lol, and why is that....because the backs are orange? we've been over this
Well for one, there's no such thing as the "World of Baseball Edition". Next, he doesn't even have a Yankee logo on his hat or jersey and it's a completely different picture than his 1988 Topps card and they airbrushed out the logos. Why would Topps do that if they were an MLB and MLBPA licensed company? I don't know what more evidence you need to tell you this card is just not a real Topps issued card. Most likely it is some type of unlicensed Broder card which were popular in the late 80s.
<< <i>lol, and why is that....because the backs are orange? we've been over this
Well for one, there's no such thing as the "World of Baseball Edition". Next, he doesn't even have a Yankee logo on his hat or jersey and it's a completely different picture than his 1988 Topps card and they airbrushed out the logos. Why would Topps do that if they were an MLB and MLBPA licensed company? I don't know what more evidence you need to tell you this card is just not a real Topps issued card. Most likely it is some type of unlicensed Broder card which were popular in the late 80s. >>
Dude, the former editor of the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards, posted to this thread and said it was issued by Topps. In 10 years and dozens upon dozens of conversations about this card, I've never heard of it being a broder, or a reprint. It's a broder but it's slabbed by psa?, it's a broder, but the beckett almanac lists it?...it's a broder, but the former editor of the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards says it's legit? What more evidence do you need to tell you this is a real Topps issued card.
Interesting point. Can anyone come up with another example of a Topps card with the team airbrushed out during a time while Topps owned the rights for said league?
<< <i>I don't want someone to potentially lose money just because a person or two who never even heard of the card before 4 days ago has something negative to say about it. >>
Hope that's not directed at me. This isn't about being negative, it's about knowledge.
<< <i>In 10 years and dozens upon dozens of conversations about this card >>
Again, that's my point. The only 'conversations' that came up via google were on CU. It would be completely different if a couple sites popped up discussing this variation, but that's not the case.
I honestly hope you hit the mother load and can take early retirement. Having said that, it's irresponsible to claim the card is 100% authentic at this point.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
I don't know much about these cards except that I have seen them discussed on here, but for anyone who is questioning why the back of the Mattingly card is a different shade of orange with a white trim than the regular 1988 Topps card, I would say that the back of the Mattingly card looks a lot like the back of the 1988 Topps Traded cards:
<< <i>Hope that's not directed at me. This isn't about being negative, it's about knowledge....................Again, that's my point. The only 'conversations' that came up via google were on CU. It would be completely different if a couple sites popped up discussing this variation, but that's not the case.
I honestly hope you hit the mother load and can take early retirement. Having said that, it's irresponsible to claim the card is 100% authentic at this point. >>
Oh, I see. You don't have any knowledge about the card....so it must be a fake. A former editior of the Standard Catalog says it real, but since you don't know of the card.......it must be a fake. The only conversations are on CU, well then it must be a fake.
The 'conversations' I speak of are actual conversations, face to face at shows. I've probabaly been too a hundred of them in the past 10 years. You know what shows are right? You have to actually get in your car and drive to them, or in some peoples case, thier mom has to drop them off.
Tony C- Thank you for posting that Alomar card. The back of the cards do look very similar. Perhaps the WOB card was printed on similar stock.
Unless of course the whole 1988 Topps Traded set is fake.... I suppose that could be. I mean, I've never seen any 'conversations' here on CU, so they must be fugazi.......right?
I examined one example of the card 10-15 years ago and believed it to be a legitimate Topps issue.
Like others, I find it interesting that "large" (it still seems to be numerically scarcer than a T206 Wagner!) numbers of the card are now surfacing.
I would not go so far as to certify these latest discoveries as genuine without actually examining them in hand. (And, no, I'm not going to do that). Modern cards that sell for $100-400 are a tempting target for fakers. If PSA, SGC or BGS undertake such examination and pass the cards, that would be good enough for me.
