Cards still being outed on Blowout -- PSA 9 Monte Irvin in the recent ML

[Snowman]

When he posted the Mays the first time, I didn't see anything about the recoloring or print lines removed. I believe he only showed the the pictures of the back edges, which he has since reposted. Those images do not bear any evidence of trimming or recoloring of the back edges. That's why I was confused and critical of his prior post. But he has since updated it, or reposted rather, and is now pointing out the recoloring on Mays' forearms, which is clearly there, as Lorewalker pointed out. And the print lines on the right border appear to have been "improved" as well (although I don't believe corndog mentioned those - yet).

[Lorewalker]

He did show the fronts of the cards. Had he not posted those front pics I never could have picked up the obvious recoloring. He was vague as to what had been done.

Also that print line flaw is on many 54 Topps Mays cards (frequently varies in size) however there are some that do not have them (maybe they are recolored too) but I have never seen a 54 Mays with the print line flaw in anything higher than a 7. Assumption is that PSA does not see it as a variation but a flaw that reduces the grade.

Quite a bit of misinformation being tossed around as fact on this thread.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

He did show the fronts of the cards. Had he not posted those front pics I never could have picked up the obvious recoloring. He was vague as to what had been done.

Also that print line flaw is on many 54 Topps Mays cards (frequently varies in size) however there are some that do not have them (maybe they are recolored too) but I have never seen a 54 Mays with the print line flaw in anything higher than a 7. Assumption is that PSA does not see it as a variation but a flaw that reduces the grade.

Quite a bit of misinformation being tossed around as fact on this thread.

I searched DuckDuckGo for "1954 Topps Mays PSA 8" and pulled the first 2 images that result for this search. Result 1 is a PWCC file which Safari doesn't want to download the image, so here's the link: https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/2184996. Result #2 is attached.

Misinformation indeed!

[G1911]

And here's a 9

[Lorewalker]

2 of the examples were graded very early on. 1 of them I have no idea when the cert was used. Those are the first I have seen, not that I have looked for them but if an experienced card doctor recolored it, then it reasons that generally that print flaw results in a downgrade.

And in case we continue this I want to apologize from the bottom of my heart if I upset you in anything I post.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If it was a T206 it would be some highly prized "freak" and there would be 107 threads about it.

[steve B]

It's not really a print flaw, which I consider to be flaws from the press or handling.

It's from a mark on the negative used to make the plate. It would be on about half or 1/3 of the 54 mays produced. A genuine difference in that plate position, which should be treated as a variation even if it's not major enough to catalog or recognize. (and there are plenty that are recognized that are far more trivial)

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

2 of the examples were graded very early on. 1 of them I have no idea when the cert was used. Those are the first I have seen, not that I have looked for them but if an experienced card doctor recolored it, then it reasons that generally that print flaw results in a downgrade.

And in case we continue this I want to apologize from the bottom of my heart if I upset you in anything I post.

I found 3 graded over a 7.5 in 20 seconds and saw 6 total qualifying slabs. Makes me strongly suspect this is not "misinformation" but that PSA does not treat this particular variant differently from so many other print differences that it completely ignores. I don't see evidence for the contrary.

I'm still not interested in the personal game you want to play with me. That's all you.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I found 3 graded over a 7.5 in 20 seconds and saw 6 total qualifying slabs. Makes me strongly suspect this is not "misinformation" but that PSA does not treat this particular variant differently from so many other print differences that it completely ignores. I don't see evidence for the contrary.

I'm still not interested in the personal game you want to play with me. That's all you.

I have no knowledge of this variant, but if that is so, why would Gary recolor it, and how else do we explain the jump of 1.5 grades?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

I found 3 graded over a 7.5 in 20 seconds and saw 6 total qualifying slabs. Makes me strongly suspect this is not "misinformation" but that PSA does not treat this particular variant differently from so many other print differences that it completely ignores. I don't see evidence for the contrary.

I'm still not interested in the personal game you want to play with me. That's all you.

You might not see evidence to the contrary as to your theory but that does not at all mean your theory is at all accurate. It merely means you are not able to see another explanation.

PSA is known for being inconsistent. Within the last 5 years I submitted a very high grade Mays which came back a 7. I reviewed it and it came back with a post it note with an arrow pointing to the print anomaly.

That one of the most prolific card doctors in the hobby knew to remove it in an effort to get a 1.5 grade bump suggests that he, who you will have to admit has far more experience submitting than you do, knew leaving it there would not allow him to get a grade bump.