I knew the Treadway wasn't going to be good, but I'm happy with an 8. Looks like there's only 2 9's and no 10's so it's not that bad. Not sure what the hell happened with the Brookens with Heath back. I thought I was really starting to get an eye for these. Maybe not.
NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1989 FLEER 173 JEFF TREADWAY W/TARGET Card US NEAR MINT-MINT+ 8.5 1989 FLEER 130 TOM BROOKENS MIKE HEATH STATS ON BACK Card US GEM MINT 10 1989 FLEER 132 MIKE HEATH TOM BROOKENS STATS BACK Card US GEM MINT 10 1989 FLEER 26 CURT YOUNG Card US GEM MINT 10 1989 FLEER 26 CURT YOUNG Card US
They called me and told me they wouldn't be noting the Curt Young differences on the flip. Oh well. At least I can sleep well knowing I paid $12 to grade 2 cards that are now worth $3 total.
Sorry to drag up an old thread, but building a raw 1989 Fleer master set and need a few variations if anyone has any left from all the boxes the forum users busted this past summer. Centering and overall condition aren't that important.
Need:
Wade Boggs w/o the dot Guillermo Hernandez lighter tint mark Treadway target Ripken FF (Graded most of mine but can't seem to find a leftover raw one)
"While I am not a professional grader, I have been a good collector and know grading criteria. You are buying from the photo but this card looks just about perfect to meCARD LISTED AS "RICKY FACE" IN MOST PRICE GUIDES"
If you own a "Ricky" Face price guide, I'm interested.
Sorting a bunch of 89 Fleer Ted Simmons cards I found a print error that Fleer seemed to correct. The "F" in "First Base" has a flair to it in the Error version, it seems to have been corrected in later versions. Neither is rare. I have 33 with the "Flair" and 23 without.
"The Sipe market is ridiculous right now" CDsNuts, 1/9/15
Hopefully the 2010 SCD standard Catalog adds more errors to this set. I think that is the only way PSA will accept the Curt Young if it makes the "big book" lol.
I see you can pre-order it on amazon.
Anyone know the release date ?
Buying: Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon 80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name" 90 ProSet Dexter Manley error 90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back 1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”) 81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat) 91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
<< <i>Sorting a bunch of 89 Fleer Ted Simmons cards I found a print error that Fleer seemed to correct. The "F" in "First Base" has a flair to it in the Error version, it seems to have been corrected in later versions. Neither is rare. I have 33 with the "Flair" and 23 without. >>
There are no new additions to the variations in 1989 Fleer in the 2010 SCBC. I doubt that any of those mentioned recently on this thread will be listed in the future, either. As the guy who would have to give the nod to doing so, I am disinclined to list as variations those cards that exhibit stray ink spots, etc., even if they are repeated. While some of this type of thing was listed in the past, the rise of the tnternet has meant that being able to compare specific specimens has turned up way too many of these unintentional printing mistakes.
A card would have to acquire and sustain significant premium value to be considered for listing in the future, and I wouldn't rule out some current listings being removed.
<< <i>There are no new additions to the variations in 1989 Fleer in the 2010 SCBC. I doubt that any of those mentioned recently on this thread will be listed in the future, either. As the guy who would have to give the nod to doing so, I am disinclined to list as variations those cards that exhibit stray ink spots, etc., even if they are repeated. While some of this type of thing was listed in the past, the rise of the tnternet has meant that being able to compare specific specimens has turned up way too many of these unintentional printing mistakes.
A card would have to acquire and sustain significant premium value to be considered for listing in the future, and I wouldn't rule out some current listings being removed. >>
Thanks for the insight Bob.
I wonder how removal of a variation from the SCBC would affect PSA's willingness to recognize said variation?
I think there is a good market being left out by PSA. Just look at the heritage themed variations and how popular they have become.
I don't think every small variation should be noted but some of the well know variations should be distguished.
Curt Young and Wade Boggs in the 1989 Fleer set is common knowlegde. The question is more, "why wouldn't PSA and SCD/Krause want to include these in there listings. It can only increase revenue and interest in products that otherwise have a limited scope."
