Does it really exist? Prove it!

[frankhardy]

I recently bought a sealed 2002 Topps Factory Set (blue box). Mail has delivered and it is waiting on me when I get home. I am going to open it to see if the Pujols has been corrected. Please stand by..........

[ALR-bishop]

Are you sure you want to break the seal on it Shane. Sort of like driving that new car off the lot.

[frankhardy]

Risk vs reward. I already have sealed 2002 set (not blue). I got it on ebay for $44 so I figured it can't hurt.

[cardinalcollector]

Good luck Shane, I've never seen one and I searched for many years.

[frankhardy]

Well.....we are no closer to solving the Pujols corrected back mystery.

First of all, no corrected Pujols. Polanco is on the back.

Secondly.....as soon as I opened it up, I realized that even if the Pujols in this set HAD the corrected back, it still would not solve the mystery in my mind. The reason is because the "blue box" factory set is the "Home Team Advatage" (HTA) Set. I did not realize this until I started looking at the cards. In my opinion, this is a parallel set and not the true base set because it has the HTA gold stamp on each card.

Interestingly enough, I actually do not have this team set. My team set collection is missing a good portion of parallel Topps and oddball Topps sets from 1999 to 2005.

Rich, if you see this........this statement is not meant to confrontational at all. I know you said that you talked to a Topps representative. Is it possible that the representative was mistaken? Might he have been considering the Opening Day Set or the Chrome set to be the corrected version? My Chrome and Refractor versions DO have the corrected back. But I have never seen nor heard of a corrected back on a base card.

[mrmopar]

If you break the set up, keep me in mind for the Dodgers team set please.

Originally Posted by frankhardy

Well.....we are no closer to solving the Pujols corrected back mystery.

First of all, no corrected Pujols. Polanco is on the back.

Secondly.....as soon as I opened it up, I realized that even if the Pujols in this set HAD the corrected back, it still would not solve the mystery in my mind. The reason is because the "blue box" factory set is the "Home Team Advatage" (HTA) Set. I did not realize this until I started looking at the cards. In my opinion, this is a parallel set and not the true base set because it has the HTA gold stamp on each card.

Interestingly enough, I actually do not have this team set. My team set collection is missing a good portion of parallel Topps and oddball Topps sets from 1999 to 2005.

Rich, if you see this........this statement is not meant to confrontational at all. I know you said that you talked to a Topps representative. Is it possible that the representative was mistaken? Might he have been considering the Opening Day Set or the Chrome set to be the corrected version? My Chrome and Refractor versions DO have the corrected back. But I have never seen nor heard of a corrected back on a base card.

[frankhardy]

Originally Posted by mrmopar

If you break the set up, keep me in mind for the Dodgers team set please.

I very well may do that. I may keep the Cardinals and try to sell the rest.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by frankhardy

Well.....we are no closer to solving the Pujols corrected back mystery.

First of all, no corrected Pujols. Polanco is on the back.

Secondly.....as soon as I opened it up, I realized that even if the Pujols in this set HAD the corrected back, it still would not solve the mystery in my mind. The reason is because the "blue box" factory set is the "Home Team Advatage" (HTA) Set. I did not realize this until I started looking at the cards. In my opinion, this is a parallel set and not the true base set because it has the HTA gold stamp on each card.

Interestingly enough, I actually do not have this team set. My team set collection is missing a good portion of parallel Topps and oddball Topps sets from 1999 to 2005.

Rich, if you see this........this statement is not meant to confrontational at all. I know you said that you talked to a Topps representative. Is it possible that the representative was mistaken? Might he have been considering the Opening Day Set or the Chrome set to be the corrected version? My Chrome and Refractor versions DO have the corrected back. But I have never seen nor heard of a corrected back on a base card.

Shane: Actually one of my teammates spoke to Clay and he said the correct Pujols was 10 percent of the run and IIRC we ran a photo of the corrected Pujols card in the E and V column. That was more than 15 years ago though so memory does at times get slightly conflated but I remember that whole situation vividly.

[ALR-bishop]

There goes that confrontational Shane. Banning is the only remedy

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by frankhardy

First of all, no corrected Pujols. Polanco is on the back.

PSA has graded 48 of the "corrected" cards. I have a hard time believing they got it wrong that many times.
https://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball...02/topps/49718

[frankhardy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

PSA has graded 48 of the "corrected" cards. I have a hard time believing they got it wrong that many times.
https://www.psacard.com/pop/baseball...02/topps/49718

It is my opinion that the "corrected" version on the pop report is actually all of the ones graded before the discovery. I am fairly sure of this because I actually sent one in to PSA early on and it did not say "corrected" or "Polanco back". I think after the discovery was made, they transferred all of the data from the cards graded before the discovery to the "corrected" back. Just a theory, but I really think that is what happened.

As for the 10% run.....you would certainly think that one would surface.

[ALR-bishop]

I have asked both here and on CU for some time for anyone who has one to post it. So far no one has. It was included in the last SCD Standard Catalog that included post 1980 listings which makes me think Lemke thought he saw one, or was told about it

[quitcrab]

How about a 1969 Rawling promo Reggie Jackson or Mickey Mantle?

