User Tag List

Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 326

Thread: My First Beckett Certified Appraisal 2005 Bowman A-Rod Throwback Autographs #94A Alex Rodriguez

  1. #31
    Senior Member MansGame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    15,258
    Mentioned
    403 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DAVEPETERS239 View Post
    Well I am sorry you disagree with Beckett but if you look up the Beckett graded serial number you will see they do refer to it as to it as the 94 Arod Throwback which is supposed to be one card.

    In the population report you will also not there is just one of these cards graded.

    You are more than welcome to contact Beckett and ask them about this if you would like.
    Just because a POP report shows 1 doesn't mean the card is a 1/1... maybe this statement is IMO but I think it's not.
    The Albert Belle Collector
    Entire Private Collection: 2,626/2,891 - 90.8%


    Accomplished my impossible quest for +90% in October 2016

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mr A Pharis you certainly have quite a few opinions about my card, some of which are not entirely accurate and that's fine but all I can go by is the research I did.

    The facts are this is the only version of this card that has been authenticated and graded. There is another person who allegedly has the same card but I am unsure as to its authenticity until it is graded.

    Another fact is that this card was inserted into packs and is not a back door card or anything like.

    The part I am unsure of and you are probably unsure of as well as if there was ever a SuperFractor for this card. I have an opinion about that and I don't think there was a Superfrctor made for this card. I think back in 2005 a checklist was probably released from Topps mistankenly calling this card on the checklist a SF and all the other websites just copied the original checklist that was put out with the error on it.

    But again that is only my opinion and not fact.

    If anyone can confirm that a SF version for this card was made that would be great and much appreciated.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MansGame View Post
    Can we get a picture of this card? I feel like the only one who hasn't seen a picture but I bet if I visit the BO thread, it's there

    Here is a pic of the card.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	arod1a.jpg 
Views:	259 
Size:	81.3 KB 
ID:	19155Click image for larger version. 

Name:	arod1b.jpg 
Views:	203 
Size:	82.9 KB 
ID:	19156

  4. #34
    A_Pharis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    20,828
    Mentioned
    273 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    The slab would state /1 if it were a 1/1.
    It does not.

    Beckett does not always list cards - especially error designations, backdoored or otherwise unintentionally released cards. The reason they list the 94 auto as a 1/1 is because the "SF" superfractor IS a 1/1.
    Your card, however, is NOT a superfractor from that release.

    THIS is what a SUperfractor from that set looks like.

  5. #35
    Senior Member MansGame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    15,258
    Mentioned
    403 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So odd.
    The Albert Belle Collector
    Entire Private Collection: 2,626/2,891 - 90.8%


    Accomplished my impossible quest for +90% in October 2016

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CatdaddysCards View Post
    Is this the same guy that owns the Hosmer 2011 TU Canary that wants $1500 or the authors Canseco RC? Same dillusions.


    -------------------------------------

    Need Moustakas, Hosmer and patches.



    I am not the person who owns those cards.

    Also I would appreciate you refrain from saying I have delusions as I have not posted anything that would warrant a comment like that.

    Thanks

  7. #37
    Senior Member MansGame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    15,258
    Mentioned
    403 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Albert Belle Collector
    Entire Private Collection: 2,626/2,891 - 90.8%


    Accomplished my impossible quest for +90% in October 2016

  8. #38
    A_Pharis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    20,828
    Mentioned
    273 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DAVEPETERS239 View Post

    The part I am unsure of and you are probably unsure of as well as if there was ever a SuperFractor for this card. I have an opinion about that and I don't think there was a Superfrctor made for this card. I think back in 2005 a checklist was probably released from Topps mistankenly calling this card on the checklist a SF and all the other websites just copied the original checklist that was put out with the error on it.

    You not seeing a superfractor does not mean it doesn't exist. Why would it being not autographed make it automatically the super?

    It's more likely it was meant to be a chrome non-auto, and the template for the autographed designation got used. It was probably then subsequently scrapped. I just don't get how you think Beckett made a mistake in listing a "SF" designation, but then you tell me that I should contact them about it being a 1/1.

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by A_Pharis View Post
    The slab would state /1 if it were a 1/1.
    It does not.

