1982 Topps Blackless

[Blackless Collector]

Originally Posted by bswhiten

https://www.ebay.com/itm/203007917667

Another mislabel... $7 dollar base card at best.
Hope it doesn’t end too high for the buyers sake...

Edit: ended at $122...

Hi Ben,

I note The card and note is a mislabel card. I wrote to The seller one hour before the auction ended. He responde my Message:
I appreciate your feedback. I had several really great ebayer's that provided me with similar information. Much thanks to them and to you. I had no idea and just described the card as PSA labeled. I really hated that I caused any confusion in that listing even if unknowingly. It is not worth the frustration or the money to misrepresent something and never would knowingly. I updated the description once I was made aware, worked with a bidder to cancel a bid and will obviously let the winning bidder know the card was mislabeled by PSA. Thanks, take care and be safe. He's a nice guy, but he had the confussion because dont know about blackless variation.

[bswhiten]

Yea PSA labeled a lot of the in action and all stars as Blackless when they first started slabbing them as variations. Some of the highest graded cards are mislabeled. Hope the buyer figured out what he was getting.

[philliesphan]

One of the top two bidders on that Schmidt blackless is a big Schmidt registry person.

I often find myself having a lack of sympathy for collectors who don't do even the slightest amount of due diligence in researching an issue. How can two people both bid over $100- for a card that is clearly not even the variation? Hell, a five minute Google search can tell you more about what you should be expecting for this variation. <rolls eyes condescendingly>

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by philliesphan

One of the top two bidders on that Schmidt blackless is a big Schmidt registry person.

I often find myself having a lack of sympathy for collectors who don't do even the slightest amount of due diligence in researching an issue. How can two people both bid over $100- for a card that is clearly not even the variation? Hell, a five minute Google search can tell you more about what you should be expecting for this variation. <rolls eyes condescendingly>

More than likely he knew that it isn't an authentic blackless and just wanted it for his PSA Registry Set.

[bswhiten]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

More than likely he knew that it isn't an authentic blackless and just wanted it for his PSA Registry Set.

That is so foreign to me. I’m sure that happens a lot, but why would you want a card for your registry set if it wasn’t the actual card....To each their own I guess.

For the Blackless set the one that is part of the registry set but should not be and will probably always remain a mislabel. Fisk IA 111.
Would love to be proven wrong, but I’ve only seen faded ones.

[Blackless Collector]

Another mislabel, 1982 Topps Pete Rose in Action- Blackless. The PSA Blackless pop report is unreal, lot of mislabels https://www.ebay.com/itm/333655341424

[bswhiten]

Originally Posted by Blackless Collector

Another mislabel, 1982 Topps Pete Rose in Action- Blackless. The PSA Blackless pop report is unreal, lot of mislabels https://www.ebay.com/itm/333655341424

Yea they seem to have screwed up a lot of the "In Action" examples. I don't think i have seen any with the newer lighthouse label so maybe they recognize the difference now? There is a Goosage In Action on eBay that is a "Blueless" example that was graded as a Blackless.