A slabbed reprint by SGC?
 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1913-Nationa...item5ae4918ea2

This sure looks like a repro to me, the corners are not even close to the correct cut and the image is bad.

I say reprint.

Agreed.

Looks too grainy and too brown for my liking. Many, many reprints of these cards.....some can be tough to tell too.

Compare this National Game card to the other National game cards he has listed.
There is a definite difference between them.

David

Corners are wrong, color is wrong...wrong on all counts.

The slab looks a little frosty to me.

Looks like a reprint to my eyes!!!

I can't imagine someone tampering with a holder on a card that's probably about $30 value, and I don't think this one appears to be tampered with. (I know, I know - ended the sentence with a preposition...)

But I totally agree that this looks like a reprint that got slabbed by SGC.

Some reprints can be tough Leon, but when you sell yourself as the "experts" then darn it you better know what you are doing!

Too many mistakes in my opinion.

You guys gotta read the fine print. Read the item description, it indicates the following:

Item condition: Like New :D

Maybe, but they have saved me a minimum of $30,000 by finding color added before. No one is perfect. They shouldn't have graded this game card though.

Good point. I don't collect these cards so I was unaware of the value. Don't worry, I would be the last person to call the grammar police on a message board post. :)

If that's not a tampered slab then someone at SGC should be fired.

Anyone know if SGC stepped up to the plate on those Jim Rowe postcards yet?

looks 100% fake
 

may be a popped case i cant believe lummy or bob is that stupid.

it actually looks like
 

an older slab early to mid 2000s, regardless its pathetic.

its a reprint

This is where you and I differ my good friend.

Color added that can only be seen magnified with a loop and not the naked eye, who cares.

In the 1960s and 70s, we used to add a little color to make the appearance look better in our binder sets. My US Caramel Lou Gehrig had a huge spot of yellow covering white where paperloss was on the face. We didn't have flesh tone markers back then! Too funny.

Dan

Glyn, you summed it up nicely, PATHETIC is correct!

I care. I'd venture a guess that I'm not the only one either.

Dan- I am sure you wouldn't care if you bought a $27,500 Boston Garter Speaker, raw, and it had color added. You are right, I did care and returned it. It was bought with the guarantee it wasn't altered. The seller is a friend and it was a bummer for him. But I wouldn't pay that much for that altered card. Great folks and great friends disagree all of the time. You and Pops are still two of the best in my book.

Yes times have changed and I understand you need to protect your investment. Buy yourself a blacklight instead of trusting clueless people who know about 1/100th of what you know.

Cards were not that expensive in the old days and the naked eye appearance was more important than a portfolio purchase.

Dano

Amen, Dan. The black light is one of the easiest, misunderstood, and useful tools there is for a vintage collector.

One of the first vintage cards I bought was a T205 Matty with a chunk of paper missing from his nose. It only made sense to me to color it in - it was my card and I wanted it to look nicer. If I had given it any thought, I would have figured I increased the value by my actions. Now I know better and I simply would never buy a card that needed altering in order to look presentable.

Hey Dan
Nothing personal here, but a friendly debate. I have had a black-light, in working order, for 10+ yrs. The color wasn't fluorescent. When it was pointed out to me after the fact I saw it. I just missed it. They didn't.