Think someone was faking Jim Colborn packs in 1975? What was his WAR in 1974? Can someone look that up for me? Anything is plausible I presume.
* 305 Jim Colborn -- Milwaukee Brewers
@Reggie, no disrespect, please ask Jose for links and explanations. I am sure he is conjuring up an explanation right now. He has an explanation handy for everything. This stemmed from his theory. I have just retired from this topic and I need to get to the Caribbean in the morning!
@Steve Hart and PSA you don't get paid enough for the service you provide the hobby! This is head spinning work!
David, are you saying that those links are from Jose's auctions? I'm confused. Why don't you post links to them so we have context? Now you're retiring from the thread?
<< <i>David, are you saying that those links are from Jose's auctions? I'm confused. Why don't you post links to them so we have context? Now you're retiring from the thread? >>
No Reggie, these are not Jose's auctions. Jose doesn't waste his time on single star common on top packs. He typically runs with the Brett/Yount crowd. The links don't matter. The card on top doesn't matter. Just listen to MiniDuff and everything will be ok!
<<There are no absolutes, but knowledge is power. The more we share with each other, the better and more informed decisions we can make.
For myself, it comes down to this: if it looks to good to be true, it probably is.
There is a lot more information out there beyond sequence. Is it the right wrapper, how is the seal. Folks here with a lot of knowledge, like Tim for one, have shared that knowledge in the hopes that fellow collectors don't get burned.
I used this example in a PM, but I'll use it again. Please think about it for a second:
People counterfeit money, often. With over a dozen security features built into the currency and the Secret Service on your butt for doing it. Do you really think cardboard and/or cellophane would be all that hard to get by if someone had both the skill and motive?
One more thought: who here has not gotten back a PSA 5 they thought was a 9, but missed the tiniest wrinkle? Graders are people too. >>
<< <i>David, are you saying that those links are from Jose's auctions? I'm confused. Why don't you post links to them so we have context? Now you're retiring from the thread? >>
No Reggie, these are not Jose's auctions. Jose doesn't waste his time on single star common on top packs. He typically runs with the Brett/Yount crowd. The links don't matter. The card on top doesn't matter. Just listen to MiniDuff and everything will be ok!
<<There are no absolutes, but knowledge is power. The more we share with each other, the better and more informed decisions we can make.
For myself, it comes down to this: if it looks to good to be true, it probably is.
There is a lot more information out there beyond sequence. Is it the right wrapper, how is the seal. Folks here with a lot of knowledge, like Tim for one, have shared that knowledge in the hopes that fellow collectors don't get burned.
I used this example in a PM, but I'll use it again. Please think about it for a second:
People counterfeit money, often. With over a dozen security features built into the currency and the Secret Service on your butt for doing it. Do you really think cardboard and/or cellophane would be all that hard to get by if someone had both the skill and motive?
One more thought: who here has not gotten back a PSA 5 they thought was a 9, but missed the tiniest wrinkle? Graders are people too. >> >>
Okay. I'm not entirely sure what your posts prove then. You quote a message that advocated knowledge being power and the sharing of information yet you state that the links don't matter, as though the mere existence of the scans proves a point. I was hoping for an open and inclusive discussion among collectors where all the information is examined and we were able to decide, as a group, what we felt was the most logical. But you provided scans with no background or provenance and included snarky commentary as though they proved something. I'm not saying your scans are wrong or that they represent altered packs, but I believe that all information should be provided so that whomever is reading this thread can decide for themselves.
thanks for finding those packs. people have said they are out there and it looks like they are. all the points about sequence not being the only thing to look at is valid but it's what i was focusing on at the moment. just a piece of the puzzle. thanks again.
continue to learn a lot from these boards. i get the points of 'if it looks too good, it probably is'. the more expertise you have the easier it is to find that line.
one more question for some of the experts:
would you believe that any card could be on the top of a 75-79 baseball cello pack with the right provenance, seal and wrapper?
<< <i>thanks for finding those packs. people have said they are out there and it looks like they are. all the points about sequence not being the only thing to look at is valid but it's what i was focusing on at the moment. just a piece of the puzzle. thanks again. >>
I'm not sure any packs have been "found" at all. All we have are images with zero context, zero factual backing, and a poster who is being intentionally elusive, even after being directly questioned about it.
