Ricky Wright signed 1987 topps-stolen scan?
 

Be careful guys, saw this auction on ebay starting at $150...this scan looks like it was stolen from a collector from sportscollectors.net.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/251401640453?redirect=mobile

Only 2 feedbacks with none since 2010 = Scammer.

I'm not on the other site, can you post a link to where it was originally shown?

Ken

Link
 

Actually if you check out his items for trade I am pretty sure it is the same guy.

Wright, Ricky BB Card In Person 1987 Topps. Relative claims it was acquired IP in 1987, currently at PSA/DNA.

Maybe I missed it at some point, but does anyone know why Wright won't sign his 87 Topps card?

And sorry if I missed this also, but can somebody tell me why anybody would want a signed card by Ricky Wright in the first place (signed or not)? :confused: I mean...did some real person actually pay over $800 for this?!?!

Oh..and this...I'm totally baffled:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/160951429134...orig_cvip=true

$5,000+??!!:confused::confused::confused::confused :

and 4 bidders were over a thousand dollars??

wright only signed a handful, people need it to complete the set (87 topps set popular). probably not a 5k card but 2k easy. of course i wouldn't trust psa to authenticate a 5k sig, for that money i better see wright sign it himself. lots of debate whether the current card is legit or not.

I saw a post on here back in January about that (Wright not signing this card), but still....even if a collector/dealer was obsessed enough to pay that much to complete a signed set, I still think that's crazy. Even if you were to later sell the set, you would need to bump up the price by $4K-$5K to make any kind of gain and that's just insane.

What is his problem with the card? Doesn't look like a bad likeness or anything. Is it JUST the '87 he's pissy about or signing in general? Sounds like Clancy Smyres.

I would think the scariest part would be that he could decide some day to start signing the card for a private signing or a charity, and suddenly the $5,000 card is down to a couple hundred if not less.

I can't find anything in a google search and I asked here days ago with no response so I'm not sure anyone knows why. It would be interesting to find out the reason.

I swear there was a thread about him right here a while back. Maybe not a dedicated thread, but remember reading his story here.

I don't know about Wright's situation, but I can relate a similar stance by another player.

Kelly Gruber will not sign his 1990 Leaf card. That set is being collected by a LOT of people and that apparently will be a hole never filled.

Gruber will sign anything else, and is a really good IP signer (or was), great guy even, but he will politely decline to sign the 1990 Leaf. Apparently he wants that card to be very valuable and said in time he will only sign them for his sons. Whether his sons sell them off, who knows, but if they ever come to market I would expect some insane prices. I have traded with a couple of very well heeled collectors of this set who are down to a handful…including Gruber.

I remember Gruber being exceptionally nice the last time I saw him and telling me the same story, although at that time he was not signing ANY Leaf card as he skipped over my '90, '91 and '92. He did sign my 1993 Leaf though and I thought he must have just overlooked it since they went glossy that year and I thought maybe he didn't recognize it as a Leaf.

With Wright, he is a difficult signer in general, on any card. It's not just the 87T he does not sign, he doesn't sign ANY Topps cards. The only other Topps issues he had were 86 Traded and 87 Texas Rangers Leaders card. He cannot be found on those cards either, but they don't get the publicity of the 87T. Collectors are happy to have Geno Petralli or whoever the other guy is sign the Leaders card and call it done, while there are fewer collectors working on the 86 Traded set.

I don't want to come off as the Grinch here, but I have always felt that the 1987 Topps set is arguably the least attractive set ever. Additionally, it was so massively over produced.

Why would anyone choose that set to be the one that they would want to get completely signed? :confused:

I believe you are in the minority on that...no doubt it was overproduced, probably more so than any Topps set ever, but if you took a poll I would bet it's the most popular design of all 1980s Topps sets.

I take offense to that Scott! (*WINK*) The 1987 set was ICONIC! That was the first set I remember collecting and would go to all the drug stores and get my 35 cent pack any chance I could.

I used that same template to announce the arrival of our first born!

http://vmedia.rivals.com/uploads/1080/1497124.jpg

That is awesome on so many different levels I don't even know where to begin.

Tom C

Wow, I never would have guessed. :confused:

BTW, two non-Topps sets that I always liked from the 1980's and 1990's were 1984 Donruss and 1990 Leaf. Both were really great sets to look at. I loved opening these packs when I was still a card collector....

Matt,
Sorry about that, Chief!

I do love this card! Nice job, it looks great! How old is your son now?

As far as aesthetics go the 1984 Donruss set was IMO their best...I didn't care much for new cards after Upper Deck got involved and things started getting shiny. If I were to collect new cards today I think just about the only product I would buy would be the Heritage stuff that Topps puts out...I just like real cardboard.

Thanks! He's 4, my second son is 2 (Sports Illustrated cover for his announcement), and seeking ideas for the announcement for our third that is due in the middle of 2014 :)

The Sporting News

What an awesome idea, wish I would of thought of something like this when my son was born. Great card.

I don't collect cards anymore unless there autographed, but the 87 Topps were the first packs I started to buy and introduced me into the hobby. Remember getting a Jose Canseco in a pack and thinking it was the greatest card in the world at 10 years old.

Scott -

While I sort of agree with you, in terms of autographs, the 1987 Topps set takes a sharpie exceptionally well and the set is filled with waist up portraits and head shots. So from a pictorial perspective it's a good set for 'graphing.

Additionally, since it was so grossly overproduced, there was no shortage of them lying around when heading out to get IP autographs. Just a guess, but there may be more signed 1987 Topps cards than any other just because…

But yeah, it is a butt-ugly design.

Gotcha! That makes sense as far as having lots of waist up portraits and head shots... Thanks for the explanation.

looks like the OP was correct: this seller never sent the card!
http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAP...84.m1423.l2776