2005 Bowman Chrome A-Rod Throwback Autographs #94AR 1994 SF #1/1

[davepeters239]

Originally Posted by DaBaddestHic

I think this is the correct explanation. I too thought it was that they originally meant to print non superfractor versions of the 94 throwback card like your first explanation mentioned. But I failed to think about why the 1/1 sticker placeholder would be there in that case.

It could be that they originally intended to make just chrome versions, and then switched it to a 1/1, and in the process sent off the wrong things to the printer, and ended up with a bunch of regular chrome cards with 1/1 placeholders on them.

I'm not sure Topps is gonna remember this happening 5-6 years later unfortunately. I wish the guy with another version would just post the back of his, but I'm not convinced he even has one anymore, or even actually had one at all. (Unless he has one, but doesn't want to scan it/take a picture and stop the madness because he enjoys people getting into a tizzy on the internet.)

It can't hurt to ask I guess but it has been awhile so like you said not sure if anyone will know. The good thing is the person who commented to Beckett back in 2005 still is with Topps so I am hoping he would remember such a rare card and the circumstances surrounding it.

I also wish the other person would post a scan but even more now I wish they would send it off to be graded by Beckett to see what would happen.

[spuds1961]

Well that was free entertainment.

[davepeters239]

Originally Posted by AlphaNOmega06

Jesus do you ever give up?

No.

Now more than ever I want to find out more about this card and if there was a superfractor version or not.

[davepeters239]

Originally Posted by coyne81486

Would you take 3000$? Send paypal info if so

That is a very generous offer but I would like to hold off for now on selling it until I find out more information on it.

If I change my mind I will let you know.

[davepeters239]

Originally Posted by GOWIFB

I know it takes some work, but I was hoping TheNextLevel could take a few minutes and scan the back of his card to show its the same one as the OPs so we have a slim chance of shutting him up. But knowing him he would probably just claim then that he still has a card that is actually /2 which is still worth alot of money, just half as much as he thought.

I would like to see the back of the other card as well. If there is another one like this then that is a nightmare for Topps.

[wickedliquids]

Originally Posted by davepeters239

No.

Now more than ever I want to find out more about this card and if there was a superfractor version or not.

Hi David. It doesnt look like a conventional superfractor and leaves one of three options.

The first being that it hasnt been pulled and as long as there are boxes still available, odds are theres still a chance its sitting in a lonely pack out there.

The second possibilty is that it was never released and held back for whatever reason, which means topps still has it somewhere in their vault.

And the last scenario being that its been pulled, sitting in someones safe, common box, or whatever, and that individual doesnt know they have it, or they do onow what they have, but doesnt know about this thread or debate.

[GOWIFB]

Originally Posted by davepeters239

I would like to see the back of the other card as well. If there is another one like this then that is a nightmare for Topps.

Oh crap, it looks like we just got our answer. So once we prove to dave that his card isnt the true 1/1 then he is going to contend that both his and the other person's card should have been a 1/1 but Topps 'accidently' printed two copies of it.

Listen up, it isn't going to be a nightmare for Topps as it was a card that was produced that was not intended to be in the packs. Some of them, or the entire stack, got sorted in with all the other cards during the packing process. And the reason your card says on the beckett website that its /1 is because they will pull the info for a card based on their own publication, they don't physically type in superfractor /1. Since there is no Arod missing auto, missing sticker, missing serial # error card listed in the price guide, when they go and list your 94 'auto' as they are adding it to the site they had nothing else to use. The person that is adding it to the BGS online guide could care less if he notices that the card on their website says /1 or not (if he even noticed it at all). As others have said, your card would have been a superfractor like the other one that was showed earlier in the thread (the non-auto one). It is not that hard to figure out what happened.

[davepeters239]

Originally Posted by wickedliquids

Hi David. It doesnt look like a conventional superfractor and leaves one of three options.

The first being that it hasnt been pulled and as long as there are boxes still available, odds are theres still a chance its sitting in a lonely pack out there.

The second possibilty is that it was never released and held back for whatever reason, which means topps still has it somewhere in their vault.