<< <i>I'm not sure any packs have been "found" at all. All we have are images with zero context, zero factual backing, and a poster who is being intentionally elusive, even after being directly questioned about it. >>
I was posting the images for ReggieCleveland as fast as I could and was not reading the thread as I was doing it. As I explained to ReggieCleveland in a PM I had already completed his request: "So, at this point, can anyone provide a scan of a 75 cello pack with a single * on top and double * on bottom that doesn't involve a star player?" before I saw he was not satisfied with what he asked for. I told him in a PM if he would have asked for that information originally I would have gladly included it in my posts. I explained to him why I could not spend the time to go back and refind all of the images to copy the additional information he was now seeking, let alone go edit all of my posts for him.
However, I left the source of those images on the scans for everyone so they could see where they came from. Sorry, I figured people would be able to read and understand "licensed by WorthPoint". As I always say, I am a knucklehead, I was actually stupid enough to assume people knew what Worthpoint was. Go figure! I should not get involved in these serious threads and stick to 'cute photoshops' Right Reggie Sorry for assuming you or anyone would know what WorthPoint was Dodgerfanjohn. Lesson Learned. For those of you that don't know about WorthPoint... its a pretty cool site.
<< <i>I'm sure that the workers at the Topps plant in 1975 cared about about perfect collation and would have destroyed any boxes created that broke the */** rule.
Point is there may be a main path, but rest assured there are many paths from the Topps plant to the marketplace, and not much of anyone really cared that much about how it all happened. >>
There are certain realities about the way product was produced that stem from facts of process, not whether anyone cared about the result. >>
With all due respect, do you care to share these "facts of process" with the board?
Snuffy has provided multiple examples of packs that have been sold that are "exceptions to the rule". If you have information which proves these, or any packs like them are fakes please provide it.
Again, if what is "thought" to be the case on this board is 100% true (only certain sheets on top)......does anyone in their right mind think that Steve Hart would not know this? Until someone provides credible evidence that this is the case 100% of the time....we can speculate....we can say XX is the case most of the time.....but nothing more. I believe that stating absolutes, such as this actually increases the chance of a person getting scammed.EX-If XXX buys 3 1975 cellos, and they all have * cards on top, and ** cards on the bottom with no stars showing.....why would they scrutinize the pack any further?
Finally, please review the old threads on the subject. The #1 advocate of the whole "sheet X cards ALWAYS on top" is the person who was resealing the packs.
<< <i>I'm sure that the workers at the Topps plant in 1975 cared about about perfect collation and would have destroyed any boxes created that broke the */** rule.
Point is there may be a main path, but rest assured there are many paths from the Topps plant to the marketplace, and not much of anyone really cared that much about how it all happened. >>
There are certain realities about the way product was produced that stem from facts of process, not whether anyone cared about the result. >>
With all due respect, do you care to share these "facts of process" with the board?
Snuffy has provided multiple examples of packs that have been sold that are "exceptions to the rule". If you have information which proves these, or any packs like them are fakes please provide it.
Again, if what is "thought" to be the case on this board is 100% true (only certain sheets on top)......does anyone in their right mind think that Steve Hart would not know this? Until someone provides credible evidence that this is the case 100% of the time....we can speculate....we can say XX is the case most of the time.....but nothing more. I believe that stating absolutes, such as this actually increases the chance of a person getting scammed.EX-If XXX buys 3 1975 cellos, and they all have * cards on top, and ** cards on the bottom with no stars showing.....why would they scrutinize the pack any further?
Finally, please review the old threads on the subject. The #1 advocate of the whole "sheet X cards ALWAYS on top" is the person who was resealing the packs. >>
I know nothing about what type of card, if any, comes on top of a cello pack. My point was a general one. Some things about the nature of packs stems from the process that made them. Whether anyone at Topps cared about the outcome is irrelevant.
I have countless examples of this general point if you would like them. They have nothing to do with the specifics of this discussion, however.
<< <i> I was posting the images for ReggieCleveland as fast as I could and was not reading the thread as I was doing it. As I explained to ReggieCleveland in a PM I had already completed his request: "So, at this point, can anyone provide a scan of a 75 cello pack with a single * on top and double * on bottom that doesn't involve a star ! >>
Great proof from those non star single * players being on top of cellos it definitely proves those single * rookies could be showing on top and not necessarily be a faked cello. I'm not sure the Worthpoint scans prove that the double ** were on bottom though meaning the top/bottom order was just reversed. What if the non star original packs were single * all the way thru which I think is the reason some people don't believe a pack can have both single *s Brett on top and Yount on bottom for example?
