Options
Why does PSA consider these the same card?
woodstock2
Posts: 63 ✭✭✭
Does anyone know why PSA won't differentiate versions of the 1989 Fleer Marlboro Ad on Scoreboard card? I'm curious because they don't seem to have similar problems with parallel cards of more recent issues.
Tagged:
0
Comments
How many different variations do you expect PSA to designate, Partially obscured, very partially obscured, partially partially obscured.... The other issue is that so many were graded by the time the degrees of different obscurration was noticed, it would be pointless as there was a ton of just ad on scoreboard graded cards already in the world. I guess you could say with this version, buy the card not the flip could not be more true!
I think even categorizing the versions into 11 groups would be incredibly useful for people who collect this card and are trying to complete the run. Something like: 1. No tint, 2. Blue Tint, 3. Red Tint, 4. Green Tint, 5. Low Tint, 6. Scribble, 7. Red Stencil, 8. BLUE Stencil, 9. Partially Obscured, 10. Opaque Box over sign, 11. Completely Obscured. The 4 cards I used as examples are 1, 2, 3, and 5.
To operationalize a change like this, PSA could run a quarterly special to encourage people to upgrade to a slab with the new labeling convention. I would definitely pay $20 per Ad on Scoreboard card to have it reslabbed with a more accurate labeling convention.
PSA designates parallels all the time For example, 2018 Topps Series 2 has parallels: Rainbow Foil, Gold, Vintage Stock, Independence Day, Black, Mother’s Day Pink, Father’s Day Powder Blue, Memorial Day Camo, Clear, Negative, Platinum, and Printing Plates. In my mind their current labeling convention with the RJ card is like aggregating all Gold and Platinum parallels under a label of "Metals".
I'd venture to guess that although your descriptions are probably right on, it's subjective to the Joe's that grade cards and couldn't care less if there is a little more of the logo showing between 2 cards and don't have anything to refer to when deciding which is which. You have assigned a designation for variants because on what seems to be an extremely familiar position you have with that card. The examples you gave are clear, manufacturer designated parallels, not a print blunder/cover up.
Thanks! There are definitely different takes on whether the parallel analogy entirely fits here but it seem more right than not to me.
Regardless it seems like there is opportunity to make the labeling process for this card (which is likely a bit of a headache for PSA researchers now) more efficient. If they can put processes in place to identify modern parallels I'm sure they could do it for this card too.
Admittedly, I agree there is probably little upside to PSA for changing their current labeling convention. It would certainly buy goodwill from folks like me (not worth much) and make things so much easier buying and selling the card.
You are talking about PSA taking time to care about cards that amount to a total population of 7000 or so.... And then you figure that there are probably less than 1000 raw cards that might be submitted in the future for grading (and that is probably very high). If PSA ran a special, I doubt even 1000 card owners would even be aware of it, and even then, how many would waste their time,. Now if you were talking about something iconic like the UD griffey jr rookie, with a pop of over 80k, yeah then it might make sense. But at the end of the day, what you are suggesting is not going to add value, so there really is no point for re-slabbing unless you are OCD for a PC...
This is very true. I probably expect too much from PSA. Still it would be great if this card was afforded labels that accurately identify the particular card version/parallel in the slab (like modern card collectors get) regardless of the pop numbers.
I disagree that it wouldn't add value. Maybe not for everyone but for some it would (things that focus on modern cards which I do not collect don't necessarily add value to me but may still be good ideas). I would love to one day have a registry set with all versions of this card... but right now that can't happen since all the cards I showed are lumped under the same Ad on Scoreboard label designation.
this drove my OCD into overdrive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_from_Panama
The clearer the better. Your first example would sale for far more than the others.
I agree with PSA.. the rest is over excessive.
Unfortunately most people probably agree. Borrowing the 2018 Topps Series 2 analogy again, I'm not sure many would mind if their much less rare rainbow and gold versions were lumped under a generic label "parallel" along with much rarer Platinum, clear, and camo versions.
