Leonard Helicher (RIP) had a card business and took out ads in local papers. It lead to Fleer employees smuggling out cards to sell on the side. Yes, Lenny had quite a stash. Lots of rare items but none of them 'originated' with him. He bought/sold FF related items for many years. He is missed. Coming up on 2 years already....

Wow, very fascinating! To keep up that interest for so many years is an accomplishment itself. But yes, a sad ending.

I have little doubt the clear (n0) and blue tint (b1) versions are the rarest ones. After that, I have no idea. I believe there are only 3 known cards of the n0 version and 5 known cards of the b1 version. If anyone out there has some n0 or b1 cards please shout out and we can update these numbers. Regardless I don't think final talleys will be high. Steve

Here are the 3 different green scribble versions. Anybody else have all 3 versions?

There was a previous thread about these cards and someone mentioned the 1985 mother’s cookies cards that had the Marlboro ad edited from a couple of them. I wanted to include those images from Jack Murphy Stadium here since that has become part of the topics being discussed in this thread. Also pictured is a more modern card, of an old image, of Randy pictured in front of another almost complete image of a Marlboro ad. More info coming soon.

Those are cool, thanks for sharing.

That is really cool. Thanks for sharing the pictures. On a somewhat similar note, I cropped the Marlboro sign from the stadium picture on your FB page and pasted over top of it a cropped scan of the sign on the clear version. I could make the clear sign version look a little lighter by putting it under better light but I didn't. Anyway, then I increased the transparency little by little on the clear sign card picture. My idea was to make a GIF of this and maybe using other versions too but I haven't figured that out. Steve

Attachment 502321

I wanted to circle back on the two light blue box stencil cards I referenced in post #249. I was able to get a few $50 PSA submissions and couldn't resist getting these slabbed. PSA just returned the cards. Overall nothing unexpected. PSA disagreed with me and both got the "Ad Partially Obscured" label.
Steve

Attachment 505856Attachment 505857

PSA Ad on Scoreboard vs PSA Ad Obscured vs PSA Ad Completely Blacked Out
 

What is usually a simple answer for 99.9% of cards is a problem too much of the time for PSA with the Marlboro error variations.

Let’s start with what should be an easy question. What is this card? Let’s say you own a 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson card and you ask yourself this simple question. According to PSA what is this card?

For pretty much any sports card ever produced you can answer this simple question by naming a few characteristics about the card. What player is on the card? What manufacturer produced the card? What year was the card produced? What is the card #? For the vast majority of cards ever made this will give you the answer for what card this is according to PSA.

Those questions don’t answer which of the above three variations the card is according to PSA. So what does PSA do to determine which of the versions they will label the card? Has anyone ever seen the definition of Ad on Scoreboard or Ad Partially Obscured or Ad Completely Blacked Out according to PSA? They’ve been using these labels for several years. With some of the biggest Marlboro collectors contributing to this thread I would think someone here could let me know the definition of each according to PSA?

PSA is very inconsistent with grading these for sure. I have many that would be classified as ad obscured that were marked as blacked out.

I would tend to say that if the Marlboro words are legible (usually with only a lighter red tinting), PSA usually will call it Marlboro Ad on Scoreboard, especially if there is no dark red box covering the ad.

Any green tints/scribbles usually seem to be labeled Marlboro Ad Obscured, and if it stands out clearly to PSA, a dark green box covering the ad will also get this same label.

This is similar to all the Ripken varieties, PSA does not seem to want to identify all the different varieties, and only identifies 5 different, whiteout, white scribble, black box, black scribble and FF.

it's a great question and PSA may not even know the answer to it themselves.

i have a bunch of them, all that you can certainly see the marlboro sign. and all of them are ad obscured. i've seen tons of them online that are marlboro on scoreboard that look like they barely have the sign on it. i'm at a shoulder shrug with this at this point, but would love to hear anyone else that knows more about it.

