<< <i>I find it hard to believe that Topps can't keep digital records from 9 years ago >>
Me too. I tried to get some jersey cards slabbed from 2005 (with a piece of a tag in them). Beckett needed more info on them. Gave me a # at Topps to call and get proof they are real. Topps told me they only keep records about 2 years back.
I was being a little facetious with that 0125 remark
This is crazy, there is a 5/500 slabbed somewhere that likely should not be and Topps does not have the data to help this mystery.
edit grammar
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
"This is crazy, there is a 5/500 slabbed somewhere that likely should not be and Topps does not that the data to help this mystery."
I could not agree more!! Say tuned, I knew there would be skeptics and "I can understand why!" I have more to share about this card..and soon will....eyegide
<< <i>I find it hard to believe that Topps can't keep digital records from 9 years ago >>
Me too. I tried to get some jersey cards slabbed from 2005 (with a piece of a tag in them). Beckett needed more info on them. Gave me a # at Topps to call and get proof they are real. Topps told me they only keep records about 2 years back. >>
//////////////////
Just ONE lawsuit on the issue might change everything.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
If there was ever a number rubbed off, I wonder if a black-light would be able to expose any rub marks, or even expose a difference in inks from the different numbers.
<< <i>If there was ever a number rubbed off, I wonder if a black-light would be able to expose any rub marks, or even expose a difference in inks from the different numbers. >>
Wasn't there a lawsuit against Topps years ago about a Mario Lemieux serial #'d card? The card was #'d to lets say 100 (just an example, don't know the actual #), but the collector had much more then 100. Not sure how many years ago this was, but it shows Topps may have printed more then 1 of each. Couldn't find anything on Google. Was hoping somebody remembered this case?
<< <i>Wasn't there a lawsuit against Topps years ago about a Mario Lemieux serial #'d card? The card was #'d to lets say 100 (just an example, don't know the actual #), but the collector had much more then 100. Not sure how many years ago this was, but it shows Topps may have printed more then 1 of each. Couldn't find anything on Google. Was hoping somebody remembered this case? >>
Topps Finest Gold Refractors, yeah the guy won a judgement which I believe gave him back all his money and he sold off the cards slowly on Ebay. They weren't serial numbered though, it was a stated production run... it's unclear if all those cards were found in packs or were backdoored.
<< <i>Wasn't there a lawsuit against Topps years ago about a Mario Lemieux serial #'d card? The card was #'d to lets say 100 (just an example, don't know the actual #), but the collector had much more then 100. Not sure how many years ago this was, but it shows Topps may have printed more then 1 of each. Couldn't find anything on Google. Was hoping somebody remembered this case? >>
Topps Finest Gold Refractors, yeah the guy won a judgement which I believe gave him back all his money and he sold off the cards slowly on Ebay. They weren't serial numbered though, it was a stated production run... it's unclear if all those cards were found in packs or were backdoored. >>
Thanks! For some reason I thought they were serial #'d. Would hope Topps wouldn't do that again.
<< <i>Wasn't there a lawsuit against Topps years ago about a Mario Lemieux serial #'d card? The card was #'d to lets say 100 (just an example, don't know the actual #), but the collector had much more then 100. Not sure how many years ago this was, but it shows Topps may have printed more then 1 of each. Couldn't find anything on Google. Was hoping somebody remembered this case? >>
Topps Finest Gold Refractors, yeah the guy won a judgement which I believe gave him back all his money and he sold off the cards slowly on Ebay. They weren't serial numbered though, it was a stated production run... it's unclear if all those cards were found in packs or were backdoored. >>
Thanks! For some reason I thought they were serial #'d. Would hope Topps wouldn't do that again. >>
Then in 2008 Topps Milestones Red 1/1 They made more than one card and released them. By design, each of the Rookie Cards 145-189 should only have ONE Red Parallel (1 of 1), but because of the error the subjects have an additional TWENTY Red Parallels.
The ultimate irony would be that if this card is real, eyeguide will need to clean the number, make it #225/500, and then it can be "authenticated" by a 3rd party grader like BGS or PSA. Good grief. (This comment is facetious). I hope that eyeguide can find documentation to authenticate his card, preserve it's value, and in the process expose the fraudulent, "authenticated" 005/500's that came before him.
<< <i> Then in 2008 Topps Milestones Red 1/1 They made more than one card and released them. By design, each of the Rookie Cards 145-189 should only have ONE Red Parallel (1 of 1), but because of the error the subjects have an additional TWENTY Red Parallels.
not a sticker but i figured this is probably what happened, once they make the slightest adjustment to the card you could make it the same serial numbered card,,, but that first zero does look different,, dna test maybe,,, dont know,,,bj
Just my opinion, if the auto is real and the card is real, the number on the back shouldn't matter. If there is known fraud involving these cards and changing their numbering on these cards, PSA, SGC, and Beckett should stop grading them and only allow them through autograph authentication services.
