Fraudosynthesis

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

And here he goes again...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/12538831824...UAAOSwOzleVIGR

GREEN TINT PSA 6 EXMT MISSING INK ERROR 1962 TOPPS #320 HANK AARON GRADED *TPHLC

Attachment 522860

Only a cool $5,695.00 for this one of a kind beauty. Both a green tint and missing ink variation card that you can build a dream on.

I gotta say, though, how can you NOT admire the craftsmanship involved with these inventions? He actually covers the label with something before soaking it in the sun, so the bright red remains unscathed (but be sure to ignore the bleached out areas plaguing the rest of the holder from spending too much time catching rays). Well played, well played, indeed.


Thought experiment:
If you slathered a holder in high-SPF sunscreen and left it on the beach, would the card inside fade??

I would bet they got put out in the sun BEFORE they got graded. He is far from the only seller to sell such cards at a huge mark up. One of the hobby "icons" usually has several listed.

[commishbob]

LOL @ a 'green tint' Aaron.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I would bet they got put out in the sun BEFORE they got graded. He is far from the only seller to sell such cards at a huge mark up. One of the hobby "icons" usually has several listed.

Would PSA really ignore sun damage like on this Aaron card, or the earlier Bench card? You would think if they were submitted to them with sun damage/fading that they would at least throw a qualifier on the flip.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Would PSA really ignore sun damage like on this Aaron card, or the earlier Bench card? You would think if they were submitted to them with sun damage/fading that they would at least throw a qualifier on the flip.

I have seen several faded cards sent in and none of them ever got a qualifier from PSA or given a worse grade from SGC for the fading. What one of the many beyond silly qalifiers would PSA use so they could give the card a higher grade than it really deserves?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I have seen several faded cards sent in and none of them ever got a qualifier from PSA or given a worse grade from SGC for the fading. What one of the many beyond silly qalifiers would PSA use so they could give the card a higher grade than it really deserves?

Great question, and now that you've asked/mentioned it, not sure. Never have heard of or seen a qualifier for sun damage before, though it is pretty well known what leaving a card out in direct sunlight over a period of time can, and will, do to it. Initially a "PD" qualifier popped into my head, but then quickly realized sun damage/fading has got nothing to do with a printing defect issue.

In thinking more about it, this does seem to point to a not often or ever widely discussed issue of how TPGs overall seem to ignore the effects of time and aging, and what it can do to a card and its presentation. The TPGs tend to stick to a strict technical grading of cards, ignoring aging and other natural issues. Makes a ton of sense from their standpoint though as if they do grade and encapsulate a card, they can't completely control how that card will fare once in that holder. Images and paper/cardboard can deteriorate over time, even if a card is encapsulated.

By a TPG ignoring such aging/fading issues in giving cards a technical grade, I can see it being a kind of a CYA move on their part. By not setting a precedent of grading cards like that, they don't unintentionally set themselves up for potential liability issues down the road if the image on an encapsulated card were to deteriorate over time, and the graded card's owner came back at the TPG on their supposed grading mistake guarantees. I know that TPGs rarely, if ever, seem to pay anyone for grading errors. But being proactive and not factoring in natural aging and deterioration in their grading standards and criteria seems a savvy move on their part to further reduce or protect against any such potential liability.

N172 Old Judge cards immediately come to mind as the poster children for such thinking. Very often you'll come across OJ cards where the image is so faded and blurred over time that you barely even see or make out the player and/or printing on the card at all. Yet it may still have a 3-4-5, or possibly even higher, technical grade. Meanwhile, another OJ with a sharp and beautiful image and printing gets a 1 or a 1.5 technical grade because there's glue residue, or some paper loss, on the OJ's blank back. I'll take those kind of 1's and 1.5's all day long.

Just another reaffirmation of the old saying, "Buy the card, and not the holder!"

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Great question, and now that you've asked/mentioned it, not sure. Never have heard of or seen a qualifier for sun damage before, though it is pretty well known what leaving a card out in direct sunlight over a period of time can, and will, do to it. Initially a "PD" qualifier popped into my head, but then quickly realized sun damage/fading has got nothing to do with a printing defect issue.