What is this card? My vote is that it is a card with a range of parallel versions (something I've heard others express and that just seems to fit my perception). My uneducated guess is that it was targeted for correction very early on due to the clarity and boldness of the sign in the clear version. I don't believe the sign would have been an issue on any of the tinted ones, but the clear sign is really in your face in comparison. I can imagine someone in quality control looking at the cards after an initial print run, seeing the clear sign on this particular card, and saying something like ok, we have to do something to take the focus away from the Marlboro sign here... if they had noticed the FF at this point the history of that card would be quite different too.

I don't think the TPG's have a standard process in place for assigning their label descriptions to this card. I don’t know how it actually works at PSA but here is my theory on why labeling for this card has not improved and may actually be been getting worse. We know there are at least 3 clear examples that have been graded by PSA. Around the same time the last one was graded (around September 2021), I saw a bunch more otherwise "Ad on Scoreboard" cards labeled "Partially Obscured"... and yes, I bought these up. My thought is that if a PSA grader's reference is the clear version all others look somewhat Obscured (particularly if there isn't a standard process they follow for identifying the version, e.g., holding under a given light brightness or scanning under the same settings, etc.). I'm wondering if during the "research" stage their staff searches online, sees all these photos of the 3 known clear cards (which for better or worse now appear much more often in web searches) and incorrectly assumes this clear card is the "typical" Ad on Scoreboard version.

While other versions try to correct the ERR of the Marlboro sign in different ways and to varying degrees the clear one has no correction applied at all. I believe it would be helpful if the label on the card better reflected the version of the card so that population numbers would be available for this particular “no-tint” version. If it would help operationalize things at the TPG's I'm actually in favor of some aggregation of versions with labels with something like: 1. No tint, 2. Blue Tint, Red Tint, Green Tint, 5. Low Tint, 6. Scribble, 7. Red Stencil, 8. BLUE Stencil, 9. Partially Obscured, 10. Completely Obscured. I agree this will likely never happen but dream it could. I've tried unsuccessfully for some time to get PSA to let me add a "set" of the Ad on Scoreboard variations but unfortunately to them everything with this label is just the same card.

Steve

Case in point
 

Case in point for buying the card and not the label -- particularly for this card. I'm not sure how anyone could label this one as Ad Obscured. Regardless I'm very happy with the non-preferred label discount.

Very nice pick up.:)

I have two Randy's at PSA currently (since 2/2021) and both would qualify for their "ad on scoreboard" label but both have received "ad partially obscured" labels. Even after submitti ng a request for correction, PSA has doubled down.

Same here - although I have not had them double down yet...I reported the error on the cards, and they haven't moved...been there over a year now.

1st in the sub had "ad blacked out" note

2nd in the sub had "ad on scoreboard" note

Sent the correction request for the 1st one and PSA changed them both to "ad partially obscured" which suggests to me that they felt confused by them and took a lazy way out. I emailed in reply to their "we have reviewed your requet" email and they have not updated them. Order has since moved to assembly.

Imagine if someone at that company took the time to learn about this card.

This sounds awful but similar to experiences I've had getting these graded. Did they ever revise the labels after receiving your email? I hope it worked out for you.

No reply to the email. Order moved to QA2 five or six days ago. Looks like they are committing to them. I will probably try again once they are in hand.

I have another 6-7 (various visibility of letting and cowboy) ready to go but hesitate due to the fact that buyers seem to be purchasing the slab regardless of accuracy. A “partially” notation is a loss of death if you’re looking to sell.

I am dealing with a similar situation/timeline - just had an order move to Q1 recently that includes 7 Marlboro Randy's - all of which I disputed as an error when they came back "Ad Partially Obscured."

No luck in them revising the labeling either...can't wait to get these back in hand, and then find some recent ones that have been floating around out there that say ad visible that are actually less visible than the ones they have of mine.