    Beckett does not always list cards - especially error designations, backdoored or otherwise unintentionally released cards. The reason they list the 94 auto as a 1/1 is because the "SF" superfractor IS a 1/1.
    Your card, however, is NOT a superfractor from that release.

    THIS is what a SUperfractor from that set looks like.


    I am unsure what that card is that you posted as I have never seen that before but Beckett grading does list this card as an of one card or /1.

    I am not arguing about that in any way but if you have a problem with this card as being referred to as an of one or /1 card then you would need to ask Beckett about that.

  10. #40
    A_Pharis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    20,828
    Mentioned
    273 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DAVEPETERS239 View Post
    I am unsure what that card is that you posted as I have never seen that before but Beckett grading does list this card as an of one card or /1.

    I am not arguing about that in any way but if you have a problem with this card as being referred to as an of one or /1 card then you would need to ask Beckett about that.

    Please show me on this scan of your slab where it says "/1"


  11. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by A_Pharis View Post
    You not seeing a superfractor does not mean it doesn't exist. Why would it being not autographed make it automatically the super?

    It's more likely it was meant to be a chrome non-auto, and the template for the autographed designation got used. It was probably then subsequently scrapped. I just don't get how you think Beckett made a mistake in listing a "SF" designation, but then you tell me that I should contact them about it.

    You sure seem to have some wild speculations about my card and that is fine, you are certainly entitled to your opinion about the card but I have done quite a bit of research about this card.

    Again any help you or anyone can provide with determining what card this exactly is would be very much appreciated.

    All I ask is that you not state your opinions as fact unless they are fact and there is proof.

  12. #42
    Senior Member Austin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Oahu, Hawaii
    Posts
    5,607
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My brain hurts reading this thread.

  13. #43
    Senior Member MansGame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    15,258
    Mentioned
    403 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here are some facts (1) If no one has seen a card, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist (2) If a POP report says 1, that doesn't mean it's a 1/1 (3) Beckett isn't perfect and makes mistakes
    The Albert Belle Collector
    Entire Private Collection: 2,626/2,891 - 90.8%


    Accomplished my impossible quest for +90% in October 2016

  14. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by A_Pharis View Post
    Please show me on this scan of your slab where it says "/1"


    If you look on the back of the scan of this card there are two spots for the autograph authentication stickers. One is a square sticker one is a triangle sticker. The triangle sticker would have had the 1/1 designation on the sticker.

    You can also note by the Beckett graded serial number and the population report they think it is the of one card or /1 card as well even though they do not have it on the label.

    This is the only version this card could be. If anyone else has any ideas of what other card this could be I am willing to listen and research it.

    I cannot comment on if this card was meant to be a template or a card that was supposed to be scrapped or anything like that. I don't believe that's the case because Clay Luracshi did confirm back in 2005 it was pulled from a pack.

    I would imagine back in 2005 if there was a test card or template or other weird card it would have been identified as such from Topps.

    All I can go by are the facts I have about the card and what I have researched.

  15. #45
    A_Pharis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Louisiana, United States
    Posts
    20,828
    Mentioned
    273 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DAVEPETERS239 View Post
    You sure seem to have some wild speculations about my card and that is fine, you are certainly entitled to your opinion about the card but I have done quite a bit of research about this card.

    Again any help you or anyone can provide with determining what card this exactly is would be very much appreciated.

    All I ask is that you not state your opinions as fact unless they are fact and there is proof.
    Um.

    I showed an example of Superfractor 1/1's from that set - that would be a fact.
    I said Beckett lists the /1 as a "SF" superfractor (of which there are examples in this set) - which is also a fact.
    I said your slab does not show "/1" or any other designation of a one of one - that is a fact, too.
    I said that there have been other backdoored cards making it into packs (or otherwise released) - fact, again.
    I have pointed out that the "appraisal" has no tie to the specific card that you have since Beckett's "appraisal" basically says "Tell us from our checklist what card you have and we will say what it is worth" - and you guessed it. Fact again.

    In FACT, you have provided some pretty good proof that it's not a 1/1, yourself...

    -You use the same username here as you did on BO, where you discussed this card and were shown other examples of it.
    -You posted the scan of it in the slab showing that it's not a 1/1


    If anything, I think the biggest mistake was whoever entered it on Beckett's database choosing the card from a checklist instead of actually listing what the card is.

Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •