psa pwcc..hi bidder.r u kidding me?

[bnorth]

That is the rare missing print error.LOL On a serious note the flip says it is a PSA 7 and that is all that matters to most. Card in that case really means nothing.

[smallpaul2002]

Well, the front of the card looks okay..LOL

[sflayank]

Could be the buyer is gonna have psa relabel it and it could be the next pancho herrera...1 of 1 the only known
Worth 500k?

[ALR-bishop]

You jest....but, it is more pronounced than the Bakep

If I needed that card anyway, that would not have deterred me. Might have even been an incentive

[swarmee]

PWCC: Perhaps what's most impressive about this card is the print, color and focus which are all deserving of a higher grade. Among the finer copies in the hobby and deserving of serious attention.

Yeah, right. My guess (as a part-time PSA apologist) is that this card might have been a PSA 9(PD) at one point, and was regraded to a straight 7. PSA should not have done this. They should have given it a PD qualifier.

[sflayank]

Best guess is the card was chemically treated to remove
Stains and it worked too well

[steve B]

Originally Posted by sflayank

Best guess is the card was chemically treated to remove
Stains and it worked too well

I don't know what could be used to remove some black and leave the red untouched, even by accident. If it was the other way around sure, but most black inks are really durable. (111 trichloroethane which is now banned will take sharpie and pretty much anything else off of surfaces that aren't porous, never tried it on a card, but it'd probably strip everything )

Nice looking card with a pretty major printing problem. I'm not crazy about the qualifiers, but for something this bad it really makes sense.

Steve B

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by sflayank

Best guess is the card was chemically treated to remove
Stains and it worked too well

That was how the card was originally printed. Al owns a 1958 #135 Moe Drabowsky that has a similar missing print defect on the back, and there is a 1958 #142 Enos Slaughter on eBay that is missing a large area on the back. The 1958 Mantle is #150, so I think it's safe to say that they were all on the same sheet.

[Neal]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

You jest....but, it is more pronounced than the Bakep

If I needed that card anyway, that would not have deterred me. Might have even been an incentive

was thinking the same .....

certainly not a mark, and I doubt that a stain was being removed. Perhaps this is a Mantle collector and sees a unigue opportunity to add a Topps flaw to the collection

Not a print mark, but should have been issued a PD qualifier

[Peter_Spaeth]

Maybe someone was practicing power erasing.