1990 Donruss Aqueous -Geoge Brett - $3,000+

[tpeichel]

Here is a question for you.....do any of you know if the 1990 Donruss cards can be found without the period after the INC ??? Are these then being taken and "stamped" with the aqueous test across the back? Just askin'........

There are examples of both INC and INC. on COMC.

[/URL]
Courtesy of CheckOutMyCards.com

 

[clarkfan]

Here is a question for you.....do any of you know if the 1990 Donruss cards can be found without the period after the INC ??? Are these then being taken and "stamped" with the aqueous test across the back? Just askin'........

There are examples of both INC and INC. on COMC.

[/URL]
Courtesy of CheckOutMyCards.com

Crap! I was hoping that could be a tell tale sign, knock that assumption out

 

[ChasHawk]

But how would they duplicate the exact AQUEOUS TEST stamp?

 

[ronfromfresno]

I'm hoping that the original Brett sale just brought more out of the woodwork, like we all assumed would happen. Seems very strange to have 2 very similar new sellers, but a big sale brings new people back into the hobby, or more specifically, ebay. I might bid on a couple and see what develops. Chandy still sells lots of 10 from time to time and a few singles here and there, so maybe these are a lot more common than originally thought. It's definitely not hard to find people with pretty good hoards of them. Hey Ron, did you see a Robby Thompson got listed? Don't you have a pretty good stash of him alone??

I saw it, but at $100 it's too rich for my blood, maybe they'll come down in price. It looks legit though, all the markings are correct and match the five I already have perfectly. The stamp or Aqueous printing covers the exact same parts of the numbers in the stats lines and the missing period after the INC, so they look legit.

Here is the backs of the three I have scanned in:

 

[jay1065]

Here is a question for you.....do any of you know if the 1990 Donruss cards can be found without the period after the INC ??? Are these then being taken and "stamped" with the aqueous test across the back? Just askin'........

There are examples of both INC and INC. on COMC.

[/URL]
Courtesy of CheckOutMyCards.com

Crap! I was hoping that could be a tell tale sign, knock that assumption out

I'm not sure if this test would actually hold any weight, but it may. You would have to wait until the card is in hand. I have both INC. and INC from 1990 Donruss in my Burks collection. The front of the INC variation is more orange than red (this card has been in a box and never seen sunlight since it was pulled in 1990):

INC.

INC

Do other non-Aqueous INC variations have the same orange front?

 

[Adrian D.]

That is some serious cash for that card.

 

[ronfromfresno]

seems to be another one up, real or fake? 0 feedback and a grand cheaper..

http://www.ebay.com/itm/George-Brett-19 ... 500wt_1191

INC looks good

But the "T" at the end of test looks off, the rest I've seen look like they are on top of the * this one looks like it is off to the side or below it.

 

[Greg Cleveland]

Here is the backs of the three I have scanned in:

Love how the stamps are consistant with their placement. That has to be a key in determining a legit copy. (aside from the INC./INC)

 

[tunahead]

Here's the Hrbek I have too for comparison on the stamp placement:

 

[gremelwood]

Based on the great scans of the Robby Thompson cards I would say as long as the stamp is in the EXACT same place on the back of Brett cards - compared to other Brett aqueous - then it probably is legit. It seems that the stamp is spaced slightly different based on the player but looks the same across all the cards of the SAME player. Anyone have a great scan of the back of their aqueous to put up? Sadly...mine on ebay was a crappy picture to begin with that I posted for sale. It won't do for comparison. Sorry.

 

[Greg Cleveland]

 

[ajw]

Here's mine. The "T" seems to line up properly. I'm not sure what sort of expertise SGC has in authenticating these, but PSA was not doing so at the time I got mine.

 

[BunchOBull]

In my experience, there is no exact placement of the "T," but it's always close to the top border of the stat box. More integral, and always true, is the approximately 40 degree angle of the aqueous test "stamp" when viewed horizontally. Remember, it's not really a stamp, as it is printed on.

The fake copies I've seen, most on a private website selling a "complete set," have had varying angles, placement, slight font differences, and obvious surface to surface stamp transfer.

 

[BrewerSuperCollector]

Here is a question for you.....do any of you know if the 1990 Donruss cards can be found without the period after the INC ??? Are these then being taken and "stamped" with the aqueous test across the back? Just askin'........

There are examples of both INC and INC. on COMC.

[/URL]
Courtesy of CheckOutMyCards.com

Crap! I was hoping that could be a tell tale sign, knock that assumption out

I'm not sure if this test would actually hold any weight, but it may. You would have to wait until the card is in hand. I have both INC. and INC from 1990 Donruss in my Burks collection. The front of the INC variation is more orange than red (this card has been in a box and never seen sunlight since it was pulled in 1990):

INC.

INC

Do other non-Aqueous INC variations have the same orange front?

In regards to the difference in the ". " Do both of your card backs face the same direction? In some years of Donruss factory sets the backs were upside down versus the wax, cello, rack cards.

 

[tunahead]

Ah looks like he's possibly shilling the Ripken auction now...

 

[DeliciousBacon]

In regards to the difference in the ". " Do both of your card backs face the same direction? In some years of Donruss factory sets the backs were upside down versus the wax, cello, rack cards.

As far as I know, that was only for the 1987 Donruss factory sets. The 1988 sets had a different border pattern (I think), don't think the other years had any differences (apart from the checklists).

 

[Russ S.]

Ah looks like he's possibly shilling the Ripken auction now...

yep. i quit bidding. shame

 

[jay1065]

Here is a question for you.....do any of you know if the 1990 Donruss cards can be found without the period after the INC ??? Are these then being taken and "stamped" with the aqueous test across the back? Just askin'........

There are examples of both INC and INC. on COMC.

[/URL]
Courtesy of CheckOutMyCards.com

Crap! I was hoping that could be a tell tale sign, knock that assumption out

I'm not sure if this test would actually hold any weight, but it may. You would have to wait until the card is in hand. I have both INC. and INC from 1990 Donruss in my Burks collection. The front of the INC variation is more orange than red (this card has been in a box and never seen sunlight since it was pulled in 1990):

INC.

INC

Do other non-Aqueous INC variations have the same orange front?

In regards to the difference in the ". " Do both of your card backs face the same direction? In some years of Donruss factory sets the backs were upside down versus the wax, cello, rack cards.

Yes, the backs face the same direction.

 

[1st4040]

since everyone is showing off

 

[ronfromfresno]

Now, another zero feedback seller has Aqueous Test cards listed (including Brett). Something just doesn't feel right about this situation. Seems odd that 2 zero feedback sellers would have those, but I don't know what to think.

Not sure about the two sellers, I took a chance and purchased the Thompson from the guy on SCC, he told me that his ebay ID is carl_rando and that he isn't associated with the other seller, alwez4sel. But both of their descriptions on ebay for the Aqueous cards are identical and both accounts are from the same area. So who knows.