The lack of uniform logos and the name Yankees indicates to me that "World of Baseball," whatever that was, had a license to use player images (individual contracts or MLBPA license), but was not licensed by MLB. That doesn't make such cards 'broders." Dozens of legitimate contemporary sets were produced in that fashion.
+1 for anyone who thinks that anyone else here thinks that finding a handful of cards with a potential price tag of a few hundred bucks would cause hating and jealousy.
I examined one example of the card 10-15 years ago and believed it to be a legitimate Topps issue.
Like others, I find it interesting that "large" (it still seems to be numerically scarcer than a T206 Wagner!) numbers of the card are now surfacing.
I would not go so far as to certify these latest discoveries as genuine without actually examining them in hand. (And, no, I'm not going to do that). Modern cards that sell for $100-400 are a tempting target for fakers. If PSA, SGC or BGS undertake such examination and pass the cards, that would be good enough for me.
The lack of uniform logos and the name Yankees indicates to me that "World of Baseball," whatever that was, had a license to use player images (individual contracts or MLBPA license), but was not licensed by MLB. That doesn't make such cards 'broders." Dozens of legitimate contemporary sets were produced in that fashion. >>
Thanks for weighing in again Bob. Of course I don't expect you to vouch for my specific cards, or any the ones that have sold recently including the one currently for sale on ebay. Most of these haters are stating that the card , at no point was produced by Topps, therefore is fake. I'm saying they were in fact produced by Topps. The cards I have look exactly like the every other one I've ever seen, including cards that I have held in hand at shows, but at the time couldn't afford the $150-$250 most dealers at shows ask for them. Some of the cards I recently aqquired have been sent to PSA for grading....can't wait to post pics.
(it still seems to be numerically scarcer than a T206 Wagner!) ....that makes me happy
<< <i>Hope that's not directed at me. This isn't about being negative, it's about knowledge....................Again, that's my point. The only 'conversations' that came up via google were on CU. It would be completely different if a couple sites popped up discussing this variation, but that's not the case.
I honestly hope you hit the mother load and can take early retirement. Having said that, it's irresponsible to claim the card is 100% authentic at this point. >>
Oh, I see. You don't have any knowledge about the card....so it must be a fake. A former editior of the Standard Catalog says it real, but since you don't know of the card.......it must be a fake. The only conversations are on CU, well then it must be a fake.
The 'conversations' I speak of are actual conversations, face to face at shows. I've probabaly been too a hundred of them in the past 10 years. You know what shows are right? You have to actually get in your car and drive to them, or in some peoples case, thier mom has to drop them off.
Tony C- Thank you for posting that Alomar card. The back of the cards do look very similar. Perhaps the WOB card was printed on similar stock.
Unless of course the whole 1988 Topps Traded set is fake.... I suppose that could be. I mean, I've never seen any 'conversations' here on CU, so they must be fugazi.......right? >>
I haven't once said your cards are fake.
I suggest you take a few steps back, remove your biased blinders, and re-read what the majority have suggested.
Good luck.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Being the 'editor' of a baseball card catalog does not make you infallible.
PSA only grades cards listed in some catalog (Beckett?, Standard Catalog?). They gave me that line when I asked about the 'Jams' Silas 1980 Topps basketball variation. Perhaps as a publicly traded company, they avoid litigation by relying on other sources as to whether a card exists? If the catalog that PSA relies on says the Mattingly card exists, PSA will grade it. If it's not in the catalog they will not grade it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Throw the ball into PSA's court. Send off a few to be graded and see what the experts say.
Throw the ball into PSA's court. Send off a few to be graded and see what the experts say.
That's what I would do, send a couple into PSA and see what comes back. Better yet send one to PSA and one to SGC and see what happens. If they come back graded then announce "White Whale reeled in......14 times." Why put yourself through 4 pages of h_ _ _ here when either of these companies can eliminate any doubt? Just my humble opinion.
I think the difference in the baseballs on the back makes it more likely that it was made by Topps. If someone was going to make a broder, why would they take the time to change that? It wouldn't be all that easy to do, would it?
