PSA N9 designation for an uncatalogued 1915 Cracker Jack variation - Now with scans!

[drcy]

A bit back, a board member (Peter U.) had a NNOF T206 that he had Scott F. and I examine in person for our collective opinion. We posted that the card was untampered with, and REA agreed. PSA then graded it. Though that wasn't a card variation for a catalog, but a printing error/anomaly. I don't know as I've never talked to anyone at PSA, but assumed PSA wanted such opinions before they grade it.

The card

[paul]

I find it funny that PSA would rely on the unknown methods of a cataloguer, but not their own expertise, to determine if a variation is legit or not. I used to send uncatalogued cards to Bob Lemke all the time, and all he wanted from me was a black and white photocopy. They all ended up in the Standard Catalog.

[brianp-beme]

Ok, I posted the scans on the original post which include a close-up of the top back of the mystery Cracker Jack card with no number visible...Mr. Vaughn. I swear it is not a size- shifting card, despite the scans that seem to indicate otherwise.

What do you all think?

Brian

[bobbyw8469]

You have precendence......

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=89755

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by drcy

A bit back, a board member (Peter U.) had a NNOF T206 that he had Scott F. and I examine in person for our collective opinion. We posted that the card was untampered with, and REA agreed. PSA then graded it. Though that wasn't a card variation for a catalog, but a printing error/anomaly. I don't know as I've never talked to anyone at PSA, but assumed PSA wanted such opinions before they grade it.

The card

That whole ordeal was a joke. They labeled it with a MC qualifier. I did learn that the methods used to remove ink on a modern card does not work on T206 cards. I also am not saying the card was altered but there was a lot of stray ink specks on the side and top borders with none on the bottom border.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I am not a fan of the fact that the words "Pitcher of the Chicago" all show signs of erasure at the top. Even "James L Vaughn" shows light fading. I think the card is altered. Sorry, I know that's not what you wanted to hear.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I am not a fan of the fact that the words "Pitcher of the Chicago" all show signs of erasure at the top. Even "James L Vaughn" shows light fading. I think the card is altered. Sorry, I know that's not what you wanted to hear.

Hi Scott, glad to get your input. Of course I would love for it to be unaltered, but I am perfectly ok if it proves not to be an uncatalogued variation. I purchased this card in a group lot of Cracker Jacks from board member Jerry on one of his ebay listings about a year ago. He mentioned in passing in his lot description that this card might be a no # variation. I won the lot with the assumption that paper damage removed the number. When I looked at the card with magnification I could not see evidence of any paper loss, and it appeared unlikely that erasure or sanding had occurred (keep in mind I am no expert in the field, otherwise I would have a lot more unknown variations in my collection!). I see what you mean by the top line of text, but to my untrained eye it doesn't appear to have been caused by abrasion of some sort.

That is why I wanted PSA to check it over, which of course was obviously silly of me to have considered. I would love to hear other opinions about the card. I might eventually take the route of having some expert check it over in person to have a more definitive answer.

Brian

[FrankWakefield]

I got this in Scott Brockelman's auction

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...1&d=1571587095

I think it's the same card. I see it's lighter, I don't think it was 'removed', I think there are other no number Vaughn's out there somewhere.

[brianp-beme]

It is definitely the same card, as I was the consigner. It was determined under close examination that the number had been there, and the ink probably just erased. Cool card nonetheless, and glad a real fine collector ended up with it.

Brian

[brianp-beme]

It is possible that the printing 'strike' (I am obviously a printing expert) just didn't have ink in the upper portion, as you can see that the top part of the upper line on the right side seems to be missing too.

Brian