HUGE PC Card that I believe is FAKE. Need Opinions Please.

[klute14]

As most of you know, I PC several players with one being Dave Parker.
For 12+ years I have been on the hunt for a 2004 Topps Originals 1974 Rookie Card auto 1/1.
I have never seen one nor have knowledge that one has ever been pulled or been up for sale.
Until now...........

https://www.ebay.com/itm/371837313617...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Every 1/1 from this set that I have seen has been hand numbered this way: 01/01.
Obviously this card isn't numbered in that fashion so right away I am suspicious coupled with that this set is one of the most altered sets in recent memory.

I am inclined to call BS and not bid but wanted some other opinions.
Perhaps you have a 1/1 of your player that you could post a scan of.

[U L Washington Rookie]

Same seller (who I've bought from in the past and not been disappointed; though I know nothing about this card) has a few others listed, including the UL Washington rookie that's signed by Paul Molitor for some reason. The others I looked at all have the 01/01 format.

[AUTaxMan]

I would proceed with caution.

[MisterT]

He certainly could have pulled the holo sticker from something else. Any way to verify it?

[smapdi]

Stay away. Look at the Eckersley listed along with it, the sticker is peeled off, although it is numbered properly.

[UMich92]

I would be very hesitant as it looks like all of the cards numbered to less than 10 are formatted "0x"/"0x". The only ones I found numbered in the format of "x/x" were listed by this seller. With their volume, they could have purchased (knowingly or unknowingly) a collection that included these iffy cards.

[George_Calfas]

Same seller (who I've bought from in the past and not been disappointed; though I know nothing about this card) has a few others listed, including the UL Washington rookie that's signed by Paul Molitor for some reason. The others I looked at all have the 01/01 format.

Man, the Mickey Klutts rookie is GEM
https://www.ebay.com/itm/2004-Topps-O...3D371837313617

[forgerelli]

I've purchased many things from this seller. I've also seen many fakes and back doored items being sold by them. They're a huge consigner/buyer and don't inspect the things they sell.

I know absolutely nothing about the set that Dave Parker comes from but these listings look VERY suspect to me.

Scott F

[George_Calfas]

Is the signature consistent with Parker's known signatures?
What that specific card suppose to be 1/1 in the set?
If the above are yes this could be an unintended variation in serial numbering.

[ccouch (Chad)]

Something definitely off with this one. I have about a hundred of the 2004 Topps Originals cards (mostly 83 and 84 Topps) and all of them are signed with a much bolder blue pen than that one, including my 83 Topps Parker. This signature may well be a legit Dave Parker signature but I don't believe for one second that this is a legit 2004 Topps Original.

[michaelstepper]

if the sig is authentic and pwoplw dont go mad crazy is it worth losing it?

[Pine Tar]

I would bid on it just have in my collection either way. But It looks like the same exact pen was used to sign that card and it was to number it , so to me that would be a proceed with caution approach.....Just don't bid to high on the card and see if you can get it at a good bargain basement deal.

Then see if you can research it more and find out if it is an authentic card or not.

[Benson]

I saw your post on BO with your other Rice and Kingman 1/1. Can't tell from your scans there, but are the 1's on your cards written the same way as the one on Ebay. On Ebay, whoever wrote the ones and the slash, went down and came back up slightly, look for the heavier dot in the ink where they stopped writing.

[swish54_99]

I will preface this with I have never bought from this seller and don't have any hand numbered cards in my collection but a couple things I noticed to add to the speculation. The 1/1 and signature of Parker looks to be signed in the same marker....is that usually the case with those? Also, on the Molitor, the 01/01 looks very sloppy and shaky. I'd find it hard to believe Topps grabbed some Joe from the office to hand number that stuff. I'd think they'd have someone with very nice handwriting do them. Also, the "P" in Paul looks shaky and forced.

[BaseballNut]

I would steer clear... all the others are numbered 01/01