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.

[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

[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.

[canjond]

Frank - not sure if you saw the back scan from the link posted above. Here it is. Would you still pay $75 without question?

[FrankWakefield]

Jon, you're right, I did not see that back, or what is left of the back. Still, I'd give $75 for that, delivered. At that price, and with that back, it would not be as good of a deal for me as I initially perceived. Thanks for posting the back. Still, the card looks fine, screw the slip.

[canjond]

I agree with you Frank - authentic card. (PS - the opening bid is $50, and no one has opened it yet).

[Matthew H]

That card will sell for more than $75.

[ethicsprof]

i know where frank is coming from, i think.
there was a time not that long ago---before the fall of 2008--- when i would've jumped at paying 100, 125, even 150 for that card.
but those times are long gone it seems and i'm with Jon that 75 is about right nowadays and probably for years to come.
with respect to the flip issue, Jon has elucidated it well imho.

best,
barry

[asoriano]

A bit nicer in condition but you get the idea:

http://cgi.ebay.com/CY-YOUNG-Portrai...item1c175bb875

[Bosox Blair]

Ummmmm...that flip is seriously messed.

It doesn't say T206 on it - at all. Why does is say 1911? Anyone else have a PSA T206 that says 1911 on it? I have never seen one.

I doubt that card should be a "1" either. The back looks altered to me. There is a whole lot of inexplicably bold printing over top of areas of obvious paper loss. So how does that happen?

Cheers,
Blair

[cfc1909]

Ya that is it Turner-I was going to say 200-250.

This is just an old PSA flip-there are way more 206s out there that you can imagine-if you think you have a number in your head-double it.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Bosox Blair

It doesn't say T206 on it - at all. Why does it say 1911?

That is why I started this thread. I had thought I had seen all the various T206 PSA flips; I was wrong. Thanks Jon.

[fkw]

PSA has issues,
Why in heck would they put "Cleveland" on the flip, yet not put "T206"????
They also put 1911 on a card only issued in 1909 (150 series back)... Kooks doing kooky stuff IMO Idiots!

An artist must have added the "P" on the back from what I can see, so this card has edge corner damage, scrapbook damage, and ink added...

worth $74, if that. IMO

[Matthew H]

This auction may not gain much interest due to the fact that there is a reserve on the item; however, I still think it's worth at least $100. I'd buy it for that right now. (I'm sure they want more than that though)

[cfc1909]

Frank

very true the card is only worth 50 to 75 bucks but if let go at a traditional auction more than likely it hits 200. I didn't realize the back was so bad but a grade 1 Young portrait will hit 200 give or take and depending on what back it has.

[asoriano]

Now this is an unusual PSA slip (although a legit holder):

http://cgi.ebay.com/1908-09-Cy-Young...item45f752b5cb

[ethicsprof]

frank has convinced me to go down from my(and Jon's) 75 figure to 74.
i will stand corrected by frank ward's expertise 'til the day I collapse.
those who have moved toward higher figures also have my esteemed reverence but not my vote on
this particular occasion!


best,
barry

[shaunsteig]

Originally Posted by asoriano

Now this is an unusual PSA slip:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1908-09-Cy-Young...item45f752b5cb

that's awesome.

as for the PSA flip, some have argued that this is an old but legitimate flip. Now I know that PSA previously did not specify the backs on the T206 flips. And the typeset of their oldest flips looked different than currently. I'm not really aware of any other evolutionary changes to the PSA flips. In this specific case, does anyone have a T206, or any other card, where the PSA flip doesn't specify the set name? For that reason alone, I'd be leery that this is a fake.

[canjond]

I still feel that if this was a fake flip, there would be one of two things... a very high dollar card in the holder, or a card that is really over-graded. In the case at hand, neither applies.

[FrankWakefield]

It matters not to me whether the slip in that slab is genuine, or not. I understand that is of significant concern to some. I have minimal skill in guestimating whether a slip is a new one or an old one. But I see PSA slips that get the 1909, 1910, 1911 dating wrong. All the time. And wrong about poses. And wrong series. And misidentifying players. They have a helluva time.

I do think the card is real. I bid the $50, and I won't be increasing that bid. In looking at the bidding system the next bid is $75, plus $11.25 commission, plus shipping... and that is getting the card up beyond what I think it's worth. My bid didn't reach the reserve so it doesn't matter to me. This is one 'outed' bid, and that's fine with me.

And it may well be a fake slip. I still think the card is real, I bid on that beat up card.

