Any idea what's wrong with this one?

[Archive]

Posted By: John Effenheim

Why the authentic designation? I've been looking for an affordable Griffith for my Milwaukee player collection.
http://cgi.ebay.com/1887-N172-Old-Judge-Clark-Griffith-PSA-Authentic_W0QQitemZ8715376909QQcategoryZ31718QQssP ageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Perhaps the collector chose between the 1 and the authentic?

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

i'd say trimmed

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

I figured by the stains around the edge that it was a bad rebacking job by someone

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

It could be trimmed but I would agree with the possible rebacking comment. Most would generally take a PSA 1 to an authentic tag.

[Archive]

Posted By: robert a

I'd say it's been rebacked too.

[Archive]

Posted By: John Effenheim

Too bad they don't give you more detail when they give an authentic grade. The seller didn't know either.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Does PSA grade rebacked cards? I know SGC and GAI do not. Skimmed back, yes, but rebacked no.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

..............

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

On some caramel issues I'd rather take an "AUTH" over a 1 where the former looks like a 6 or 7 except for some tiny trim job which to the naked eye is unrecognizable and where the latter looks like it was stuck with gum on the bottom of Roger Clemens' spikes for an entire season. I realize that right now a 1 may bring more money over the aesthetically pleasing card but that might change in the future...