Speaking of Memory Lane

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

I just received a PSA graded T222 Fatima from them. The card looks much, much better than a "2" and in fact looks very close to a similar PSA 5 with one difference: the shiny glossy look on the front isn't there, in fact it has a flat dull tone to it. I received an email from another 54 Board member who told me he sent back a couple of Fatimas (one was Bresnahan) because of a similar problem and he believes these cards can be traced back to a lot which appeared in one of the larger auction houses and was in a scrapbook a while back. He believes that the cards were soaked off and then submitted to PSA who graded them, knocking down the grades because of the saoking and loss of the gloss.
Has anyone else experienced this and bought or seen any of these cards?
By the way I kept my Fatima because the card was so tough.
tbob

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

With photo historians, it's known that you should avoid putting water on some photos at it can change the surface. It depends what type of photo.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

I was curious if anyone else has purchased an Fatimas from the 222 set on ebay from whatever source that had a similar front. Anyone? It appears PSA is not adverse to grading them albeit at a ower grade. The only other thing I have to compare them to is the Fatima team cards and there is a world of difference in the non-glossy vs. glossy fronts.

[Archive]

Posted By: bcornell

Bob -

If a T222 is soaked, it looks like crap. Recently, PSA was not assigning these lower grades because they didn't know the difference. I had a 4 and a 5 that I won through eBay last year that I knew were bad when I received them. I off-loaded both at the National last year after I explained what was wrong with them and I was lucky to break even. They may have come from a big scrapbook that Mastro sold ~2 years ago or maybe they're just more of the same.

I wouldn't buy a single one that had a gray back and no gloss. They're "Auth", at best.


Bill