Preying on the innocent and weak

ClockworkAngel

Thomas

He says:
"Oddball variation of famous rookie card - missing the green color on back, just cardboard color. Never seen another like it and a must have for Frank Thomas collector. Very likely that fewer exist than the 500+ copies of the no name on front missing black error. Please only serious offers and bids this is possibly a once in a lifetime find. "

"A once in a lifetime find". Wow, I had no idea. Going to go break out my monster boxes of 1990 topps and take out all the color variations on the back....I bet I have 2000 of them!

I E-mailed eBay to alert them. Seems every day we see something like this. Where there's money there's scams.

jmaciu

Unbelievable. People are really reaching to new heights to make a buck.

hyperchipper09

almost looks as though you could shine light/direct it/reflect it onto one of the cards to give the bottom one that appearance also.

mlbfan2

The same seller sold this for $12.

cpamike

<< <i>The same seller sold this for $12.

>>



Maybe he should submit these to PSA to get them to note these amazing variations on the flips.

hyperchipper09

<< <i>The same seller sold this for $12.

>>




Falls into the category of :
"If a person is stupid enough to buy this, then they get what they deserve"
Bad seller, absolutely. Dumb buyer, absolutely.

cardcountry

Shameful.

Jeff

vladguerrero

Are you calling Thomas collectors innocent and weak?

ClockworkAngel

<< <i>Are you calling Thomas collectors innocent and weak? >>



No. Please chill. Don't internalize

cpamike

<< <i>

<< <i>Are you calling Thomas collectors innocent and weak? >>



No. Please chill. Don't internalize >>



At least he didn't say Vlad Guerrero collectors are innocent and weak as we know that would be a blatant lie.

lahmejoon

This may be completely naive of me, but don't some folks collect strange oddities / print variations, even if they're not recognized by a catalog? I agree that the way the seller portrays the Thomas is completely misleading, but it would seem that there would be a Thomas collector who would want an oddity like this, provided it wasn't created by letting the card sit out in the sun for awhile, for $5 and not the $800 it's listed for.

mtcards

Honestly, some of his cards that he currently has listed ARE actual variations. Just because they havent been accepted yet makes it seem a little different. How many people saw a Randy Johnson Marlboro Rookie that someone was asking $100 for back in the mid 90's before it became well known?

magikbilly

Education need not me expensive. It is a great power.

Eric

bishop

I do not know if this card is a legitimate print defect, but cards with no color on the back, or wrong colors, are not that unusual . They are worth whatever a variant type collector is willing top pay...and we may be obsessive but are usually not weak or innocent . I think the asking price is too high, but he can always lower the price after he makes sure he is not leaving money on the table

LarkinCollector

<< <i>I do not know if this card is a legitimate print defect, but cards with no color on the back, or wrong colors, are not that unusual . They are worth whatever a variant type collector is willing top pay...and we may be obsessive but are usually not weak or innocent . I think the asking price is too high, but he can always lower the price after he makes sure he is not leaving money on the table >>



+1, it's not the first time he's listed it. He's working his way down from $3000.

bishop

As silly as some may think he is trying to sell this as a rare variation, I think it is much more interesting than my 52 Campos black star, 57 Bakep, 58 Herrer. the 3 59 Sullivan copyright differences...or the recently slabbed PSA 61 Fairly with an errant green smudge in the baseball on the back. All it takes is hobby recognition of a print defect to make a card suddenly worth money to master set collectors. Can't blame him for trying to be out front