Green-Joyce Tesreau on Mile High

[nolemmings]

Here’s another m101 graded by PSA that I find suspicious, only this one may cost someone more. http://milehighcardco.com/1916_Green...-LOT93353.aspx
[/IMG]

Points to consider:
• The main problem I see is that the reverse is printed the wrong way—top to bottom. This is not itself disqualifying, as several m101 backs have been known to have the odd example going in the opposite direction, most notably Famous & Barr, where it is not at all uncommon. Still, I have never seen a Green-Joyce oriented this way. FWIW, there is another Tesreau Green-Joyce that orients the “normal” way, graded PSA 3MK.
• The back printing seems less defined than it should be: note the blurred inking and how the letters in the lower message are not sharp, especially the “n”, “f” and “s” as compared to one of mine. In the past, I have seen fake Famous and Barrs that show the same inability to print well-defined letters consistently.


• Green-Joyce are notoriously tough in high grade, which is why someone might pay dearly for this one. PSA pop reports show only two 7s, this one and an Austin that I have never seen. There are no 6s and 1 5Q, and just three 4s. SGC has a single 5.5 and one 5 (no 6s or 7s), with only five 4s and a 4.5. Of course this is not determinative, but something to consider, IMO.


Please proceed with caution.

[Michael B]

The one you bring into question seems to be a rubber stamp. The other one clearly looks like it was printed. It is very obvious on the G in Green. If you look at the e in Joyce you can also see the blob of ink. I do not believe that would happen with a company that does professional printing.

[JustinD]

Interesting,

Definitely would like to see that in hand. The print quality is terrible and I simply can't imagine how that E on Joyce would get that circle on the top in a logical way even with over-inking.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Interesting,

Definitely would like to see that in hand. The print quality is terrible and I simply can't imagine how that E on Joyce would get that circle on the top in a logical way even with over-inking.

That is why I believe it is a rubber stamp. If you have ever used one you know that the ink attaches to the stamp in different thicknesses. On points or edges you can have a lot more ink and when you stamp it there will be those blobs. It is visible on all three tines of the e. Also, the face of a rubber stamp can be partly concave. As you stamp there will still be ink on the edges, but the concave part will not get as much ink so it will be lighter. That is noticeable on the G.

[oldjudge]

I am most concerned with the second S in sports which looks more like an 8.
Todd-Have you ever seen another GJ with flipped back? If there is one there has to be a sheet.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I am most concerned with the second S in sports which looks more like an 8.
Todd-Have you ever seen another GJ with flipped back? If there is one there has to be a sheet.

No Jay, I have not. I wouldn't rule it out, but it sure causes me to look closely at the card. In this case, the printing of the letters I noted as well as others make me extremely dubious that this one is real.

[toledo_mudhen]

Have never even seen 1 of these before and the low numbers graded by both PSA & SGC might lead to PSA hasn't really seen many of these either.

I do agree that when you compare the 2 - it is obvious that 1 is very different and probably not legitimate.

I suspect that PSA may have error'd on their part due to also having a very limited knowledge of the card set themselves?

[molenick]

It looks like the lot has been withdrawn.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by molenick

It looks like the lot has been withdrawn.

Props to Mile High, Todd, and Net54.

[Fred]

Reverse back or not, has anyone seen a Green-Joyce with printing that poor?

Oh, snap, look who graded it. I guess PSA thought it was real, therefore it must be...