The only versions I've had luck getting PSA to change their initial labeling decision on are the br2 and rg2 versions (possibly the gr2 version as well but I can't recall offhand). They have never changed the initial label designation for me on other versions. That said, I have bought br2 and rg2 versions that were "incorrectly" labeled Ad Partially Obscured on EBay and PSA has agreed the labeling is a Mech Err and relabeled them for me as Ad on Scoreboard (free of charge and very quickly). Also, I've had some luck submitting one obvious Ad Partially Obscured card at the same time I submit several Ad on Scoreboard cards. We shouldn't have to re-teach the PSA graders about this card like this every time we submit for grading but I guess that is what it has come to...

With these responses you would think that PSA just makes up which label they apply. It seemed that way to me too, so I figured I would email PSA to ask how they determine which version they label the card.

1989 Fleer Randy Johnson #381

I'm interested in getting my collection of 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson cards graded, but I wanted to make sure I send the cards in labeled correctly. I have several variations of the cards ranging from the ad being very noticeable through the completely blacked out and not noticeable. I've seen several versions of PSA graded cards listed with no description, Ad on Scoreboard, Ad Partially Obscured, Complete Black Out and Completely Blacked Out as a description on the card. Can you please let me know what guidelines PSA uses to determine what you label as an Ad On Scoreboard, Ad Partially Obscured or some of the other descriptions. Thanks for your help.

PSA responded with this email:

“In regards to your question on varieties for the 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson #381, there are only 3 versions: Marlboro Ad, Ad partially obscured and Ad completely blacked-out. Our research department has seen all three numerous times. The first is clear, second is dim but still legible and the third cannot be read as “Marlboro” at all. We use the descriptions that the Standard Catalog provides.”

I tried to find the definition in the Standard Catalog to see what it said but I wasn’t able to ever come across it.

So, PSA has very vague and ambiguous definitions that they use combined with a completely random application of their standards when reviewing the cards.

If no one, including PSA, knows the difference between Ad on Scoreboard, Ad Partially Obscured and Ad Completely Blacked Out then why do they consistently sell for such different prices?

This is very interesting. I think the problem is that PSA hasn't defined a stable baseline for their comparison. I wish they would provide an example of what they mean by "clear". Right now they seem to be using relative clarity instead of absolute clarity when determining which label to use and this is causing a lot of inconsistencies. Imagine the grader looks online and sees a picture of one of the handful of clear ones out there. Now, looking at the definitions for their three labels he would give any br2, rg2, gr2 a label of Partially Obscured (since these are dim but still legible relative to the no-tint clear one they saw online). However, if someone sent in a br2 and a rg3 for grading I bet the grader immediately sees the difference in sign clarity between the two and gives the former the Ad on Scoreboard label (since it is relatively clear) and the later Ad Partially Obscured (since in comparison it is dim but still legible). The recent increase in clear card pictures online has changed what was previously a semi-stable baseline of "clear" on their scale and made things worse.
At a minimum I really do think there should be at least one new label description (at the beginning of PSA's scale) for "no tint".

https://www.ebay.com/itm/30445003074...p2047675.l2557

Interesting sale. I tried several times, on a few forums, I believe, to point out this variation but most replies seemed to think that it is was just me unable to catch the boxed sign but I have definitely pulled my copy out more than once and thoroughly examined it under different light sources and concluded it is a fully flush blackout over the area.

Sadly, rare or not, it will likely never catch on as a "must have" among the varieties but this certainly has to be among the tougher transitional versions being so close to the final one and with so few samples having turned up (unless I missed some, which is highly likely).

My recent correspondence with PSA... changes nothing
 

I wanted to share my recent correspondence with PSA below regarding the labeling of the clear version. It changes nothing but does hint that more than three of these cards may exist. Steve


My research request to PSA:
Jun 14, 2022, 07:42 PDT

The below sites indicate there are 3 known examples of the 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson w/ No Tint. All 3 are graded PSA 9 w/ certs 63221829, 15790561, 15790562. I request PSA add 1 new labeling category for “Marlboro Ad No Tint” so the label more accurately describes this version. The benefit to PSA is recognizing a no tint version will define a objective baseline for comparison in grading this card, i.e., you can more easily define other label categories in comparison to a defined No Tint version.


