1989 Fleer Randy Johnson #381 Marlboro Errors - 30 Years Later

[Hatorade]

With these responses you would think that PSA just makes up which label they apply. It seemed that way to me too, so I figured I would email PSA to ask how they determine which version they label the card.

1989 Fleer Randy Johnson #381

I'm interested in getting my collection of 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson cards graded, but I wanted to make sure I send the cards in labeled correctly. I have several variations of the cards ranging from the ad being very noticeable through the completely blacked out and not noticeable. I've seen several versions of PSA graded cards listed with no description, Ad on Scoreboard, Ad Partially Obscured, Complete Black Out and Completely Blacked Out as a description on the card. Can you please let me know what guidelines PSA uses to determine what you label as an Ad On Scoreboard, Ad Partially Obscured or some of the other descriptions. Thanks for your help.

PSA responded with this email:

“In regards to your question on varieties for the 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson #381, there are only 3 versions: Marlboro Ad, Ad partially obscured and Ad completely blacked-out. Our research department has seen all three numerous times. The first is clear, second is dim but still legible and the third cannot be read as “Marlboro” at all. We use the descriptions that the Standard Catalog provides.”

I tried to find the definition in the Standard Catalog to see what it said but I wasn’t able to ever come across it.

So, PSA has very vague and ambiguous definitions that they use combined with a completely random application of their standards when reviewing the cards.

If no one, including PSA, knows the difference between Ad on Scoreboard, Ad Partially Obscured and Ad Completely Blacked Out then why do they consistently sell for such different prices?

[steve5838]

Originally Posted by Hatorade

With these responses you would think that PSA just makes up which label they apply. It seemed that way to me too, so I figured I would email PSA to ask how they determine which version they label the card.

1989 Fleer Randy Johnson #381

I'm interested in getting my collection of 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson cards graded, but I wanted to make sure I send the cards in labeled correctly. I have several variations of the cards ranging from the ad being very noticeable through the completely blacked out and not noticeable. I've seen several versions of PSA graded cards listed with no description, Ad on Scoreboard, Ad Partially Obscured, Complete Black Out and Completely Blacked Out as a description on the card. Can you please let me know what guidelines PSA uses to determine what you label as an Ad On Scoreboard, Ad Partially Obscured or some of the other descriptions. Thanks for your help.

PSA responded with this email:

“In regards to your question on varieties for the 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson #381, there are only 3 versions: Marlboro Ad, Ad partially obscured and Ad completely blacked-out. Our research department has seen all three numerous times. The first is clear, second is dim but still legible and the third cannot be read as “Marlboro” at all. We use the descriptions that the Standard Catalog provides.”

I tried to find the definition in the Standard Catalog to see what it said but I wasn’t able to ever come across it.

So, PSA has very vague and ambiguous definitions that they use combined with a completely random application of their standards when reviewing the cards.

If no one, including PSA, knows the difference between Ad on Scoreboard, Ad Partially Obscured and Ad Completely Blacked Out then why do they consistently sell for such different prices?

This is very interesting. I think the problem is that PSA hasn't defined a stable baseline for their comparison. I wish they would provide an example of what they mean by "clear". Right now they seem to be using relative clarity instead of absolute clarity when determining which label to use and this is causing a lot of inconsistencies. Imagine the grader looks online and sees a picture of one of the handful of clear ones out there. Now, looking at the definitions for their three labels he would give any br2, rg2, gr2 a label of Partially Obscured (since these are dim but still legible relative to the no-tint clear one they saw online). However, if someone sent in a br2 and a rg3 for grading I bet the grader immediately sees the difference in sign clarity between the two and gives the former the Ad on Scoreboard label (since it is relatively clear) and the later Ad Partially Obscured (since in comparison it is dim but still legible). The recent increase in clear card pictures online has changed what was previously a semi-stable baseline of "clear" on their scale and made things worse.
At a minimum I really do think there should be at least one new label description (at the beginning of PSA's scale) for "no tint".

[jacksoncoupage]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/30445003074...p2047675.l2557

Interesting sale. I tried several times, on a few forums, I believe, to point out this variation but most replies seemed to think that it is was just me unable to catch the boxed sign but I have definitely pulled my copy out more than once and thoroughly examined it under different light sources and concluded it is a fully flush blackout over the area.