My thought was this wasn't a real printed card, the good thing is if it's a being printed now or was always a brodeur type card you can look to see if every card has the same print defects ...like most 'counterfeit' rc's do. If they were printed by Topps different cards would have different defects, if they all have the same marks I would say they are not legit. Should be interesting to see what else pops up (or doesn't) in the next year.
the baseball design is in orange ink and first one printed, easy to reproduce. IMO I think some of the cards are possibly authentic to the Era (who would use Mattingly as the subject if they were made 10 years after 1988?), I just dont think the newly discovered hoard of cards are...
It would be easier to tell if you actually scanned one of the "new 14+" with one of the cards thats slabbed or is known to be more than 10 years old, that may answer the question right there.
very interesting card for a modern issue... with many questions that might never be answered.
If you google them, there are only 2 hits, which is very strange for a modern "set". And what was the purpose of this single subject card??? No background on why it was actually designed and for what market. And if it was a set of one, then there must have been multiple sheets full of these printed at one time, so Im sure there are more in existence than that overrate pseudo-rare T206 Wagner card (50-65 known)
Why get so bent out of shape of whether someone else thinks your cards are "legit" or not. If you don't plan on selling them, then their opinion matters not.
Also, by default if I see someone looking for a white whale and then they happen upon 14 of them, I immediately would think fakes or that it really wasn't much of a white whale to begin with.
Good luck on getting your cards slabbed and congratulations on getting 14 of these Mattinglys.
PS Mattingly's Daughter, thanks for calling me "Cute and Jealous" lol , most people here know I dont collect modern garbage, as I call it. ........and its a hobby of mine to look for ways to spot fakes (Ive done it for 25+ years in PreWar stuff), thats the only reason Ive viewed this thread 5+ times, I could care less about the card and that Era of cards in reality..... The main "red flag" that caught my attention was it being called a "white whale" and finding 14 in one swoop for pennies on the $$, thats why I opened the link and posted my first post... aloha
Without reading the whole thread, it seems there's a lot of bicthing and moaning going on by those defending the card(s) in question. They just look off to me, and I spent a whole lot of time collecting odd ball issues for a couple modern players. And, comparing them to those Kay Bee issues isn't a good idea- those Kay Bee cards, K Mart, and Toys R Us issues have the team logo visible...something you don't see on the Mattingly. I'm sure somewhere in the thread there's an "explanation" for the lack of the NYY logo, but it still seems weird.
Vin, stop defending your cards, you said you couldn't care less about the value you said they were not for sale. (Well actually you said 'you could care less' which means you must care some, right Frank?
And if people still do not understand what Bob said regarding why logo's were not used
I'll name at least one logo-less card, Dorman's Cheese.
Bob I'm sorry I dragged you into this mess, no good deed goes unpunished.
Steve
Cnote the reason a card is logo- less is because Topps only had a license with the MLPA.
I never said I didn't understand why logos weren't used, I said I didn't want to read 4 pages of crying to find out the explanaiton. If there's a valid reason why there's no logo, super duper.
Cnote I didn't see your post until after I wrote mine, I'm sorry if it appears I implied that you didn't understand why logos were not used.
Within the thread I mentioned it earlier and people still were confused or whatever regarding it, after Bob mentioned it I thought I would give an example.
Steve, I don't know what mess you are referring to...I think this is a very interesting thread about a card with a mystery behind it. I'm also not sure why the OP is getting so the defensive about the issue, especially if he doesn't plan on selling anyway.
Also, Dorman's Cheese wasn't made by Topps. I'm not saying there aren't other Topps cards without the team logo from that era, I just asked for an example to further the discussion.
This thread confuses me, which is not difficult to do... is there still a question whether PSA would slab these? Or maybe they used to slab these but don't anymore?
<< <i>This thread confuses me, which is not difficult to do... is there still a question whether PSA would slab these? Or maybe they used to slab these but don't anymore?
