General Forum

I know, I know... we have all discussed the ridiculousness of certain selling practices online as well as the aspect that if someone is willing to pay for it then there is a market...HOWEVER- I am having to suddenly move and wanted to check on some random card prices while waiting for an online meeting. I need to sell my more valuable cards but I was looking at various inserts that came with junk wax Era cards bc I donated nearly 2 dozen boxed sets (not all complete) to the Boys & Girls Club and the D.V. shelter where I volunteer (yes I am advertising them both because the items get to the people versus picked up by 3rd party sellers).

 Anyway check out these Sold listings and if possible please help me understand why this card was chosen or if it is a known laundering SCAM. 

 https://www.ebay.com/itm/403741203248?hash=item5e00d9db30:g:CKcAAOSwJ5Niucdi

https://www.ebay.com/itm/224952169351?hash=item346031b387:g:pKsAAOSwjZRiY0aj

https://www.ebay.com/itm/403586244163?hash=item5df79d5e43:g:crIAAOSwF8diTNN2

https://www.ebay.com/itm/403741157425?hash=item5e00d92831:g:CKcAAOSwJ5Niucdi

 I can see two have the same seller with only 2 feedback scores but they have other items listed and the one that sold for $90 ungraded looks like the photo was taken on a cloth car seat in a 1990 Honda Civic from 10 feet away! 

  I also see it says Offer Accepted but it has been my experience when the seller's starting amount does not have a line through it, the listing has a "Sold Date" and there is data available showing a matching amount was made if you click that stat price- then it sold for that initial amount. More simply the $150 card that sold says Best Offer Accepted but the $150.00 doesn't have a line through it and when I click on it there is a bidder's partial name, an amount of $150.00 listed and a date that the amount was "offered". So that means it sold for $150.00, correct? I have no interest in listing this card nor do I think I would sell it for $1.00 but I have to ask what could be going on in this case because usually these are single, isolated incidences  with a random card like an earlier thread referencing an Eddie Murray base-  or-  someone takes something common like the d@m$ Donruss 'dot / no dot' variation and exploits it as a "Super Rare Error" on a well known player's card.

 I've already wasted too much time by writing this but maybe someone will see this and have a puzzle piece or maybe they sold the card. Haha-

  Thanks for reading- Happy Holiday Weekend! Becks 

I believe, and I'm sure there are others here with more knowledge than me, that this is part of the partial blackness errors.  There were around 12ish cards that were from a sheet that didn't get the black ink applied in a certain area.   The most famous is the Frank Thomas no name card.  I believe because it was a printing problem and not a plate change is the reason they aren't listed here, except for the Thomas card.  So there is a reason for it being priced like that, but if it's worth that is a whole other debate. Hope this helps.

Forst, thank you for replying- this is one of those forum sections that doesn't get a lot of views and after ai posted it here I thought maybe I should've done so elsewhere- but again thank you.

  Your comment had me think for a moment but most of those were graded or bought for collections and there is no mention of any error or special features to the cards. On the most basic level unscrupulous persons can write "Tiffany" to try and get an extra $10- maybe- and that isn't saying that sellers are all shady and there aren't Tiffany cards for sale- just making an example that it now feels this is probably the same person with two accounts doing something that is none of my business :) It actually made me think of the 1990 Fleer Uribe card scandal from about 4 or 5 years ago- if you don't recall it I'm sure you can Google "1990 Fleer Jose Uribe eBay record" or something similar and find the articles I'm talking about. 

But being a big Frank Thomas fan and an avid -albeit always a novice- card collector, I am aware of the famous "no name" 1990 error and I will check out the Biggio version. 

  Cheers!

     Becky Elizabeth 

There's something shady going on. Between the winning "bidder" isn't a registered user. Only one bid per and minimal/no feedback on the seller. Yeah, red flags all over.

New seller + new buyer probably equals some type of money laundering going on.  My guess would be a way to make drug money look legal.

Yep! Red flags all over the place. Similar to the Uribe deal, I've seen a few others. The one that comes to mind is a Alex Madrid card (I don't remember the card details off hand). Selling for hundreds of dollars when you could buy the same card from a reputable seller for .99¢.

Sellers with no or very little feedback. 4 or 5 of these scam sellers selling back and forth.

If you notice the Biggio listing details are all exactly the same. The description is a little unusual and they all are letter for letter. I always report these when I come across them.

Rick

Yes the #404 C. Biggio card is 1 of 14 cards that are considered to be part of the "1990 Blackless/Partial Blackless cards. All are missing black ink somewhere on the front of card. Biggio would be missing a thin black border line starting midway up on the left side and then starting back in the middle of the top. I am actually in the process of looking for these as I go through old boxes of 90 Topps. Found a few so far. May have actually found another one but need to confirm it.

The other cards include - #141 J. Hart, #227 K. Tappani, #302 M. Lawton, #383 J. Morris, #385 F. McGriff, #386 J. Franco, #392 C. Fisk, #395 J. Russell, #404 C. Biggio, #406 J. Magrane, #414 F. Thomas, #624 D. Jackson, #644 P. Assenmacher, #728 J. Acker

I can't tell by the poor quality of a picture if that Biggio is actually missing the black on that card? Looks fishy to me. If you were trying to sell a specific error on a card you would think to have that area of the card nice and clear. They have mostly glare in that specific area.

I appreciate the feedback everyone- and for reminding me of the glaring error I made by not checking those 1990 Topps sets before giving them away- Becks

Yup...Shady money laundering 4sure