Is there any way...

MorrellMan

...this card is real? The seller is a favorite of mine, and, with the cross-hatching, I dropped them a line to let them know they had a reprint, but they politely refused to pull the auction. To their credit, they did indicate they would give a full refund to the winning bidder if not satisfied, and I'm SURE they are not tyring to pull a fast one. Nonetheless, any chance in hell this thing is really 47 years old?

calleocho

looks fine ..whats wrong with it?

bri2327

Cross hatching looks like a scanner issue to me, not the card.

LWMM

<< <i>Cross hatching looks like a scanner issue to me, not the card. >>



It looks more like a photo than a scan---the background doesn't look like a scanner backing, and the card is not pressed flat.

MorrellMan

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the cross-hatching occurs only on the obverse photo. If it was a scanner issue, wouldn't we see cross hatching through out both scans?

For those who don't know, cross-hatching is the major indicator of this card as a counterfeit.

Note there is no cross hatching to this example, lifted from the registry (my apologies and gratitude to the owner):

Boopotts

What's really important here I think is that PSA will not, IMExperience, grade anything with cross hatching. So even if it's genuine it won't get slabbed. I sent in a bunch of very nice York Yellow Backs with that same cross hatching about 3 years ago, and all were rejected on the grounds that they were counterfeit. Which begs the question: Who the hell is counterfeiting York Yellow Backs? It's an obscure peanut butter hockey issue from 1962; not exactly on par with 1986 Fleer basketball from a demand standpoint.

Unless there's something particular about this issue I don't know I'd just avoid it. Because there's actually two questions at work here: One is whether or not it's actually genuine, and the second is whether or not PSA will think it's genuine.

baseballfanatic

<< <i>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the cross-hatching occurs only on the obverse photo. If it was a scanner issue, wouldn't we see cross hatching through out both scans?

For those who don't know, cross-hatching is the major indicator of this card as a counterfeit.

Note there is no cross hatching to this example, lifted from the registry (my apologies and gratitude to the owner):

>>




Not just the cross hatching, but a really muddy picture. I know that this card and the 54 Bowman Williams were some of the hobby's earliest forgeries. The early forgeries were tough because no one really saw them coming. A lot of them probably reside in some pretty good collections ungraded...........

Griffins

In 1976 these cards were forged, it was the first big scandal of the time. The forger sold a bunch of them at the Philadelphia convention, and then came out to Anaheim. After a short discussion the promoters stopped his sales.
The cards were different due to the cross hatching (called a Moire pattern in the printing business) and a magenta (pink) cast. Moire is cause by making a copy of a copy, and this is what they did.
Moire can also show up in scans and photographs of anything that was originally printed by a printing press. There are ways to get around it, but it wasn't nearly as easy 30 years ago as it is today. Mark's image could be the result of a bad scan and color balance of a legit card, but that fact that it is raw and exhibits both warning flags would be enough to keep me away.

baseballfanatic

A lot of us are showing our age on this one..............