PSA's Misleading Photo Flip

[Exhibitman]

This bothers me. The flip makes it sound like it is the actual photo Topps used. Nothing about the photo indicates that. It is the same image from what looks to be a team issue. Should a flip list the image use if the photo itself is not the one actually used? I don't think the card should be referenced at all.

This one also is misdescribed:



it is not a 'proof', it is the original artwork that ESCO photographed through a halftone screen to make the printing plate for the card. A 'proof' would be a print made from the printing plate to check something about the card. This is a proof:



Is it too much to expect PSA to properly describe the item it is authenticating?

Also, to be clear, not casting shade on Lelands in any way. The description of the Russell does not suggest Topps used that example and the Clay description explains the item pretty well.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

This bothers me. The flip makes it sound like it is the actual photo Topps used. Nothing about the photo indicates that. It is the same image from what looks to be a team issue. Should a flip list the image use if the photo itself is not the one actually used? I don't think the card should be referenced at all.

This one also is misdescribed:



it is not a 'proof', it is the original artwork that ESCO photographed through a halftone screen to make the printing plate for the card. A 'proof' would be a print made from the printing plate to check something about the card. This is a proof:



Is it too much to expect PSA to properly describe the item it is authenticating?

Also, to be clear, not casting shade on Lelands in any way. The description of the Russell does not suggest Topps used that example and the Clay description explains the item pretty well.

Adam:

The flip is referencing the Bill Russel photo was used for a 1968 Topps basketball TEST SET.

See:

https://allvintagecards.com/1968-topps-test-basketball/

[Exhibitman]

I know that. My point is that since it is not the actual production photo it should not be labeled with any card data. This item has no involvement in the Topps process.

[bgar3]

Agree Adam, “proof”” is just one of the many misused descriptive terms used to describe what we all collect. Frustrating and unfortunate, but these things become accepted.

[ooo-ribay]

“DO YOU PRESUME TO CRITICIZE THE GREAT OZ?????”

[perezfan]

The great and POWERFUL OZ. The amount of power collectors have granted them is an atrocity. The people in this forum alone could do a better and more ethical job of authenticating and grading.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by perezfan

The great and POWERFUL OZ. The amount of power collectors have granted them is an atrocity. The people in this forum alone could do a better and more ethical job of authenticating and grading.

After some self-reflection, I regret making this post. I would like to replace the term “collectors” with “sheeple”. Please make note of this correction.

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I know that. My point is that since it is not the actual production photo it should not be labeled with any card data. This item has no involvement in the Topps process.

It's the same image which a lot of photo collectors seek out and put a premium on, see nothing wrong with putting that on the flip.

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by Bicem

It's the same image which a lot of photo collectors seek out and put a premium on, see nothing wrong with putting that on the flip.

I agree with this. It looks to me like the exact photo used for the card??. If so it seems to me that the flip is fine. Are you saying that the photo and the card dont match up,? Not an expert but a number of small details seem to match.. The flip says it is the image used for the 68 Topps test card. Which it seems to be. The flip doesn't attribute the photo to Topps it just says they used the same image for the card. I have seen many photos listed as " used for 19xx Topps, Bowman Goudey" most are easily recognized. And many enjoy having a Type 1 photo displayed along with a favorite card. So I am not sure I understand the breech of ethics.
Jonathan

[Bicem]

I think he's saying it's misleading because it's not the actual one of a kind photo that was used in production of that card?

It's only an identical image photo, which again, I personally think deserves to be called out on the flip or letter.

[Exhibitman]

I get your point but I don't think it should be mentioned at all.

[midmo]

I think listing the card(s) it was used for is a little weird but not a huge deal. Mainly because I have images that were used on several different cards. Who decides what they list?

The proof vs original art definitely seems like a mistake to me.

[the-illini]

count me in the pro group regarding listing the card on the flip - here is one of my favorites