This bothers me. The flip makes it sound like it is the actual photo Topps used. Nothing about the photo indicates that. It is the same image from what looks to be a team issue. Should a flip list the image use if the photo itself is not the one actually used? I don't think the card should be referenced at all.
This one also is misdescribed:
it is not a 'proof', it is the original artwork that ESCO photographed through a halftone screen to make the printing plate for the card. A 'proof' would be a print made from the printing plate to check something about the card. This is a proof:
Is it too much to expect PSA to properly describe the item it is authenticating?
Also, to be clear, not casting shade on Lelands in any way. The description of the Russell does not suggest Topps used that example and the Clay description explains the item pretty well.