![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Brian Daniels
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1578872805 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: jeff s
Doesn't look good to me at all. On the other hand, you can count on the fingers of an dolphin's hand the number of PSA 6 or better T206s I've owned. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Julie Vognar
.... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Elliot
but the scan is very poor. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: B Hodes
It is a very wierd front scan (back is OK). I think the strange front image may be due to "technical difficulties." I know the seller and he's AOK. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: dan mckee
HAS TO BE REAL BRIAN, IT HAS BEEN GRADED BY PSA. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Jim
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Brian Weisner
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Dan Mathewson
...I see Brian Daniels' concern. One thing jumps out at me like neon: |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Lee Behrens
I'm with Dan on this one. The type set jumpout for me, looks like the reprint type set. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: MW
... |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: runscott
I would like to see a clearer scan of the print at the front bottom - I agree with the others that it's probably a scanner problem. Print at the bottom looks fake, but (seriously) must be real - PSA couldn't have missed it. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: TBob
if the card were not in a PSA holder everyone would be claiming it looks fake. The bottom line, then, is that PSA gives it a claim of authenticity. If you have that much faith in PSA, bid away, if not, I'd be leary... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Dan Mathewson
...everyone has seen EVERY card grading company make mistakes. Some (AAA, PRO, etc...) make them deliberately and carry absolutely no trust. They are in the business to misrepresent and commit fraud. Bottom line. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: runscott
I really don't think it is possible that PSA would have slabbed a t206 reprint. Altered or trimmed card maybe, but not a reprint. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Dan Mathewson
...definitely ahead of PRO, Scott. No doubt there. Can you believe that alphonsocards bought that PRO 9.5 Matty a little while back for over $1K ??? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Bill Cornell
I'll bet it's real, if only because it's Jon Perry that's selling it and I doubt he'd make that mistake. Easy enough to ask him directly if someone was interested in knowing. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Dan Mathewson
...you made reference to a E97 B&W Keeler that was misgraded/mislabeled. What's the story there? I think I missed that one. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Bill Cornell
Dan- |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: runscott
You can only reach so many people, and to someone who hasn't eyeballed lots and lots of t206's, some of those trimmed ones in PRO holders look pretty good. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Robert
I think if you need the card go for it. And if it is not real submit it to PSA for a refund. But if you do not need the card stay away. The card is not a very important card and I am sure another copy will come up soon. Rob |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Looks fake to me | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 04-26-2008 08:34 AM |
Fake or not? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 9 | 12-21-2005 03:03 PM |
Look fake? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 20 | 12-17-2005 07:37 PM |
What a deal! Fake Ramly and fake signature to boot! | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 01-13-2005 11:16 AM |
is this a fake? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 01-25-2002 01:05 PM |