1914 CJ Joe Jackson PSA 2 to SGC 5

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...postcount=3297

Seemed worthy of its own thread. Nice 65K bump.

Welcome, SGC.

[Popcorn]

Sadly when folks buy flips instead of actual cards this is what you get.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Popcorn

Sadly when folks buy flips instead of actual cards this is what you get.

The color on the 5, if that's an accurate scan, is weak. The face and hands lost all their vibrancy.

[Rhotchkiss]

Yikes. This and a T206 red Cobb SGC 6.5. Not good

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Popcorn

Sadly when folks buy flips instead of actual cards this is what you get.

What makes you think the buyer was buying a flip and not a card? This is a ridiculous statement. It's a shame the card appears to have been altered but that was a great looking 5, dead centered, in the holder of what was assumed to be a reputable grader. Had I been in the market for that card at the time with the available funds I would have been bidding.

Color is often hard to determine from online scans due to different scanner settings. That wouldn't have necessarily been a red flag.

[Popcorn]

Looking closer I’m not sure the Jackson’s are the same card. Of course we could not be sure unless someone still has it in a PSA 2.

[pokerplyr80]

That I agree with. Circling a couple of dots on the back of 2 cards that look similar does not prove they're the same card.

[Popcorn]

I own a print shop and any defect that happens to a sheet of paper like Baseball card goes on all the sheets printed until noticed by the printer. So similar dots, scuffing, hickeys ect can be the exact same on multiples cards. Like the 1990 Frank Thomas NNOF, that was a dent in the black blanket.

[orly57]

The OP on Blowout suggests that the red turned maroon because of the chemicals. It could be, but I’m thinking that the scans have something to do with it. What struck me was how the scratches between the face and the bat disappeared. Could it have been that they added color to that particular area, or the entire background? Could that explain the change in color? Is it even the same card?
Edit: There is a stain on the 2 that appears to be the same shape and size of a much lighter stain on the 5. Look at where it reads “Orleans,” then under that “late in 1910.” The stain goes on a bit south from there. It’s kind of shaped like Texas. Anyone else see that?

[griffon512]

Originally Posted by orly57

The OP on Blowout suggests that the red turned maroon because of the chemicals. It could be, but I’m thinking that the scans have something to do with it. What struck me was how the scratches between the face and the bat disappeared. Could it have been that they added color to that particular area, or the entire background? Could that explain the change in color? Is it even the same card?
Edit: There is a stain on the 2 that appears to be the same shape and size of a much lighter stain on the 5. Look at where it reads “Orleans,” then under that “late in 1910.” The stain goes on a bit south from there. It’s kind of shaped like Texas. Anyone else see that?

yes, and the largest green circle on the back shows a scattered mark that is differentiating. it's the same card.

[Bicem]

Definitely the same card.

[pokerplyr80]

Any chance 2 cards that came out of a box of cracker Jacks 100 years ago could have similar looking stains in the same spot? Maybe one shaped like something covered in caramel was pressed against it.

[Kenny Cole]

I think it is likely the same card too.

[Popcorn]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Definitely the same card.

Yeah corners are the same. That has nothing to do with the printer lol

[Bicem]

Also back damage on the upper right that's been worked on, you can still traces of it and patterns match up, easily seen to the right of the "Cleve-"

[orly57]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Any chance 2 cards that came out of a box of cracker Jacks 100 years ago could have similar looking stains in the same spot? Maybe one shaped like something covered in caramel was pressed against it.

Yes. It’s posible that two different, identically-shaped Cracker Jack candies stained two different Joe Jackson cards in the exact same spot. It is posible that the cards shared numerous other identifying features, including identical centering (slight tilt), corner-wear, and other markings. It is also possible that both of those cards survived over 100 years, and were sold in auctions a few months apart. Of course the lesser grade card sold first (by a reputable auction house), and the higher grade sold months later (by a company that is currently under the microscope for selling altered cards). So yeah, there is “possible” and there is “highly unlikely.”

[Bicem]

Is it possible all this is just a bad dream?

[bigfanNY]

Same card

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Is it possible all this is just a bad dream?

I wish. But no, I don't think so.