>>
The question, IMO, is why or how one of the most sought after and rare Mattingly cards would essentially double in population over the course of a few weeks. For the OP's sake, I hope they are real "World of Baseball" Mattingly's but I think there enough flags to warrant a discussion.
#1- Nobody is faking this card, and if they are they're not going to be as spot on as this card appears to be. #2- There are other Topps printed sets that have the logos airbrushed (1989 Cap'n Crunch, for example) #3- Everybody settle down. Nobody cares about this card except the 300 or so Mattingly collectors out there. #4- OP: stop taking things so personally, it makes you an easy target. I'm pretty sure you're the only person in this thread that cares about this card, so maybe you should ask yourself why others are so intent on proving you wrong. I guarantee you fkw would've been done with this thread 20 posts ago if you didn't get such a hard-on every time someone suggested they might not be legit.
<< <i>#1- Nobody is faking this card, and if they are they're not going to be as spot on as this card appears to be. #2- There are other Topps printed sets that have the logos airbrushed (1989 Cap'n Crunch, for example) #3- Everybody settle down. Nobody cares about this card except the 300 or so Mattingly collectors out there. #4- OP: stop taking things so personally, it makes you an easy target. I'm pretty sure you're the only person in this thread that cares about this card, so maybe you should ask yourself why others are so intent on proving you wrong. I guarantee you fkw would've been done with this thread 20 posts ago if you didn't get such a hard-on every time someone suggested they might not be legit. >>
#5- Did you know you're only 10 posts away from 10,000?
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Grades popped on the 1988 Topps World of Baseball Mattingly cards I sent in. I sent 4 of them as part of a 15 card sub. I was hoping for any combo of 7's and 8's.....They came back one 8, and three 6's. A little dissapointed I suppose, but at least I got one 8. As far as the 6's go, I see a pair of pliers and a flat head screw driver is their future. I think I'll bring one of them to a show to be signed and then slabbed in a blue flip. I'll use another for my raw Mattingly master set.
I also sent in a few other different Mattingly cards, as well as some Yankee rookies. I overall was pleased with the grades. 2 1970 Topps Munson's came back 7, and 8........3 1992 Bowman Mariano's all came back 9's.........3 1993 Topps Jeters came back with two 9's and one 8. I thought between the Jeter and Rivera's I would have a shot at at least one 10, but am happy with 5 of the 6 coming back with 9's...........and I'm very happy with the Munson that came back with an 8. My first ever sub so no complaints!
Comments
Well for one, there's no such thing as the "World of Baseball Edition". Next, he doesn't even have a Yankee logo on his hat or jersey and it's a completely different picture than his 1988 Topps card and they airbrushed out the logos. Why would Topps do that if they were an MLB and MLBPA licensed company? I don't know what more evidence you need to tell you this card is just not a real Topps issued card. Most likely it is some type of unlicensed Broder card which were popular in the late 80s.
<< <i>lol, and why is that....because the backs are orange? we've been over this
Well for one, there's no such thing as the "World of Baseball Edition". Next, he doesn't even have a Yankee logo on his hat or jersey and it's a completely different picture than his 1988 Topps card and they airbrushed out the logos. Why would Topps do that if they were an MLB and MLBPA licensed company? I don't know what more evidence you need to tell you this card is just not a real Topps issued card. Most likely it is some type of unlicensed Broder card which were popular in the late 80s. >>
Dude, the former editor of the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards, posted to this thread and said it was issued by Topps. In 10 years and dozens upon dozens of conversations about this card, I've never heard of it being a broder, or a reprint. It's a broder but it's slabbed by psa?, it's a broder, but the beckett almanac lists it?...it's a broder, but the former editor of the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards says it's legit? What more evidence do you need to tell you this is a real Topps issued card.
Laughable!
<< <i>I don't want someone to potentially lose money just because a person or two who never even heard of the card before 4 days ago has something negative to say about it. >>
Hope that's not directed at me. This isn't about being negative, it's about knowledge.