I personally think paying a high premium for a serial number is crazy.
I personally think paying a high premium for a serial number is crazy. >>
I agree 100%. I wouldn't give $1.00 more for a serial number 5 than I would any other number. I personally think might be a little neater to have 001/500, but even then, I wouldn't pay extra for it.
<< <i>Stay tuned, I knew there would be skeptics and "I can understand why!" I have more to share about this card..and soon will....eyegide >>
Is there a reason you didn't share it in the first place? In the absence of any records from Topps, unless it's a signed affadavit from Pujols himself, I don't see how you can distinguish yours from the others that exist. Even if yours is somehow determined to be the one and only, there are still other #5s out there that have been certified by TPGs. Yours therefore, will never be. You're better off wiping the 005, replacing it with a random #, and selling it while it still brings major $. Just my opinion
I Noticed every card of this I find the 500 always is the same... the 5 followed by two 0's that are a little smaller and slant up...
<< <i> [/q
THEN you have the OP's which the 500 is not the same it looks like someone took the time to write the numbers in a straight line.. By just looking I'd say the op's serial numbers were tampered with.. and why aren't the others above 071,079 ect??
Yet another one Fandango linked this morning.. I think there is no doubt the OP's serial Numbers have tampered with just by looking at the 500 on the scans above and this one..
A video spectral comparator would be able to determine if PART of the number on the back had been wiped off and another added. Unless the whole number had been wiped off and added back. All inks are different even though they appear to the naked eye to be the same. The video spectral comparator though would make it stick out like a sore thumb. PSA/DNA does have access to one through John Reznikoff of University Archives.
I still have a print out of the fake pujols auctions that happened back in 04. The PSA #40002731 came from a seller in Nashville. The second PSA version came from a user name mike-the-ripper sold in March of 2005. The BGS example came from Orlando and was up for auction in the fall of 2004.
If Topps won't address this with a reasonable, responsible individual - perhaps a lawsuit will get they're attention.
And, if they don't thinks is worth addressing? They shouldn't even be in business!
Heck, we bought a value bag of mini-snickers, milky way etc. and some of the candies looked bad - my assistant called the 800 number - they informed us that the whitish look is from the chocolate getting overheated - it won't hurt ya, but won't taste that good - and sent the office a redemption certif. for a new bag at Sam's. And this was for a 7 buck bag of crap!
This is a big issue that goes to the core of Topps' reputation as a maker of cards - a flaw in their plan that they should've seen coming - 2001 is NOT 1959 - they knew or should've known better IMO.
A video spectral comparator would be able to determine if PART of the number on the back had been wiped off
<< <i>Text >>
I think they had one of those in the Batcave. This is interesting to watch and I feel sorry for the OP if indeed it is authentic. End of the day there is going to be so many #5s out there that it won't make much difference.
Comments
<< <i>I find it hard to believe that Topps can't keep digital records from 9 years ago >>
Me too. I tried to get some jersey cards slabbed from 2005 (with a piece of a tag in them). Beckett needed more info on them. Gave me a # at Topps to call and get proof they are real. Topps told me they only keep records about 2 years back.
They would not use 0125, they used 005 because 500 is a 3 digit number.
Or were you being facitious?
Steve
Steve
GOLD
FOIL
STAMPING
I believe Topps does this on all numbered cards now. Would have saved a lot of headaches had they done it back then..
I was being a little facetious with that 0125 remark
This is crazy, there is a 5/500 slabbed somewhere that likely should not be and Topps does not have the data to help this mystery.
edit grammar
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
"This is crazy, there is a 5/500 slabbed somewhere that likely should not be and Topps does not that the data to help this mystery."
I could not agree more!! Say tuned, I knew there would be skeptics and "I can understand why!" I have more to share about this card..and soon will....eyegide
<< <i>
<< <i>I find it hard to believe that Topps can't keep digital records from 9 years ago >>
Me too. I tried to get some jersey cards slabbed from 2005 (with a piece of a tag in them). Beckett needed more info on them. Gave me a # at Topps to call and get proof they are real. Topps told me they only keep records about 2 years back. >>
//////////////////
Just ONE lawsuit on the issue might change everything.
<< <i>If there was ever a number rubbed off, I wonder if a black-light would be able to expose any rub marks, or even expose a difference in inks from the different numbers. >>
or if any fluids were liberated on the card
...or are those just Fandango's
Save on ebay with Big Crumbs
<< <i>Wasn't there a lawsuit against Topps years ago about a Mario Lemieux serial #'d card? The card was #'d to lets say 100 (just an example, don't know the actual #), but the collector had much more then 100. Not sure how many years ago this was, but it shows Topps may have printed more then 1 of each. Couldn't find anything on Google. Was hoping somebody remembered this case? >>
Topps Finest Gold Refractors, yeah the guy won a judgement which I believe gave him back all his money and he sold off the cards slowly on Ebay. They weren't serial numbered though, it was a stated production run... it's unclear if all those cards were found in packs or were backdoored.
