1949 Jackies on Memory Lane

[orly57]

My world has been turned upside-down. I am now critically thinking. I must now make personal visits to all AHs and hold it in-hand before bidding on a card. I can no longer buy on eBay. I can't even admire nice cards anymore, and must assume that Battlefield is now the staff photographer at Heritage. I see the light now. I just wonder how this board can go on if we can't discuss images of cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There you go.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This should be a permanent sticky for anyone who doubts the power of scans and anyone glibly comparing cards based just on scans.

Wow, what a difference!

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by orly57

My world has been turned upside-down. I am now critically thinking. I must now make personal visits to all AHs and hold it in-hand before bidding on a card. I can no longer buy on eBay. I can't even admire nice cards anymore, and must assume that Battlefield is now the staff photographer at Heritage. I see the light now. I just wonder how this board can go on if we can't discuss images of cards.

Despite the sarcasm a trip to an AH office might not be a bad idea before dropping a couple hundred grand on a card.

As for the 52 Mantles in this discussion the improved color in the heritage scan may have played a role, but I believe the centering difference alone is enough to justify the difference in price.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Despite the sarcasm a trip to an AH office might not be a bad idea before dropping a couple hundred grand on a card.

As for the 52 Mantles in this discussion the improved color in the heritage scan may have played a role, but I believe the centering difference alone is enough to justify the difference in price.

I had that discussion (scans) with Heritage at the National. The way they do scans of cards isn't with a scanner. It is with a camera. Any difference in colors is not intentional....and I am as cynical as the next guy but trust me, I doubt any good AH is doctoring scans in today's age. And I don't think I am too naive....but please keep going...it's interesting.

.

[frankbmd]

I must admit that in my "Diminutive Surface Scuffing" thread that I did "doctor" the scans of the 55 Topps cards to make it easier for the naive among us to see the presumed defects. I suppose that some would argue that all my scans are "Doctored", but for the aforementioned thread I used SET (Scuff Enhancement Technology). So there , now I feel better.

[orly57]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

I must admit that in my "Diminutive Surface Scuffing" thread that I did "doctor" the scans of the 55 Topps cards to make it easier for the naive among us to see the presumed defects. I suppose that some would argue that all my scans are "Doctored", but for the aforementioned thread I used SET (Scuff Enhancement Technology). So there , now I feel better.

Frank, I was more concerned with Brian's Hornsby card. It was in an SGC 2 holder in the Spring '14 REA auction, and recently appeared in a psa 9 holder. Obviously it has been doctored, though it may just be the scans.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by orly57

Frank, I was more concerned with Brian's Hornsby card. It was in an SGC 2 holder in the Spring '14 REA auction, and recently appeared in a psa 9 holder. Obviously it has been doctored, though it may just be the scans.

I have cracked it out of the PSA9 holder and am about to resubmit. Crossing my fingers for a PSA10 grade. After what I like to call a bit of card manipulation, I might just have a shot.

Brian (better late than Ernie Nevers)

[brian1961]

I join you all in asserting the superiority of the SGC 96 Jackie. I just cannot fathom why PSA would award a card with such a large, ugly fish-eye a MINT 9. They're totally wrong. At the very least, the label should have their qualifier for a print spot. Without taking another gander, even if the PSA Jackie has perfect centering, perfect print registry, strong color, and no other print spots, when I look at that card, my eyes go to "fish-eye" sore. The SGC 96 looks regal and presents perfectly.

Anyone bidding on the PSA crumb bum is obviously buying the holder, 'cause when the time comes and they open up their "new prized card", the fish-eye is gonna start winking at them with all its might. Regret is a powerful emotion, and they're going to get quite a dose of buyer's remorse.

---Brian Powell

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

I had that discussion (scans) with Heritage at the National. The way they do scans of cards isn't with a scanner. It is with a camera. Any difference in colors is not intentional....and I am as cynical as the next guy but trust me, I doubt any good AH is doctoring scans in today's age. And I don't think I am too naive....but please keep going...it's interesting.

.

The issue isn't scans versus pictures, obviously, as both can be adjusted. Intentional or not, it's hard for me to believe the hobby's biggest AH is not aware of the character of their pictures and the fact that they are relatively, shall we say, bright.

[Peter_Spaeth]

On the subject of 52T Mantle colors, what up with this one?

[orly57]

If that card weren't in a holder, I would bet a thousand bucks it is fake. But since it's in a bvg holder, I would only bet $500.

[orly57]

Sgc was behind by 50% yesterday, but just passed the PSA.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by orly57

If that card weren't in a holder, I would bet a thousand bucks it is fake. But since it's in a bvg holder, I would only bet $500.

I have never seen a fake card in a BVG holder.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by orly57

My world has been turned upside-down. I am now critically thinking. I must now make personal visits to all AHs and hold it in-hand before bidding on a card. I can no longer buy on eBay. I can't even admire nice cards anymore, and must assume that Battlefield is now the staff photographer at Heritage. I see the light now. I just wonder how this board can go on if we can't discuss images of cards.

Guess it's time for a trip to a live auction