And the last scenario being that its been pulled, sitting in someones safe, common box, or whatever, and that individual doesnt know they have it, or they do onow what they have, but doesnt know about this thread or debate.

Still unsure a superfractor was made for this card but with the other member here posting the other cards there could be one and I hope to find out from Topps for sure.

If there is a superfractor version of this card then I would like to ask what this card is then.

[THE(NEXT)LEVEL]

Originally Posted by davepeters239

I would like to see the back of the other card as well. If there is another one like this then that is a nightmare for Topps.

I told you 50 flipping times it is the same exact one. I do not have the time to get the card, b/c I have it will all of my other cards in safe deposit boxes, and my work does not allot me time to just run over and grab a piece of #@#@#@#@ card to scan, when I am telling you that it is the same. No stickers on the back. If you need a scan to believe me, then that is your problem, b/c anyone with a brain would know that I have nothing to gain by lying about it. How about we make a bet so you shut the hell up. I will bet you 1000.00 that I have the same card. I will make time to scan it, and when you pay me the 1000.00, I will give you mine as a consolation prize!!! How does that sound, put up or shut up?

[Djameson79]

[davepeters239]

Originally Posted by GOWIFB

Oh crap, it looks like we just got our answer. So once we prove to dave that his card isnt the true 1/1 then he is going to contend that both his and the other person's card should have been a 1/1 but Topps 'accidently' printed two copies of it.

Listen up, it isn't going to be a nightmare for Topps as it was a card that was produced that was not intended to be in the packs. Some of them, or the entire stack, got sorted in with all the other cards during the packing process. And the reason your card says on the beckett website that its /1 is because they will pull the info for a card based on their own publication, they don't physically type in superfractor /1. Since there is no Arod missing auto, missing sticker, missing serial # error card listed in the price guide, when they go and list your 94 'auto' as they are adding it to the site they had nothing else to use. The person that is adding it to the BGS online guide could care less if he notices that the card on their website says /1 or not (if he even noticed it at all). As others have said, your card would have been a superfractor like the other one that was showed earlier in the thread (the non-auto one). It is not that hard to figure out what happened.

If the other person were to show a scan of his then there would be two copies of it and it would prove Topps printed more than one.

You say Topps printing up this and others and accidentally inserting them into packs isn't a nightmare for them or a problem and I 100% disagree.

As for the Beckett and BGS listing I am unsure about that yet. I will wait to see and get confirmation about if there was a superfractor version.

If there was then the card is listed wrong on their site and they would have to change it. If there was not a superfractor version then the information is correct about this card.

We will have to wait and see what information we get from Topps.

[davepeters239]

Originally Posted by THE(NEXT)LEVEL

I told you 50 flipping times it is the same exact one. I do not have the time to get the card, b/c I have it will all of my other cards in safe deposit boxes, and my work does not allot me time to just run over and grab a piece of #@#@#@#@ card to scan, when I am telling you that it is the same. No stickers on the back. If you need a scan to believe me, then that is your problem, b/c anyone with a brain would know that I have nothing to gain by lying about it. How about we make a bet so you shut the hell up. I will bet you 1000.00 that I have the same card. I will make time to scan it, and when you pay me the 1000.00, I will give you mine as a consolation prize!!! How does that sound, put up or shut up?

I thought you mentioned in the last thread you weren't sure if yours had the stickers but you thought it did have them.

I guess you had a chance to check to confirm that yours did not have stickers so that's a start. I understand people are busy and no pressure but a scan of the back at some point would be very cool.

If this card is for sale I might be interested in it. I would be interested in sending it off to get graded and see what happens.

I would not be interested in betting because i don't bet and i think betting is illegal.

[VeedonFleece]

I will say one thing for Dave - he's put up with a lot of abuse on his threads about this card and remained dignified, yet clearly delusional, throughout. Even though I've contributed to the teasing, I'd like to think it was done playfully. No need for meanness.

[davepeters239]

Originally Posted by VeedonFleece

I will say one thing for Dave - he's put up with a lot of abuse on his threads about this card and remained dignified, yet clearly delusional, throughout. Even though I've contributed to the teasing, I'd like to think it was done playfully. No need for meanness.

