1989 Fleer Randy Johnson Marlboro Variation Question (Pics)

[beefycheddar]

So, do you think Rafael Palmero should be in the HOF? He and Frank have very similar #'s from the inflated steriod era. If he was such a dominant hitter in the 90's you think his team would have made to the playoffs more than once.

Who has ever linked Thomas to steroids? He went to congress on his own. Palmeiro had documented evidence that says he was a user. Big difference. Also judging on playoffs in a team sport that had the smallest playoff pool for his best years is silly.

 

[Hatorade]

He was a star hitter at the peak time of steriod use in baseball. Fair or not, all hitter's #'s from that era are going to be associated with the increase in production from steriod use. His numbers do put him in HOF territory, but to me he isn't a lock to be a first ballot inductee and Randy is. My point is that Randy Johnson Marlboro cards should be valued closer to the NNOF as Randy accomplished more as pitcher than Frank did as a hitter in an era that favored hitting production and the cards are similar in scarcity.

 

[jacksoncoupage]

Thanks for the photo Martin. I've never seen any Marlboro card close to that clear but there are few things about it the raise some questions. The red is very light on that entire card (even on the PSA flip) and it makes everything red almost a pinkish color. It's also missing the identifying mark that majority of the Marlboro's have, but once again my experience is with the non-clear varieties. If it is authentic that card is the rarest RJ rookie by far.

@ThoseBackPages-If they would have fixed the McGwire that would have lead to an error designation for the original version of the card as well, this would have resulted in one of the versions being a sp. To me the allure comes from Marlboro being a big part of American culture and like George mentioned the fact that it is no longer supposed to be included because of Comprehensive Smoking Education Act. Also, the Marlboro versions are far more rare that the common card. About 4% of the #381's graded by PSA and BGS have the error designation. The PSA/BGS method for determining which version of the card it is a whole other subject I’d like to talk about as I've seen errors they label as CBO and I have several Ad on Scoreboard cards that have been shaded much more than cards PSA designated as Ad Partial. There is so much ambiguity with properly cataloging this card that I think it detracts from the overall interest of the card.

What I don't understand is why the Frank Thomas NNOF error sells for $1600 in a PSA 8 and this card goes for less than $20. In nearly every description I've seen for someone selling a NNOF they mention a production total of 150, but there are currently 196 NNOF cards graded by PSA/BGS so that number is completely wrong yet regurgitated on a daily basis in selling the Frank Thomas error. There have been 363 Marlboro error designations from PSA/BGS so it isn't too far off from the NNOF. Would you rather have rare error rookie from an overhyped first baseman that probably won't make the hall for $1600 or a similarly scarce rookie from one the top ten pitchers of all time and a sure fire 1st ballot HOFer for $20?

No, they are not comparable. I have owned over a hundred copies of the various Marlboro variations and have never owned a Thomas NNOF. I've opened wax/racks and pulled several Marlboro variations, yet I've never come close to a Thomas NNOF and I've easily opened 10x as much 1990 Topps as 1989 Fleer. I can only account for one instance in my life where someone pulled one from a pack (CU member: rookiewax), yet I know several accounts of various Marlboros being pulled outside of my own.

The PSA pop reports are not a good indicator of production. A higher percentage of the total production run of Thomas NNOF cards will be graded as there are known counterfeits out there and the market for authenticated copies is stronger than raw copies. Plus, it has years of exposure to collectors over the only recently-known Marlboro variations (1999 is the alleged discovery point) and Frank Thomas, being a hitter who was beloved among fans and collectors will always have bigger overall appeal. If it weren't for this fact, Beckett and SCD wouldn't catalog the card given it's a "printing flaw" according to their guidelines.

I have been collecting, studying, tracking and even cataloging (see my blog) these variations since 2001-02 and I can tell you that while the "clear sign" version is most-likely rarer than the Thomas NNOF, only 1 or 2 of the other types even come close to the Thomas in rarity. The Randy Marlboros are fun, unusual and mysterious but they will most-likely never achieve the status that the Thomas NNOF carries. Sad but true.

And I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that Randy Johnson hails from the same era and any stink that's on Thomas (which would be wrong) will be found on Randy as well.

 

[theplasticman]

Great read... keep up the good work on tracking these down.

 

[billsnmets]

I am the owner of the clear Johnson Marlboro. I can assure it has not been altered/enhanced in any way. I purchased it on eBay back in 2009 and have never seen one clearer. I've opened tons of '89 Fleer and can assure you that the Johnsons were corrected much sooner than the Ripken FF was. My experience says that along with this clear Marlboro, the checklists with positions are also extremely scarce. The Treadway is very tough to find as well, as it seems to be a relatively isolated printing incident that did not affect the entire print run. The Treadway target was not one of the early Fleer corrected variations.