e90-3 "Hofnlan" in Goodwin

I really hate it when companies play semantics games to make it look like a card is 1 of 1. Since I originally brought to light this card it's always of interest to me when one comes up for auction. As best I can tell there are now three examples known. What Goodwin did here is say that this is the only Hofnlan in any pop report listed as an error. Here is the goodwin card:



And here is my card I used to own:



Seriously, why do otherwise reputable people have to resort to such sleeziness?

This is clearly not a card for those with dyslexia.

jay luckily you sold it when it was only a 1/1. again these printer's mis-strike does nothing for me, it's not a legit variation.

I think sometimes they just go off what the cosigner says and don't research it which there is no excuse for, but they all seem to make mistakes, some much worse than others.

This one is like when Lipset a few years back made a big deal out of the t205 Matty Cycle back when he knew full well that the error existed only with back and that no one cared. To me it was an abuse of his position as a knowledgeable collector/dealer to sucker someone into paying for something that wasn't that special. Now people pay stupid prices for a card that isn't all that hard to find.

yes if the "variation" occurs all examples of a particular back, then why are people paying a huge premium for?

cccc wrote:yes if the "variation" occurs all examples of a particular back, then why are people paying a huge premium for?

Those with the most money have the least intelligence?

They simply said "error" not "one-of-a-kind". I do not see any misrepresentation here. Unless there was paperwork with it saying such.

This is the part that writers of the description are paid. It doesn't say it's the only one but sure doesn't say it isn't.

"The combined SGC and PSA census reports only include this SOLE offering under the “Hofnlan” variation category! While we cannot determine with 100% certainty if other “Hofnlan” error cards were included in the correct “Hofman” category, what we do know is that it is an extremely tough card to come across."

And as you can see by Jay's scan the fact that it is the only one with the "Hofnlan" on the tag is not true.

Lee

"The combined SGC and PSA census reports only include this SOLE offering under the “Hofnlan” variation category! While we cannot determine with 100% certainty if other “Hofnlan” error cards were included in the correct “Hofman” category, what we do know is that it is an extremely tough card to come across."



I can understand why some of the previous posters believe that the pop reports are being used misleadingly in this way, but I don't think there is anything inaccurate about their statement used in this listing.

There is a tremendous amount of information missing from the pop reports of both PSA and SGC and for that reason I pay little attention to the claims made in auction listings regarding them. I find it laughable when PSA graded T206's are hyped as scarce or rare according to the pop report when PSA by their own admission have graded over 63,000 T206's with no record of which back the card had.

**I believe the issue is SGC and the accuracy of their pop report and not the auction house and their use of it. The listing included the caveat that other errors may have been incorrectly included in the standard category.

As Tim mentions, the description is just pointing out the information as interpreted by the writer, but the SGC pop report is not totally accurate which allows this to happen.

For many years, SGC did not have the ability to make variations their own entry in the pop report. Recently--as of about two years ago--the pop report has gotten much more accurate. If you look at T206 listings, which are probably one of the most common issues with variations that SGC grades, you'll see all the variations have their own lines with pop data.

The problem is that there was no easy way for SGC to "correct" the decade worth of cards already out there that hadn't been accurately accounted for in the pop report. Going forward, if you have a variation that you want to ensure is accurately reflected in the pop report, you can e-mail SGC and ask them to check the invoice number to ensure that it is permanently listed as a variation. If it is not, they can correct the data and ensure it's properly accounted for.

For example, Jay, you can ask them to go to the 1230228 invoice and add the Hofman as a permanent variation and then you'll see the correct line go to 26 and the error line go to 2.

Brian

Great info Brian. Thanks!