<< <i> I was posting the images for ReggieCleveland as fast as I could and was not reading the thread as I was doing it. As I explained to ReggieCleveland in a PM I had already completed his request: "So, at this point, can anyone provide a scan of a 75 cello pack with a single * on top and double * on bottom that doesn't involve a star ! >>
Great proof from those non star single * players being on top of cellos it definitely proves those single * rookies could be showing on top and not necessarily be a faked cello. I'm not sure the Worthpoint scans prove that the double ** were on bottom though meaning the top/bottom order was just reversed. What if the non star original packs were single * all the way thru which I think is the reason some people don't believe a pack can have both single *s Brett on top and Yount on bottom for example? >>
Text
or that common '75 cellos are being "produced"/resealed.
I don't believe I (or anyone else) has a monopoly on the truth. Perhaps one way is correct or another way. But I don't think we've come to any definitive conclusions either way. I believe context is required for all of those scans Snuffy posted, especially considering since it appears that almost all of them came from the same seller. Did someone fabricate a group of non-star cellos and that's them? There's no way to really determine that at this point.
I have been following this re sealed pack situation a little bit and I was under the impression that Jose said he never sold any of the fake packs he made.
Now he is indeed confirming the pack from the 1972 Topps Football with Terry Bradshaw on the front was indeed one of his home made packs.
Per Jose, talking about the questionable 72 Bradshaw pack (spelling mistakes edited):
"Yes That pack is on the list of packs a had made not only the stains, in the back there [are] clear signs of [it] being resealed on the white paint, and it got by the expert, who ever owns it now should file for the PSA guarantee! and i'll be glad to testify that I had it made."
If a person knowingly submits a resealed pack and gets it authenticated and then sells it as original and then admits to it online, I would think this is an admission of fraud and punishable under law.
<< <i>If a person knowingly submits a resealed pack and gets it authenticated and then sells it as original and then admits to it online, I would think this is an admission of fraud and punishable under law.
Is it? >>
I would think so, but I am in no way an expert at law. Hopefully this gets things moving.
While I don't assume that any of us individually or even collectively more about cello packs than PSA or BBCE, and that there are likely exceptions to any supposed rule, if we undertake a sampling of cellos and see that a very high percentage (e.g., 90%) follow this pattern, I think it is very useful information to have. It would at least put buyers on alert to be more cautious when dealing with packs that buck the trend. And if someone sees a box with several packs going against the trend, to really be on alert. If it does not turn out this way, that is also useful information to have, as it goes against what has previously been claimed.
Even though the abundance of packs made by Jose makes Steve Hart look very bad, I still do not blame Steve. Jose is very very good at what he does. He is no different than drug makers that continue to make steroids and HGH that will go undetected in regular tests.
If anyone for some reason doubts that Jose isn't a scumb...I mean scammer, there are plenty of threads on net54 including this one: Text
I agree that Jose has caused major problems in unopened but I do not think that all, or even a majority, of bad packs (authenticated or otherwise) are his. There are many resealers out there.
Most of my boxes are wrapped, but I did have a loose 1978 cello box. According to the theory, 1978 cello packs should have cards from sheet A, B and C on the back and D, E and F on the front. I just checked the backs of my cellos. All 24 came from sheets A, B and C. I will check the fronts tonight and report, but wanted to note that this is following the supposed rule for 1978.
Hopefully some other members can do some checking themselves and report back with what they are finding.
I checked the fronts of my 1978 cellos, and 24 of 24 packs had cards from a D, E or F sheet showing. So that's 48 out of 48 matches with the general rule on my end.
Comments
* 305 Jim Colborn -- Milwaukee Brewers
@Reggie, no disrespect, please ask Jose for links and explanations. I am sure he is conjuring up an explanation right now. He has an explanation handy for everything. This stemmed from his theory. I have just retired from this topic and I need to get to the Caribbean in the morning!
@Steve Hart and PSA you don't get paid enough for the service you provide the hobby! This is head spinning work!
aconte
<< <i>David, are you saying that those links are from Jose's auctions? I'm confused. Why don't you post links to them so we have context? Now you're retiring from the thread? >>
No Reggie, these are not Jose's auctions. Jose doesn't waste his time on single star common on top packs. He typically runs with the Brett/Yount crowd. The links don't matter. The card on top doesn't matter. Just listen to MiniDuff and everything will be ok!
<<There are no absolutes, but knowledge is power. The more we share with each other, the better and more informed decisions we can make.
For myself, it comes down to this: if it looks to good to be true, it probably is.
There is a lot more information out there beyond sequence. Is it the right wrapper, how is the seal. Folks here with a lot of knowledge, like Tim for one, have shared that knowledge in the hopes that fellow collectors don't get burned.