<< <i>In 10 years and dozens upon dozens of conversations about this card >>
Again, that's my point. The only 'conversations' that came up via google were on CU. It would be completely different if a couple sites popped up discussing this variation, but that's not the case.
I honestly hope you hit the mother load and can take early retirement. Having said that, it's irresponsible to claim the card is 100% authentic at this point.
<< <i>Hope that's not directed at me. This isn't about being negative, it's about knowledge....................Again, that's my point. The only 'conversations' that came up via google were on CU. It would be completely different if a couple sites popped up discussing this variation, but that's not the case.
I honestly hope you hit the mother load and can take early retirement. Having said that, it's irresponsible to claim the card is 100% authentic at this point. >>
Oh, I see. You don't have any knowledge about the card....so it must be a fake. A former editior of the Standard Catalog says it real, but since you don't know of the card.......it must be a fake. The only conversations are on CU, well then it must be a fake.
The 'conversations' I speak of are actual conversations, face to face at shows. I've probabaly been too a hundred of them in the past 10 years. You know what shows are right? You have to actually get in your car and drive to them, or in some peoples case, thier mom has to drop them off.
Tony C- Thank you for posting that Alomar card. The back of the cards do look very similar. Perhaps the WOB card was printed on similar stock.
Unless of course the whole 1988 Topps Traded set is fake.... I suppose that could be. I mean, I've never seen any 'conversations' here on CU, so they must be fugazi.......right?
I examined one example of the card 10-15 years ago and believed it to be a legitimate Topps issue.
Like others, I find it interesting that "large" (it still seems to be numerically scarcer than a T206 Wagner!) numbers of the card are now surfacing.
I would not go so far as to certify these latest discoveries as genuine without actually examining them in hand. (And, no, I'm not going to do that). Modern cards that sell for $100-400 are a tempting target for fakers. If PSA, SGC or BGS undertake such examination and pass the cards, that would be good enough for me.
The lack of uniform logos and the name Yankees indicates to me that "World of Baseball," whatever that was, had a license to use player images (individual contracts or MLBPA license), but was not licensed by MLB. That doesn't make such cards 'broders." Dozens of legitimate contemporary sets were produced in that fashion.
and LMAO @ Lee. again.
<< <i>Not to stir the pot, but . . .
I examined one example of the card 10-15 years ago and believed it to be a legitimate Topps issue.
Like others, I find it interesting that "large" (it still seems to be numerically scarcer than a T206 Wagner!) numbers of the card are now surfacing.
I would not go so far as to certify these latest discoveries as genuine without actually examining them in hand. (And, no, I'm not going to do that). Modern cards that sell for $100-400 are a tempting target for fakers. If PSA, SGC or BGS undertake such examination and pass the cards, that would be good enough for me.
The lack of uniform logos and the name Yankees indicates to me that "World of Baseball," whatever that was, had a license to use player images (individual contracts or MLBPA license), but was not licensed by MLB. That doesn't make such cards 'broders." Dozens of legitimate contemporary sets were produced in that fashion. >>
Thanks for weighing in again Bob. Of course I don't expect you to vouch for my specific cards, or any the ones that have sold recently including the one currently for sale on ebay. Most of these haters are stating that the card , at no point was produced by Topps, therefore is fake. I'm saying they were in fact produced by Topps. The cards I have look exactly like the every other one I've ever seen, including cards that I have held in hand at shows, but at the time couldn't afford the $150-$250 most dealers at shows ask for them. Some of the cards I recently aqquired have been sent to PSA for grading....can't wait to post pics.
(it still seems to be numerically scarcer than a T206 Wagner!) ....that makes me happy
<< <i>
<< <i>Hope that's not directed at me. This isn't about being negative, it's about knowledge....................Again, that's my point. The only 'conversations' that came up via google were on CU. It would be completely different if a couple sites popped up discussing this variation, but that's not the case.
