Another "improved" card...1914 CJ Johnson

[obcmac]

Not sure if this card was already outed...who has time to read all that. Pretty quick turnaround for $900ish profit and sold by iconsportscards. Curious to see that they kept the same serial number despite the obvious work done...how did they accomplish that? My quick search didn't come up with anything...apologies if it was already out there.


Mac Wubben

[packs]

Looks more like a less detailed scan than an alteration and reholder

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by packs

Looks more like a less detailed scan than an alteration and reholder

Agree. How could someone break a card out and get it encapsulated with the same serial number?

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by packs

Looks more like a less detailed scan than an alteration and reholder

+1

[Rhotchkiss]

Wouldn't the reholdered slab have that colorful PSA logo in the middle?

That said, this is one hell of a scanner to eliminate that major horizontal crease across Wajo's face in the first scan (black background).

[obcmac]

Here is the back. I would feel a lot better about things if it was just a scanner issue. Thanks for everyone's input.

[packs]

I don't know if I would call it a scanner issue. It looks like someone manipulated the scan to help with the aesthetics of the card. I'd expect to receive the card in the first scan.

[JollyElm]

My first thought would be that someone photoshopped the heck out of the picture of the card, but there are problems with that theory. Amongst many other things, the creases kinda squish the shape of his body and especially the face. Look how thin his countenance is in the first slab as compared to how squared it is in the second. With serious graphics skills, you could manipulate the picture to 'correct' it that way, but the amount of time and effort would be crazy (I won't even mention how much work would be involved in keeping the holder looking consistent and real) without any sort of true payoff (because the actual card wouldn't match the doctored picture in any way). I have perhaps another theory, but I am unsure how realistic it is, because I am not an expert on PSA's workings...

Say the person cracked the card out of the original slab (without doing too much damage to said slab) and went to town cleaning it, flattening the creases, etc., and was able to reinsert the card back into the damaged slab. Could he then have sent it back to PSA (not requesting a review or anything) to be simply re-slabbed, and therefore getting the same serial number?? Since the grade is so mediocre to begin with, I doubt the card would've been subjected to too much additional scrutiny, no? Absent anything else, that's really the clearest explanation.

[packs]

What makes you think the alterations to the image are that severe? To me it just looks like someone messed with the color saturation.

[perezfan]

99% chance it was removed, worked on, and replaced. All of the creases are far less severe, with the exception of the heavy diagonal crease, which remains identical (upper-right). Since the surface paper "broke", there wasn't much that they could do to repair/hide it.

So what's the telltale sign that it was removed and replaced? The card resides in a "baggie" within the slab. These "baggied" cards don't move around in the slab, even when vigorously shaken.

Now look at the positioning of the card within the slab. The card has moved significantly. It now sits much further to the right, and the slant has also changed. It had to have been cracked, worked on, and replaced without much tell-tale damage to the plastic. Perhaps the work would be more evident when examined in-person, vs. a flat computer screen.

In any event, I would shy away from this one.

[perezfan]

The flip is the same in both images...

Look at the little white dots above the "9" in 1914, and the second "C" in Cracker Jack. Same flip.

[luciobar1980]

Looks like it's been "pressed", which is commonly done with comics.

edit: hmm, but that doesnt make sense as it's the same holder... Card looks to be sitting very differently in the slab from the back scan. Odd.

[packs]

My eyes might be playing tricks on me but isn't the second image clearly dimmer than the first? It's the light that has changed, not the card. I'm pretty sure we're just looking at the color saturation being manipulated and nothing more.

[Rhotchkiss]

If it was reholdered, wouldn’t it be a new holder, even if it retained the old cert#? In other words, wouldn’t it have the colorful PSA logo in the top middle (maybe that’s the lighthouse?)

[hcv123]

More like a scammer issue to me! Thinking 1 of the following:

1) Some SERIOUS Photoshop work - which as Darren points out is time consuming and leaves the door open for a buyer saying the card looks different than the picture. I think this is less likely

2) As previously suggested - the card was cracked out, worked on and either put back in the holder or not and submitted/resubmitted - all of this was done a long time ago when PSA was still using those holders!! As has been pointed out in multiple threads - this sadly is a problem that has existed for a LONG time.

Great catch! - where are the 2 scans from?

[JollyElm]

This is getting weird.

Sorry about the long read, but here goes...

I downloaded the pics in the first post in order to make an animated gif of one card 'turning into' the other one, and something doesn't make sense at all! Granted, the original pics weren't the same size, so I had to resize one to match the other. (It's important to note that any size adjustments were made both laterally and horizontally at the same time. In other words, I didn't simply stretch it side to side to make it fit. It was proportionate.) These are seemingly flat scans (no perspective manipulation), so this method is proper. My areas of concentration were the top red border and the large crease streaking down the right side. I matched up/aligned those two elements as best I could, because the assumption seemed to be that those things were pretty consistent across the pair of pics.

What you see here is the original card laid atop the 'doctored' card with an opacity of 47%. And here is where it gets batsh_t crazy. You see how "Cracker Jack Ball Players," the top red border and the crease itself look virtually clear as day (in other words, not a lot of distortion from one pic being laid onto the other)? Now look at the "Johnson" line. See how the one hangs significantly lower? That card is the original card with all of the creases. Think about that for a second. If a card is full of creases and you soak it and try to flatten it out to make said creases disappear, the card would get a bit longer, NOT shorter. Here, the EXACT OPPOSITE happened. The card that's significantly 'shorter' is the one with the creases gone. Again, the pics weren't exactly the same size to begin with, etc., etc. (so that could/would definitely account for some of it), but what in heck is going on????

1914cjjohnson2.jpg

Two other things of note. If you look at the width of the card(s) in the scan, they are pretty identical. Since they 'match,' how come the length is so far off?? Again, it makes no sense.
And, separately, I laid the PSA labels on top of each other and they (the words, numbers and bar code) match perfectly. If PSA printed two separate labels with the same info, would they be exactly the same? I would assume yes, if it was within a certain span of time when their methods were unchanged.

[Clutch-Hitter]

I have both an Epson and a Canon scanner. The Epson scanner exposes flaws better as seen in the first, brighter scan. IMO, this is an epson vs. canon issue.