[Bosox Blair]

Guys, we need to avoid putting misinformation out there.

This is not simply an old flip. Not at all.

In every era of the PSA holder, T206 has been identified as T206. With no date whatsoever on the flip. If I'm wrong, show me (but I'm not).

[NOTE: after reviewing post #42 on this thread, it appears that there are a relatively small number of T206 cards that PSA identified on flips as 1911 and not T206. It is not as simple as saying it is an old flip - there are older PSA flips and newer PSA flips that all read only T206 with no date. It is also not tied to the presence of the # on the flip, as many with the # also are identified as T206.]

Yes, the font on this flip is consistent with one of the several older PSA fonts.

The flip in that holder is entirely consistent with how PSA identified Sporting Life cards when PSA was using that font...with the obvious exception that the flip has no reference to Sporting Life after the 1911.

I agree that one would most often expect a fake to be a higher value item. But this one has so many warning bells...not worth getting involved with.

Cheers,
Blair

[Bosox Blair]

See post above.

[FrankWakefield]

This shouldn't be that complicated. Can't someone who has PSA membership, or whatever it is a fellow has to deal with them, can't he email in the scan and they can look at the slip and number on it, and tell what the deal is??

[CW]

It appears to be a legit flip. I have definitely seen the # sign on the
right side of graded T206's in the past. It seems to be a clerical error
of some sort.

Just did a google image search and found at least one other card with
the odd "#" on the right. A PSA 9 Waddell portrait that recently sold
at auction....

http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetai...igher%E2%80%9D

[asoriano]

Everything is legit in regards to the Young posted above (including the flip).


Here is an example of a bogus PSA holder:

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by asoriano

Everything is legit in regards to the Young posted above (including the flip).

What is it you mean by "legit'? That a clearly altered card found its way into a "1" holder with a flip that makes no sense and is not the right one for a T206?

There are lots of different fakes out there.

(And to CW, the # has nothing to do with it. I know there was a period when this was on flips.)

You can all buy what you want with your money - not a penny of mine would go near that card.

And it ain't just the holder - it is the card (more importantly) too.

Cheers,
Blair

[asoriano]

PSA made an error in regards to the year.

Yes, it should say "1909-1911" or "T206" instead of the 1911 designation.

In my opinion, this card is not altered. I bet if this card was regraded today it would probably come back as a PSA 1 with the "MK" designation (but I've never really seen an alteration on the BACK of a card).

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by asoriano

PSA made an error in regards to the year.

Yes, it should say "1909-1911" or "T206" instead of the 1911 designation.

In my opinion, this card is not altered. I bet if this card was regraded today it would probably come back as a PSA 1 with the "MK" designation.

Well I said I was done, but I'm sucked back in for one more.

Again, please - for the sake of those who use this board for information - don't say stuff that isn't right at all!

PSA flips for T206 do not EVER say 1909-1911, as you state above. NOT EVER.

You are entitled to your opinion about what "altered" means, and long debates can be had about that. But I think it is widely accepted that re-coloring and/or re-lettering text that has been ripped off a card is alteration and not MK.

OK, I promise I'm not posting on this thread again.

Cheers,
Blair

[asoriano]

Blair,

I will respectfully disagree with you on this issue.


Best,

Turner Engle

[teetwoohsix]

I'm still trying to figure out what is up with the back of the card All that paper loss and the "Pi" in "Piedmont" is still there on top of the paper loss?

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I'm still trying to figure out what is up with the back of the card All that paper loss and the "Pi" in "Piedmont" is still there on top of the paper loss?

I believe the word used to describe that (by one former board member), is "underprint."

[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.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Bosox Blair

In every era of the PSA holder, T206 has been identified as T206. With no date whatsoever on the flip. If I'm wrong, show me (but I'm not).

Yes, the font on this flip is consistent with one of the several older PSA fonts. But PSA has never, ever used those identifiers on a T206 card.

The flip in that holder is entirely consistent with how PSA identified Sporting Life cards when PSA was using that font...with the obvious exception that the flip has no reference to Sporting Life after the 1911.

I agree that one would most often expect a fake to be a higher value item. But this one has so many warning bells...not worth getting involved with.

Cheers,
Blair

I'm glad that someone else saw what I saw.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Jim VB

I believe the word used to describe that (by one former board member), is "underprint."