Sadly, rare or not, it will likely never catch on as a "must have" among the varieties but this certainly has to be among the tougher transitional versions being so close to the final one and with so few samples having turned up (unless I missed some, which is highly likely).

[steve5838]

I wanted to share my recent correspondence with PSA below regarding the labeling of the clear version. It changes nothing but does hint that more than three of these cards may exist. Steve


My research request to PSA:
Jun 14, 2022, 07:42 PDT

The below sites indicate there are 3 known examples of the 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson w/ No Tint. All 3 are graded PSA 9 w/ certs 63221829, 15790561, 15790562. I request PSA add 1 new labeling category for “Marlboro Ad No Tint” so the label more accurately describes this version. The benefit to PSA is recognizing a no tint version will define a objective baseline for comparison in grading this card, i.e., you can more easily define other label categories in comparison to a defined No Tint version.


Response from PSA:

Jun 14, 2022, 13:11 PDT

Steve

Thank you for submitting your request to the Customer Request Center.

I do understand this suggestion, and how this would affect our labeling process. We do realize there are many versions of this card, but we have chosen to recognize our current varieties to simplify the identification process. There is a lot of room for interpretation, and degrees of obscurity, which leaves a lot of different versions. Our research management have identified the hallmarks of each for PSA staff to follow, and to try to define each variation would be difficult to process.
We do appreciate the suggestion, but we are going to stick to our current standards.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Regards,




Response from me:

Jun 14, 2022, 13:45 PDT


Thank you for the response. I definitely understand not wanting to differentiate between all of the versions of this card. I fully agree there are many, many versions of this card that differ in the level of tint over the Marlboro sign and it can be arbitrary on where to draw threshold tint levels. I only reached out about this particular no-tint version because it differs from all other versions due to having absolutely no tint over the Marlboro sign. Also, having a special label designation for this version likely impacts only 3 cards with PSA certs 63221829, 15790561, 15790562 ( I own the first two certs and know the person who owns the third). I understand that currently PSA recognizes only 3 versions of this card (Marlboro Ad, Ad partially obscured and Ad completely blacked-out). According to your research department, the first is clear, second is dim but still legible and the third cannot be read as “Marlboro” at all. Based on my recent experience purchasing PSA graded versions of this card and having my own cards graded, I believe the presence of the uncategorized “no tint” version is causing some inconsistencies in labeling of other versions of the card. The benefit to PSA of recognizing the “no tint” version is that it would define a stable/objective baseline for comparison in the grading this card (i.e., you can more easily define in your process what is meant by "clear" in comparison to a defined "No Tint" version). Also, the change will only impact a small number of cards (likely only 3 cards would need to have their label designation changed from "Marlboro Ad on Scoreboard" to something like "Marlboro Ad No Tint" or "Marlboro Ad Clear"). I am happy to pay any associated costs of relabeling the three cards.


Thank you again for your consideration.




Response from PSA:

Jun 14, 2022, 15:55 PDT

Hello Steve

I do understand the difference that you have pointed out, and acknowledge that identifying the different iterations of the Marlboro ad can be a challenge for our team. I also acknowledge that you have two very unique cards, and important historical cards for this error.
Our research management team has made a decision, and in the near past, I have asked them for clarity about our definitions of the various "blackout" types of the Marlboro ad. We are only recognizing the current versions of the ad at this time.

While I do understand how special your cards are, we have to think not just about recognizing the three certs you mentioned, but all the others which might be out there, for the entire grading history of this card. Any changes we make in matters like this,impact hundreds or thousands, or hundreds of thousands of cards., not just three, so we don't make changes, or in this case, recognize new versions, without careful thought. We have to consider the ramifications beyond just the few you might be aware of, and as a business, we aren't willing to make those changes.

