STAMP of approval for jsa, psa? what's going on?

[packs]

The eBay photo could be cropped too. If a buyer complained I could see the seller saying the whole photo wouldn't fit into his scanner.

[travrosty]

one has obviously rounded corners and says it has toning to borders and light crazing, and you can see creases at the top left border.

the ebay sellers has sharp corners and is listed as in perfect shape, because I asked the seller, he said NO creases and no restorationm perfect shape. It is interesting that the ebay photo has a copy of the crease in walcotts left leg that appears to be IN the photo as the seller says the photo is in perfect shape, the same crease that is in the other photo.

they are not the same photo according to the listings.

[Mr. Zipper]

Same photo. The bottom one has simply been pressed flat through a process or carefully placed under a scanner lid that pressed it down. The top one has some turned edges, which catch the glare and give an appearance of being more rounded than they are. You can see some matching markers around the edges of both photos in the top and bottom right corners. not sure if the white flecks on the left edge are in the photo or damage, but they match as well. There also appears to be an identical thumb mark to the upper left of Walcott's head. If that is not enough, the crease in the area of Walcott's left knee is identical.

Hard to believe an eBay seller would describe something as "NM" that wasn't. But apparently, the whole theory is based on that presumption.

This is what happens when someone is so eager to trumpet the next "screw-up." They rush, don't take their time and mistakes are made.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Same photo. The bottom one has simply been pressed flat through a process or carefully placed under a scanner lid that pressed it down. The top one has some turned edges, which catch the glare and give an appearance of being more rounded than they are. You can see some matching markers around the edges of both photos in the top and bottom right corners. not sure if the white flecks on the left edge are in the photo or damage, but they match as well. There also appears to be an identical thumb mark to the upper left of Walcott's head. If that is not enough, the crease in the area of Walcott's left knee is identical.

Hard to believe an eBay seller would describe something as "NM" that wasn't. But apparently, the whole theory is based on that presumption.

This is what happens when someone is so eager to trumpet the next "screw-up." They rush, don't take their time and mistakes are made.

It's NOT the same photo in my opinion, the one photo has rounded edges, duh! Look at that top right corner, and put it in a photo viewer program and blow it up. does it look sharp, no it does not.

the ebay seller says that their are NO creases on the photo, the corners are sharp. the seller was asked if there were creases because the prospective buyer wanted to know exactly the condition the photo was in.

you can see crazing and creases on the american memorabilia version. is that not clear?

the reason the picture looks identical to you is that one or both are most likely copies! I didn't say I knew which one or which company is at fault or how they did it. I don't have the photos, but to say the american memorabilia copy has sharp corners is way out there.


i see the LOA from jsa lists it as a knockout of ezzard charles, duh! it's walcott, they can't even get the players right, what the odds the authentication is any better??????

again, you cant tell me with a straight face that the top right corner on the american memorabilia photo is a square corner. its ragged and rounded.

the reason there are identical flecks on both photos along the edges is that one was probably scanned and printed COMPLETELY on another photo, including the white border, so all flecks transferred is my guess.

I don't say I know which company is guilty, but these are not the same photo so is it one or both that is wrong?

american memorabilia lists it in ex cond. ebay seller in nm, and ebay seller was contacted personally and he said NO creases whatsoever, perfect condtion, no restoration and no built up corners, perfect shape and never been tampered with.

there are obvious creases in the american memorabilia photo so your wild theory is disproved.

A photo doesn't show up in creased condition at one place and perfect in another. do you think the ebay seller would say NO creases, sell it for 2200 dollars only to get it back for a refund because he misrepresented it?

of course the crease in walcott leg is the same, when photos get copied, creases copy too. if the ebay seller said no crease, then the crease in walcott's leg is IN the photo, which means it was probably copied from another creased photo at one point.

[Mr. Zipper]

The corners are not nearly rounded as they appear. They are curled slightly up giving an exaggerated appearance of rounding.

I've stated my piece logically and reasonably and I am not the only one who thinks they are the same photo.

You may now resume with your predicable ranting and childish carrying on.

[packs]

The original auction description doesn't mention any creases either. They say the photo is in EX condition with some crazing and light toning. It is possible that the eBay seller also doesn't consider crazing to be a crease and his description would be in line with the original auction's.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by packs

The original auction description doesn't mention any creases either. They say the photo is in EX condition with some crazing and light toning. It is possible that the eBay seller also doesn't consider crazing to be a crease and his description would be in line with the original auction's.

when the seller says point blank -no restoration or creases in great shape, does the damage shown in the american memorabilia photo look like great shape to you with no creases. yeah, right.

you cant turn a rounded corner into a sharp one without restoration and he said no restoration.

i never said i knew which company made a mistake, but those aren't the same photos without restoration. that's why i ask what is up with this? If i knew I wouldn't ask that question.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

The corners are not nearly rounded as they appear. They are curled slightly up giving an exaggerated appearance of rounding.

I've stated my piece logically and reasonably and I am not the only one who thinks they are the same photo.

You may now resume with your predicable ranting and childish carrying on.

sir, if you don't see an obvious rounded and ragged right top corner in the american memorabilia copy then you bias has shown through.

the only reason i posted both of these is that their are obvious differences in the photos, i.e. corners and creases. if they were the same, it would be the same photo, it's not.

blow up the photo, you can see that corner is ragged and dirty and very rounded, and the ebay corner is sharp like a razor.

another question, where did the creases go if the seller on ebay was asked point blank if there were any creases on the border AT ALL, because condition was important, He said none.

he's lying i suppose but jsa knows it was ezzard charles in the photo being knocked out. thats a lot of presumption on who knows what they are talking about. go hold hands with spence.

[travrosty]

i could have called it a preprint of approval, or a copy of approval, i dont know how it was done, there is also ink transfer, laser copies out there, imagination runs wild, anything you can imagine, they have done it, but it's definitely the same signature and inscription on two different photos and that i can't explain if both are purported to be original signatures.