54 Jackie Robinson Gray Back - Mislabeled?

[rsdill2]

The '54 Gray Backs have always perplexed me. They seem to vary somewhat in their shades of gray. Not as straightforward as their '52 cousins.

Picked this up. To my eye, it appears mislabeled. I've sent scans to PSA but it may be a while before I hear back. You can see that in the 3rd scan, it is slightly more gray than the other two cards in comparison, I just can't buy the fact that this is a gray back.

What are your thoughts?

[SMPEP]

It's labeled correctly.

Nice pick up.

Cheers,
Patrick

[rsdill2]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

It's labeled correctly.

Nice pick up.

Cheers,
Patrick

Thanks for chiming in Patrick. PM sent.

[Marckus99]

IMO, Should be much darker.

[ValKehl]

I'm also thinking the back should be darker, but I hasten to add that I have no expertise re these 1954 gray backs. Here are the backs of my two raw Pete Runnels cards side by side for comparison:

[rsdill2]

Thanks for all the responses.

I've heard from both sides: it should be darker and isn't a gray back. I've also been told it's definitely a gray back - particularly due to the darkness in the cartoon.

Truth is, I don't know. And it blows my mind that this card is either a $200 card or a $1,500 card and nobody can tell which one it is.

PSA has offered to pay shipping both ways to review and potentially reholder. They've already proved that they don't know what they're looking at so that just doesn't really make sense on my end to do that. If they say it's not, and reholder it in a standard (non gray-back slab) then it's a $200 card. But I have people whose opinion on this matter I respect telling me it's definitely a gray back. I'm leaving it as is and it's a part of my personal collection.

I welcome any further input and opinions. Thanks.