I used this example in a PM, but I'll use it again. Please think about it for a second:
People counterfeit money, often. With over a dozen security features built into the currency and the Secret Service on your butt for doing it. Do you really think cardboard and/or cellophane would be all that hard to get by if someone had both the skill and motive?
One more thought: who here has not gotten back a PSA 5 they thought was a 9, but missed the tiniest wrinkle? Graders are people too. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>David, are you saying that those links are from Jose's auctions? I'm confused. Why don't you post links to them so we have context? Now you're retiring from the thread? >>
No Reggie, these are not Jose's auctions. Jose doesn't waste his time on single star common on top packs. He typically runs with the Brett/Yount crowd. The links don't matter. The card on top doesn't matter. Just listen to MiniDuff and everything will be ok!
<<There are no absolutes, but knowledge is power. The more we share with each other, the better and more informed decisions we can make.
For myself, it comes down to this: if it looks to good to be true, it probably is.
There is a lot more information out there beyond sequence. Is it the right wrapper, how is the seal. Folks here with a lot of knowledge, like Tim for one, have shared that knowledge in the hopes that fellow collectors don't get burned.
I used this example in a PM, but I'll use it again. Please think about it for a second:
People counterfeit money, often. With over a dozen security features built into the currency and the Secret Service on your butt for doing it. Do you really think cardboard and/or cellophane would be all that hard to get by if someone had both the skill and motive?
One more thought: who here has not gotten back a PSA 5 they thought was a 9, but missed the tiniest wrinkle? Graders are people too. >> >>
Okay. I'm not entirely sure what your posts prove then. You quote a message that advocated knowledge being power and the sharing of information yet you state that the links don't matter, as though the mere existence of the scans proves a point. I was hoping for an open and inclusive discussion among collectors where all the information is examined and we were able to decide, as a group, what we felt was the most logical. But you provided scans with no background or provenance and included snarky commentary as though they proved something. I'm not saying your scans are wrong or that they represent altered packs, but I believe that all information should be provided so that whomever is reading this thread can decide for themselves.
Have fun in the Carribean, safe travels.
And there are plenty of absolutes out there, just like there are professional graders and recreational ones.
one more question for some of the experts:
would you believe that any card could be on the top of a 75-79 baseball cello pack with the right provenance, seal and wrapper?
<< <i>thanks for finding those packs. people have said they are out there and it looks like they are. all the points about sequence not being the only thing to look at is valid but it's what i was focusing on at the moment. just a piece of the puzzle. thanks again. >>
I'm not sure any packs have been "found" at all. All we have are images with zero context, zero factual backing, and a poster who is being intentionally elusive, even after being directly questioned about it.
<< <i>I'm not sure any packs have been "found" at all. All we have are images with zero context, zero factual backing, and a poster who is being intentionally elusive, even after being directly questioned about it. >>
I was posting the images for ReggieCleveland as fast as I could and was not reading the thread as I was doing it. As I explained to ReggieCleveland in a PM I had already completed his request: "So, at this point, can anyone provide a scan of a 75 cello pack with a single * on top and double * on bottom that doesn't involve a star player?" before I saw he was not satisfied with what he asked for. I told him in a PM if he would have asked for that information originally I would have gladly included it in my posts. I explained to him why I could not spend the time to go back and refind all of the images to copy the additional information he was now seeking, let alone go edit all of my posts for him.
However, I left the source of those images on the scans for everyone so they could see where they came from. Sorry, I figured people would be able to read and understand "licensed by WorthPoint". As I always say, I am a knucklehead, I was actually stupid enough to assume people knew what Worthpoint was. Go figure! I should not get involved in these serious threads and stick to 'cute photoshops' Right Reggie
@Dodgerfanjohn - I sent you a PM
Gotta Go! Car service will be here in a few minutes and then it's officially vacation time!
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm sure that the workers at the Topps plant in 1975 cared about about perfect collation and would have destroyed any boxes created that broke the */** rule.
Point is there may be a main path, but rest assured there are many paths from the Topps plant to the marketplace, and not much of anyone really cared that much about how it all happened. >>
There are certain realities about the way product was produced that stem from facts of process, not whether anyone cared about the result. >>
With all due respect, do you care to share these "facts of process" with the board?
Snuffy has provided multiple examples of packs that have been sold that are "exceptions to the rule". If you have information which proves these, or any packs like them are fakes please provide it.