I honestly hope you hit the mother load and can take early retirement. Having said that, it's irresponsible to claim the card is 100% authentic at this point. >>
Oh, I see. You don't have any knowledge about the card....so it must be a fake. A former editior of the Standard Catalog says it real, but since you don't know of the card.......it must be a fake. The only conversations are on CU, well then it must be a fake.
The 'conversations' I speak of are actual conversations, face to face at shows. I've probabaly been too a hundred of them in the past 10 years. You know what shows are right? You have to actually get in your car and drive to them, or in some peoples case, thier mom has to drop them off.
Tony C- Thank you for posting that Alomar card. The back of the cards do look very similar. Perhaps the WOB card was printed on similar stock.
Unless of course the whole 1988 Topps Traded set is fake.... I suppose that could be. I mean, I've never seen any 'conversations' here on CU, so they must be fugazi.......right? >>
I haven't once said your cards are fake.
I suggest you take a few steps back, remove your biased blinders, and re-read what the majority have suggested.
Good luck.
Being the 'editor' of a baseball card catalog does not make you infallible.
PSA only grades cards listed in some catalog (Beckett?, Standard Catalog?). They gave me that line when I asked about the 'Jams' Silas 1980 Topps basketball variation. Perhaps as a publicly traded company, they avoid litigation by relying on other sources as to whether a card exists? If the catalog that PSA relies on says the Mattingly card exists, PSA will grade it. If it's not in the catalog they will not grade it. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Throw the ball into PSA's court. Send off a few to be graded and see what the experts say.
Kevin
<< <i>Throw the ball into PSA's court. Send off a few to be graded and see what the experts say.
Kevin >>
A handful of them are already on the way.
Throw the ball into PSA's court. Send off a few to be graded and see what the experts say.
That's what I would do, send a couple into PSA and see what comes back. Better yet send one to PSA and one to SGC and see what happens. If they come back graded then announce "White Whale reeled in......14 times."
Why put yourself through 4 pages of h_ _ _ here when either of these companies can eliminate any doubt?
Just my humble opinion.
IMO I think some of the cards are possibly authentic to the Era (who would use Mattingly as the subject if they were made 10 years after 1988?),
I just dont think the newly discovered hoard of cards are...
It would be easier to tell if you actually scanned one of the "new 14+" with one of the cards thats slabbed or is known to be more than 10 years old, that may answer the question right there.
very interesting card for a modern issue... with many questions that might never be answered.
If you google them, there are only 2 hits, which is very strange for a modern "set". And what was the purpose of this single subject card??? No background on why it was actually designed and for what market. And if it was a set of one, then there must have been multiple sheets full of these printed at one time, so Im sure there are more in existence than that overrate pseudo-rare T206 Wagner card (50-65 known)
Also, by default if I see someone looking for a white whale and then they happen upon 14 of them, I immediately would think fakes or that it really wasn't much of a white whale to begin with.
Good luck on getting your cards slabbed and congratulations on getting 14 of these Mattinglys.
The main "red flag" that caught my attention was it being called a "white whale" and finding 14 in one swoop for pennies on the $$, thats why I opened the link and posted my first post... aloha
Hey I have to get to 29,500 some way.
Vin, stop defending your cards, you said you couldn't care less about the value
you said they were not for sale. (Well actually you said 'you could care less' which means
you must care some, right Frank?
And if people still do not understand what Bob said regarding why logo's were not used
I'll name at least one logo-less card, Dorman's Cheese.
Bob I'm sorry I dragged you into this mess, no good deed goes unpunished.
Steve
Cnote the reason a card is logo- less is because Topps only had a license with the MLPA.
And not with MLB for a specific card or set.
I implied that you didn't understand why logos were not used.
Within the thread I mentioned it earlier and people still were confused
or whatever regarding it, after Bob mentioned it I thought I would give an example.
I hope I'm now clear.