The analogy is flawed because those different parallels are recognized and categorized from the start AND intentionally factory issued, plus some have finite print runs since they are numbered. You want to start categorizing a card where probably more than 95% of those that will ever be graded have ALREADY been graded. And the differences are not as cut and dry. The level of obscured.... the level of un-obscured, the level/corlor of tint... The type of obscuring.... You want 20 different "parallels" to grade maybe 200 cards... You are like at least 5 years too late..
I agree that my analogy breaks down since parallels are applied to a set and not limited to a single card. Still, even though it isn't an exact fit, I think this card is closer to a parallel than a printing error variation. Of course whether someone agrees depends on whether they think the various tints over the Marlboro sign were purposefully created by Fleer. I would argue these versions were purposefully different and not accidental oversights even if they aren't serially numbered (e.g., refractor is usually not numbered either).
In any case, I don't think the four cards shown in the original post should all have the same label. At a minimum I think there should be one more label for "NO TINT" to differentiate that one from all others with some level of tint or coverup. Just because the TPG's are doing their labeling a certain way doesn't mean they shouldn't update the process when more information comes available. That said, I'm not delusional enough to think the labels on this card will change.
It gets so, so much worse than this when it comes to PSA and this card.
They have absolutely zero clue what they are doing with their own three categories. Plenty of ad blacked out slabs with very present ads showing and visa versa. It is all over the place, more so these days than ten years ago.
Myself and few others have worked diligently (nearly 20 years now) in cataloging and unraveling the nuances and production history of this card. Tons of solid info written up on it for them to work from. They just aren’t interested in diving into it any further.
I would imagine that part of the problem is on the submitter entering the card under the wrong heading/variation and then the PSA peeps not catching it/caring to correct it...
To me it is very niche for collectors to understand the plethora of different variations of how much an ad is obscured. You know more than PSA. Just seek them out and buy all the versions graded if you wish. You will know you have them all and if you sell - sell as a group and somebody who cares will see they are getting the complete run. I honestly cannot tell the difference between the bottom 2. I find it interesting - but I prefer to focus on Johnson when looking at the card instead of an ad behind him.
True, but their distillation of 13 distinct versions down to 3 label types and their inability to keep that right is the bigger problem. A solid argument could be made for 5 or 6 different labels that the 13 variations could fall under, a la Bill Ripken's card. They have the means and ability to do it.
EDIT:
This is just ridiculous:
https://ebay.com/itm/203917889486?hash=item2f7a740fce:g:NIQAAOSwWcZiXeyL&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAA8DNJMi0H%2BvLpN2AjYh88WIqTCK%2F3hF1R4NLlct%2ByQuNKLXNs4TpjA2eLhmE0%2F2ZyyzgahTrr%2FXFqQPPtEddBsfXgWw4C5a4zTb3Klm%2B3Z8VE1r2kTam57RC8wEs%2FUXAbR35cAVRdCuMUq33xTDk%2BBYO4AG6Y5g697Y2qPYlKNVnP9%2Bw5dL0yP%2BtNNxZB8w2db4NYj5sQtojF1cfpbswS330AieInCswLZhiDkvpV%2FVEF3jwv9B0AwecVDt1XaD044w4aiflQuyvribiHPvEKKbFFsMtbOrlRKlNs1UfgYdWkUo6orc%2F78bEI%2BmOxwbumNw%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABFBMxoCM1Zhg
I couldn't agree more. Expanding their labeling convention to even 5 or 6 different labels (and providing some clarity over which versions fall under which label) would be a huge improvement.
It is a key rookie card of one of the best left handed pitchers ever. PSA has the benefit of inspecting in hand with lights, loupes, etc. The importance of these variations warrants a little more specificity.
Yes, that is. Unbelievable.
I am waiting for my PSA order (still in Qa2 since Monday) to pop and get back into my hands before I go nuclear on PSA to get my labels corrected.