In all the T206 back discussions I've never seen this question

[Luke]

It looks like maybe the master hasn't been updated in awhile. I scrolled through the Old Mills (just because I know them best) and found 10 or so that are listed as unconfirmed, but do exist and are documented.

[HobokenJon]

Originally Posted by Luke

It looks like maybe the master hasn't been updated in awhile. I scrolled through the Old Mills (just because I know them best) and found 10 or so that are listed as unconfirmed, but do exist and are documented.

Agreed. But the difference with this situation is there are "pop zero" cards listed as "confirmed" that probably shouldn't be.

It's fun to find cards that are listed as "possible, not confirmed." It's maddening to try and find cards that are listed authoritatively as "confirmed" when they don't actually exist.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

Agreed. But the difference with this situation is there are "pop zero" cards listed as "confirmed" that probably shouldn't be.

It's fun to find cards that are listed as "possible, not confirmed." It's maddening to try and find cards that are listed authoritatively as "confirmed" when they don't actually exist.

A card doesn't have to be in the pop reports to be confirmed. In the beginning
PSA didn't put the backs on the flips and/or there could be only raw examples
of a confirmed card.

I picked up this Maloney Broadleaf 350 back in 2012 Raw. At the time it was
already confirmed by t206resource but there were none listed in the pop reports until this one was graded and sold in this years fall REA auction.
Maloney Broadleaf 350.jpg

[HobokenJon]

What you say is true. However, when we know that T206 Resource has posted conflicting data about whether a card is confirmed, that undermines the credibility of all supposed confirmations on the site where the existence of the card hasn't been independently verified by other third parties. Make sense?

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by HobokenJon

What you say is true. However, when we know that T206 Resource has posted conflicting data about whether a card is confirmed, that undermines the credibility of all supposed confirmations on the site where the existence of the card hasn't been independently verified by other third parties. Make sense?

No not really. I don't know if the Cards you pointed out exist or if they're data entry errors but even if they are with the thousands of entries a couple of mistakes doesn't
undermine the credibility of all the confirmations in my eyes. I have confirmed several cards with Tim And Jim (for transparency purposes Jim is a friend of mine)
and they have always asked for front and back scans of the card(s) before confirming them.

When dealing with high volume data I don't believe error free
is a feasible expectation. The pop reports are full of errors.
img059.jpg

[Sean]

They got the "no cap" part right.

[HobokenJon]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hi Geno

I checked out my SOVEREIGN set and my count is 483.

The Chance (red portrait) card with a SOVEREIGN 350 back has been claimed to exist. However, I don't have it; and, I have not seen it.

If anyone on this forum has this card with a SOVEREIGN 350 back, please chime in.

Thanks.


TED Z
.

Originally Posted by Pat R

No not really. I don't know if the Cards you pointed out exist or if they're data entry errors but even if they are with the thousands of entries a couple of mistakes doesn't
undermine the credibility of all the confirmations in my eyes. I have confirmed several cards with Tim And Jim (for transparency purposes Jim is a friend of mine)
and they have always asked for front and back scans of the card(s) before confirming them.

When dealing with high volume data I don't believe error free
is a feasible expectation. The pop reports are full of errors.
Attachment 264152

You patently misstated what I wrote. I didn't say the known errors "undermine the credibility of all the confirmations." I said they undermine
the credibility of all supposed confirmations on T206 Resource where the existence of the card hasn't been independently verified by other third parties. And it's true. If I can see with my own eyes that T206 Resource classifies the Sov 350 forest green Clarke portrait as both "confirmed" and "probable no print" in different places on different checklists, and there's no other evidence that the card exists, that undermines the reliability and credibility of T206 Resource's confirmation of that card and any other purported Sov 350 forest green card for which there is no independent corroboration -- such as the Chance red portrait and the Chesbro.