Many error collectors are pushed to the side and forced to use grading companies we would rather avoid.
I think AUPT does a great job explaining the system, and maybe could shed even more light on the topic. I often ask him about the 1990 topps Jeff King Yellow Black Variation which there is only 1 in the world, lol.
Sometimes SCD/PSA have to realize that they create value. If there is zero demand and value for a card that is then listed as a variation that could be found by collectors, they could drive up the price, which then drives up demand, and the circle begins.
Buying: Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon 80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name" 90 ProSet Dexter Manley error 90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back 1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”) 81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat) 91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
Numerous FF versions, most which are readily available, left out.
I assume it's due to the low demand. BUT if people knew there were more variations, the demand would most likely increase.
For years I've talked to collectors who thought there were only 5-6 that the various guides listed, and was pleased to hear of more and later sought them out.
Beckett stated they only list what they do, one reason being the ease in replication. (Not the wording the used, same point though) They have other reasons, they said, but were not given. I assume they were referencing the 'replication' to the saw cuts. That's understandable.
Perfect example is that Star Wars -- C3PO Boner Card, (or whatever you want to call it).
It is a legit variation that many collectors want to have in the error/variation collection but PSA won't acknowledge.
b]WHY?[
Then when you comment or ask PSA a question you never get a definitive answer. There isn't a SCBC for : football, hockey, baskets, non sports so its kinda like living by dictator rule., lol !!!!
Buying: Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon 80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name" 90 ProSet Dexter Manley error 90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back 1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”) 81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat) 91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
<< <i>There are no new additions to the variations in 1989 Fleer in the 2010 SCBC. I doubt that any of those mentioned recently on this thread will be listed in the future, either. As the guy who would have to give the nod to doing so, I am disinclined to list as variations those cards that exhibit stray ink spots, etc., even if they are repeated. While some of this type of thing was listed in the past, the rise of the tnternet has meant that being able to compare specific specimens has turned up way too many of these unintentional printing mistakes.
A card would have to acquire and sustain significant premium value to be considered for listing in the future, and I wouldn't rule out some current listings being removed. >>
Good candidate for removal: 1986 Topps Roger Clemens *Blue Streak* variation.
This, like the 1990 Topps Frank Thomas is a printing flaw found on many other cards from that era. I have found many repeat offender 'printing flaws' that go unrecognized even after years of successful sales online.
There seems to be two major laws with cataloging/recognizing/accepting a new 'printing flaw' variation as legit:
1.) It's a "pretty mistake". Thomas' NNOF card cleanly omits his name on front. Fred Stanley's 1980 Yellow Name card is clean unlike the many other 1980 Topps blotch and excess ink printing flaws. For whatever reason, a true variation featuring an asymetrical shaped blotch or "pink thing on the armpit" could be as rare as the previously mentioned accepted variations but interest will be less. Weird, but pretty true.
2.) Star/RC of star. When even the corniest and most obviously a "printing flaw" type of variation ( 1986 Topps Clemens ) shows up on a heavily collected guy, then they ultimately end up being listed/sought but the same exact flaw can affect a Dan Billardello and it'll be ignored. If I were a master set collector, this would seem a frustrating practice.
On the 1990 Jeff King note, I'd like to add that, not only should it be removed if just 1 copy exists, but it's a kind of sucks to hear that now after purchasing over 70 copies of the card (from various dealers on beckett a few years ago) in a futile search. Not to mention how many bulk lots at thrift stores, garage sales and wax boxes I purchased trying to find it.
Well , After speaking with AUPT -- he says there should be more than just that 1 Jeff King error out there.
Its funny that no one else has ever seen one, and no one even knows who has the original one.
I ll keep working on my error addiction not matter what anyone tells me !!!!
Buying: Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon 80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name" 90 ProSet Dexter Manley error 90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back 1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”) 81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat) 91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
<< <i>Well , After speaking with AUPT -- he says there should be more than just that 1 Jeff King error out there.
Its funny that no one else has ever seen one, and no one even knows who has the original one. >>
What's even funnier is that it originally listed at $10 (or $20 maybe) then somehow, without ever even surfacing for sale, it "went up" to $100! Pretty nice rise in value for something that no one has ever seen!