[pokerplyr80]

Just checked the registry. No one has that card listed but the cert is still active. Assuming this card and others have been cleaned up and resubmitted maybe these guys could send the old flips back in an unmarked envelope. It should help everyone to have more accurate population numbers.

[oldjudge]

I’ll repeat what I said a few days ago. All the graders, regardless of the company, have trouble picking out cards that are doctored. Given enough time, and a library of before images, they could do it. Unfortunately, they have neither.

[swarmee]

So what are we paying them for? Maybe we need to start a Graded Card Submitter Support Group to try to stop this vicious cycle. It's like drug peddling and addiction.

[oldjudge]

You are paying for a one minute or less look at most cards. If you want someone to spend a half hour on a card then grading fees will be a lot higher. People can’t legitimately expect a lot for $7.

[swarmee]

It was rhetorical, but with a $99 max declared value for bulk submissions, these weren't submitted at that level. Some of these cost between $1,000 and $5,000 for the service level to be graded.

[barrysloate]

This hobby is shot. Collectors need to understand that if they continue to collect baseball cards their collections will contain altered cards, and that they will not be getting what they paid for. You either have to accept that fact, or find a new hobby. What a shame.

[Republicaninmass]

The constant questioning and denial of some leave me to wonder how many PWCC cards they are sitting on.

[swarmee]

Ah, the dam will break; they just don't believe it yet. They're at some earlier stage of the grieving process.

And some will have already gotten their refunds, and the ones that hold out the longest risk losing it. This is why PSA and SGC and BGS need to decertify all of those altered cards in holders. Collectors will clutch them to their bosom and never let them go without it.

[Batpig]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

The constant questioning and denial of some leave me to wonder how many PWCC cards they are sitting on.

That’s probably the root of anyone denying this right now. They either have a large legal or financial liability (or both).

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

You are paying for a one minute or less look at most cards. If you want someone to spend a half hour on a card then grading fees will be a lot higher. People can’t legitimately expect a lot for $7.

But Jay, wouldn’t a nice looking, 1914 Cracker Jack joe Jackson have a value substantial enough that the grading fees are $500-$1,000=? And if so, I would think that kind of grading fee should buy you a much better, longer and detailed look than a $7 submission (perhaps a 100x better look?)

[Peter_Spaeth]

The 5 was graded at the National according to Brent.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by orly57

The OP on Blowout suggests that the red turned maroon because of the chemicals. It could be, but I’m thinking that the scans have something to do with it. What struck me was how the scratches between the face and the bat disappeared. Could it have been that they added color to that particular area, or the entire background? Could that explain the change in color? Is it even the same card?
Edit: There is a stain on the 2 that appears to be the same shape and size of a much lighter stain on the 5. Look at where it reads “Orleans,” then under that “late in 1910.” The stain goes on a bit south from there. It’s kind of shaped like Texas. Anyone else see that?

When I blew up the Heritage scan I thought maybe those scratches were on the holder.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Popcorn

I own a print shop and any defect that happens to a sheet of paper like Baseball card goes on all the sheets printed until noticed by the printer. So similar dots, scuffing, hickeys ect can be the exact same on multiples cards. Like the 1990 Frank Thomas NNOF, that was a dent in the black blanket.

A dent in the print blanket. How does a thick rubber mat get a dent in it that affects several cards on the sheet? The other part i agree with, print spots will show up on several copies.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The 5 was graded at the National according to Brent.

So was the Leaf Jackie we saw earlier. Good show!!

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...postcount=2827

[Johnny630]

Is that Cracker Jack for sure the same card ?
Removing Gloss, how in the world can they miss that ? The top right corner ? What kinda special chemicals were used on that idk it’s not that hard if this is the same card....how did SGC miss this crapola...it’s disgusting

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

The constant questioning and denial of some leave me to wonder how many PWCC cards they are sitting on.

It doesn't bother me that people want to make sure the cards are the same, I think it's fair. The only thing that would bother me is continued denial in the face of the evidence.

It's interesting that of all the cards outed on Blowout so far, I don't think there's been a single instance when someone came forward and said he still owned the "pre" card.

[PiratesWS1979]

Here's more proof it's the same card:

The larger circle is paper loss while the small circle was recolored.

