Anyone with experience with 1960 Topps Tattoos please chime in

[frankhardy]

I have a complete set of 1960 Topps Tattoos. My question has to do with the "tear" at the top of every one that I have.

I firmly believe that these are factory flaws and not "tears" when the package was opened. The reason I say this is because I have one that has this flaw, but the original paper that overlapped (the bottom that overlapped the top) was still stuck to the back part of the top thus COVERING UP the supposed "tear". To me, that makes it impossible for it to be a "tear", but rather a flaw with the paper before the wrapper was sealed.

Keep in mind that every Tattoo in my set has this flaw at the top. If this flaw were a tear from opening the package, then wouldn't the paper kind of go back together? These don't. It is almost like a "v" shaped opening. Here is a scan below of the particular Tattoo that made me think about this theory. I really and truly believe that EVERYONE in the hobby thinks that this flaw is a tear from opening up the wrapper. I, however, believe that it is a factory flaw.

You may say, "What is the big deal?" The big deal is that every Tattoos that PSA grades gets a low grade. If I could convince PSA that this is a factory flaw, could they not change there grading standards for this issue? If they did, I have some very, very high grade Tattoos in my possession.

Could someone give me an idea of the what the Pop Report says about these? I don't have access at this time.

Here is the scan. Look closely at the top edge. There is no way that this flaw is a rip. Please chime in with your thoughts.

[novakjr]

Every last one on ebay has the tear as well.

[frankhardy]

Here is more evidence to my theory. This is the Don Newcombe tattoo. Take a look at the top. The sliver that is still attached has been turned 90 degrees. If you turn it down 90 degrees, it fits right into the "v". Now, take a look at the sliver itself very closely. Does that not look like a machine buggered it up? See the "accordion" look to it?

Does anybody agree (or care)?

[scmavl]

That's exactly what it looks like to me, a catch in the machining process.

[novakjr]

Assuming this is a factory flaw, I still couldn't imagine changing the grading standards, because then you'd have to grade based on the degree of the factory damage. At best it will change the collector's perspective to understand that a lower grade is as good as it gets.. Just because a 5(just an example) is the highest grade possible, that doesn't mean that those 5's automatically should be given a 10.. This isn't a 1-10 worst to best available scale. If it were then I'd agree, you may have 10's. However, in any grading scale, each number corresponds with a specific grade. Mint is mint, and no matter where the damage occurred, these are not mint. None of 'em.

[Ease]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Assuming this is a factory flaw, I still couldn't imagine changing the grading standards, because then you'd have to grade based on the degree of the factory damage. At best it will change the collector's perspective to understand that a lower grade is as good as it gets.. Just because a 5(just an example) is the highest grade possible, that doesn't mean that those 5's automatically should be given a 10.. This isn't a 1-10 worst to best available scale. If it were then I'd agree, you may have 10's. However, in any grading scale, each number corresponds with a specific grade. Mint is mint, and no matter where the damage occurred, these are not mint. None of 'em.

+1