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

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Statfreak101

Here is one of them.

https://ibb.co/RjhgTmL

That is just the normal corrected version.

Look at the slightly higher black bar below the Bell. The version that sold has the shorter line the stops just after the bell like the many Marlboro versions.

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by bnorth

That is just the normal corrected version.

Look at the slightly higher black bar below the Bell. The version that sold has the shorter line the stops just after the bell like the many Marlboro versions.

Yep. 100%

[steve5838]

The card I posted a picture of on 12/22 has been reholdered by PSA.... but $39 later (including shipping) the label stayed the same. Here is the new scan from PSA. I still don't get it. I guess they are no longer putting the Ad on Scoreboard label on any version other than the clear?? After so much back and forth with them on this particular submission I will not be sending any more RJs to PSA. Be careful if having this particular label from a TPG matters to you. Steve

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by steve5838

The card I posted a picture of on 12/22 has been reholdered by PSA.... but $39 later (including shipping) the label stayed the same. Here is the new scan from PSA. I still don't get it. I guess they are no longer putting the Ad on Scoreboard label on any version other than the clear?? After so much back and forth with them on this particular submission I will not be sending any more RJs to PSA. Be careful if having this particular label from a TPG matters to you. Steve

That sucks. I don't care what they label them as if they would at least be consistent with those labels. PSA sucks at labeling the 89 Fleer Bill Ripken cards also. There are several different versions they will label as "Black Scribble Over Error" and those different versions can vary in price from $10 to $1250 in the same grade.

With all the different versions I am not sure there is a realistic way for them to get it correct most of the time. With the 3 different color tints and the huge amount of difference in the darkness of the tints even in the same color of tints, then add in the stencil and box versions it really is just too much.

[steve5838]

Originally Posted by bnorth

That sucks. I don't care what they label them as if they would at least be consistent with those labels. PSA sucks at labeling the 89 Fleer Bill Ripken cards also. There are several different versions they will label as "Black Scribble Over Error" and those different versions can vary in price from $10 to $1250 in the same grade.

With all the different versions I am not sure there is a realistic way for them to get it correct most of the time. With the 3 different color tints and the huge amount of difference in the darkness of the tints even in the same color of tints, then add in the stencil and box versions it really is just too much.

Ben, I think you are probably right. I do care how they label my cards though so I guess I am glad I purchased when I did and most of mine say Ad on Scoreboard. Still I think PSA owes it to customers to clarify their new labeling convention and confirm it has in fact changed. People are willing to pay more for the Scoreboard label and its not fair to suck money from customers who are assuming their cards will get the Scoreboard label designations (based on all the pictures of PSA slabbed Scoreboard labeled cards that show up when you search APR recent sales on PSA's own site). It seems like bait and switch to me. It just isn't right. I don't care where they draw the lines between their 3 defined versions so long as they are transparent with what the distinguishing criteria are and consistent with the application. Steve

[jacksoncoupage]

Originally Posted by bnorth

That sucks. I don't care what they label them as if they would at least be consistent with those labels.

Originally Posted by steve5838

It just isn't right. I don't care where they draw the lines between their 3 defined versions so long as they are transparent with what the distinguishing criteria are and consistent with the application. Steve

Tall, tall order at this point in time. As we all know, they never have been and there is no incentive for them to start. PSA of today has a mostly antagonistic relationship with its customers, especially toward those bothering them with nonsense like variations and "difficult" items (aka anything not in Beckett/SCD annuals).

[ALR-bishop]

I am not a graded collector and have never sent a card to be graded, but I get why grading companies would not be well equipped to deal with odd ball or non standard items. Since Lemke retired and then the catalogs quit publishing there is no real viable vehicle to get variations/variants widespread hobby recognition that the grading companies can follow

I like the update Mike Cady is doing to the Gilkeson publications but it does not seem to be widely followed. And it involves the same problem of what is or should be the accepted definition of a variation in the hobby.

If you just like to collect variations, variants, recurring print defects and print oddities it does not matter much. But if your goal is increasing the value of your oddities I guess PSA or other grading company recognition of them is your only route at present.

[steve5838]

I just received the April 2023 copy of PSA Magazine and was pleasantly surprised to see a call out to #381 in an article titled "Cinderella Men". The writeup is riddled with inaccurate info (and it would have been nice if they had shown one of the versions where you can make out the sign) but nonetheless I figured others here may be interested.