Refractor Identification Issue

[mrmopar]

I saw a listing on ebay recently, where seller was advertising a 1993 Finest refractor that clearly was not one. The asking price was $2500, so I assume it would go through authentication and presumably wouldn't pass. I messaged the person, giving them the benefit of doubt that they just couldn't tell and weren't trying to scan, given that it probably would fail at that price point anyway. Getting some initial pushback, but I am convinced they really have no clue how to tell or possibly can't see a refractor.

This reminded me of a shop owner I used to know back in the 90s. The shop was owned by an older couple, who I believe just saw the financial opportunity in retirement to run a shop. Neither were all that knowledgable in the hobby and would often wait for Beckett to update before selling anything that wasn't already listed. Both were nice, but I preferred dealing with the wife. She would be more apt to settle on a price, where as the husband was set on waiting for an "authority" to help him price it. It was then that I learned that some people can't physically tell the difference between a refractor and a base card. Even with a refractor and base of the same exact card, in hand, she didn't see it! I thought it was weird at first, but then considering some of the other vision issues people experience, such as color blindness, it made sense. Topps would eventually start marking refractors on the backs not too long after the 93 issue, presumably because this was a larger issue than anyone had anticipated.

is there anyone here that can't see the refractor card either? I still find it a little fascinating and unfortunate at the same time, especially since missing parallels is all too common in general because of the often subtle differences that just don't catch the eye easily, such as a foil color difference, serial number or other small change between base and parallel.

 

[OakAth]

I'll be honest, I have trouble identifying the refractors from this set. I bought many many packs of the 93 Finest when it first came out and probably have close to 800 cards......with a refractor odds of 1:18 I am bound to have a few but I cannot for the life of me identify them.

 

[thelesquad]

The 1994 Finest was much harder for me to tell apart even with both in hand.

 

[mrmopar]

I'll be honest, I have trouble identifying the refractors from this set. I bought many many packs of the 93 Finest when it first came out and probably have close to 800 cards......with a refractor odds of 1:18 I am bound to have a few but I cannot for the life of me identify them.

Sounds like you may be one of those folks who can't see the effect. You might try a friend of family member, hand them a stack and see if they can pick out differing cards.

I found an article and they had a great shot of two Brett cards, one being a refractor, the other not. The grading cases help make it easier without seeing the effect though, as each is labeled appropriately.

 

[Dilferules]

I don't have a problem with '93 Finest but there are some sets out there that can be tough to figure it out with. And with pretty much all sets I have to at least wiggle the card around a bit to catch the light right.

Regarding sellers misidentifying stuff like this, I think it falls into 2 camps:

1. People who are newer to the hobby and unfamiliar with the annoying intricacies of collecting. If they see a card sell for a lot that basically looks like theirs, they don't see the small differences and are always "optimistic" about which version of the card they have.

2. Con artists trying to rip off people in category 1, who just trust what the auction title says even though it's clearly the base version of the card. Your basic scummy bottomfeeding garbage humans, who if confronted with it will play dumb.

 

[jeffv96masters]

I'll be honest, I have trouble identifying the refractors from this set. I bought many many packs of the 93 Finest when it first came out and probably have close to 800 cards......with a refractor odds of 1:18 I am bound to have a few but I cannot for the life of me identify them.

>
>
A good scanner with the appropriate scan tech works fine. I'm partial to Epson Perfection V300 or V60 photo scanners . @George_Calfas -now that Phil Gold's gone- my personal go to source on info on the 1993 set. He's right here on FCB

A refractor looks different during night time. Darken the room, minimal light- preferably from an LED source
Twist it sideways- base items are dull- the refractors will bounce that LED light off ( reflect it in other words)

The 1994 Finest was much harder for me to tell apart even with both in hand.

I'll dig out my 1994 or 1995 Red Sox and try and show some differences. I still haven't slabbed anything from these sets sans Red Sox. All sitting in top loads.

@OakAth here's a Mac and Jose pre-slab. Holding these next to a base item, which is dull, yeah. Easy to tell.
>
>
>

 

[mrmopar]

>

I used to think easy to tell for ALL, because it was easy for me, but as I explained, not everyone can see what we see. I have no idea if the scanned images change that or not. Since I can't see through another man's eye, I can't tell what they see.

 

[CardBoredom]

I just returned a card advertised as a '93 refractor to a seller because it was just the base card. The crazy part is that PSA had labeled it as a refractor when it was definitely not. The set certainly overtakes people's imagination like few others can.

 

[mrmopar]

I just returned a card advertised as a '93 refractor to a seller because it was just the base card. The crazy part is that PSA had labeled it as a refractor when it was definitely not. The set certainly overtakes people's imagination like few others can.

So the seller sold a card that was graded/Identified as a refractor, but it was in fact a regular base card? We can probably excuse the seller of most of the blame on that one then and completely inexcusable of PSA!

 

[joey12508]

I remember way back when trying to get a bernie on old beckett
B/S/T was a nightmare pre ebay. Prices were crazy

Sent from my SM-F711U using Freedom Card Board mobile app

 

[OakAth]

>
>
A good scanner with the appropriate scan tech works fine. I'm partial to Epson Perfection V300 or V60 photo scanners . @George_Calfas -now that Phil Gold's gone- my personal go to source on info on the 1993 set. He's right here on FCB

A refractor looks different during night time. Darken the room, minimal light- preferably from an LED source
Twist it sideways- base items are dull- the refractors will bounce that LED light off ( reflect it in other words)


I'll dig out my 1994 or 1995 Red Sox and try and show some differences. I still haven't slabbed anything from these sets sans Red Sox. All sitting in top loads.

@OakAth here's a Mac and Jose pre-slab. Holding these next to a base item, which is dull, yeah. Easy to tell.
>
>
>
View attachment 346869
View attachment 346870

View attachment 346871
View attachment 346872

Thanks, I am going to dig these cards up and plow through them again.

 

[jeffv96masters]

I used to think easy to tell for ALL, because it was easy for me, but as I explained, not everyone can see what we see. I have no idea if the scanned images change that or not. Since I can't see through another man's eye, I can't tell what they see.

,
,
,
I put a like on your post @mrmopar - you've helped others out by making it. Allow me to explain my point better

We don't need to see through their eyes - just determine what their reaction is on the high resolution photos I posted

It's DULL (base items) versus REFLECTIVE ( refractors)
I posted those hi res photos for a reason
It's like sticking an eye exam up. Have them look at those photos and tell you what they see

The REFRACTOR scans are high enough resolution that the REFLECTIVE light should be seen by everyone. Color blind folks will see it as brighter and less muted colors than normal- unlike base items which will appear duller and more muted.

If someones unable to see the difference between a base card and the REFRACTOR pics that are posted - they are experiencing a vision issue. Not a card identification issue

A lot of truth comes from peoples reactions to light. REFRACTORS are very good eye testers

I'll try and see if I have some from the 1993/94/95 sets here to make it clearer

 

[joey12508]

this is what a refractor looks like on my crappy scaner. got it from George C.




this the base.

 

[Dilferules]

Maybe some people just have a mental block on seeing it? Or are determined to look for a color difference when it's really a difference in how light reflects off the surface?

Anyways I'll take any opportunity to show off my favorite team set:




Plus the first one I ever picked up, at the 2006 National. For my Alex Cole collection: