Ken griffey jr no name 89 UD rookie
 

Hello this is my first time posting. Glad to find such a website. I've collected since about 96. Anyway I have seen on ebay a few times rarely no name upper deck cards but I was able to acquire this. How rare is this card? Thanks!

Picture
 

Here it is hopefully

Another example
 

Closed listing from ebay

Pretty sure these are fake. From what I remember you could use a pencil eraser to remove the names. Welcome to the forum!

I would be very skeptical that they are authentic.

Scary! I just made one in a couple of minutes. I can tell if I hold it up at an angle to the light that some rubbing occurred. In fact, i missed a spot of his last name that you can see in the scan. It is obvious if you are looking for it, but I also know that I did it and am looking for it specifically. Someone not looking closely could probably be fooled. This was a quick try based on the comments above. I'm guessing someone could perfect this method over time on junk cards and then work up a Griffey or other better card for big bucks!

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81...psb674caef.jpg

Card is now on ebay with a BIN of $20 just to see what happens!!

KIDDING, OF COURSE! Now it is a rare voided, black logo 1/1!!

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81...ps491e348f.jpg

1989
 

This was fascinating

I guess, for the original poster, is that people are leery the card was actually produced by Upper Deck like this. All of the other spots on the card that use black have the black, and they would have likely been printed on the same pass.
Looks like it is easily faked. There are approximately 60,000 sent in for grading to PSA, but ZERO Ken Griffey Jrs are noted to have a NNOF variant.

Maybe the same thing with the 1990 Topps Frank Thomas rookie card :D

Thomas
 

If you have not seen it, you should seek out the CU thread on that card and the several other affected cards from the same sheet. It is a great resource

Yeah, the Frank Thomas NNOF has bleeding of blackless areas on about 12 other cards including some of the All-Star cards and half of Marcus Lawton's name missing. Plus on true NNOF Frank Thomas cards, the black border around the card is missing in a diagonal pattern.

100% absolutely fake. As others have said, the erasing of the black ink on these cards and the 1990 cards was fairly common back then during the height of the error craze. These cards are almost always just missing the names on front. I mistakenly purchased a 1990 Dale Murphy recently. Found a 1989 Tony Gwynn in a giant lot too, both altered by eraser.

Gary Carter and Gary Sheffield are the only two missing black ink (on back, 1990 issue) Upper Deck cards that I can confirm as legit, non-erased/tampered. A solo copy of a 1991 Don Mattingly missing his stats on back has floated around online and the owner confirms that is is not rubbed off and gloss is intact.

Fakes
 

Brings up again the issue of whether fakes have any collectible value in themselves. If for, example you have the Thomas no name, or the 58 Herrer, the Campos Black Star, or partial black star, the 57 Bakep , or the real 89 Griffey, or the Fleer 59 Ted Signs, or the many versions of the Rypken FF, do you add known fakes to your collection, labeled as such. I have done that for some of these and other cards.

I think so. To a degree, at least. I would love to own a copy of the obvious fake 1990 Frank Thomas NNOF that circulated during the late 90's early 00's (the one with the black box intact around the name), as it looks very close and is a confirmed fake. But these cards that are created via damage are absolutely NOT collectible to me. Supposing someone were to reprint the griffey to an exact likeness without his name on front, I would definitely find it an interesting novelty and of some worth.

We should all be thankful that McWilliam didn't think of printing up a few thousand NNOF variations while he was reprinting all the regular Griffeys and reverse negative Murphys.

.....and French Hockey.

Such a bummer. But oh how I love opening those boxes today!

89 ud nnof
 

I wouldn't take the chance. Had some fun and made one real quick for the same issue. Didn't use an eraser and re-added the lost gloss. Can still tell if angled under a halogen. Just a bit more time and it would be difficult to notice. Enjoy!

Attachment 175634

Kevin Saucier