I try to ignore the mean and stupid posts and I try not to respond to them because it just clutters up the thread for people who do want to read it and are interested.

[wickedliquids]

Originally Posted by davepeters239

Still unsure a superfractor was made for this card but with the other member here posting the other cards there could be one and I hope to find out from Topps for sure.

If there is a superfractor version of this card then I would like to ask what this card is then.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say there probably was. A quick search will yield the obvious fact that there was indeed superfractors in 2005 over various products with Topps.

I've taken the last several days reading this thread, a few pages here and there and I have a better picture of your ideas/thoughts. Lets be realistic David; the fundamental discussion is whether or not the the card is a superfractor. Clearly you have taken your time, seemingly following a thread of logic based on your answers. Obviously some fellow BO commentors are a bit more passionate about this topic than others.

Each "idea" presented by fellow members, some a little course than others , still presents an idea about the card in question. I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time with "possibilities" of what the card is, what Topps' intentions were, and what your intentions are.

Like a good scientist, you've presented a hypothesis, but you're having difficulty proving said hypothesis. However, many of the BO commentors have made some valid points about the actual card; if the card was in fact not suppose to be released, but released, then you have a rarer card. Looking at the checklist, it appears that the card was suppose to be released, autographed and non-autographed. With that said, I strongly believe that Topps' initial statement that it was suppose to NOT be released is erroneous. It was. It was because you have one of the throwback cards. Sadly, it was never autographed or stamped.

2005 Bowman Chrome Baseball Box - Complete Set Checklist

It's safe to surmise that the card you have was suppose to be numbered and auto'd;however it was not. It's also safe to surmise that the Topps made extras of the card in case of damage, or what have you, but all that mattered was that Arod sign some cards, Topps could stamp them, then place them in packs.

You were "lucky," in obtaining a card that is unique in it's own right. It simply wasn't meant to be packed out because of sticking. This can be seen even in the current market with cards that are missing the signatures that are pulled on live video.

At the end of the day, it is what it is - this classic argument of the chicken or the egg could go on for a millenia, hopefully not. Mind you, this "error," is not of epic proportions such as the T206 Eddie Plank, Honus Wagner, or more recently the Topps Frank Thomas NNO, or Bill Ripken FF errors. From what I gather, it's most likely Topps' shoddy quality control at it's best.

By the way, if you look carefully at your debate, I think you will come to terms as to why some BO members felt irked by your reasoning. I won't get into that here as I think it's a moot point (forcing a square peg into a round hole - I'm sure you know what I mean).

At this point in your "research," you've been challenged in finding supporters of your hypothesis, have not faithfully considered other hypothesis', and wish to follow a specific, non-altering trajectory with your logic. This is okay by me; it's not MY card. It's yours.

Best wishes on your end-game; I'm afraid you have bit of a long fight ahead of you.

#nomoreofthisthreadformeplease

[luck15hope]

. . . . . . .

[37Jetson]

If you are going to make it in the big leagues of scamming Buttercup, then you better thicken up that skin.

Here is a deal. You stop harrassing the good folks at Topps and I will never comment in one of your threads again. I know you don't like gambling so I thought this would be a trade off.

It will be hard for anybody to claim that I am harrassing you when I simply state what you are.

Originally Posted by davepeters239

I have reported you for harassing me.

[davepeters239]

Originally Posted by wickedliquids

I'm going to go out on a limb and say there probably was. A quick search will yield the obvious fact that there was indeed superfractors in 2005 over various products with Topps.

I've taken the last several days reading this thread, a few pages here and there and I have a better picture of your ideas/thoughts. Lets be realistic David; the fundamental discussion is whether or not the the card is a superfractor. Clearly you have taken your time, seemingly following a thread of logic based on your answers. Obviously some fellow BO commentors are a bit more passionate about this topic than others.

Each "idea" presented by fellow members, some a little course than others , still presents an idea about the card in question. I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time with "possibilities" of what the card is, what Topps' intentions were, and what your intentions are.

