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

[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.

[Statfreak101]

Originally Posted by 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.

You're right - but they could sure do the hobby & the people that pay them justice by doing it right.

[Hatorade]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Statfreak101

You're right - but they could sure do the hobby & the people that pay them justice by doing it right.

https://www.psacard.com/articles/art...rading-process


I would assume that PSA isn’t using their Genamint AI technology for grading these cards yet. PSA says “It will also provide unique card identification – or “card fingerprinting” – by identifying the exact card in order to track provenance, resubmissions, condition changes and other attributes over time.” Genamint software, at a minimum, should be able provide a little bit more consistency when it comes to labeling Ad on Scoreboard vs Ad Partially Insured. It should also be able to prevent any of the error cards being labeled as Ad Completely Blacked Out and conversely any of the common cards/non-errors being labeled as Ad on Scoreboard/Ad Partially Obscured. The inconsistency and mislabeling are continuing with cards graded very recently with too much frequency to be an actual result of AI technology.

There isn’t a more relevant card to show that the Genamint AI software technology works than the 1989 Fleer Marlboro errors. It makes me excited about the future proper grading of these cards. If PSA is able to fingerprint an exact card, the changes made by Fleer to the error cards should be both easily traceable and also quantifiable with their software. PSA is telling us that they have the technology to grade the cards properly, so at some point why wouldn’t we expect them to get it correct?