1987 Frank Thomas Pan Am Games

mtcards · August 15, 2012 2:09PM

Does anyone have any information on this particular card? (The Blue Version) More precisely, the back printing. I bought a PSA graded 9 (MC) of this card last week and cannot for the life of me see any miscut except on the back, it appears to be offset printing. I figured that was it, until I have seen two others on ebay for sale, both of which have the same offset printing on the back. If that is the case and the actual grading is mislabeled, would it stand to reason that this would be a PSA 10 if there was not actually a miscut and all cards are printed that way?

BunchOBull · August 15, 2012 10:11PM

Yes, and grading isn't consistent on these cards. The PSA 10 on James Jones' registry has the miscut back. I haven't pulled the right grader yet...I haven't gotten the MC denotation, but I never get a 10 on otherwise great cards.

Here's an uncut sheet, and I promise, if it were to be cut down to 50/50 on the front, the Thomas would still be MC.

Hoping to get a 10 on this one in the future:

mariotown · August 15, 2012 11:01PM

Why isn't it labeled "HAND CUT" on the flip?

Kevin

BunchOBull · August 15, 2012 11:01PM

Because it's not handcut. The uncut sheet was never meant for distribution and wasn't released at the time of the sets production.

jmmiller777 · August 15, 2012 11:44PM

I thought handcut meant any cutting outside of the factory. So if they never released anything except sheets, then they must be handcut (based on my understanding). Educate me...
What is miscut? When kinds take scissors to a card and screw it all up (like many old Post and Kellogg cards)?

BunchOBull · August 16, 2012 12:08AM

<< <i>I thought handcut meant any cutting outside of the factory. So if they never released anything except sheets, then they must be handcut (based on my understanding). Educate me...
What is miscut? When kinds take scissors to a card and screw it all up (like many old Post and Kellogg cards)? >>

Yes, handcut suggests anything cut outside of the production facility. That's not the case with these cards. I simply posted the uncut sheet to affirm that the miscut on the reverse of these cards is standard because of the way the factory cut sheets were produced.

This uncut sheet is the only copy that I, and the Frank Thomas community, have ever seen. There is nothing to suggest there are vast numbers of these cards cut from a sheet; sheets just aren't known to the hobby because they weren't distributed in that form.

Miscut is when a factory cut card isn't cut to the proper specifications, leading to overhang of neighboring cards and the loss of part of the actual card. With these cards the last word in the player info, "ago" if I'm remember correctly off the top of my head, is cut down the center of the word.

BunchOBull · August 16, 2012 12:11AM

I should also add that the Frank is really the only card to suffer from this on the sheet, it's as if the reverse text wasn't aligned properly during the paste up process.

BunchOBull · August 16, 2012 12:17AM

I misremembered the actual miscut a bit, it's the word "ago," from the neighboring card, only the Frank and the card beside it are affected when the factory cut the sheets with 50/50 centering.

mtcards · August 16, 2012 3:58AM

Yes, that is exactly the way mine looks on the back, yet it has the MC designation.

BunchOBull · August 16, 2012 4:08AM

Every copy I've had has included the miscut back, unless the front was severely OC, almost to the point of MC itself. It's small potatoes for PSA, so getting them to standardize how they grade these is going to be tough.

I'm going to send the uncut sheet into BGS for slabbing, along with the 3 other sheets that make up the set.

mtcards · August 16, 2012 9:51AM

Do you think it would be worth sending the card in for a review or is it going to be a waste of time?

BunchOBull · August 16, 2012 10:34AM

I wouldn't move it until you give it a try, but really, we'll probably be better off if we send several in together for a review. The more examples they can look at side by side, the more likely they'll be to "get it."

mtcards · August 17, 2012 2:14AM

I would think that pointing out that the "10" on the registry has the same issue and that all issues have the same problem would at least put their attention to it. Especially if all the graded ones have that same problem. Besides, I dont understand the entire "miscut" issue....how can one side be miscut and not the other?

BunchOBull · August 17, 2012 2:19AM

<< <i>I would think that pointing out that the "10" on the registry has the same issue and that all issues have the same problem would at least put their attention to it. Especially if all the graded ones have that same problem. Besides, I dont understand the entire "miscut" issue....how can one side be miscut and not the other? >>

You're exactly right, it shouldn't be considered as such unless there were multiple print runs, some of which had the proper alignment. I've seen nothing to suggest this is the case.

ReggieCleveland · November 6, 2014 11:32AM

What's the difference between the Red and Blue versions? I'm seeing both examples on ebay and the Blue have the color notated on the flip but I only see one line in PSA's pop report and they don't differentiate between the two colors.

ReggieCleveland · November 6, 2014 11:42AM

Nevermind. Just found a different thread that explains that the Red version was printed after 1987.

DanBessette · November 6, 2014 11:54AM

Such a cool card!

mtcards · July 1, 2015 10:07AM

Just an update....I have exchange several emails regarding this card recently wondering if they have standardized this cards grading and understand that ALL of the backs are printed in the same way. I also included links to current PSA 10 auctions/sales on ebay showing the back as the offset "ago".

My response from them was

"I thank you for your patience. I have received word from our Research Department and was informed that the set description was thoroughly looked into and there was no mention of the cards being printed in error/miscut."

I mean, really??? They thoroughly looked into it and there was no mention? Their own message board had at least one thread discussing it, Thomas collectors know all about it.

I would rather have had them say "Sorry, we dont have time to research such an insignificant card that we have already been paid to grade when we have a huge backlog of other stuff to thoroughly research". I have always supported PSA over Beckett, but this is 100% a copout on their part.

eagles33 · July 1, 2015 12:21PM

There is zero consistency from the research dept. I often wonder if I could consult for free for the specs dept. I genuinely enjoy researching new issues ect. I found images of 150 of 186 card set along with the album and they said it wasn't enough information. Very frustrating

jackstraw · July 2, 2015 9:19AM

I sent in a 96 Collectors Choice Foltz Vending well it got rejected because well we are not sure?
The card on the form was a big shots card which they grade but for some reason they didn't grade
My Foltz card because well we still are not sure but I was told if I send a front and back scan of the card
they will research why they didn't grade it? Um you had the card for 40 days? We don't grade the 2004'Topps Traded Puzzle Checklist cards
because we don't have any info on them? They are in the Beckett? Isn't that what your research dept is for?

BunchOBull · July 2, 2015 9:32AM

Well, I own an uncut set, and if it were cut down, it'd be MC on the reverse like the other 10s out there.

BunchOBull · July 2, 2015 9:35AM

Speaking of weird prints...another early Thomas suffers from this...I was lucky to get a gem copy of each on a sub last year.

1987 Frank Thomas Pan Am Games

Comments