1933 Goudey Gehrig Memorex or Real?

[iggyman]

Did any of the rank and file run accross this '33 Goudey Gehrig auction yesterday? The seller is a long-time Net54 member who doesn't seem to post that often anymore. This has got to be one of the greatest fears of those who resubmit a card in hopes of a better grade. Ouch! Cracking-out this card and then sending it raw obviously cost the seller $$$. In this case (and with hindsight), he would have probably been better served resubmiting it in the holder.

So, please enlighten me, does the card look legit? And has this ever happened to anybody else, either with a card or a date ......?

http://cgi.ebay.com/1933-Goudey-92-L...mZ330355966486

Lovley Day...

[slantycouch]

Wow. Interesting. Perfect feedback from an experienced collector.

If it was real, seems like he would know that resubmitting at least once more would be WELL worth his time over selling raw.

Unless he knows it's fake.

[Jim VB]

Ouch!

For the record, I don't believe PSA has a category below "?Auth." That's their way of saying it's a fake.

SGC will just plain say "Counterfeit", but I don't think PSA will.

[ChiefBenderForever]

I was watching that and just didn't make sense to give away a card like that so I didn't even bid. If real could've taken to a show and traded for some great stuff or sold it, and why not resubmit again. Of course it is possible that PSA originally made a mistake the first time and seller then realized it was probably a fake so just dumped it for as much as possible. My only issue is if it is a fake, someone just got the original slip so can easily reslab and sell as a 5 o/c and make a quick 700-1000 easy and rip someone off, not cool.

[fkw]

The card is a reprint. The bottom red strip should not match up perfectly at the ends (same exact width) as the blue background. Also the bat should extend more into the border at top. The overall color is way too dark compared to the too white borders. Look at the eyes and face.... way too dark!

#92 below

[iggyman]

Thank you Frank! Your wisdom is unmeasurable.

Lovely Day...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Leaving authenticity aside the original grade makes no sense that is not o/c for a 5. And look at the back, the bleed appears to me to be right against one edge whereas it is not on the front.

[Batter67up]

I think the seller may have sat the reprint card on top of the PSA 5 sealed case and took the picture after he had already received the card back as a reprint. The steps people will go to to try and rip us off!

[Minerscoin]

This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start. He should be called on the carpet here for his deed. I am Calling for him to be banned from this site for doing this. We sure don't need people like him as a member.
What is his ID on this site?

[jcmtiger]

The seller gave all the information. Read the complete description. So anyone bidding on the card is aware it is a crapshoot. Unfortunately it was probably graded earlier and the seller lost out by resubmitting the card. Like we always say bid on the card not the slab.

joe

[MW1]

I agree with Frank that the card is a reprint but I also think the original (PSA 5 oc) holder was tampered with and resealed. Check out the "frosty" appearance on the right and left edges.

[Leon]

I know the seller a little bit as I have done some good transactions with him. I think he stated what he knew except for the fact the ?AUT from PSA is their answer for COUNTERFEIT. I wish they would just put COUNTERFEIT on the cards they know are bad, but I have a feeling there could be some liability there. The seller might be a member here though I am not sure. I have probably bought 10-15 things from him and the one time I got something that wasn't really what I thought it was (an old baseball/cricket guy) he did an immediate refund with an apology. I think he should have listed it differently but I don't think I would ban him from this site for that listing. regards