Print Error or Fading 1933 Goudey?

[CK]

Originally Posted by chadeast

Hi Chris. I've been working on this set, as you have, for the better part of the last 9 months, and bought almost 300 cards in that time. I can't answer all of your questions, but I'll add my 2 cents.

The "spots" that you mention are prominent in many '33 Goudeys for sure. It's something that bothers me, and that I have had to keep an eye out for, since I've seen some cards grade VG and above with these spots present to varying degree. I assumed that they were mold of some type. IMHO, what you are seeing on this card is ageing/fading. But I can't explain the variation in fading of the same color. Maybe there was some printing issue. The Benton in particular was a very tough card for me to find in nice shape, so there could be something specific to this card. Many of them seem to have problems. In fact, I finally paid more than I should have for a couple of nice ungraded cards, still waiting for SGC to lower their prices so I can grade them. Good looking graded versions of this card in VG-VG/EX range aren't offered for sale in the last year often.

Something just occurred to me, #219 Mule Haas is also very tough to find in nice shape. I had equally hard time with it, and nice copies of that card go for big bucks. It has a similar color palette to the Benton in the upper third, purple/pink hues. Some correlation perhaps?

Hey Chad -

I have seen plenty of random brown dots on the several hundred cards I’ve owned too. I’ve had several yellow cards like the #26 Cissell that almost look dirty due to the number and spacing. The #222 Gehringer is often poorly printed with white streaks or that same “dirty” look.

Funny that you mention the Haas card which in itself is an actual error. “Hass” is on the front and “Haas” is on the back. I actually have a copy of that one in much better condition than the PSA grade applies, imho.

Here’s the Cissell for posterity, somehow these dots grade higher than the cleaner Haas. That’s another discussion though.