Response from PSA:

Jun 14, 2022, 13:11 PDT

Steve

Thank you for submitting your request to the Customer Request Center.

I do understand this suggestion, and how this would affect our labeling process. We do realize there are many versions of this card, but we have chosen to recognize our current varieties to simplify the identification process. There is a lot of room for interpretation, and degrees of obscurity, which leaves a lot of different versions. Our research management have identified the hallmarks of each for PSA staff to follow, and to try to define each variation would be difficult to process.
We do appreciate the suggestion, but we are going to stick to our current standards.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Regards,




Response from me:

Jun 14, 2022, 13:45 PDT


Thank you for the response. I definitely understand not wanting to differentiate between all of the versions of this card. I fully agree there are many, many versions of this card that differ in the level of tint over the Marlboro sign and it can be arbitrary on where to draw threshold tint levels. I only reached out about this particular no-tint version because it differs from all other versions due to having absolutely no tint over the Marlboro sign. Also, having a special label designation for this version likely impacts only 3 cards with PSA certs 63221829, 15790561, 15790562 ( I own the first two certs and know the person who owns the third). I understand that currently PSA recognizes only 3 versions of this card (Marlboro Ad, Ad partially obscured and Ad completely blacked-out). According to your research department, the first is clear, second is dim but still legible and the third cannot be read as “Marlboro” at all. Based on my recent experience purchasing PSA graded versions of this card and having my own cards graded, I believe the presence of the uncategorized “no tint” version is causing some inconsistencies in labeling of other versions of the card. The benefit to PSA of recognizing the “no tint” version is that it would define a stable/objective baseline for comparison in the grading this card (i.e., you can more easily define in your process what is meant by "clear" in comparison to a defined "No Tint" version). Also, the change will only impact a small number of cards (likely only 3 cards would need to have their label designation changed from "Marlboro Ad on Scoreboard" to something like "Marlboro Ad No Tint" or "Marlboro Ad Clear"). I am happy to pay any associated costs of relabeling the three cards.


Thank you again for your consideration.




Response from PSA:

Jun 14, 2022, 15:55 PDT

Hello Steve

I do understand the difference that you have pointed out, and acknowledge that identifying the different iterations of the Marlboro ad can be a challenge for our team. I also acknowledge that you have two very unique cards, and important historical cards for this error.
Our research management team has made a decision, and in the near past, I have asked them for clarity about our definitions of the various "blackout" types of the Marlboro ad. We are only recognizing the current versions of the ad at this time.

While I do understand how special your cards are, we have to think not just about recognizing the three certs you mentioned, but all the others which might be out there, for the entire grading history of this card. Any changes we make in matters like this,impact hundreds or thousands, or hundreds of thousands of cards., not just three, so we don't make changes, or in this case, recognize new versions, without careful thought. We have to consider the ramifications beyond just the few you might be aware of, and as a business, we aren't willing to make those changes.

Your cards are still special, and historically important without a special label, however. They are a part of collecting history, and the fact that they are not specifically designated by PSA does not diminish them at all.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Regards,

I have gone through this exercise with them for 10+ years (and as recently as December) in an attempt to get various promos and variations labeled. Always, always, some years later, I see some bulk submitter selling them on ebay with their proper labelling. Good effort!

Ahh yes... the always fun
"You're right, but I don't want more work" response.

I love to bash PSA as much as the next person. Saying that they should have 2 different flips. One that says corrected and one that says error version or something similar.

Even those of us that super collect these things can't agree on all the different variations. We sure can't expect PSA to get it correct.

You're right - but they could sure do the hobby & the people that pay them justice by doing it right.

https://www.psacard.com/articles/art...rading-process


I would assume that PSA isn’t using their Genamint AI technology for grading these cards yet. PSA says “It will also provide unique card identification – or “card fingerprinting” – by identifying the exact card in order to track provenance, resubmissions, condition changes and other attributes over time.” Genamint software, at a minimum, should be able provide a little bit more consistency when it comes to labeling Ad on Scoreboard vs Ad Partially Insured. It should also be able to prevent any of the error cards being labeled as Ad Completely Blacked Out and conversely any of the common cards/non-errors being labeled as Ad on Scoreboard/Ad Partially Obscured. The inconsistency and mislabeling are continuing with cards graded very recently with too much frequency to be an actual result of AI technology.