Remember, for the last three years I didn't work on the Standard Catalog, so some things that might have gotten done (or undone) . . . didn't.
Jacksoncoupage seems to have a good handle on why some cards get/got listed, while others with identical types of errors/variations didn't.
As for the price of the possibly unique Jeff King 1990T (I don't believe any error of this kind can be unique) . . . I'm not one of those catalogers that believes book prices have to reflect recent/past sales. I believe the SCBC should accurately reflect the real-world market. I believe the first/next '90T King error to come up for auction would hit $100; don't you?
Remember, for the last three years I didn't work on the Standard Catalog, so some things that might have gotten done (or undone) . . . didn't.
Jacksoncoupage seems to have a good handle on why some cards get/got listed, while others with identical types of errors/variations didn't.
As for the price of the possibly unique Jeff King 1990T (I don't believe any error of this kind can be unique) . . . I'm not one of those catalogers that believes book prices have to reflect recent/past sales. I believe the SCBC should accurately reflect the real-world market. I believe the first/next '90T King error to come up for auction would hit $100; don't you? >>
Yes, I do believe that it will get over $100 because there has been several years of hype built up behind it. I have had at least a few dozen different 'master set' and variation collectors contact me asking if I have this card. They see something in a variation-light, Topps base set no less, listed with a vague description to check off of their list for their master set and the interest builds, especially with nothing but their completist determination and the authority of SCD to go off of.
I could literally show you variations that no one has ever heard of or seen besides myself, true variations in major sets. If I listed them on ebay, they'll sell for a couple bucks. If I show them to SCD and SCD decides to list them in their guide and after a few years, I list them, they will get a lot of collector's pursuing them because the guide says it's a necessary addition. The guides have all the control when it comes to variations. Every known (Gilkeson, Beckett, SCD etc) and listed variation, especially in Topps sets will almost always have more interest than a newly discovered variation that no one has heard of before.
<< <i>Anyone ever seen a Marlboro this clear? Pic was not enhanced. All the ones I've seen are darker. (Not my card)
>>
I have been chasing these since at least early 2002, possibly earlier. I have sold a tons of varying types of clarity and I have never seen anything this clear.
As of now, I'm a little skeptical, though I admit, I have no explanation for how this got holdered. Every type of the "Marlboro" visible variety I have ever seen, has a very minor 'tell' at the bottom of the card. This goes for green tints, red tints, etc. This card does not have the 'tell'. I think the tell mark was removed when Fleer "boxed" the sign because the different strike-through versions (where it's just a black strip through the word Marlboro) all still have the little mark and they came before the "boxed" versions, which came before the final "blackout" version.
My name is Kevin, and I am new to the PSA Message Boards, although I have browsed them before.
I own this Randy Johnson clear Marlboro PSA 9 card. I would like to thank my friend Donovan Ryan for posting the picture much better than I could.
I can assure you that this photo has not been altered at all. I have also collected these Johnson variations for awhile now.
Although I never noticed the "mark" you speak of, in looking at some other Randy Johnson variations, there seems to be a little pink squiggle mark in the white box next to the word "Fleer." Is this the "mark" you speak of?
I do have another Johnson where the sign is partially visible, but has been obscured with a tint, this pink mark is gone (not a boxed variety).
I enjoy '89 Fleer varieties, especially the Bill Ripkens and the Johnson's, and it's always fun trying to find the rare variations even today.
I have a 89 Fleer master set that is only missing the Treadway target card and the Ripken whiteout. I have never seen a Randy Johnson with the ad that clear. The ones I have are all tinted on the ad.
<< <i>I have a 89 Fleer master set that is only missing the Treadway target card and the Ripken whiteout. I have never seen a Randy Johnson with the ad that clear. The ones I have are all tinted on the ad. >>
c-list w/positions, 4th Black Scribble and saw cut, whitebox (not 100% convinced legit),FF variation cut unlike saw cut
I actually just bought this on E-Bay about 3 weeks ago. When I saw how clear the ad was, and that I had never seen a clearer one, I just had to bid on it. Lucky for me, I ended up winning it!
