Unusual PSA flip

[4815162342]

What do you think about the flip on this card?

http://www.mnmsportscards.com/LotDet...100&category=1

[canjond]

Nothing fishy - just an earlier PSA flip.

[canjond]

As a follow-up, although not a sure-fire rule, chances are the only times you will have to worry about a PSA flip being fake is if it's a high-grade card, or a very expensive card. In other words, the motivation for a fake flip is to try to sell a high-dollar card. A PSA 1 Young doesn't fit that mold.

[shaunsteig]

Originally Posted by canjond

As a follow-up, although not a sure-fire rule, chances are the only times you will have to worry about a PSA flip being fake is if it's a high-grade card, or a very expensive card. In other words, the motivation for a fake flip is to try to sell a high-dollar card. A PSA 1 Young doesn't fit that mold.

Excellent point.

[canjond]

As a follow-up, the certification number matches up with a PSA 1 Young "Unknown Back" (again, meaning it was graded earlier, not lately because the backs are now tracked).

While I don't know the nuances of when PSA may or may not have put dates on its' flips, this is a relatively low value card - maybe $75 or so. I still don't think there is anything fishy here.

[FrankWakefield]

I'd pay $75 for that card. And since I live naively stuck in the past when it comes to prices, I figure the card is worth more than that. What seems of much greater importance to me is the card... it looks authentic. Maybe that item would cause a slab collector some concern. Looks good to this card collector.

[shaunsteig]

Looks wrong. To my knowledge, PSA doesn't put the year for the T206 flips (whereas SGC does) -- they put T206 and the tobacco brand in the upper left corner. Similarly, the "#" sign shouldn't be there -- the T206s weren't numbered.
--S

[steve B]

I'd really love to see this card up close for a couple reasons.

Before I explain, let me state that it probably is altered. And I have no opinion on the case or flip as I don't know enough about the flips. The sort of printing error described below is one that I have only seen on one card in 30+ years.

The biggest reason I'd like to see it in hand or with a very high resolution scan is that after looking for some time at the large scan of the back I'm not 100% sure the damage happened after printing. The area at the right shows paper loss too, and the lines below Piedmont go right over it. The P and I also appear to be on an area that has some original surface. How is it not Repaired damage you ask?

I have a modern card, early 80's that was from a sheet damaged on purpose at the printer as a marker between make ready sheets and production sheets. Part of the card printed on the damaged area. It doesn't look as good as this back, but the printing showing over damage would be dependent on the pressure of printing, and the depth of the damage.
The areas of printing on this one look like they're over an area of shallow damage. And the big scan while not quite big enough shows no sign of the printing not being original.

I also wonder why someone would pay to have only part of the back restored? Getting the right color and consistency of the ink to redo part of the back and make it hard to tell even from a halfway decent scan is a pro job, and if it was me I'd have the whole thing redone.

Even with that, it's likely a repair. As I said, I've only seen one card printed over the same sort of damage, and that was over intentional damage which this isn't.

Steve B
The second reason I'd love to see it up close is that from the scan it would seem that whoever did the repair was very skilled and I'd like to see their work up close. I usually want to see anything that's very well done in some detail.

[Abravefan11]

Here's a larger scan of the back in case anyone was interested.

That is an early version of the PSA hologram but how it relates on the timeline with the front I do not know for sure.

[FrankWakefield]

I've seen worse backs...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Most likely, a clerical error. They happen.