There isn’t a more relevant card to show that the Genamint AI software technology works than the 1989 Fleer Marlboro errors. It makes me excited about the future proper grading of these cards. If PSA is able to fingerprint an exact card, the changes made by Fleer to the error cards should be both easily traceable and also quantifiable with their software. PSA is telling us that they have the technology to grade the cards properly, so at some point why wouldn’t we expect them to get it correct?

IF and that is a very big if they can "fingerprint" each card at best they might be able to pick out cards that have been resubmited.

To me this card and the slight tint differences will never be listed by each variation because of the very slight tinting differances. The Bill Ripken to me is the perfect card because there are very distinct differances in them.

It just is maddening, infuriating, when you see cards listed on eBay that are "Marlboro Ad on Scoreboard" that are LESS VISIBLE than ones that get the "Ad Partially Obscured" label.

Of course when you reach out to PSA about it, they just throw their hands up in the air and tell you there is nothing they can do about it.

Frustrating!

I would like to see the variations on the label one day

Did one of you get this? It was purchased just as I opened the counter offer. Congratulations to whoever got it.

That would be me, good sir!

you gonna open it? would love to hear how that goes

Will most likely be sending to BBCE first and then probably open a box or two. May sell a couple, too.

nice nice. keep all of us randy marlboro nerds posted :)

Will do - I am hoping there are 20 boxes with the Clear Marlboro showing.

Ha!

Congratulations! I've never seen one with such an early code. I hope you get a bunch of clears and blues!!

Anyone interested in a weekend project?

I posted 50 RJ rookies for sale in the summer.

No Marlboro but maybe some of these other variations?

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/top...ink_source=app

Best,
Ed

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Do you have better pics of the sign area? The ones I can make out are all the fully blacked out version.

Relist the Johnson cards with way better pictures and a realistic price and they might sell.

Would need to see what version every card is. Your price would be good if they all had the box version error. The regular version like the ones that can be seen in your listing are $.50 cards on a good day IMHO.

Thanks- I'm good

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

https://www.sbnation.com/2022/10/12/...o-nfl-mariners

Maybe Randy’s passion and knowledge of photography ties into the story of the Marlboro advertisement appearing directly behind The Unit in both the 1989 Fleer and 1987 Donn Jennings cards. It seems plausible that Randy could have picked or contributed to his placement in the photos. It may be more than a coincidence the Marlboro ad and iconic Liberty Bell are located behind him. The image on the 89 Fleer has some amazing depth of field and none of the other photos taken of players that day had any similar angle/background.

is there any direct interview with randy asking him about this?

Just in case anyone is looking for an instant collection of Randys, I'll be parting with my collection.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=329078

Great cards GLWS.

Thank you. Now if only I could magically show them online as they appear in hand.

That said, I can't say that I really want to sell them...

I hear you. I have always had trouble getting good pics of them. What works best for me is taking a picture of them in direct sunlight.

I'm sorry to hear it but understand too. I swear it seems like PSA is trying to kill this card. I've never seen their labeling convention so out of whack. I'm currently battling to get this one relabeled as Ad on Scoreboard but they are holding firm on the Partially Obscured label. I just don't get it...

It is not just that card they don't discriminate. They will screw up any card at any time for any reason.:D

Did you ever get the somewhat similar card I sent you graded? Been meaning to ask for a while.

Yep - and yet, you can search eBay and other sale sites and see "Marlboro Ad on Scoreboard" cards that show corrected versions, black boxes, partial ads showing, etc.

It is so dumb.

Ben, this is actually a different card than the one you sent me. I cropped the above pic from this one (see the uncropped card below). I bought this already graded card on eBay last month. I just sent you a PM about the similar one you sent me.