Like a good scientist, you've presented a hypothesis, but you're having difficulty proving said hypothesis. However, many of the BO commentors have made some valid points about the actual card; if the card was in fact not suppose to be released, but released, then you have a rarer card. Looking at the checklist, it appears that the card was suppose to be released, autographed and non-autographed. With that said, I strongly believe that Topps' initial statement that it was suppose to NOT be released is erroneous. It was. It was because you have one of the throwback cards. Sadly, it was never autographed or stamped.

2005 Bowman Chrome Baseball Box - Complete Set Checklist

It's safe to surmise that the card you have was suppose to be numbered and auto'd;however it was not. It's also safe to surmise that the Topps made extras of the card in case of damage, or what have you, but all that mattered was that Arod sign some cards, Topps could stamp them, then place them in packs.

You were "lucky," in obtaining a card that is unique in it's own right. It simply wasn't meant to be packed out because of sticking. This can be seen even in the current market with cards that are missing the signatures that are pulled on live video.

At the end of the day, it is what it is - this classic argument of the chicken or the egg could go on for a millenia, hopefully not. Mind you, this "error," is not of epic proportions such as the T206 Eddie Plank, Honus Wagner, or more recently the Topps Frank Thomas NNO, or Bill Ripken FF errors. From what I gather, it's most likely Topps' shoddy quality control at it's best.

By the way, if you look carefully at your debate, I think you will come to terms as to why some BO members felt irked by your reasoning. I won't get into that here as I think it's a moot point (forcing a square peg into a round hole - I'm sure you know what I mean).

At this point in your "research," you've been challenged in finding supporters of your hypothesis, have not faithfully considered other hypothesis', and wish to follow a specific, non-altering trajectory with your logic. This is okay by me; it's not MY card. It's yours.

Best wishes on your end-game; I'm afraid you have bit of a long fight ahead of you.

#nomoreofthisthreadformeplease

I am more curious about this card now more than ever and want to find out like I said if there was a superfractor version of the autograph and only Topps would know that.

If there was then I very much would like to find out what this card is then. I would also seek to get it added to Beckett as an error and also get the label on mine changed to reflect that.

I know you mentioned some very famous errors and the only reason I believe those are famous errors is because of Beckett. If Beckett hadn't said the NNOF Frank Thomas card was worth so much it would be probably sell for only a few dollars on ebay. But because Beckett says its worth hundreds it sells for hundreds.

That is why I want to get a response from Beckett and how they figure out if an error should be listed in their guide or not.

[davepeters239]

Originally Posted by 37Jetson

If you are going to make it in the big leagues of scamming Buttercup, then you better thicken up that skin.

Here is a deal. You stop harrassing the good folks at Topps and I will never comment in one of your threads again. I know you don't like gambling so I thought this would be a trade off.

It will be hard for anybody to claim that I am harrassing you when I simply state what you are.

I am not harassing anyone at Topps. i was simply trying to get a card fixed.

Now I will be contacting Topps to find out more about this card because some legitimate questions have been brought up. I don't think that's harassing and I think it is fair of me to ask.

[bogeyfreeround]

Originally Posted by davepeters239

I am more curious about this card now more than ever and want to find out like I said if there was a superfractor version of the autograph and only Topps would know that.

If there was then I very much would like to find out what this card is then. I would also seek to get it added to Beckett as an error and also get the label on mine changed to reflect that.

I know you mentioned some very famous errors and the only reason I believe those are famous errors is because of Beckett. If Beckett hadn't said the NNOF Frank Thomas card was worth so much it would be probably sell for only a few dollars on ebay. But because Beckett says its worth hundreds it sells for hundreds.

That is why I want to get a response from Beckett and how they figure out if an error should be listed in their guide or not.

You have a quality control mishap, also the card is not valid...it says so on the back of it.

