1989 Upper Deck Black test?

[Jim65]

Can't find much about this, is it a legitimate test issue?

[philliesphan]

Never heard of it before - seems dubious, at best. I can't think of a legitimate reason a card company would even want to test a black-bordered card in the late 1980s.

[ALR-bishop]

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=197063

[JustinD]

I looked at the blow ups on the listing and this looks super questionable.

The surface just seems too rough for real stock and gloss used by UD. Also the darkness of the face where you cannot even see his eyes is unlike the original printing. Seems like it was darkened by scanning and photoshopping.

I wouldn't touch it.

[ALR-bishop]

The 89 set is the only UD set I have. I am no expert on UD, but the guy who started the prior thread I posted above has posted some of the rarest stuff I have seen on the board, mostly Topps though. I would take chance at the right price. Even if fake the fact there are others make it an interesting piece.

The SCD Standard Catalog has at least two Topps listings I know of that are designated as fakes and still get a listing

Reminds me some of cards discussed in this thread

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=191504

[JustinD]

Definitely possible Al,

I always am hesitant on oddities and errors during this time frame. The UD issue was rampant with faked errors like erasing stats or using chemicals to take off ink. Even down to the recent discovery of hoards of the black box error, which is factory but manufactured for excitement.

At the time of release this would have been a profitable move to create these. They might be a proof run to experiment color patterns, but looking at the ebay listing it would have to been done on completely different printing equipment and different stock and quality.

The promo cards and blank back samples I have for 89 have the same gloss and paper stock quality as the finished product.

[ALR-bishop]

You could easily be correct Justin. I just like putting odd stuff with my sets. The 89 Ripken is another example where there are both fake and real variations, but even the fakes have developed a following among collectors. We are a weird lot:)

[bnorth]

You could easily be correct Justin. I just like putting odd stuff with my sets. The 89 Ripken is another example where there are both fake and real variations, but even the fakes have developed a following among collectors. We are a weird lot:)

I would also be very hesitant on these. I do remember seeing them before but can't remember anything about them. It also has to be taken into account all the shady stuff UD was doing at that time. On the other hand you would think there would be Griffey Jr versions if fake.

Like Al I also like adding weird stuff to my collection. I am definitely weird and collect those fake Ripkens Al mentioned. Even the counterfeit version is highly sought after. The last one I sold went for $80 and was the worst condition one I have seen of the 15 known to exist.

[craigpw]

A couple years ago I posted about these Upper Deck cards and wanted to show photos of both fronts and backs. Incidentally, I acquired these cards from an acquaintance located near the Upper Deck. Attached are the photos. Hope this helps.

Craig

[JustinD]

As I have not had one in hand and only seen photos, how does the print quality, gloss and stock compare to the regular 89 release?

If they were backdoored it would make sense, I have a few really cool errors I bought from a source near Duryea, PA that were snuck out of the Topps plant.

[Jim65]

Interesting that all the ones pictured here number in the 600's.

[profholt82]

Never heard of it before - seems dubious, at best. I can't think of a legitimate reason a card company would even want to test a black-bordered card in the late 1980s.

Because 87 Donruss was a great set.