In thinking more about it, this does seem to point to a not often or ever widely discussed issue of how TPGs overall seem to ignore the effects of time and aging, and what it can do to a card and its presentation. The TPGs tend to stick to a strict technical grading of cards, ignoring aging and other natural issues. Makes a ton of sense from their standpoint though as if they do grade and encapsulate a card, they can't completely control how that card will fare once in that holder. Images and paper/cardboard can deteriorate over time, even if a card is encapsulated.

By a TPG ignoring such aging/fading issues in giving cards a technical grade, I can see it being a kind of a CYA move on their part. By not setting a precedent of grading cards like that, they don't unintentionally set themselves up for potential liability issues down the road if the image on an encapsulated card were to deteriorate over time, and the graded card's owner came back at the TPG on their supposed grading mistake guarantees. I know that TPGs rarely, if ever, seem to pay anyone for grading errors. But being proactive and not factoring in natural aging and deterioration in their grading standards and criteria seems a savvy move on their part to further reduce or protect against any such potential liability.

N172 Old Judge cards immediately come to mind as the poster children for such thinking. Very often you'll come across OJ cards where the image is so faded and blurred over time that you barely even see or make out the player and/or printing on the card at all. Yet it may still have a 3-4-5, or possibly even higher, technical grade. Meanwhile, another OJ with a sharp and beautiful image and printing gets a 1 or a 1.5 technical grade because there's glue residue, or some paper loss, on the OJ's blank back. I'll take those kind of 1's and 1.5's all day long.

Just another reaffirmation of the old saying, "Buy the card, and not the holder!"

What actually happened was the grading companies used to label some cards missing ink. Turns out they just labeled a lot of faded cards as missing color. So now they just ignore the fading. I don't remember the grade. I sold a SGC graded 1958 "Blue" Hank Aaron card on here with full disclosure. The label did not mention anything. That was after I believe each of the big 3 had previously labeled some of them "Blue Front" before they figured out they all are faded.

I also had a real missing yellow ink card graded at the same time. It is graded a SGC 5.5 and is an amazing card. Sadly they won't even label real mmissing ink cards correctly now because of all their mistakes. Once you have owned a few real missing color cards and a few faded it is very easy to tell them apart.

Here are 2 examples of faded blue Aaron cards being listed at beyond silly prices for actually being altered faded cards.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/12501287182...sAAOSwhedhmagm
https://www.ebay.com/itm/37379913003...sAAOSwxIxhmak-

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

What actually happened was the grading companies used to label some cards missing ink. Turns out they just labeled a lot of faded cards as missing color. So now they just ignore the fading. I don't remember the grade. I sold a SGC graded 1958 "Blue" Hank Aaron card on here with full disclosure. The label did not mention anything. That was after I believe each of the big 3 had previously labeled some of them "Blue Front" before they figured out they all are faded.

I also had a real missing yellow ink card graded at the same time. It is graded a SGC 5.5 and is an amazing card. Sadly they won't even label real mmissing ink cards correctly now because of all their mistakes. Once you have owned a few real missing color cards and a few faded it is very easy to tell them apart.

Here are 2 examples of faded blue Aaron cards being listed at beyond silly prices for actually being altered faded cards.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/12501287182...sAAOSwhedhmagm
https://www.ebay.com/itm/37379913003...sAAOSwxIxhmak-

Exactly what I'm getting at. Because of all the potential errors they may have been making, makes sense for TPGs to just disregard and ignore missing or faded colors so they can't be hit with liability for a grading mistake. Also raises the question if it is really that hard or impossible to determine if a certain ink(s) on a card is truly missing, or if it is just faded. You would think it should be fairly easy to tell as in the case of a missing ink the other colors on a card should look normal, at least somewhat bright, and consistent. Whereas, if color loss is due to age, fading, or sun exposure, you would expect the entire card and all the ink/colors on it to have suffered similar fading or loss, right? Wonder why TPGs apparently couldn't consistently tell the difference?

[savedfrommyspokes]

Not the result I was hoping to find, but this card did sell in the same condition 3 years ago via PWCC.