Posted By:
Louis BollmanI ran into an issue with a T206 print error / flaw about 18 months ago that neither PSA nor SGC would address on their labels. The card was (is, I still have the card) a Clark Griffith Portrait that is missing about 40% of name and / or team (it has been a while since I've even looked at it). Both companies agreed that it was not altered but neither company would note it on the label. My position was that it was no different than the "nodgrass" except that it is far more pronounced and noticeable than any "nodgrass" that I have seen.
I never tried the email campaign with either company. Actually, I never really pushed the issue so the card remains in the holder that PSA originally returned it to me in ( I forget it's either a 4 or a 5 just glad to have the card).
I do think that my Griffith is in not nearly as pronounced in appearance as the missing ink cards that have been the subject of most of this thread but it is, at least, an undisputed full production card that has not been altered to remove ink (the card came in a group of about 150 T206 and T205 cards from outside the hobby).
The position that both PSA and SGC took was kind of odd to me; both stated that if it showed up in a price guide / reference book as a variation then they would note the variation on the label. This was odd to me due to the fact that the grading companies see more cards than those that publish the books at this point. I wonder if this card turned up 30 years ago (and was noted by Frank Nagy or Buck Barker) would it be in the books as a variation today or not.
Just some thoughts, I take no position either way. In my feeble attempts at collecting I just like owning a card that I've seen fewer times than say a Wagner.
Louis Bollman
louis@louisbollman.com
p.s. I am in no way comparing my Griffith to a Wagner but it has to be better than a Doyle (kidding of course).