That is why I said somewhat similar.:) The one in the post is a very nice card. Sadly as I age and my eyesight gets worse I have less and less interest in the Johnson cards. With the many versions a person needs great eyes to appreciate them fully.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/16587205026...Bk9SR9rX-v6wYQ

Pardon my language, but is this a fucking joke?

Yes and no. That is just the normal quality of grading by PSA. On the other hand I love screw ups so I will be bidding on it.

It just ticks me off when I am sitting on a mountain of clearer Marlboro ads that were labeled as "partial" and then I see this nonsense.

What a joke.

Agreed. It doesn't make sense to me either. Obviously they just don't care. In my opinion I would rather they ditched their labeling convention on the card entirely if they can't apply it consistently (and communicate the convention to collectors). At least then people wouldn't be confused by inconsistencies in labeling the exact same variation multiple ways.

Easier way to view Marlboro letters in blue stencil cards
 

It can be a little difficult to see the "Marlboro" letters in blue stencil (i.e., negative) version cards shown in posts #284 and #301. As my eyes get worse I need to tilt the card just so in the light for the letters to appear clearly. I just found that if you shine a black light on the sign the letters stand out immediately and quite clearly. In case anyone is interested, here are a couple pics showing the cards with my black light pen shining on the signs.

Unless the lights are on bright in a room it can be hard to differentiate versions outside of the clear one. This little trick with the blacklight should help me find the blue stencil ones quickly from now on.

That is a great tip. Any idea how many are known? They are a fairly new version to me.

I'm only aware of 4 of these blue stencil cards currently (I have 2 light blue stencils and 1 dark blue (which is a more "blue box" like stencil) and Hatorade I believe has has one dark blue one). However it is a more obscure version that people may not immediately realize they have (unlike the blue/turquoise tint, and clear versions which immediately stand out). You had mentioned to me that the 2 blue stencil cards (one with darker blue and one with lighter blue) are really the same version - and the difference between them is the ink level. In that case I would expect many more of these to be out there somewhere with varying degrees of blue ink level between the dark and light ones I have.

Hopefully this blacklight "trick" will help more come out of the woodwork. If anyone finds any of these blue stencil cards it would be great if you could post pics of the signs on the cards for comparison. For this purpose the blacklight trick works really well too.

This card just sold and went for more than I would pay. Any guesses on what version it actually is? It is obviously not a corrected version.

How can you say it is not a corrected version based on the pictures in the listing?

Look above his left ear and tell me that is a corrected version.:)

Gotcha.

I don't view that card and the one without the gap between his ear as anything significant. Point of my original post was that this is no way, in any possible manner, an ad visible card.

The gap just means it is anything but the corrected version. I would guess it is one of the super dark green box cards.

That isn't necessarily true - there are black/corrected (not the final version) versions without the gap that show no ad or box.

I have never seen one. I believe Dylan once said he had one or seen one but that is the only time I have heard of one. Do you have one?

Yes, I have multiple of those.

Absolutely have seen what appears to be this type. I say what "what appears" because all efforts have been exhausted to make out a box or any remnant of the sign in the two examples I have owned. Yet that little notch is there. Maybe someone with more advanced methods could reveal more detail?

I had previously been convinced that the only RJs without the notch are full, blacked out corrections.

I'd love to see a pic or pics of them if you get the chance to post them.

1989 fleer could be its own netflix doc

Could you post a picture of them all together?

Here is one of them.

https://ibb.co/RjhgTmL

That is just the normal corrected version.

Look at the slightly higher black bar below the Bell. The version that sold has the shorter line the stops just after the bell like the many Marlboro versions.

Here are a couple close ups to show the difference in that area.

Yep. 100%

Rehold is back
 

The card I posted a picture of on 12/22 has been reholdered by PSA.... but $39 later (including shipping) the label stayed the same. Here is the new scan from PSA. I still don't get it. I guess they are no longer putting the Ad on Scoreboard label on any version other than the clear?? After so much back and forth with them on this particular submission I will not be sending any more RJs to PSA. Be careful if having this particular label from a TPG matters to you. Steve