Thanks Jim. I had to go deep into the archives to find out what "underprint" was ..........still a bit confused- alot of the old scans are gone. From what I gathered, alot of board members weren't "buying" the term

Sincerely, Clayton

[CW]

Originally Posted by Bosox Blair

Guys, we need to avoid putting misinformation out there.

This is not simply an old flip. Not at all.

In every era of the PSA holder, T206 has been identified as T206. With no date whatsoever on the flip. If I'm wrong, show me (but I'm not).

First off, I'd like to mention that the Piedmont printing over the back
damage on this card is cause for concern, and I'm not overlooking this
oddity.

Secondly, I don't know why we can't have a simple discussion/debate over
facets of our hobby without getting frustrated and making the claim that
"we're never going to post in this thread." I mean, this is a board
for discussions and we're all adults. Nobody here is questioning anyone's
knowledge or expertise, just offering opinions.

Lastly, I'd like to offer another example of a PSA flip with this same
clerical error. I cannot attest to the validity of this card or slab, but
at least we have another example of both the "1911" and the "#".

Found at:
http://www.nowbatting19.com/aboutuspage.html

[canjond]

Chuck - thanks for posting that. I haven't read this thread since yesterday so I missed about 20 posts. However, I will have to disagree with Blair (in a non-argumentative way). I have seen a few of these 1911 slabs and even owned some. I stick by what I said earlier, they were old style flips. I can't say I've seen hundreds, but have owned at least 3 or 4 and the cards were definitely real and the slabs were also real.

[Abravefan11]

Regarding the back damage, I seem to recall a card someone posted some time ago where the back had areas missing the top layer of paper all around it yet parts of the ink font still remained. Does anyone else remember this card or have a scan?

[CW]

This might be the old thread, Tim, to which you are referring. Many of the
scans are missing, though (this must be the same one Clayton refers to at
the top of this page). Here's the archived thread...
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=90787

[Bosox Blair]

Chuck W.,

Thanks for posting the Wagner. I admit that card and the Young are now the only ones I've ever seen like that. I literally looked through thousands of scans of PSA T206 to check, and those remain the only 2 I've ever seen like that.

As I mentioned before, I have no problem with the # on the flip. That is not a warning sign to me because I've seen it many times, but always with "T206" and not "1911".

An example of that is on the red Cobb in this lot from last year's REA - it has the # and the T206 identification:

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...x?itemid=13347

As you can also see from that lot, the Johnson - a very old PSA graded card - also identifies by T206 only.

It is a mystery to me why for some period (which must have been very, very short) PSA put 1911 on these flips and not T206 .

Anyways, thanks very much for adding an important piece to the discussion.

Cheers,
Blair

[FrankWakefield]

The more I look at that back the less I think someone has doctored it with blue ink. I think the card was minimally pasted in a scrapbook, then torn out. (Oh, if they'd only soaked the card, instead of altering it by tearing part of the back.) The paste didn't stick where the print was, the print remained. I think if that card were seen in person the missing surface paper area would be up close to that "P", but not into it.

I understand the thread started out about the slip. It is a worn card, but it isn't as horrible as everyone seems to think. I won't win it, someone else has bid. They bid $60, I might have done that had I known how, as I looked at the site it seemed the next bid it would take was $75. Maybe someone can fill a hole in their collection.

[Abravefan11]

Frank I believe your absolutely correct about this card. If you look closely at the area just below the "Pi" in Piedmont you can see where the tear stopped.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by CW

This might be the old thread, Tim, to which you are referring. Many of the
scans are missing, though (this must be the same one Clayton refers to at
the top of this page). Here's the archived thread...
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=90787

Yeah Chuck, that's one of the few I read Some interesting stuff going on in some of these old threads

As far as the back of this card, Tim and Frank, you both know alot more than I do about cards so I'll leave this one alone And, I would also really leave that card alone too

Sincerely, Clayton

[CW]

Originally Posted by Bosox Blair

Chuck W.,

Thanks for posting the Wagner. I admit that card and the Young are now the only ones I've ever seen like that. I literally looked through thousands of scans of PSA T206 to check, and those remain the only 2 I've ever seen like that.

Your welcome, glad to help. I may not have a ton of card knowledge,
but I can do a mean google search!

It is a mystery to me why for some period (which must have been very, very short) PSA put 1911 on these flips and not T206 .

My guess is that for a short period of time they had a new data entry
person who was not properly trained, and a few screw-ups made it past
the QC people. In fact, the initial mistake may have been made by the
original submitter, who incorrectly wrote "1911" on the submission form.

BTW, good eye on the back damage, Frank.