1949 Jackies on Memory Lane

[Stonepony]

...and what's with that "O" on the cap? Print defect?

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Stonepony

...and what's with that "O" on the cap? Print defect?

Yes. They are called "fisheyes".

[megalimey]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Yes. They are called "fisheyes".

Hickey

here is a detailed description
A hickey is a small spot or imperfection that appears in print on images or flat tints. It is sometimes called a bulls eye or fish eye. The problem is most visible in areas of heavy ink coverage.

There are two types of hickeys:

Void hickeys are blank, unprinted spots in a printed area.
Doughnut hickeys are solid printed areas surrounded by a circular unprinted area. Doughnut hickeys produced by particles of ink skin collecting on the blanket or plate are called ink hickeys.
Hickeys are caused by dirt, paper fibers or hardened specks of ink on the printing plate or blanket. On offset presses the addition of a special roller, called a hickey-picking roller, can minimize the effects of hickeys.
one good thing you will never ever see a Fake with a printers defect
also with PSA you can look up Cert and Population report easily , try looking up cert at SGC not as easy

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by Stonepony

...and what's with that "O" on the cap? Print defect?

Or could just be Bo Jackson's cap?

Yea I agree - The SGC card should blow the PSA out of the water at the final hammer...the card - not the holder - after 20ish years of looking at slabs - I may be there..........

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Normally in these threads I don't see the big deal, or even disagree with the premise completely. But this one is spot on, the SGC is SO much nicer it's mind-blowing.

[darwinbulldog]

If only they had some way to indicate that the card had a major print defect but was otherwise in mint condition.

[gemmint77]

Some people must care about the PSA registry. I would buy the SGC card all day over the PSA graded one.

[megalimey]

Originally Posted by gemmint77

Some people must care about the PSA registry. I would buy the SGC card all day over the PSA graded one.

SGC card is better aesthetic looking card than PSA no argument not even close .
Under normal circumstances with identical cards PSA 9 will almost always out perform SGC ,this SGC card may be nicer but will still sell for less

[orly57]

And the funny thing is that if you tried crossing the card to psa, they wouldn't give it a 9 even if it warrants it. Their "objective" grading standards would fly out the window in the interest of protecting their brand. It's really the fault of the consumer for feeding into this nonsense. How a person in search of a high grade 49 Bowman Jackie, who has the option between these two cards, could actually CHOOSE the PSA (at a greater cost at that) is beyond me. The fisheye alone is enough to tilt the balance, never mind the substantial difference in registration and the color of the borders. The "it's just the way it is" mentality doesn't sit well with me. We on this board are the collectors/Consumers. We are part of the problem, and could be part of the solution if we shift the paradigm, and stop blindly accepting "the way it is."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

If only they had some way to indicate that the card had a major print defect but was otherwise in mint condition.

LOL. Someone really clever could come up with a two letter abbreviation, I bet.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Just a fact of life, in most cases, SGC flips are going to sell at a discount to the equivalent PSA flip. Outside this forum, most people prefer PSA, especially for post-war and modern, as evidenced by the relative pops.

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Normally in these threads I don't see the big deal, or even disagree with the premise completely. But this one is spot on, the SGC is SO much nicer it's mind-blowing.

Agreed....interested in seeing where the final sales prices.

Z

[darwinbulldog]

PSA has the marketing in their corner. Once upon a time for modern cards the perception was that a BGS 9.5 was harder to score than a PSA 10 and sold at a slight premium. Now the PSA 10 sells at a substantial premium.

This is a somewhat different case of course, as we can all see which of the two cards is nicer this time, but I don't put much faith in PSA slabs as a better long-term investment than SGC slabs. Over say 25 years, maybe the discrepancy remains constant, maybe it increases, maybe it decreases, maybe it flips. But paying a premium for a card that looks worse seems like the behavior of a bad investor (as opposed to either a collector or a good investor).

P.S. The '49 Bowman Jackie is an ugly card anyway.