Your cards are still special, and historically important without a special label, however. They are a part of collecting history, and the fact that they are not specifically designated by PSA does not diminish them at all.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Regards,

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by steve5838

I wanted to share my recent correspondence with PSA below regarding the labeling of the clear version. It changes nothing but does hint that more than three of these cards may exist. Steve


My research request to PSA:
Jun 14, 2022, 07:42 PDT

The below sites indicate there are 3 known examples of the 1989 Fleer Randy Johnson w/ No Tint. All 3 are graded PSA 9 w/ certs 63221829, 15790561, 15790562. I request PSA add 1 new labeling category for “Marlboro Ad No Tint” so the label more accurately describes this version. The benefit to PSA is recognizing a no tint version will define a objective baseline for comparison in grading this card, i.e., you can more easily define other label categories in comparison to a defined No Tint version.


Response from PSA:

Jun 14, 2022, 13:11 PDT

Steve

Thank you for submitting your request to the Customer Request Center.

I do understand this suggestion, and how this would affect our labeling process. We do realize there are many versions of this card, but we have chosen to recognize our current varieties to simplify the identification process. There is a lot of room for interpretation, and degrees of obscurity, which leaves a lot of different versions. Our research management have identified the hallmarks of each for PSA staff to follow, and to try to define each variation would be difficult to process.
We do appreciate the suggestion, but we are going to stick to our current standards.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Regards,




Response from me:

Jun 14, 2022, 13:45 PDT


Thank you for the response. I definitely understand not wanting to differentiate between all of the versions of this card. I fully agree there are many, many versions of this card that differ in the level of tint over the Marlboro sign and it can be arbitrary on where to draw threshold tint levels. I only reached out about this particular no-tint version because it differs from all other versions due to having absolutely no tint over the Marlboro sign. Also, having a special label designation for this version likely impacts only 3 cards with PSA certs 63221829, 15790561, 15790562 ( I own the first two certs and know the person who owns the third). I understand that currently PSA recognizes only 3 versions of this card (Marlboro Ad, Ad partially obscured and Ad completely blacked-out). According to your research department, the first is clear, second is dim but still legible and the third cannot be read as “Marlboro” at all. Based on my recent experience purchasing PSA graded versions of this card and having my own cards graded, I believe the presence of the uncategorized “no tint” version is causing some inconsistencies in labeling of other versions of the card. The benefit to PSA of recognizing the “no tint” version is that it would define a stable/objective baseline for comparison in the grading this card (i.e., you can more easily define in your process what is meant by "clear" in comparison to a defined "No Tint" version). Also, the change will only impact a small number of cards (likely only 3 cards would need to have their label designation changed from "Marlboro Ad on Scoreboard" to something like "Marlboro Ad No Tint" or "Marlboro Ad Clear"). I am happy to pay any associated costs of relabeling the three cards.


Thank you again for your consideration.




Response from PSA:

Jun 14, 2022, 15:55 PDT

Hello Steve

I do understand the difference that you have pointed out, and acknowledge that identifying the different iterations of the Marlboro ad can be a challenge for our team. I also acknowledge that you have two very unique cards, and important historical cards for this error.
Our research management team has made a decision, and in the near past, I have asked them for clarity about our definitions of the various "blackout" types of the Marlboro ad. We are only recognizing the current versions of the ad at this time.

While I do understand how special your cards are, we have to think not just about recognizing the three certs you mentioned, but all the others which might be out there, for the entire grading history of this card. Any changes we make in matters like this,impact hundreds or thousands, or hundreds of thousands of cards., not just three, so we don't make changes, or in this case, recognize new versions, without careful thought. We have to consider the ramifications beyond just the few you might be aware of, and as a business, we aren't willing to make those changes.

Your cards are still special, and historically important without a special label, however. ( * * PATS HEAD ** )
They are a part of collecting history, and the fact that they are not specifically designated by PSA does not diminish them at all.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Regards,

I have gone through this exercise with them for 10+ years (and as recently as December) in an attempt to get various promos and variations labeled. Always, always, some years later, I see some bulk submitter selling them on ebay with their proper labelling. Good effort!

[Cfern023]

Ahh yes... the always fun
"You're right, but I don't want more work" response.

[bnorth]

I love to bash PSA as much as the next person. Saying that they should have 2 different flips. One that says corrected and one that says error version or something similar.

Even those of us that super collect these things can't agree on all the different variations. We sure can't expect PSA to get it correct.