![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Great pose, awesome sky background on this card haven't seen this one before very cool.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Glad to be back. Was having some serious withdraws there. Hope to keep chuggin along
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
i agree! Most humbly.... This iS a Printers Proof Card, I've had many of them, mostly sold now though. i would Love to see a scan of the Back.(Please, if possible?)
This is what i would do if the card were mine, i would Not fear a regrade at all(i mention this because of the older PSA slab, ie rounded frame). Sending it to SGC for their Slabbed oinion is the Real Deal Ticket to authenication. just my 2 pennies worth ![]() Oh yeah, also, you might want to magnify the the Proof line to see what if any other colors can be seen(sometimes not with the naked eye). "Sweet Card!!!"
__________________
Life's Grand, Denny Walsh |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
printer's proof card? nothing personal...but u guys are whacked! this is merely a printers mark used to line up the plates...this is not a proof!
You guys can fight over what premium this card should carry...in my opinion...none...it's just a nice t205...definitely NOT a proof of any kind?! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() So let me ask you guys this. Why is it every time someone finds a small dot or mistake on a T206 it's the newest and hottest variation and they get slaps on the back. I remember finding a T205 Latham with the W missing but remnence of it and the period on there and it was disregarded as just the A Latham variation. I will post pics later. The fact that the mark is visible should be a major issue. It unlike the "Beloved" T206's, T205's have a solid gold covered border. That would make the possibility of getting a printers mark on one nearly impossible unless the border ink was never applied. Well love to hear the feedback on this |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Peter,
Can you tell us how you really feel? Please, don't hold back ![]() ![]() Yes, it is not a proof card, that much is obvious. A printers mark(?), yeah, high probability. What premium should the printer mark carry, I'm thinking 5 to 10 bucks. In other words, the price of a happy meal or two. Of course, the good thing about a snipe is the ability to change it on a whim. Talk to me tomorrow and I might feel differently. Lovely Day... |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I don't think because it's not a t206 it is any more or less than what it is! Yes...people are ridiculous about analyzing t206's for any stray marks or insignificant print variations looking to strike gold...but many cards exhibit such stray printing marks...like almost every e90-1 cy young(boston) I've seen.
It's a beautiful card...with a little evidence it was created by a human being...enjoy it. Sorry guys...but I'm still a little on edge from the twins/yanks game last night. Many twins fans are obnoxious idiots! |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1912 Honest Cut Ty Cobb Card | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 02-11-2009 06:07 PM |
How many people accept the T200 Cleveland card as their J. Jax card? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 17 | 12-25-2007 11:04 AM |
Can An Off-Register Card or a Card With a Printer's Flaw Be Considered NrMt.? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 10-23-2007 10:46 AM |
A question regarding the Mastro trimmed card thread | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 42 | 10-02-2006 11:36 AM |
I realize that our opinions may differ regarding what constitutes a baseball card | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 09-10-2006 01:42 PM |