E95 Plank--PWCC auction

[Pat R]

Personally I think it might be a "variation", it doesn't look like someone
drew that on there to me. I haven't found an A's logo that looks like
it yet but here are some different ones in the T206 set,
A's.jpg
A's 2.jpg
A's 3.jpg
A's 4.jpg

[Econteachert205]

I think it is a faint stamp mark.

[ullmandds]

im starting to agree that this "a" was likely not drawn in...maybe a stamp...or who knows maybe some form of variation?

also...I'm not so versed with this particular card to have noticed the "A" shouldn't be there at first glance...I had to look at comparables.

[Brian]

It does look like a stamp, and that is why the card should have a qualifier.
Just hope the "winner" of that card reads this thread and gets his/her money back.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There appears to be something (ink or whatever) in the same color above and to the left of the letter A. I don't think the factory printed it that way.

[scooter729]

The card does look nicer than a 3, assuming there are no faint creases or anything we can't see in the scans.

Maybe it was submitted as a "no qualifier" card, so instead of getting a PSA 5 (MK), it got a PSA 3?

I probably would've graded it a 4, but wouldn't be the ugliest 5 I've ever seen by any stretch.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by scooter729

The card does look nicer than a 3, assuming there are no faint creases or anything we can't see in the scans.

Maybe it was submitted as a "no qualifier" card, so instead of getting a PSA 5 (MK), it got a PSA 3?

I probably would've graded it a 4, but wouldn't be the ugliest 5 I've ever seen by any stretch.

I suppose it's plausible, but I tend to think PSA would not give that card a 5 based on the corners.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by scooter729

Maybe it was submitted as a "no qualifier" card, so instead of getting a PSA 5 (MK), it got a PSA 3?

I didn't think you could request "no qualifiers" on cards with marks?

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Personally I think it might be a "variation", it doesn't look like someone
drew that on there to me.

To me it looks like the 'A' was applied by a stamp.

Brian

[Brian]

that explanation from the grading company is clear to me--clear as mud....

[swarmee]

It's possible that it was judged a 5(MK) that was requested "No Qualifiers"; PSA reserves the right to leave qualifiers if they are egregious. However, we have had cases where pencil written numbers were still on the back of Mickey Mantle cards with no MK designation, and recently I graded a 1968 Topps card with obvious marker on the front and it got no MK designation, just a straight PSA 5.
It should have.

The other thought I had on this would have been a wet sheet transfer, but based on the gallery on oldcardboard.com, no other card in the set has a similar A. It does have the look of a stamp (because of the red color to the top left that resembles the corner of a stamp block). However, the placement of the stamp to me is just so good, that either the kid who owned it wanted to show he was on the Athletics, or it is a super-rare variation that will be worth thousands now that it's been found.

[ls7plus]

Personally, I think it would be quite interesting to examine it under a 16X loupe to see if the "A" is consistent with the card's other printed characteristics (the glass is half-full?).

Just sayin'.

Best wishes,

Larry

[Leon]

I always thought this would have graded higher but whomever submitted it (before I got it) chose not to have the MK hence the 2.5. The little check mark on the back, near the bottom right side, is hard to miss?

[ls7plus]

Very nice card from my perspective, Leon. Congrats on it!

Highest regards,

Larry