Makes me wonder

[Archive]

Posted By: David 

Makes me wonder what the bid would be at if the card was in the holder


http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1809663441

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

This may sound strange coming from me, but I don't necessarily think PSA is to blame here. On several occasions, I've seen PSA assign this notation to cards when they are unsure whether to grade them. And I don't mean that in the sense that I'm being cynical. I just don't think PSA had decided whether they wanted to grade and label the card as a reprint.

For those who can read as well as understand the difference between the past and the present, there shouldn't be any difficulties here...although I'm not so sure that all of the top bidders on this item are unaffiliated with the auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: HalleyGator

I think the seller makes it clear in his description that the back of this card says "Card is worth $10,000" ... which clearly makes it a reprint.

Thus, PSA surely knows that it is a reprint. They aren't "stumped" on this one (I sure hope!!).

So from the looks of this, they don't grade or slab known reprints any longer. It would be better if they would just slab it and label it: REPRINT so that nobody could run a fraudulent auction like this one.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Based on the label, PSA appears to have been unsure whether the grading of reprints is proper.

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

I'm sorry but this is why I stopped telling people about the fact they were bidding on a reprint.

Assuming the bidding is legit - the winner deserves what he/she gets just for being stupid. The seller's description is accurate, granted, it is written in "Clinton-ese" but the seller even posted a picture of the back of the card. No excuses.

This is just beyond sad.

[Archive]

Posted By: HalleyGator

Gotcha, Mr. Wentz. NOW we are on the same page for sure!

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

The buyers have to be in collusion with the seller........I sure hope no one is this stupid...but alas I have been wrong before......I went and looked at the bidders histories too.....hard to tell......regards

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

No one has been stupid enough to pay $500 for one of the "Wagner estate" t206 reprints and there have been loads of opportunities. "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" (early English translation from mid-Danish).

[Archive]

Posted By: David

PSA takes no blame here, as they didn't grade it (though it would nice if the 'no holder' label said 'reprint'). The fault lays with the seller, who apparently has the ethics of Shop at Home, and the bidders for either colluding or being stupid.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

You'd think we'd have something better to do.

Ya mean PSA sent this guy a LABEL and nothing else? Can't they spell REPRINT?

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

I draw the line at notifying unsuspecting bidders when they are such gigantic gearheads that they can't figure out that cards from 1933 weren't worth tens of thousands of dollar when the kids pulled them from the packs.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Most everyone knows the story - the Lajoie was produced when collectors complained that it wasn't in the '33 set, and Goudey sent it out only to those who asked for it. (I think that's right). But what most of you obviously didn't know is that a bright young Goudey executive (my g-g-grandfather)figured based on the small number of requests they were getting for the Lajoie card, that those cards were worth about $10,000, so after a few glasses of bubble-gum martinis (he invented those also, but their popularity, much like the '33 Lajoie, had to wait), he had the printer add the $10K price tag to the back description. Fortunately he flushed most of them the next morning when he sobered up, but apparently a few survived.