Also, Dorman's Cheese wasn't made by Topps. I'm not saying there aren't other Topps cards without the team logo from that era, I just asked for an example to further the discussion.
It looks like they have in the past: linky
The Pop Report says PSA has graded eight of these: (4) 9s; (1) 8.5; (1) 8, (1) 7, and (1) 4.
Maybe I'm missing something, but they seem legit to me.
<< <i>In any event, you WILL see my 14 cards hit the market........in 25 or 30 years when I sell the rest of my collection. >>
I'd like first dibs. Please PM me in 25 or 30 years.
<< <i>This thread confuses me, which is not difficult to do... is there still a question whether PSA would slab these? Or maybe they used to slab these but don't anymore?
>>
The question, IMO, is why or how one of the most sought after and rare Mattingly cards would essentially double in population over the course of a few weeks. For the OP's sake, I hope they are real "World of Baseball" Mattingly's but I think there enough flags to warrant a discussion.
#2- There are other Topps printed sets that have the logos airbrushed (1989 Cap'n Crunch, for example)
#3- Everybody settle down. Nobody cares about this card except the 300 or so Mattingly collectors out there.
#4- OP: stop taking things so personally, it makes you an easy target. I'm pretty sure you're the only person in this thread that cares about this card, so maybe you should ask yourself why others are so intent on proving you wrong. I guarantee you fkw would've been done with this thread 20 posts ago if you didn't get such a hard-on every time someone suggested they might not be legit.
<< <i>
<< <i>In any event, you WILL see my 14 cards hit the market........in 25 or 30 years when I sell the rest of my collection. >>
I'd like first dibs. Please PM me in 25 or 30 years. >>
I'll sell you one of mine in... 25-30 minutes..they just need to dry
<< <i>#1- Nobody is faking this card, and if they are they're not going to be as spot on as this card appears to be.
#2- There are other Topps printed sets that have the logos airbrushed (1989 Cap'n Crunch, for example)
#3- Everybody settle down. Nobody cares about this card except the 300 or so Mattingly collectors out there.
#4- OP: stop taking things so personally, it makes you an easy target. I'm pretty sure you're the only person in this thread that cares about this card, so maybe you should ask yourself why others are so intent on proving you wrong. I guarantee you fkw would've been done with this thread 20 posts ago if you didn't get such a hard-on every time someone suggested they might not be legit. >>
#5- Did you know you're only 10 posts away from 10,000?
9
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>In any event, you WILL see my 14 cards hit the market........in 25 or 30 years when I sell the rest of my collection. >>
I'd like first dibs. Please PM me in 25 or 30 years. >>
I'll sell you one of mine in... 25-30 minutes..they just need to dry >>
PM sent!
I'm a big Dale Murphy collector, I would love to have a card of him like this.
I also like the Broders cards from the 80's!
I could care less if they are ever graded or not. If it says D Murph, I want it
Alabama sucks
I also sent in a few other different Mattingly cards, as well as some Yankee rookies. I overall was pleased with the grades. 2 1970 Topps Munson's came back 7, and 8........3 1992 Bowman Mariano's all came back 9's.........3 1993 Topps Jeters came back with two 9's and one 8. I thought between the Jeter and Rivera's I would have a shot at at least one 10, but am happy with 5 of the 6 coming back with 9's...........and I'm very happy with the Munson that came back with an 8. My first ever sub so no complaints!
Cracking one of the 6s for a signature is a great idea. In fact, I would get two of them signed; keep one and
sell the other.
Tom
<< <i>Congrats on the 8 for the 1988 Topps World of Baseball cards Don Mattingly. That card is a keeper !
Cracking one of the 6s for a signature is a great idea. In fact, I would get two of them signed; keep one and
sell the other.
Tom
Thanks Tom, maybe I'll do that.
All this comotion and No Pics?
All American Hobbies Online Store
<< <i>What!?? All this comotion and No Pics? >>
Grades popped, I don't have the cards yet.
Pics to follow.