(sorry, the PWCC image is not the best of quality, even though it's "High Res")

Heritage PSA 2:


PWCC SGC 5:

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It doesn't bother me that people want to make sure the cards are the same, I think it's fair. The only thing that would bother me is continued denial in the face of the evidence.

It's interesting that of all the cards outed on Blowout so far, I don't think there's been a single instance when someone came forward and said he still owned the "pre" card.

Absolutely agree with your second sentence the continued denial in the face of evidence is bothersome. I get people have big cards in their holders but come on how are these guys, the graders this bad at their jobs?? Sometime smells bad real bad.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by PiratesWS1979

Here's more proof it's the same card:

The larger circle is paper loss while the small circle was recolored.

(sorry, the PWCC image is not the best of quality, even though it's "High Res")

Heritage PSA 2:


PWCC SGC 5:

Thanks sir ! I’m seeing this now....shameful

[barrysloate]

I assume that at the National there will be more than a few collectors who will get into verbal confrontations with PSA. Should be interesting. Somebody needs to film it.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I assume that at the National there will be more than a few collectors who will get into verbal confrontations with PSA. Should be interesting. Somebody needs to film it.

Personally I’m a little sad that I will not be making the national this year. I would hope that there will be lots of visual and verbal opposition to what is happening. I would love to see people aggressively picketing or boycotting those known to be guilty so that others can see what is happening .

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I assume that at the National there will be more than a few collectors who will get into verbal confrontations with PSA. Should be interesting. Somebody needs to film it.

I am sure they will be fully prepared to spin this as a very limited and contained problem.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am sure they will be fully prepared to spin this as a very limited and contained problem.

Agreed. But that will only get the people on the other side of the table angrier, louder, and more vocal. Like I said, should get interesting.

[PiratesWS1979]

Here's a sad statement: I miss Battlefield/Candyman!

They were entertaining and all they did was photoshop and over grade

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Agreed. But that will only get the people on the other side of the table angrier, louder, and more vocal. Like I said, should get interesting.

They will just poof any protesters from the Set Registry shindig I am sure, and higher ups will be nowhere near the table at the show.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

The constant questioning and denial of some leave me to wonder how many PWCC cards they are sitting on.

I only have a few of what some would consider high end cards. They were all bought privately except for an REA win, the only one I've ever won there. I have bid on quite a few pwcc cards over the years, but only won 4 or 5.

I have mentioned before I use PWCC for all of my consignments. There's always an auction running, they get the highest prices, and have the lowest fees. I am still not convinced yet at their level of involvement in this scandal, and think it's very possible card doctors use their service for the same reasons I do.

[orly57]

I know that there are a lot of guys who have some amazing ungraded cards. But isn’t it fair to say that if you are a TPG receiving a really nice 1914 Joe Jackson at this stage in the game, there is a 90% chance that the card has already been graded before, and the owner wasn’t happy with the grade and/or altered it? Wouldn’t they look at a card like that a bit more skeptically, and assume that at best, the owner wasn’t happy with the previous grade and broke open for a regrade? If I see a raw 1914 CJ JJ at a show, I can tell you that my first thought would be “no thanks. You either got an ‘A’ or the card presents much better than the grade you got and didn’t like.”

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am sure they will be fully prepared to spin this as a very limited and contained problem.

It's contained alright. In 10,000 slabs.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

It's contained alright. In 10,000 slabs.

I wish it was only that many.

[darwinbulldog]

The population of slabbed cards is a combination of clean cards and (reasonably) well-doctored cards.

The population of unslabbed cards is a combination of clean cards and poorly doctored cards.

So it seems, as long as you're at least as good at detecting alterations as the graders are, as seems to apply to an increasingly large proportion of Net54 members, that it's safer to buy raw since the altered ones will be fairly obvious.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

This hobby is shot. Collectors need to understand that if they continue to collect baseball cards their collections will contain altered cards, and that they will not be getting what they paid for. You either have to accept that fact, or find a new hobby. What a shame.

Barry--Please convince Corey of this. I'd like to save him this heartache and buy a few of his cards before they become worthless. I know I'm crazy, but it would be helping a friend out.