questionable card in PSA holder in REA sale ?

[Archive]

Posted By: James Gallo

Please tell me I am nuts but that Hugh Jennings in the complete set that is in a PSA authentic holder looks fake to me.....

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=10223

Thoughts?

James G

Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andrew S.

It looks trimmed to me. No age toning at all. Maybe it was found inside the pages of a book after 90 years?

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Looks authentic to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Levy

IMO trimmed but real. I know that the colors are truly outstanding, but have seen other very high end cards like that for the CJ series.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

the card is authentic, I am the consignor, it was actually an SGC 70, but when it was crossed over, there was evidence of trimming (guh), so it was given the Authentic label. I can vouch for every card in the two sets, as I put hands on all of them.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

Looks good to me , just a bit narrow.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Ditto what everybody else has said. It looks fine.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Cashews

i'm just curious, why didn't you want it to stay in an sgc holder? i'm curious as to why you decided to build a PSA set rather than an sgc one.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony N.

I started out 5 years ago trying to build a '15 CJ set in SGC holders, and it's really tough. There is just a lot more available in PSA holders, and a lot of cards get sold and traded between the CU registry participants as well.
Over the years I've cracked about 40-45 SGC graded CJ's to have everything in a consistent holder. While I like SGC's holder a lot better, I prefer an entire set in the same holder for presentation and storage purposes, and it was more economical to go from SGC to PSA on this set for me than the other way round.
I have been a bit amazed (happily so) that virtually every card when cracked was graded at the same level. I know it's a small sample but from my experience the 2 companies are amazingly consistent with each other, with the exception of one set.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Basically with assembling both the '14 and '15 set at the same time, we wanted to get them on a set registry as an entire collection. The way the numbers worked when it came time to get them all graded, we had a higher percentage in PSA holders. I think there are pros and cons to both SGC and PSA, so any complaints that I have with PSA would probably be matched with some issues at SGC, then again maybe not.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Maybe the title of this thread should be changed?

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

It is original

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

Brian(OBAK)- agreed...out of respect to REA, please change the title.

...the consignor has come on here and clearly extinguished the thought that the card might be fake...

MS

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I don't think the title was fair to REA either, so I changed it. I didn't want to go too far as the original poster thought it was questionable...which has been discussed adequately.....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: brian

Doesn't seem the card is at all questionable. According to those on this thread, PSA got it right.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Like I said earlier in the thread, the card is legit, just a little skinny apparently. We put both of the sets together via members from this board, reputable dealers, parts from the Lionel Carter collection and some raw cards found on eBay, Mastro and other online auctions. All cards were graded by PSA, and sent directly to REA. There is nothing shady going on, again, I'll vouch for all the cards. If they weren't 100% authentic, they never would have made it into the set.

edited for spelling

[Archive]

Posted By: James Gallo

Before everyone continues to rip me to shreads, that card doesn't look right from that picture. The white looks too white and the color of the boarder looks to be the same as the color of the uniform.

That being said I never meant to imply anything shady from REA standpoint more so from the standpoint that PSA missed something which has happened before and will happen in the future.

Anyway I felt I needed to clear things up as to my thinking.

James G

Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

James - it is common practice on message boards to misinterpret someone asking a question about something as having already concluded that which he was asking about. Most of us read your question as just that. This is a message board and people should not get ripped for asking questions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

I agree with Matt, i was hoping that my original response to James's question would have quelled the rest of the responses. James and I worked together on several deals, and I do not think there was any malice in his question or his title.

No harm in opening up the floor to get an answer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

Brian, you seem like a class act.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

I missed something here because I didn't see anything wrong with the question or the answers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Brian, I'm guessing it must be very tough to let that 14 set go.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

Like Dan, I didn't see anything wrong with the responses. And I totally missed anyone getting ripped to shreds.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Jeff

the thrill of putting the set together was equal to the gut wrenching decision of letting it go. My partner was the money man, so ultimately the decision was his. I enjoyed the hunt, they are beautiful cards, and will make a great collection for someone. I kept 2 cards that were doubles, one from each set. This whole crusade started with 2 1914's that I got 15 years ago, Ping Bodie and Elmer Knetzer, they have returned to my collection in name, the actual cards are in the sets.

Rob

thanks for the compliment. I have enjoyed working with the people of this board, there are a lot of class acts on this board that made the whole process that much more fun.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I think the original title, before it was edited, gave somewhat of a connotation of improprity solely by the words used and obviously not intended. 'Twas the title though that got it off track, imo....regards