Comments
I knew the Treadway wasn't going to be good, but I'm happy with an 8. Looks like there's only 2 9's and no 10's so it's not that bad. Not sure what the hell happened with the Brookens with Heath back. I thought I was really starting to get an eye for these. Maybe not.
NEAR MINT-MINT 8 1989 FLEER 173 JEFF TREADWAY W/TARGET Card US
NEAR MINT-MINT+ 8.5 1989 FLEER 130 TOM BROOKENS MIKE HEATH STATS ON BACK Card US
GEM MINT 10 1989 FLEER 132 MIKE HEATH TOM BROOKENS STATS BACK Card US
GEM MINT 10 1989 FLEER 26 CURT YOUNG Card US
GEM MINT 10 1989 FLEER 26 CURT YOUNG Card US
They called me and told me they wouldn't be noting the Curt Young differences on the flip. Oh well. At least I can sleep well knowing I paid $12 to grade 2 cards that are now worth $3 total.
Need:
Wade Boggs w/o the dot
Guillermo Hernandez lighter tint mark
Treadway target
Ripken FF (Graded most of mine but can't seem to find a leftover raw one)
<< <i>Wade Boggs w/o the dot
Guillermo Hernandez lighter tint mark >>
What the heck are those ones? Guess I never heard of them.
Jeff
Miscut Museum
My Mess
<< <i>What the heck are those ones? Guess I never heard of them. >>
Wade Boggs has a black dot beside his name on the back in top right corner. I am missing the one without teh dot.
Guillermo Hernandez has a red smudge on his left shirt sleeve. The other variations are lighter tint (pink), smudge gone and whiteout.
<< <i>
<< <i>What the heck are those ones? Guess I never heard of them. >>
Wade Boggs has a black dot beside his name on the back in top right corner. I am missing the one without teh dot.
Guillermo Hernandez has a red smudge on his left shirt sleeve. The other variations are lighter tint (pink), smudge gone and whiteout. >>
I'll have to dig but I think I have multiples of each of those for you.
Here's an awesome Treadway for you: Link No target, but check out that "mint" upper left corner. And for only $3!!!
Found this interesting FF on ebay though..
"While I am not a professional grader, I have been a good collector and know grading criteria. You are buying from the photo but this card looks just about perfect to me CARD LISTED AS "RICKY FACE" IN MOST PRICE GUIDES"
If you own a "Ricky" Face price guide, I'm interested.
"Just about perfect" Taking notes PSA?
CDsNuts, 1/9/15
I see you can pre-order it on amazon.
Anyone know the release date ?
Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon
80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name"
90 ProSet Dexter Manley error
90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back
1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”)
81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat)
91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
<< <i>Sorting a bunch of 89 Fleer Ted Simmons cards I found a print error that Fleer seemed to correct. The "F" in "First Base" has a flair to it in the Error version, it seems to have been corrected in later versions. Neither is rare. I have 33 with the "Flair" and 23 without.
A card would have to acquire and sustain significant premium value to be considered for listing in the future, and I wouldn't rule out some current listings being removed.
<< <i>There are no new additions to the variations in 1989 Fleer in the 2010 SCBC. I doubt that any of those mentioned recently on this thread will be listed in the future, either. As the guy who would have to give the nod to doing so, I am disinclined to list as variations those cards that exhibit stray ink spots, etc., even if they are repeated. While some of this type of thing was listed in the past, the rise of the tnternet has meant that being able to compare specific specimens has turned up way too many of these unintentional printing mistakes.
A card would have to acquire and sustain significant premium value to be considered for listing in the future, and I wouldn't rule out some current listings being removed. >>
Thanks for the insight Bob.
I wonder how removal of a variation from the SCBC would affect PSA's willingness to recognize said variation?
I don't think every small variation should be noted but some of the well know variations should be distguished.
Curt Young and Wade Boggs in the 1989 Fleer set is common knowlegde. The question is more, "why wouldn't PSA and SCD/Krause want to include these in there listings. It can only increase revenue and interest in products that otherwise have a limited scope."
Many error collectors are pushed to the side and forced to use grading companies we would rather avoid.