<< <i>
<< <i>Wasn't there a lawsuit against Topps years ago about a Mario Lemieux serial #'d card? The card was #'d to lets say 100 (just an example, don't know the actual #), but the collector had much more then 100. Not sure how many years ago this was, but it shows Topps may have printed more then 1 of each. Couldn't find anything on Google. Was hoping somebody remembered this case? >>
Topps Finest Gold Refractors, yeah the guy won a judgement which I believe gave him back all his money and he sold off the cards slowly on Ebay. They weren't serial numbered though, it was a stated production run... it's unclear if all those cards were found in packs or were backdoored. >>
Thanks! For some reason I thought they were serial #'d. Would hope Topps wouldn't do that again.
Save on ebay with Big Crumbs
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Wasn't there a lawsuit against Topps years ago about a Mario Lemieux serial #'d card? The card was #'d to lets say 100 (just an example, don't know the actual #), but the collector had much more then 100. Not sure how many years ago this was, but it shows Topps may have printed more then 1 of each. Couldn't find anything on Google. Was hoping somebody remembered this case? >>
Topps Finest Gold Refractors, yeah the guy won a judgement which I believe gave him back all his money and he sold off the cards slowly on Ebay. They weren't serial numbered though, it was a stated production run... it's unclear if all those cards were found in packs or were backdoored. >>
Thanks! For some reason I thought they were serial #'d. Would hope Topps wouldn't do that again. >>
Then in 2008 Topps Milestones Red 1/1 They made more than one card and released them. By design, each of the Rookie Cards 145-189 should only have ONE Red Parallel (1 of 1), but because of the error the subjects have an additional TWENTY Red Parallels.
Link
<< <i>
Then in 2008 Topps Milestones Red 1/1 They made more than one card and released them. By design, each of the Rookie Cards 145-189 should only have ONE Red Parallel (1 of 1), but because of the error the subjects have an additional TWENTY Red Parallels.
Link >>
not a sticker but i figured this is probably what happened, once they make the slightest adjustment to the card you could make it the same serial numbered card,,, but that first zero does look different,, dna test maybe,,, dont know,,,bj
I personally think paying a high premium for a serial number is crazy.
<< <i>
I personally think paying a high premium for a serial number is crazy. >>
I agree 100%. I wouldn't give $1.00 more for a serial number 5 than I would any other number. I personally think might be a little neater to have 001/500, but even then, I wouldn't pay extra for it.
Shane
<< <i>Stay tuned, I knew there would be skeptics and "I can understand why!" I have more to share about this card..and soon will....eyegide >>
Is there a reason you didn't share it in the first place?
In the absence of any records from Topps, unless it's a signed affadavit from Pujols himself, I don't see how you can distinguish yours from the others that exist.
Even if yours is somehow determined to be the one and only, there are still other #5s out there that have been certified by TPGs. Yours therefore, will never be.
You're better off wiping the 005, replacing it with a random #, and selling it while it still brings major $.
Just my opinion
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa87/gandriole/71.png
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa87/gandriole/26.png
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa87/gandriole/14.png
<< <i>
THEN you have the OP's which the 500 is not the same it looks like someone took the time to write the numbers in a straight line.. By just looking I'd say the op's serial numbers were tampered with.. and why aren't the others above 071,079 ect??
Mike
from a user name mike-the-ripper sold in March of 2005. The BGS example came from Orlando and was up for auction in the fall of 2004.
If Topps won't address this with a reasonable, responsible individual - perhaps a lawsuit will get they're attention.
And, if they don't thinks is worth addressing? They shouldn't even be in business!
Heck, we bought a value bag of mini-snickers, milky way etc. and some of the candies looked bad - my assistant called the 800 number - they informed us that the whitish look is from the chocolate getting overheated - it won't hurt ya, but won't taste that good - and sent the office a redemption certif. for a new bag at Sam's. And this was for a 7 buck bag of crap!
This is a big issue that goes to the core of Topps' reputation as a maker of cards - a flaw in their plan that they should've seen coming - 2001 is NOT 1959 - they knew or should've known better IMO.
mike
but true "conterfeiting" very unlikely.....
005/500
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
<< <i>Text >>
I think they had one of those in the Batcave. This is interesting to watch and I feel sorry for the OP if indeed it is authentic. End of the day there is going to be so many #5s out there that it won't make much difference.