T3 Matty,

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>steve f</b><p> Just recieved a pair of 4x6 photos in the mail from a prior, reputable seller. Presents very well, I'm just unsure if this is worth what he's looking for. Any thoughts on the value considering it's a RCH away from being twins? This would be my first T3<br /><br /> Cond; Six pinholes, creased once top to bottom badly, that crease is a tear 5/8 of the way down, has two pieces of old tape on back that I outlined in the photo. Also has some staining on the borders. Thanks in advance.<br /><br />EDITED to add; This T3 is untrimmed. These are poor 4x6 Polaroids sent by an elderly seller. The original is full size.<br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1149624251.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>worst damage (as far as value) is it is heavily trimmed all the way around. The authentic cards have a much larger gray border and are 5.75" by 8" in size. Personally I wouldnt pay much over $100 for that one........ but others might.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>steve f</b><p>Damn, It's full size, he took the photo too close. Sorry I didn't mention that. The owner is pushing 80yo and isn't very savvy with online selling, cameras or computers. He is aware that this beater is valuable however.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>martin dalziel</b><p><br />Tough to give an opinion without seeing the card in person, but, like Frank says, the trimming kills the card. <br /><br />What i don't understand is why someone would trim the sides but not the top (to remove the pinholes). I assume the sides were cut to make the card look better, so why not the top too. I can understand not trimming the bottom because you'd have to trim the name off.<br /><br />If i saw this card on Ebay with that picture i would assume it was a Mike Wheat reprint with trimming. I can't tell from your pics whether it really is an old card or not, but trust that in the pics you have in hand you know the difference.<br /><br />I can't give a value, because i wouldn't buy it, but that doesn't mean plenty of others wouldn't.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dd</b><p>I concur with Martin.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Keith O'Leary</b><p><P>I agree with Frank. I know its Matty, but personally I don't think its an attractive card at all. The tack holes I could overlook, but that trim job is downright ugly and makes the card unattractive.</P><P> </P><P>I'd bite the bullet, spend a little more and get a slabbed Turkey Red.</P><P> </P>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brent Butcher</b><p>I believe Steve is saying these are just pictures of the actual card and the actual card is not trimmed. The pictures were just taken to close. Under that assumption I could get past the tack holes but the tear would still bother me some. Would be a perfect candidate for framing and displaying in an office though if the price is right.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>I see now, those are the photos on your counter, not the actual card. (I should have figured it out since you have both front and back pictured in same photo <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>) <br /><br />It is a better card then. The worst damage is the tear if it is a tear (tape on the back). If it is just a crease then its much better. I can overlook pinholes a bit on T3s since they are often found that way, but the tear if it is one is a tough one. It still has a nice image though.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>I think, before you buy that Matty, you get to see it in person, or have a money back return on it.<br /><br />I say that because I don't think it is real. I think the reflection from the light when the photo was taken is too intense for it to have been reflected up from the surface of the front or back of a real T3.<br /><br />Was there glass or plastic above the surface of the card, is that the cause of the reflected light? If not, I think the card is not genuine.<br /><br />Frank W.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>Frank: that is not the original T3 -- it is a picture (of a picture) of the T3 that Steve is buying. So, the glare is from the glossy photo paper, not the original T3.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Thank you, PC...<br /><br />I would not buy that for $100. I would for $50. I'd guess it is worth about double what I'd pay, I'm tight.<br /><br />Good luck with it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay wolt</b><p>Since the black marks are used to illustrate the pin holes and crease pattern. And The card is not trimmed and is indeed original. Why not go after it? $50 & $100 seem awfully low. I'll buy them all day & night for that.<br /><br />Mathewson is a desirable player in a highly desirable set. <br />We're not talking about a Ken Griffey Jr. rookie where for a few $ more you can get a mint copy.<br />A pleasing PSA-1 Mathewson may cost you a grand, and a nicer one in VG shape<br />may cost you $2500+<br />So with that said, a low grade T3 Mathewson w/ clear picture is nothing to sneeze at, and should be considered, unless of course money is no object...jay<br /><br />Edited for spelling error.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Steve, Whats he asking for it???

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>steve f</b><p> Thanks for all the guidance fellas. This seller has no means or knowhow to post and I believe, relies on a family member to sell his items on eBay.<br /><br /> Frank, he's looking for <i>gulp</i> at least $300. I may or may not offer him $200 after reading the replies. The original is full-size and untrimmed.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Henry Eshelman</b><p>300 sounds a little hi but not unreasonable and if it is untrimmed id definitly take it for 200<br><br>Thanks, Henry Eshelman<br /><br />Website:www.freewebs.com/vintagebaseball

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>glyn parson</b><p>i agree with jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>steve f</b><p> Thanks for the opinions all. On speculation I will sell some of my current listings, I did take the dive and sent the $300 this AM. He's been an honest and sincere old Maineiac(and a diehard Sox fan). After reading the replies, I have little doubt I'd recoup the cost and grading fee if I am unhappy with it.<br /><br /> He mentioned he has some old Babe Ruth fountain pens and watches, which I know jack squat about. Also, some Goodwin Champions which he would sell the doubles of and a Victor bicycle with that giant front wheel, from the 1880's. Just wish he owned a digital camera... This could be <u>another</u> expensive relationship.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>anthony</b><p>i found a T3 jordan #45 at a antique store a couple of weeks ago for $60...the owner says he cant find a pricing on it but knows its old...it is in really good shape with a tiny bit of paper loss on the back and a little wavy edge on the right side...i like it because its a horizontal of jordan rounding second(?) base...<br /><br />how am i to know if its a reprint or not? someone mentioned too much gloss? thanks

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Keith O'Leary</b><p><P>Anthony,</P><P> </P><P>The only decent full size (5 3/4 X 8) reprints I've seen were done by Mike Wheat. If you search the posts you'll find out how to identify these. Quickly, its a sunburst pattern printed on the back located inside the framing lines at the bottom of the card.</P><P> </P>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Does anyone here own a Mike Wheat reprint??? <br /><br />I would like to know if his reprints have the same "orange peel" texture to the front surface.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>martindl</b><p><br />I bought a Cobb for display. Yes, they have the orange peel effect, but not quite like the originals. It wouldn't deceive someone who knows these cards, but in scans they look quite similar. The backs are the dead giveaway with the sunburst noted above.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>There was a die-cut T3 Matty (similar to the Devlin shown below) that sold on eBay this winter that went for a little under $200. Given that price, I'd say $300 is a good price for a Matty that isn't trimmed.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.attic2cash.net/cards/t3devlin.jpg"><br /><br />Jay<br><br>Growing old is not optional, growing up is.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>steve f</b><p>Was curious about the repaired portion and found this;<br /><br />www.about.com; Scotch tape was invented in 1930 by banjo playing 3M engineer Richard Drew. Scotch tape was the world's first transparent cellophane adhesive tape... The brandname Scotch came about while Richard Drew was testing his first masking tape to determine how much adhesive he needed to add. The bodyshop painter became frustrated with the sample masking tape and exclaimed, "Take this tape back to those Scotch bosses of yours and tell them to put more adhesive on it!" The name was soon applied to the entire line of 3M tapes. <br /><br />For those unfamiliar, *Scotch was a derogatory synonym for stingy or thrifty in the old days. <br />