I think AUPT does a great job explaining the system, and maybe could shed even more light on the topic. I often ask him about the 1990 topps Jeff King Yellow Black Variation which there is only 1 in the world, lol.
Sometimes SCD/PSA have to realize that they create value. If there is zero demand and value for a card that is then listed as a variation that could be found by collectors, they could drive up the price, which then drives up demand, and the circle begins.
Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon
80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name"
90 ProSet Dexter Manley error
90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back
1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”)
81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat)
91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
Numerous FF versions, most which are readily available, left out.
I assume it's due to the low demand. BUT if people knew there were more variations, the demand would most likely increase.
For years I've talked to collectors who thought there were only 5-6 that the various guides listed, and was pleased to hear of more and later sought them out.
Beckett stated they only list what they do, one reason being the ease in replication. (Not the wording the used, same point though) They have other reasons, they said, but were not given. I assume they were referencing the 'replication' to the saw cuts. That's understandable.
It is a legit variation that many collectors want to have in the error/variation collection but PSA won't acknowledge.
b]WHY?[
Then when you comment or ask PSA a question you never get a definitive answer. There isn't a SCBC for : football, hockey, baskets, non sports so its kinda like living by dictator rule., lol !!!!
Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon
80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name"
90 ProSet Dexter Manley error
90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back
1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”)
81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat)
91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
<< <i>There are no new additions to the variations in 1989 Fleer in the 2010 SCBC. I doubt that any of those mentioned recently on this thread will be listed in the future, either. As the guy who would have to give the nod to doing so, I am disinclined to list as variations those cards that exhibit stray ink spots, etc., even if they are repeated. While some of this type of thing was listed in the past, the rise of the tnternet has meant that being able to compare specific specimens has turned up way too many of these unintentional printing mistakes.
A card would have to acquire and sustain significant premium value to be considered for listing in the future, and I wouldn't rule out some current listings being removed. >>
Good candidate for removal: 1986 Topps Roger Clemens *Blue Streak* variation.
This, like the 1990 Topps Frank Thomas is a printing flaw found on many other cards from that era. I have found many repeat offender 'printing flaws' that go unrecognized even after years of successful sales online.
There seems to be two major laws with cataloging/recognizing/accepting a new 'printing flaw' variation as legit:
1.) It's a "pretty mistake". Thomas' NNOF card cleanly omits his name on front. Fred Stanley's 1980 Yellow Name card is clean unlike the many other 1980 Topps blotch and excess ink printing flaws. For whatever reason, a true variation featuring an asymetrical shaped blotch or "pink thing on the armpit" could be as rare as the previously mentioned accepted variations but interest will be less. Weird, but pretty true.
2.) Star/RC of star. When even the corniest and most obviously a "printing flaw" type of variation ( 1986 Topps Clemens ) shows up on a heavily collected guy, then they ultimately end up being listed/sought but the same exact flaw can affect a Dan Billardello and it'll be ignored. If I were a master set collector, this would seem a frustrating practice.
On the 1990 Jeff King note, I'd like to add that, not only should it be removed if just 1 copy exists, but it's a kind of sucks to hear that now after purchasing over 70 copies of the card (from various dealers on beckett a few years ago) in a futile search. Not to mention how many bulk lots at thrift stores, garage sales and wax boxes I purchased trying to find it.
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
Its funny that no one else has ever seen one, and no one even knows who has the original one.
I ll keep working on my error addiction not matter what anyone tells me !!!!
Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon
80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name"
90 ProSet Dexter Manley error
90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back
1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”)
81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat)
91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
<< <i>Well , After speaking with AUPT -- he says there should be more than just that 1 Jeff King error out there.
Its funny that no one else has ever seen one, and no one even knows who has the original one.
>>
What's even funnier is that it originally listed at $10 (or $20 maybe) then somehow, without ever even surfacing for sale, it "went up" to $100! Pretty nice rise in value for something that no one has ever seen!
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
Remember, for the last three years I didn't work on the Standard Catalog, so some things that might have gotten done (or undone) . . . didn't.
