impacts only 3 cards with PSA certs 63221829, 15790561, 15790562 ( I own the first two certs and know the person who owns the third). I understand that currently PSA recognizes only 3 versions of this card (Marlboro Ad, Ad partially obscured and Ad completely blacked-out). According to your research department, the first is clear, second is dim but still legible and the third cannot be read as “Marlboro” at all. Based on my recent experience purchasing PSA graded versions of this card and having my own cards graded, I believe the presence of the uncategorized “no tint” version is causing some inconsistencies in labeling of other versions of the card. The benefit to PSA of recognizing the “no tint” version is that it would define a stable/objective baseline for comparison in the grading this card (i.e., you can more easily define in your process what is meant by "clear" in comparison to a defined "No Tint" version). Also, the change will only impact a small number of cards (likely only 3 cards would need to have their label designation changed from "Marlboro Ad on Scoreboard" to something like "Marlboro Ad No Tint" or "Marlboro Ad Clear"). I am happy to pay any associated costs of relabeling the three cards.


Thank you again for your consideration.




Response from PSA:

Jun 14, 2022, 15:55 PDT

Hello Steve

I do understand the difference that you have pointed out, and acknowledge that identifying the different iterations of the Marlboro ad can be a challenge for our team. I also acknowledge that you have two very unique cards, and important historical cards for this error.
Our research management team has made a decision, and in the near past, I have asked them for clarity about our definitions of the various "blackout" types of the Marlboro ad. We are only recognizing the current versions of the ad at this time.

While I do understand how special your cards are, we have to think not just about recognizing the three certs you mentioned, but all the others which might be out there, for the entire grading history of this card. Any changes we make in matters like this,impact hundreds or thousands, or hundreds of thousands of cards., not just three, so we don't make changes, or in this case, recognize new versions, without careful thought. We have to consider the ramifications beyond just the few you might be aware of, and as a business, we aren't willing to make those changes.

Your cards are still special, and historically important without a special label, however. They are a part of collecting history, and the fact that they are not specifically designated by PSA does not diminish them at all.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Regards,

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by steve5838

I wanted to share my recent correspondence with PSA below regarding the labeling of the clear version. It changes nothing but does hint that more than three of these cards may exist. Steve


My research request to PSA:
Jun 14, 2022, 07:42 PDT

The below sites indicate there are 3 known examples of the 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson w/ No Tint. All 3 are graded PSA 9 w/ certs 63221829, 15790561, 15790562. I request PSA add 1 new labeling category for “Marlboro Ad No Tint” so the label more accurately describes this version. The benefit to PSA is recognizing a no tint version will define a objective baseline for comparison in grading this card, i.e., you can more easily define other label categories in comparison to a defined No Tint version.


Response from PSA:

Jun 14, 2022, 13:11 PDT

Steve

Thank you for submitting your request to the Customer Request Center.

I do understand this suggestion, and how this would affect our labeling process. We do realize there are many versions of this card, but we have chosen to recognize our current varieties to simplify the identification process. There is a lot of room for interpretation, and degrees of obscurity, which leaves a lot of different versions. Our research management have identified the hallmarks of each for PSA staff to follow, and to try to define each variation would be difficult to process.
We do appreciate the suggestion, but we are going to stick to our current standards.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Regards,




Response from me:

Jun 14, 2022, 13:45 PDT


Thank you for the response. I definitely understand not wanting to differentiate between all of the versions of this card. I fully agree there are many, many versions of this card that differ in the level of tint over the Marlboro sign and it can be arbitrary on where to draw threshold tint levels. I only reached out about this particular no-tint version because it differs from all other versions due to having absolutely no tint over the Marlboro sign. Also, having a special label designation for this version likely impacts only 3 cards with PSA certs 63221829, 15790561, 15790562 ( I own the first two certs and know the person who owns the third). I understand that currently PSA recognizes only 3 versions of this card (Marlboro Ad, Ad partially obscured and Ad completely blacked-out). According to your research department, the first is clear, second is dim but still legible and the third cannot be read as “Marlboro” at all. Based on my recent experience purchasing PSA graded versions of this card and having my own cards graded, I believe the presence of the uncategorized “no tint” version is causing some inconsistencies in labeling of other versions of the card. The benefit to PSA of recognizing the “no tint” version is that it would define a stable/objective baseline for comparison in the grading this card (i.e., you can more easily define in your process what is meant by "clear" in comparison to a defined "No Tint" version). Also, the change will only impact a small number of cards (likely only 3 cards would need to have their label designation changed from "Marlboro Ad on Scoreboard" to something like "Marlboro Ad No Tint" or "Marlboro Ad Clear"). I am happy to pay any associated costs of relabeling the three cards.


Thank you again for your consideration.




Response from PSA:

Jun 14, 2022, 15:55 PDT

Hello Steve

I do understand the difference that you have pointed out, and acknowledge that identifying the different iterations of the Marlboro ad can be a challenge for our team. I also acknowledge that you have two very unique cards, and important historical cards for this error.
Our research management team has made a decision, and in the near past, I have asked them for clarity about our definitions of the various "blackout" types of the Marlboro ad. We are only recognizing the current versions of the ad at this time.

While I do understand how special your cards are, we have to think not just about recognizing the three certs you mentioned, but all the others which might be out there, for the entire grading history of this card. Any changes we make in matters like this,impact hundreds or thousands, or hundreds of thousands of cards., not just three, so we don't make changes, or in this case, recognize new versions, without careful thought. We have to consider the ramifications beyond just the few you might be aware of, and as a business, we aren't willing to make those changes.

Your cards are still special, and historically important without a special label, however. ( * * PATS HEAD ** )
They are a part of collecting history, and the fact that they are not specifically designated by PSA does not diminish them at all.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Regards,

I have gone through this exercise with them for 10+ years (and as recently as December) in an attempt to get various promos and variations labeled. Always, always, some years later, I see some bulk submitter selling them on ebay with their proper labelling. Good effort!

[Cfern023]

Ahh yes... the always fun
"You're right, but I don't want more work" response.

[bnorth]

I love to bash PSA as much as the next person. Saying that they should have 2 different flips. One that says corrected and one that says error version or something similar.

Even those of us that super collect these things can't agree on all the different variations. We sure can't expect PSA to get it correct.

[Statfreak101]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I love to bash PSA as much as the next person. Saying that they should have 2 different flips. One that says corrected and one that says error version or something similar.

Even those of us that super collect these things can't agree on all the different variations. We sure can't expect PSA to get it correct.

You're right - but they could sure do the hobby & the people that pay them justice by doing it right.