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by frankhardy

It is my opinion that the "corrected" version on the pop report is actually all of the ones graded before the discovery. I am fairly sure of this because I actually sent one in to PSA early on and it did not say "corrected" or "Polanco back". I think after the discovery was made, they transferred all of the data from the cards graded before the discovery to the "corrected" back. Just a theory, but I really think that is what happened.

I know nothing about the Pujols card, but the scenario you put forward makes perfect sense in general. Case in point, there are so many 1962 'green tints' that reside in normal slabs, because they were graded before PSA started differentiating between the two variations.

[Bestdj777]

Originally Posted by quitcrab

How about a 1969 Rawling promo Reggie Jackson or Mickey Mantle?

I've seen two Mantles. They were listed on eBay within a couple weeks of each other. A member picked up the first and tipped me off to the second. I could justify the $1,500 price tag, or whatever, without knowing for 100% certain it was real, which I couldn't as none have been graded.

[Bestdj777]

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachm...5&d=1458596663

Mantle

[Bestdj777]

Link to the thread with the Reggie and Mantle:
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=219905

[Exhibitman]

I learn new stuff all the time; thanks for the link to the Rawlings thread.

[insidethewrapper]

Originally Posted by judgejules1

For me there are two Mays items that I've never seen. They also happen to be two of two of the remaining five that I need to complete the master set:

1958-1961 JAY PUBLISHING PHOTOS-TYPE 1 WILLIE MAYS PORTRAIT-POSE TO NECK
1968 AMERICAN OIL WILLIE MAYS LEFT SIDE-$10

Are these the Willie Mays photos you were looking for ? I found these on the internet listed as :1955 Jay Publishing New York Giants, ( same photo) listed as 1956 New York Giants, and the 3rd photo listed as 1958 Jay Publishing All Stars( listed as Mays, but that is not Mays ( photo error). Hope this helps, not sure if the listings I found are correct, any opinions ?

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by bobsbbcards

Because it isn't graded (or in a slab at all). I like the look of the PSA slabs for display purposes, so I scan a lot of cards and insert the front/back scans in a faux PSA slab. Pretty, isn't it?

That’s hilarious...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tedzan]

The 3rd photo is that of Bill White. One of the finest gentleman in Baseball.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[ALR-bishop]

Speaking of White and whether certain cards exist, there used to be a hobby rumor that a version of his 59 card, a proof maybe, exists without the traded line

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by detroitbaseball

Has anyone ever seen an Alan Trammell 1979 Hostess unissued proof?

This set is listed in the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards.

Here they are

trammellFront.jpg

mccoveyFront.jpg

Also Belanger and if you look at the numbered blank card it is a missing number from the Card Catalog checklist[ATTACH]BelangerFront.jpg[/ATTACH]

[stkuhl]

My white whale is a 1997 Topps Chipper Jones Jumbo card. There are a million Walmart Chrome cards but in several years of looking I have not located a 'regular' issue Jumbo card.

[roarfrom34]

Originally Posted by detroitbaseball

Has anyone ever seen an Alan Trammell 1979 Hostess unissued proof?

This set is listed in the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards.

Recent post from the CU board:

https://forums.collectors.com/discus...floored#latest

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by stkuhl

My white whale is a 1997 Topps Chipper Jones Jumbo card. There are a million Walmart Chrome cards but in several years of looking I have not located a 'regular' issue Jumbo card.

You mean this? I got mine a few years ago when putting together a '97 master set - I don't recall it being hard to find, but I may have forgotten.

I wish I had another one - I'd send it to you.

[deweyinthehall]

No idea why it consistently comes out upside down - tried a few times to correct it.

[JollyElm]

Here ya go...

1.jpg

[deweyinthehall]

Thanks - but I can't see it. Actually, the last couple posts you've made with images I can't see either....weird. I'm signed in and everything, and no other images by other posters seem to be affected.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

Thanks - but I can't see it. Actually, the last couple posts you've made with images I can't see either....weird. I'm signed in and everything, and no other images by other posters seem to be affected.

It's weird that your software hates me, and me alone. (You're missing some really great stuff!)

[stkuhl]

Hunting the White Whale is what makes it fun. Good to know that a 97 Chipper Jumbo is out there. Thanks for the confirmation.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It's weird that your software hates me, and me alone. (You're missing some really great stuff!)

It isn't just you. I can click on your broken pictures and then open them in a new page after having to sign in again. Some people I have never seen a single picture they have ever posted. Weirdly for me it changes by the device I am on and it has always been that way for me.

EDIT: To add, nice videos and cards Darren.

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by bnorth

It isn't just you. I can click on your broken pictures and then open them in a new page after having to sign in again. Some people I have never seen a single picture they have ever posted. Weirdly for me it changes by the device I am on and it has always been that way for me.

EDIT: To add, nice videos and cards Darren.

Just tried it - this works for me too!