PSA N9 designation for an uncatalogued 1915 Cracker Jack variation - Now with scans!
 

I recently just submitted my first order to a TPG (PSA)...which means of course this long time raw collector has officially moved over to the dark side. Bwwwhahaha!

Ok, to get to my question. I wanted them to grade a 1915 Cracker Jack card I have that is potentially an uncatalogued variation. My card does not have a number on the back. I indicated on the form that this was an uncatalogued NO # variation. I got back the result of N9, which I looked up on their website and evidently is used to indicate either a card that does not fit their holders, or that it is an obscure issue that they do not grade.

Of course, this card is neither. It is just something that has not been seen before. With my examination of the card it appears to be a legit variation, but I wanted a grading company to examine it and confirm. Is PSA unwilling to provide that type of service? Should I try SGC instead? Is there an appropriate way for me to request a grading company to actually authenticate this potential variation? I of course would be interested if anyone has come across this situation before, or has some useful advice. Thanks.

Brian

I've found they won't grade a variation until it has been cataloged as such. I jumped thru a bunch of hoops getting them to final grade the Peterson RedCap variation in the '49 Leaf set as such, and it was only after I produced a few articles about it that they agreed to designate it. I suspect you'll have to have an article or two written about it before they'll decide to grade it.

Thanks Anthony, that is what I suspected...not willing to go out on the limb with their own examination. I would think that their expertise should be able to determine whether it is indeed a legit 'lacking number' card that has not been tampered with, and be willing to stand by it.

Is SGC any different in this regard?

Brian

I do not think sgc will grade
 

There was a time that a variation needed to be catalogued before it's graded. Not sure about now. Why not call and ask them then you will know for sure. I do not know how much research one expects for the nominal grading fees. If you expect all kinds of research etc. expect grading fees to be considerably more then current rates. Like Anthony stated do a little work try and get some articles published on it. The payoff would probably be worth the effort if you could get it catalogued. A rare variation from a popular set should realize some very good money.

Re: Cracker Jack Variation
 

I went through the same thing when I was trying to get the Pfeffer Chicaco variation cataloged. PSA and SGC wouldn't grade it until it was cataloged. Krause wouldn't catalog it until multiple examples had been certified by the grading companies. I wound up taking it to Beckett, who both cataloged and graded them.

It would be cool to see a scan.

In all my time buying and selling CJs, I have only found one other card without the number and the TPG determined it had been removed. Scans? You got me really interested here.

Hi All, I will post scans of the mystery Cracker Jack card (I have decided to be one of those posters who keeps everyone hanging in suspense) in the next few days.

And Steven, determining if the card's number has been removed or not is exactly what I would want the TPG to do. And I scream out to the world, is this too much to ask? Maybe I will try contacting them(is that too much to ask of me...perhaps).

A few years back I had a raw, unconfirmed M116 variation that I sent to an auction house, and the auction house sent it to the grader and it got encapsulated. Do I just not have enough pull, or is it like Glyn suggested, that my $45 bucks was just not enough for them to do the extra legwork?

Brian

Maybe that could be a route to take...send it to Beckett with a note explaining that it is possibly an uncatalogued variation, get them to grade and note it on their flip, then send to SGC or PSA and say, hey cross over this Cracker Jack variation. Or just leave it in the Beckett holder as a reward for their reasonable service.

Brian

A bit back, a board member (Peter U.) had a NNOF T206 that he had Scott F. and I examine in person for our collective opinion. We posted that the card was untampered with, and REA agreed. PSA then graded it. Though that wasn't a card variation for a catalog, but a printing error/anomaly. I don't know as I've never talked to anyone at PSA, but assumed PSA wanted such opinions before they grade it.

The card

I find it funny that PSA would rely on the unknown methods of a cataloguer, but not their own expertise, to determine if a variation is legit or not. I used to send uncatalogued cards to Bob Lemke all the time, and all he wanted from me was a black and white photocopy. They all ended up in the Standard Catalog.

Ok, I posted the scans on the original post which include a close-up of the top back of the mystery Cracker Jack card with no number visible...Mr. Vaughn. I swear it is not a size- shifting card, despite the scans that seem to indicate otherwise.

What do you all think?

Brian

You have precendence......

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=89755

That whole ordeal was a joke. They labeled it with a MC qualifier. I did learn that the methods used to remove ink on a modern card does not work on T206 cards. I also am not saying the card was altered but there was a lot of stray ink specks on the side and top borders with none on the bottom border.

I am not a fan of the fact that the words "Pitcher of the Chicago" all show signs of erasure at the top. Even "James L Vaughn" shows light fading. I think the card is altered. Sorry, I know that's not what you wanted to hear.

Hi Scott, glad to get your input. Of course I would love for it to be unaltered, but I am perfectly ok if it proves not to be an uncatalogued variation. I purchased this card in a group lot of Cracker Jacks from board member Jerry on one of his ebay listings about a year ago. He mentioned in passing in his lot description that this card might be a no # variation. I won the lot with the assumption that paper damage removed the number. When I looked at the card with magnification I could not see evidence of any paper loss, and it appeared unlikely that erasure or sanding had occurred (keep in mind I am no expert in the field, otherwise I would have a lot more unknown variations in my collection!). I see what you mean by the top line of text, but to my untrained eye it doesn't appear to have been caused by abrasion of some sort.

That is why I wanted PSA to check it over, which of course was obviously silly of me to have considered. I would love to hear other opinions about the card. I might eventually take the route of having some expert check it over in person to have a more definitive answer.

Brian

another
 

I got this in Scott Brockelman's auction

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1571587095

I think it's the same card. I see it's lighter, I don't think it was 'removed', I think there are other no number Vaughn's out there somewhere.

It is definitely the same card, as I was the consigner. It was determined under close examination that the number had been there, and the ink probably just erased. Cool card nonetheless, and glad a real fine collector ended up with it.

Brian

It is possible that the printing 'strike' (I am obviously a printing expert) just didn't have ink in the upper portion, as you can see that the top part of the upper line on the right side seems to be missing too.

Brian

The darker area where the print is indicate to me that the area outside of that was lightened by some process. ..

Are you talking about the white glare? :)

erased!

MJD