[davepeters239]

Originally Posted by luck15hope

How about you actually do take the time to go get it and scan it, and I will give you a 2012 Topps Museum Collection Shane Victorino Jumbo Patch Autograph /10 that I value at $50 which would be the amount I would be willing to pay for your 1 hour of service that it would take you to go get the card, go home, and take some pictures and then post them here. I believe that Daves version is a misprint of the official Superfractor autograph, so therefore I do not believe that you have one, because after the first mistake was made by Topps(the card Dave has), I dont think they would continue producing invalid superfractors continuously. I believe the problem would have been fixed after the first mistake. I also do not believe you have one simply because the only excuse as to why you havent been able to produce your scan of the back is because your work wont allow you to "go run over there real fast while on the job to get it". With that said, I doubt you work 24/7, so how about you take the 1 hr time frame I spoke about earlier on one of your days off to go get it? Its not about putting up or shutting up. If you have some valid information that would help disprove Daves as being the only misprint, then why not willingly bring that to the table? As far as this card goes, Daves is the only misprint, and yours "might" be one as well, if that scan you provided wasnt taken from an old auction or perhaps the same auction that Dave won a while back. But, If you do indeed have the card, I think it would be very helpful to know whether or not yours has the triagular stamp on the back as well.

That is very generous of you to offer him that as an incentive to find out but I feel bad about you giving away one of your cards like that.

I am very curious now too but I can wait till he gets a free moment to check.

The only reason I got mine from the safe deposit box was it was right on top and I saw it and grabbed because I remembered I promised scans from the last thread. Had the card not been on top I probably wouldn't have remembered about it.

I am hopeful someday he will scan the back or send it off for grading but as bad as the arod stuff is now that might not be an option.

[luck15hope]

. . . . . . .

[jlzinck]

Originally Posted by davepeters239

I am not harassing anyone at Topps. i was simply trying to get a card fixed.

Now I will be contacting Topps to find out more about this card because some legitimate questions have been brought up. I don't think that's harassing and I think it is fair of me to ask.

You bought a card on the secondary market and you expect the manufaturer to fix a manufacturing quality issue.

THey have already offered you something, when they didn't have to and it was not enough value for you.

You are a scammer. Nothing better than someone who "slips and falls" in a business to get a payoff. Except THOSE people admit it

[davepeters239]

Originally Posted by bogeyfreeround

You have a quality control mishap, also the card is not valid...it says so on the back of it.

I think the reason this card was graded by BGS is because a reader wrote in and Beckett questioned Topps and received a response that cards stuck together and it was inserted into packs.

Without that confirmation from Topps they might not have graded it because like you said it does say Not Valid Without Sticker.

Perhaps BGS needs to rethink on what they grade or how they grade errors.

[bogeyfreeround]

Originally Posted by luck15hope

Dave, go back and look at my long post and how I interpreted "misprints" and "error" cards. Beckett has not recognized this card as an error, because it was not an error. I believe Topps knows that they caught this misprint prior to the card being inserted into a pack and fixed it, but somehow the misprint still made its way into a pack. Topps may legitimately not know how it ended up in a pack, however I think they do know it wasnt supposed to be. If there never was superfractor autograph made, and your card was indeed the only superfractor autograph that was meant to be produced and it made its way into a pack like this going unnoticed, then it would be entitled to the "error BGS label" that you so much desire. But I believe that Topps knows there is a legit Superfractor out there, and that is why yours is not an "error" and simply a misprint. Also I believe ( and Im sure you agree this to be true as well or you would have sent the card to Topps a long time ago) that if you were to send the card back to topps for an equal value replacement, they would end up keeping your card(since they never meant for it to make it out) and sending you something in the realms of a real AROD autograph. However, you have made it clear that that would not be acceptable to you because you feel that yours should be valued at the card with the odds of 1:600,000 packs, and that you should get a replacement accordingly. You wouldnt be entitled to a replacement valued at the card of those odds because I believe that Topps knows that the TRUE card with those odds is still out there.

Also the person that would be entitled to the replacement would be the person that pulled the card. It was sold onthe secondary market, and you bought it knowing it was an error card. Thats like dumping a whole bunch of stocks knowing that the price is going to drop. You knew the situation and feel like you should get something out of it. So you proceeded to purchase something that was made clear to you that it was an error card.