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

[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.