Jacksoncoupage seems to have a good handle on why some cards get/got listed, while others with identical types of errors/variations didn't.
As for the price of the possibly unique Jeff King 1990T (I don't believe any error of this kind can be unique) . . . I'm not one of those catalogers that believes book prices have to reflect recent/past sales. I believe the SCBC should accurately reflect the real-world market. I believe the first/next '90T King error to come up for auction would hit $100; don't you?
<< <i>Some excellent points being made.
Remember, for the last three years I didn't work on the Standard Catalog, so some things that might have gotten done (or undone) . . . didn't.
Jacksoncoupage seems to have a good handle on why some cards get/got listed, while others with identical types of errors/variations didn't.
As for the price of the possibly unique Jeff King 1990T (I don't believe any error of this kind can be unique) . . . I'm not one of those catalogers that believes book prices have to reflect recent/past sales. I believe the SCBC should accurately reflect the real-world market. I believe the first/next '90T King error to come up for auction would hit $100; don't you? >>
Yes, I do believe that it will get over $100 because there has been several years of hype built up behind it. I have had at least a few dozen different 'master set' and variation collectors contact me asking if I have this card. They see something in a variation-light, Topps base set no less, listed with a vague description to check off of their list for their master set and the interest builds, especially with nothing but their completist determination and the authority of SCD to go off of.
I could literally show you variations that no one has ever heard of or seen besides myself, true variations in major sets. If I listed them on ebay, they'll sell for a couple bucks. If I show them to SCD and SCD decides to list them in their guide and after a few years, I list them, they will get a lot of collector's pursuing them because the guide says it's a necessary addition. The guides have all the control when it comes to variations. Every known (Gilkeson, Beckett, SCD etc) and listed variation, especially in Topps sets will almost always have more interest than a newly discovered variation that no one has heard of before.
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
<< <i>Anyone ever seen a Marlboro this clear? >>
I have now.
<< <i>Anyone ever seen a Marlboro this clear? Pic was not enhanced. All the ones I've seen are darker. (Not my card)
I have been chasing these since at least early 2002, possibly earlier. I have sold a tons of varying types of clarity and I have never seen anything this clear.
As of now, I'm a little skeptical, though I admit, I have no explanation for how this got holdered. Every type of the "Marlboro" visible variety I have ever seen, has a very minor 'tell' at the bottom of the card. This goes for green tints, red tints, etc. This card does not have the 'tell'. I think the tell mark was removed when Fleer "boxed" the sign because the different strike-through versions (where it's just a black strip through the word Marlboro) all still have the little mark and they came before the "boxed" versions, which came before the final "blackout" version.
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
My name is Kevin, and I am new to the PSA Message Boards, although I have browsed them before.
I own this Randy Johnson clear Marlboro PSA 9 card. I would like to thank my friend Donovan Ryan for posting the picture much better than I could.
I can assure you that this photo has not been altered at all. I have also collected these Johnson variations for awhile now.
Although I never noticed the "mark" you speak of, in looking at some other Randy Johnson variations, there seems to be a little pink squiggle mark in the white box next to the word "Fleer." Is this the "mark" you speak of?
I do have another Johnson where the sign is partially visible, but has been obscured with a tint, this pink mark is gone (not a boxed variety).
I enjoy '89 Fleer varieties, especially the Bill Ripkens and the Johnson's, and it's always fun trying to find the rare variations even today.
Thanks for your help!
<< <i>I have a 89 Fleer master set that is only missing the Treadway target card and the Ripken whiteout. I have never seen a Randy Johnson with the ad that clear. The ones I have are all tinted on the ad. >>
c-list w/positions, 4th Black Scribble and saw cut, whitebox (not 100% convinced legit),FF variation cut unlike saw cut
Yeah, every version depicting the Marlboro sign (that I've come across), has had a small pink mark in the white area at bottom.
I had pretty much concluded that the sign was dark due to the lighting of the background. Do you remember where you found this?
Collecting Robin Ventura and Matt Luke.
I actually just bought this on E-Bay about 3 weeks ago. When I saw how clear the ad was, and that I had never seen a clearer one, I just had to bid on it. Lucky for me, I ended up winning it!