Again, if what is "thought" to be the case on this board is 100% true (only certain sheets on top)......does anyone in their right mind think that Steve Hart would not know this? Until someone provides credible evidence that this is the case 100% of the time....we can speculate....we can say XX is the case most of the time.....but nothing more. I believe that stating absolutes, such as this actually increases the chance of a person getting scammed.EX-If XXX buys 3 1975 cellos, and they all have * cards on top, and ** cards on the bottom with no stars showing.....why would they scrutinize the pack any further?
Finally, please review the old threads on the subject. The #1 advocate of the whole "sheet X cards ALWAYS on top" is the person who was resealing the packs.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm sure that the workers at the Topps plant in 1975 cared about about perfect collation and would have destroyed any boxes created that broke the */** rule.
Point is there may be a main path, but rest assured there are many paths from the Topps plant to the marketplace, and not much of anyone really cared that much about how it all happened. >>
There are certain realities about the way product was produced that stem from facts of process, not whether anyone cared about the result. >>
With all due respect, do you care to share these "facts of process" with the board?
Snuffy has provided multiple examples of packs that have been sold that are "exceptions to the rule". If you have information which proves these, or any packs like them are fakes please provide it.
Again, if what is "thought" to be the case on this board is 100% true (only certain sheets on top)......does anyone in their right mind think that Steve Hart would not know this? Until someone provides credible evidence that this is the case 100% of the time....we can speculate....we can say XX is the case most of the time.....but nothing more. I believe that stating absolutes, such as this actually increases the chance of a person getting scammed.EX-If XXX buys 3 1975 cellos, and they all have * cards on top, and ** cards on the bottom with no stars showing.....why would they scrutinize the pack any further?
Finally, please review the old threads on the subject. The #1 advocate of the whole "sheet X cards ALWAYS on top" is the person who was resealing the packs. >>
I know nothing about what type of card, if any, comes on top of a cello pack. My point was a general one. Some things about the nature of packs stems from the process that made them. Whether anyone at Topps cared about the outcome is irrelevant.
I have countless examples of this general point if you would like them. They have nothing to do with the specifics of this discussion, however.
<< <i> I was posting the images for ReggieCleveland as fast as I could and was not reading the thread as I was doing it. As I explained to ReggieCleveland in a PM I had already completed his request: "So, at this point, can anyone provide a scan of a 75 cello pack with a single * on top and double * on bottom that doesn't involve a star ! >>
Great proof from those non star single * players being on top of cellos it definitely proves those single * rookies could be showing on top and not necessarily be a faked cello. I'm not sure the Worthpoint scans prove that the double ** were on bottom though meaning the top/bottom order was just reversed. What if the non star original packs were single * all the way thru which I think is the reason some people don't believe a pack can have both single *s Brett on top and Yount on bottom for example?
Join the Rookie stars on top PSA registry today:
1980-1989 Cello Packs - Rookies
<< <i>
<< <i> I was posting the images for ReggieCleveland as fast as I could and was not reading the thread as I was doing it. As I explained to ReggieCleveland in a PM I had already completed his request: "So, at this point, can anyone provide a scan of a 75 cello pack with a single * on top and double * on bottom that doesn't involve a star ! >>
Great proof from those non star single * players being on top of cellos it definitely proves those single * rookies could be showing on top and not necessarily be a faked cello. I'm not sure the Worthpoint scans prove that the double ** were on bottom though meaning the top/bottom order was just reversed. What if the non star original packs were single * all the way thru which I think is the reason some people don't believe a pack can have both single *s Brett on top and Yount on bottom for example? >>
Text
or that common '75 cellos are being "produced"/resealed.
Either way, I hope this conversation continues.
Now he is indeed confirming the pack from the 1972 Topps Football with Terry Bradshaw on the front was indeed one of his home made packs.
"Yes That pack is on the list of packs a had made not only the stains,
in the back there [are] clear signs of [it] being resealed on the white paint,
and it got by the expert, who ever owns it now should file for the PSA
guarantee! and i'll be glad to testify that I had it made."
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
Is it?
<< <i>If a person knowingly submits a resealed pack and gets it authenticated and then sells it as original and then admits to it online, I would think this is an admission of fraud and punishable under law.
Is it? >>
I would think so, but I am in no way an expert at law. Hopefully this gets things moving.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
They call me "Pack the Ripper"
If anyone for some reason doubts that Jose isn't a scumb...I mean scammer, there are plenty of threads on net54 including this one: Text
They call me "Pack the Ripper"
<< <i>Do we know the PSA cert number range Jose's work falls into? >>
Read the thread above. There is a sequence of numbers that you can enter on the cert check here and find a long string.
Hopefully some other members can do some checking themselves and report back with what they are finding.